|
Regan
Go here to hear a Regan quote about hippies - and also lots of other really, really, bizare things he said: http://www.allhatnocattle.net/reagan%20quotes.htm |
Gary wrote:
Go here to hear a Regan quote about hippies - and also lots of other really, really, bizare things he said: http://www.allhatnocattle.net/reagan%20quotes.htm Not nice to take shots at a dead alzhimers suffering president |
"Jim," wrote:
Not nice to take shots at a dead alzhimers suffering president I actually meant to send that somewhere else. But since it's here... He's the one that made the quotes. If he didn't want to be remembered in this way he shouldn't have made himself a public figure and/or shouldn't have said these things. ~ My guess is that he'd be happy to be remembered this way...he said these things and probably meant most of them. By the way - I liked Reagan. I didn't / don't agree with some of what he stood for, but I did agree with some things and, mostly, I did think that on the whose he was an honorable man trying to do the right things. Hard to defend a statment like this though... "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981 Maybe it was taken out of context or some such? Gary |
"Gary" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote: Not nice to take shots at a dead alzhimers suffering president I actually meant to send that somewhere else. But since it's here... He's the one that made the quotes. If he didn't want to be remembered in this way he shouldn't have made himself a public figure and/or shouldn't have said these things. ~ My guess is that he'd be happy to be remembered this way...he said these things and probably meant most of them. By the way - I liked Reagan. I didn't / don't agree with some of what he stood for, but I did agree with some things and, mostly, I did think that on the whose he was an honorable man trying to do the right things. Hard to defend a statment like this though... "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981 Maybe it was taken out of context or some such? Or just maybe he was on the right track http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml http://www.chennaionline.com/science...ironment24.asp http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/trees031703.htm Gary |
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:36:47 -0500, P.Fritz wrote:
Hard to defend a statment like this though... "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981 Maybe it was taken out of context or some such? Or just maybe he was on the right track http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml http://www.chennaionline.com/science...ironment24.asp http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/trees031703.htm LOL, perhaps you can show us a study where trees are responsible for carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, etc. etc. |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml http://www.chennaionline.com/science...ironment24.asp http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/trees031703.htm Interesting links. I quickly browsed all three of these. Tell me if you see it differently but what I get from these is: Some trees do produce pollution but most trees also absorb CO2 and "clean" the air. Some of it depends on what you consider "pollution" and what you consider "cleaning". Overall the statement that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." is probably incorrect at worst and misleading at best. Still, it just goes to show that there are almost never simple answers. It takes research and critical thought to properly asses most issues. It is my belief that there are plenty or people on all "sides" that should research and think a lot more before speaking or else just shut up. Thanks for the links. Gary |
"Gary" wrote in message ... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml http://www.chennaionline.com/science...ironment24.asp http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/trees031703.htm Interesting links. I quickly browsed all three of these. Tell me if you see it differently but what I get from these is: Some trees do produce pollution but most trees also absorb CO2 and "clean" the air. I don't consider CO2 a pollutant. Those that do should just off themselves and stop polluting the air by exhaling. Some of it depends on what you consider "pollution" and what you consider "cleaning". Overall the statement that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." is probably incorrect at worst and misleading at best. In certain cases, for certain substances, trees probably do produce more. Still, it just goes to show that there are almost never simple answers. It takes research and critical thought to properly asses most issues. It is my belief that there are plenty or people on all "sides" that should research and think a lot more before speaking or else just shut up. You mean like algore? (as in the shutting up part) Thanks for the links. Gary |
"P.Fritz" wrote: I don't consider CO2 a pollutant. Of things that cars and trees emit, is there anything you would consider a pollutant? Those that do [consider CO2 a pollutant] should just off themselves and stop polluting the air by exhaling. Yea, that's a little bit witty. I hope you're not using wit to avoid having to think critically about this issue. In certain cases, for certain substances, trees probably do produce more [pollution]. OK. But do you belive that trees are, overall, worse polluters than cars? If not, isn't Reagan's statement disingenuous? Gary Wrote: It is my belief that there are plenty of people on all "sides" that should research and think a lot more before speaking or else just shut up. Paul Wrote: You mean like algore? (as in the shutting up part) "algore" huh? Seems like you might be a Ditto Head. Well, it's easy to be disrespectful of people. And sometimes it's funny. It's also easy to be partisan and only see those on the "other" side that are wrong. So I ask you, are there any prominent Republicans that you can point to (with or without the disrespect) that you think should "shut up" until they learn to research and think critically? As for Al Go I think the man has some limitations and faults (as most men do) and some of those might have made him a bad president. But one fault I think he *doesn't* have is speaking before researching and thinking critically. |
Who the heck is REGAN? :-)
|
"Gary" wrote in message ... "P.Fritz" wrote: I don't consider CO2 a pollutant. Of things that cars and trees emit, is there anything you would consider a pollutant? Sure, there are all kinds of VOC's produced by cars, trees, plastics, paints, etc. etc. Those that do [consider CO2 a pollutant] should just off themselves and stop polluting the air by exhaling. Yea, that's a little bit witty. I hope you're not using wit to avoid having to think critically about this issue. Simply that CO2 is not a pollutant. In certain cases, for certain substances, trees probably do produce more [pollution]. OK. But do you belive that trees are, overall, worse polluters than cars? If not, isn't Reagan's statement disingenuous? I think for certain compounds, trees may produce more than cars, for other, cars more than trees....it also depends on local conditions. Gary Wrote: It is my belief that there are plenty of people on all "sides" that should research and think a lot more before speaking or else just shut up. Paul Wrote: You mean like algore? (as in the shutting up part) "algore" huh? Seems like you might be a Ditto Head. Nope. Well, it's easy to be disrespectful of people. And sometimes it's funny. It's also easy to be partisan and only see those on the "other" side that are wrong. So I ask you, are there any prominent Republicans that you can point to (with or without the disrespect) that you think should "shut up" until they learn to research and think critically? Pat Buchanon for one, As for Al Go I think the man has some limitations and faults (as most men do) and some of those might have made him a bad president. But one fault I think he *doesn't* have is speaking before researching and thinking critically. Maybe you should 'rethink' His hard core belief in global warming and desires to remidey it at the expense of the US is not a sign of critical thinking |
On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:
Who the heck is REGAN? :-) pseudonym? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
P.Fritz wrote: Or just maybe he was on the right track http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml Yes, this study shows that the VOC's are a result of tree farms. Man has altered the mix of trees in the landscape. http://www.chennaionline.com/science...ironment24.asp Again, altering the the mix of trees, harvesting pines and maples, and letting oaks flourish. http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/trees031703.htm This gem deals with only the aspect of trees emitting the gases that react with tailpipe emissions (smog). If there was no smog, this would be a moot point. All of the above that you've found, is a fate dealt by the hand of man, not trees. Gary |
P.Fritz wrote: "Gary" wrote in message ... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml http://www.chennaionline.com/science...ironment24.asp http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/trees031703.htm Interesting links. I quickly browsed all three of these. Tell me if you see it differently but what I get from these is: Some trees do produce pollution but most trees also absorb CO2 and "clean" the air. I don't consider CO2 a pollutant. Those that do should just off themselves and stop polluting the air by exhaling. Perhaps you should seal yourself in an environment with elevated levels of CO2, then. |
wrote in message oups.com... Who the heck is REGAN? :-) Yes, I mistyped "Reagan". Oppps ;) |
Of things that cars and trees emit, is there anything you would consider a
pollutant? P.Fritz wrote: Sure, there are all kinds of VOC's produced by cars, trees, plastics, paints, etc. etc. Is there any point in discussing the matter? To the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders (not just the ones on this newsgroup) *anything* is subject to political interpretation. If President Bush announces that water runs up hill, why then as far as they're concerned only a damn terrorist-sympathizing fag-loving liberal traitor would suggest that it actually runs down hill. The problem comes when serious decisions about national policy are made on the basis of this kind of boneheaded attitude... which is why the country is headed in the direction it is... DSK |
Thanks for giving straight answers Paul. From the tone of your previous post I expected less. Glad I was wrong. In your first post to this thread you wrote, "Or just maybe he [Reagan] was on the right track." I'm really curious what you meant by that. Did you mean that technically in some instances trees produce more pollution than cars? Or did you mean that, overall, trees are worse for the environment than cars? It still seems to me that, even if technically correct, Reagan's remark was disingenuous. Would you agree with me on that, or no? Paul - it may seem like I'm trying to "trap" you into a corner or be a pain or something. But I'm really not. I'm honestly trying to understand where someone that appears to have different views than I do is coming from. Regarding Al Go I'll admit that some (many?) knowledgeable, intelligent, and intellectually honest people think global warming is either non-existent or often overblown. And I'll admit that approaches that Al Gore would like to see to this problem might be wrong. But I still believe that Al Gore is highly-knowledgeable about the issue and applies rational/critical thinking when evaluating the issue. ~ Sometimes (often) on complex issues where not all data is known or knowable people that are knowledgable, intelligent, and intelletually honest can come to differing conclusions. Gary |
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:20:11 -0500, DSK wrote:
Of things that cars and trees emit, is there anything you would consider a pollutant? P.Fritz wrote: Sure, there are all kinds of VOC's produced by cars, trees, plastics, paints, etc. etc. Is there any point in discussing the matter? To the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders (not just the ones on this newsgroup) *anything* is subject to political interpretation. If President Bush announces that water runs up hill, why then as far as they're concerned only a damn terrorist-sympathizing fag-loving liberal traitor would suggest that it actually runs down hill. The problem comes when serious decisions about national policy are made on the basis of this kind of boneheaded attitude... which is why the country is headed in the direction it is... DSK You lost. Cry a river (which you're doing), build a bridge, and get over it! Your whining sounds almost as bad as Pelosi's. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:20:11 -0500, DSK wrote: Of things that cars and trees emit, is there anything you would consider a pollutant? P.Fritz wrote: Sure, there are all kinds of VOC's produced by cars, trees, plastics, paints, etc. etc. Is there any point in discussing the matter? To the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders (not just the ones on this newsgroup) *anything* is subject to political interpretation. If President Bush announces that water runs up hill, why then as far as they're concerned only a damn terrorist-sympathizing fag-loving liberal traitor would suggest that it actually runs down hill. The problem comes when serious decisions about national policy are made on the basis of this kind of boneheaded attitude... which is why the country is headed in the direction it is... DSK You lost. Cry a river (which you're doing), build a bridge, and get over it! Your whining sounds almost as bad as Pelosi's. And the fact is that water CAN run uphill under the proper circumstances........once again the liebral mindset blinds them to the real world.. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981
WaIIy wrote: Research it, it's true. Yep, that's why the atmosphere has become increasingly foul as we shut down somestack industries & grow more trees. Why, 500 years ago, the human race was almost extinct because they just couldn't breathe! DSK |
"Gary" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote: Not nice to take shots at a dead alzhimers suffering president I actually meant to send that somewhere else. But since it's here... He's the one that made the quotes. If he didn't want to be remembered in this way he shouldn't have made himself a public figure and/or shouldn't have said these things. ~ My guess is that he'd be happy to be remembered this way...he said these things and probably meant most of them. By the way - I liked Reagan. I didn't / don't agree with some of what he stood for, but I did agree with some things and, mostly, I did think that on the whose he was an honorable man trying to do the right things. Hard to defend a statment like this though... "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981 Maybe it was taken out of context or some such? Gary Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are simple chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury. And when they burn (they are genetically designed to thrive on forest fires (the small normal ones that nature provides but we have stopped. The buildup of undergrowth due to our stopping the forest fires has caused conditions that mean much higher temps and the trees die)) they also put out massive amounts of carbon dioxide and complex hydrocarbons when they burn. |
I'll say the same thing again, until the point sinks in...
Jeff Rigby wrote: Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are simple chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury. Yep. That's why hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere, planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely support life. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. I'll say the same thing again, until the point sinks in... Jeff Rigby wrote: Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are simple chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury. Yep. That's why hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere, planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely support life. DSK That's why the Great smoky mountains were called smoky by the Indians 200+ years ago. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: "Gary" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote: Not nice to take shots at a dead alzhimers suffering president I actually meant to send that somewhere else. But since it's here... He's the one that made the quotes. If he didn't want to be remembered in this way he shouldn't have made himself a public figure and/or shouldn't have said these things. ~ My guess is that he'd be happy to be remembered this way...he said these things and probably meant most of them. By the way - I liked Reagan. I didn't / don't agree with some of what he stood for, but I did agree with some things and, mostly, I did think that on the whose he was an honorable man trying to do the right things. Hard to defend a statment like this though... "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981 Maybe it was taken out of context or some such? Gary Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are simple chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury. And when they burn (they are genetically designed to thrive on forest fires (the small normal ones that nature provides but we have stopped. The buildup of undergrowth due to our stopping the forest fires has caused conditions that mean much higher temps and the trees die)) they also put out massive amounts of carbon dioxide and complex hydrocarbons when they burn. Good grief, Jeff...reads like you are reposting from the Bush's "screw the environment briefing book." Trees are bad, cars are good, and if we don't cut down all the forests so the loggers can turn a buck, why, disaster will follow in short order. No, Harry it just seems so to one who doesn't see the big picture. If you read it you would see that I am advocating BACK TO NATURE. Do not intervene without much thought in natures processes like for example stopping forest fires. Stopping all forest fires was a policy for so many years that it has created conditions that promote the higher temp fires (because of undergrowth) that KILL forests. Also, I mention "simple chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury" that means that trees are not as dangerous to us as cars unless they burn. And Harry, the "pilotless drone" as you call him has not spouted any anti environment rehtoric but has advocated a rational reasonable course for this country. This is a much admired policy by those of us on the right and center. Harry you knee jerk react to anything that's said here. Is this an attempt to flame the news group, is it a thought out policy on your part? I have a hard time beliving that you really believe most of your posts as some of them have shown that you do have a mind. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote: Who the heck is REGAN? :-) pseudonym? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking. The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes everything easier. Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and ones personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these decisions, i.e.: Bush. I shudder when I think of a leader who checks the political wind before each decision. |
... hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack
factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere, planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely support life. Jeff Rigby wrote: That's why the Great smoky mountains were called smoky by the Indians 200+ years ago. Note the difference between "smoke" and "fog." It's not quite as difficult as the difference between "diplomacy" and "coercion." DSK |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote: Who the heck is REGAN? :-) pseudonym? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking. The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes everything easier. Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and ones personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these decisions, i.e.: Bush. I've not seen the slightest evidence that anything Bush "thinks" is either well-thought-out or moral. Bush is the ultimate expedient politician, pandering to one group of righties after another. Your not "Seeing" any evidence doesn't surprise me. You can't just listen to the news, you have to read what is said by the parties involved. When you do this you will probably say; " but that's not what he said". That happens to me allot. Your problem is that you want to believe what you read and you probably seek out news that supports your bias. On foreign policy there is not enough information released about the decision tree for us to judge. This is the result of "secrecy" requirements. On environmental policy, education policy, SS we do have enough information to judge him and I find his policies rational, reasonable and good for the country in both the short term and long term. One of the reasons our foreign policy appears to be working is the CONSISTENT policy by BUSH and the reelection of BUSH by America. The previous presidents including Bush SR. policies were political expediency. In the long term that's fatal, in the short term popular. It is costing us lives and money. Much of the cost and lives can be attributed to educating the world to these new facts. He means what he says and America backs him. I expect that our enemies are rethinking their strategy in the face of this reality. Expect interesting times. I expect that Iran does not want us out of Iraq any time soon as this frees us to respond to them. But they don't want a Democracy in Iraq either as this would destabilize them. I expect that they will try to start a religious war in Iraq. |
Jeff Rigby wrote:
On foreign policy there is not enough information released about the decision tree for us to judge. This is the result of "secrecy" requirements. How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies. To say that we, the American public, cannot be allowed to know the results of our foreign policy because of "secrecy requirements" is ridiculous. ... On environmental policy, education policy, SS we do have enough information to judge him and I find his policies rational, reasonable and good for the country in both the short term and long term. Like what? The Bush/Cheney "environmental policy" is 'rape it all while there's still something left.' The EPA has been almost totally dismantled as an enforcement agency. Of course, research on the environment and on health issues is also chopped, so that reduces the amount of bad news filtering out to the public. Educational policy? Name *one* Bush/Cheney program that has actually furthered any level of education, that has had any positive result in this field. Take a look at NOYB's recent post on the subject, all he has is some silly propaganda. Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the middle class and increase 401(k) deductible. But no... that would be too simple and would not increase campaign fund contributions in the form of kickbacks from favored Wall St firms... One of the reasons our foreign policy appears to be working is the CONSISTENT policy by BUSH and the reelection of BUSH by America. The previous presidents including Bush SR. policies were political expediency. In the long term that's fatal, in the short term popular. It is costing us lives and money. And this is a success in your opinion? Your definition of "success" is rather wierd. Your definition of "conservative" seems to be rather flexible too. DSK |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:31:50 -0500, DSK wrote:
How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies. Who cares what they say? They form their opinions on equally biased propaganda. When we succeed it makes them look worse. They have a vested interest in seeing us fail, thus justifying their envy-based hatred of our consumer-oriented society. Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the middle class and increase 401(k) deductible. If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've described essentially what he wants to do. People over 55 would be unaffected by the plan, so nothing changes. Younger people will be given the OPTION to divert some of their SS taxes to private INTEREST bearing accounts,(similar to a 401K) which should grow at a much greater rate than current SS does. When those people reach retirement age, they get less from SS, but they will more than make up for it by the proceeds of the equivalent 401K account. But no... that would be too simple and would not increase campaign fund contributions in the form of kickbacks from favored Wall St firms... That is liberal propaganda, aimed at swaying support away from the proposal. What "kick backs" are there to a 401K account? I'd rather see my money working for me instead of sitting in a S.S. fund that might be eliminated at the stroke of a pen by the time I retire. That's why I laugh when democrats bandy the word "guaranteed" fund when they refer to S.S.. There are no guarantees when it comes to government policies. They re all subject to change. At least if you have some of your money in a private account, YOU control it, not the government. Dave |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:25 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote: Who the heck is REGAN? :-) pseudonym? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking. The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes everything easier. Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and ones personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these decisions, i.e.: Bush. I shudder when I think of a leader who checks the political wind before each decision. The *decision* is the result of binary thinking. That does not mean that the individuals making the decision are necessarily binary thinkers. If one uses a decision tree to assist in selecting alternatives, he must still, eventually, make a decision to adopt or not adopt a selected alternative. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:09:02 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote: Who the heck is REGAN? :-) pseudonym? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking. The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes everything easier. Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and ones personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these decisions, i.e.: Bush. I've not seen the slightest evidence that anything Bush "thinks" is either well-thought-out or moral. Bush is the ultimate expedient politician, pandering to one group of righties after another. Your not "Seeing" any evidence doesn't surprise me. You can't just listen to the news, you have to read what is said by the parties involved. When you do this you will probably say; " but that's not what he said". That happens to me allot. Your problem is that you want to believe what you read and you probably seek out news that supports your bias. On foreign policy there is not enough information released about the decision tree for us to judge. This is the result of "secrecy" requirements. On environmental policy, education policy, SS we do have enough information to judge him and I find his policies rational, reasonable and good for the country in both the short term and long term. One of the reasons our foreign policy appears to be working is the CONSISTENT policy by BUSH and the reelection of BUSH by America. The previous presidents including Bush SR. policies were political expediency. In the long term that's fatal, in the short term popular. It is costing us lives and money. Much of the cost and lives can be attributed to educating the world to these new facts. He means what he says and America backs him. I expect that our enemies are rethinking their strategy in the face of this reality. Expect interesting times. I expect that Iran does not want us out of Iraq any time soon as this frees us to respond to them. But they don't want a Democracy in Iraq either as this would destabilize them. I expect that they will try to start a religious war in Iraq. For some, the policies, actions, outcomes, whatever, have no bearing on the fact that they wish to post nothing but anti-Bush rhetoric. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:31:50 -0500, DSK wrote:
How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies. Lots snipped DSK Please tell us which news you've watched that presented a non-biased report about the USA. For damn sure it wasn't French or German. Those folks make CBS and NBC look like a constant Bush commercial. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:48:19 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:31:50 -0500, DSK wrote: How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies. Who cares what they say? They form their opinions on equally biased propaganda. When we succeed it makes them look worse. They have a vested interest in seeing us fail, thus justifying their envy-based hatred of our consumer-oriented society. Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the middle class and increase 401(k) deductible. If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've described essentially what he wants to do. People over 55 would be unaffected by the plan, so nothing changes. Younger people will be given the OPTION to divert some of their SS taxes to private INTEREST bearing accounts,(similar to a 401K) which should grow at a much greater rate than current SS does. When those people reach retirement age, they get less from SS, but they will more than make up for it by the proceeds of the equivalent 401K account. But no... that would be too simple and would not increase campaign fund contributions in the form of kickbacks from favored Wall St firms... That is liberal propaganda, aimed at swaying support away from the proposal. What "kick backs" are there to a 401K account? I'd rather see my money working for me instead of sitting in a S.S. fund that might be eliminated at the stroke of a pen by the time I retire. That's why I laugh when democrats bandy the word "guaranteed" fund when they refer to S.S.. There are no guarantees when it comes to government policies. They re all subject to change. At least if you have some of your money in a private account, YOU control it, not the government. Dave I think DSK is believing some of the propaganda being tossed about. Lots of lies out there. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign
news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies. Dave Hall wrote: Who cares what they say? People who want to be well informed with actual facts, that's who. Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the middle class and increase 401(k) deductible. If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've described essentially what he wants to do. Negative. Bush's "plan" as revealed so far is to divert SS taxes into "private accounts" which will be managed by favored Wall St'ers. But hey... why go with the facts when propaganda makes you feel much better? DSK |
John H wrote:
I think DSK is believing some of the propaganda being tossed about. Lots of lies out there. Only if you define "lies" as info from the real world, as opposed to the barrage of propganda issuing from White House sources & it's cheerleaders. DSK |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:28:36 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: I think DSK is believing some of the propaganda being tossed about. Lots of lies out there. Only if you define "lies" as info from the real world, as opposed to the barrage of propganda issuing from White House sources & it's cheerleaders. DSK Real world equals French TV??? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:27:13 -0500, DSK wrote:
How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies. Dave Hall wrote: Who cares what they say? People who want to be well informed with actual facts, that's who. Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the middle class and increase 401(k) deductible. If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've described essentially what he wants to do. Negative. Bush's "plan" as revealed so far is to divert SS taxes into "private accounts" which will be managed by favored Wall St'ers. But hey... why go with the facts when propaganda makes you feel much better? DSK French TV equals actual facts??? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
French TV equals actual facts??? Did President Bush go on French TV and lie about what Alan Greenspan said concerning Bush's Social Security plan? IIRC that was in the American media... and nobody pointed out Bush's contradiction of what Greenspan had actually said... That darn liberal biased media! DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies. Dave Hall wrote: Who cares what they say? People who want to be well informed with actual facts, that's who. Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the middle class and increase 401(k) deductible. If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've described essentially what he wants to do. Negative. Bush's "plan" as revealed so far is to divert SS taxes into "private accounts" which will be managed by favored Wall St'ers. But hey... why go with the facts when propaganda makes you feel much better? DSK LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money. The reasons the Republicans are for this is 1) They believe it will benefit the public, and 2) It robs the democrats of money they need to buy their power base. It shrinks the size of the federal budget. If you believe otherwise you are politically naive. |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:52:46 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: French TV equals actual facts??? Did President Bush go on French TV and lie about what Alan Greenspan said concerning Bush's Social Security plan? IIRC that was in the American media... and nobody pointed out Bush's contradiction of what Greenspan had actually said... That darn liberal biased media! DSK Show me. And no, I didn't see Bush on French TV. French TV is...French, i.e. anti-US and anti-Bush. It did seem to favor Kerry a lot though. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:27:13 -0500, DSK wrote:
How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies. Dave Hall wrote: Who cares what they say? People who want to be well informed with actual facts, that's who. You have a problem differentiating true "facts" from other opinions. Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the middle class and increase 401(k) deductible. If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've described essentially what he wants to do. Negative. Bush's "plan" as revealed so far is to divert SS taxes into "private accounts" which will be managed by favored Wall St'ers. A 401K is a "private account" managed by an investment firm. You are just hung up on the "Wall street kickback angle". The facts are that money deposited into those private accounts will have the potential to earn much more than they would in the current SS system. My 401K is living proof of that. Dave |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com