How would you like to get 81 miles to the gallon?

[luckys420]

from TDI club home page: http://www.tdiclub.com/

"In Europe the select is much more advanced from the 1.2l Lupo that gets 2.9l/100km (81USmpg [97 Imp mpg]) up to the 313hp V10 TDI with 553 lbs of torque."

And why isnt this model available in the US? I'm going to guess that if it were here the oil companies would not have been able to DOUBLE there profits like they have in the past year. And all this time i thought the price of oil was high because of a shortage.
will

[81SD]

Oil companies or oil COUNTRIES? Seems like OPEC gets the biggest benefit from price hikes in crude oil. The demand for oil is the big problem - everyone wants more and more of it. With India and China helping to drive up demand, we will all be paying more.

[luckys420]

hmm, then how come oil companies in the US are still able to double their profits? if OPEC was getting all of it, the profits of the US oil companies would have remained the same regardles of price increases. If they had not doubled there profits then they would have just been passing the price onto us. but that is not the case.
any how, how come this car is not available in the us, i would have got one of these instead of a golf.
will

[81SD]

And risk getting run over by an SUV? No thanks! The beauty of grease is that you can drive a tank and be less concerned about feeding OPEC, Exxon - or whoever you decide the enemy is. Emissions are less, money isn't exported - and any environmental damage is minimized (our version of an oil spill is an ant banquet, not exactly a disaster). I'd rather drive a motorcycle 1/2 the time - and if they made a decent diesel cruiser, I'd have one. That works well on my normal commute, but for most people's commute, a motorcycle is a very risky proposition.

The oil companies effectively get a percentage of the oil price. As the price3 goes up, so does their intake. I think we can agree that both OPEC and the oil companies all profit from the price hikes. As many of our 401K plans include companies like Exxon, Texaco, Chevron, etc, I tend to resent them less than I do OPEC. Maybe that isn't the case for you - but I'm quite happy about not reducing the amount of money I hand either one of them (directly or indirectly). I'm guessing that is the same for you. Rather than simply bash the "evil corporations", don't forget that the government is the one that sets the automotive standards. I'm guessing this little toy of a car doesn't pass crash tests, emissions standards (when run on diesel) - or some other silly government regulation. I'm still not convinced that the oil companies/countries would not prefer EVERYONE to drive vehicles that got 100 mpg - they could then jack up the price to some ungodly level and score the same profits by producing less oil. Keeping their reserves going much longer! That's what I would do...

[ZukiFrodo]

I wonder if that little turbo would fit up to a 1.6na without damaging it ...

I read about this car and it's bigger brother a while back, and it's somewhat infuriating that it's not available in the States.

[cgoodwin]

I am really upset about all the other things we don't have, like people who would actually buy such a vehicle! Many comparable vehicles have been sold in the US and were not well recieved. Look at the Geo Metro at 55mpg, only retired people bought them to two behind motorhomes, Samurai's are a great high MPG 4x4 but were never as popular as the Bronco, Suzuki Swift and others offered performance and good MPG.

Chris

[luckys420]

i guess people are to worried about image in the states. My buddy had a ford festiva in High school, it was yellow with some cool graphix. we would shove five people in it and take it out to lunch. The only benifit i saw in it then is that it would get hot boxed really easy. :p

[LDPosse]

Chris -

I think the biggest problems with super-small cars such as the metro, is that people don't want to drive around in a cramped little cube of a car, but more importantly, they don't want to be driving in a vehicle that is probably more dangerous in a collision than a motorcycle.

I hear the argument often that "It's not unsafe if you drive defensively". I call BS on that. There are ALWAYS accidents that can happen where you could be killed due to no fault of your own... A big problem around here is accidents with deer, which is part of the reason I opt to drive a big 3/4 ton pickup. I cringe at the thought of a huge buck jumping out in front of a Geo Metro going 55 MPH. The larger vehicles do not handle as well, that's where driving defensively comes in to play.

This next comment is not directed towards anyone on this forum. I have heard from some overly idealistic, knee-jerk reaction tree hugger types at other places on the 'net that say "If you're not going to run (Alternative fuel of choice) in a small, unsafe, tin can of a car, then I'm not going to be involved, or help at all. In fact, I will thwart and demonize your attempt wherever possible." I find this to be assinine and don't understand it one bit. If I'm trying to run my vehicle (of my choice!) on a fuel that is environmentally and fiscally responsible, as well as trying to break our ties to foreign oil, how is that a bad thing?! It sure is better than sucking down petroleum based fuels!

Sorry for the rant, I just happened to have this on my mind for a while and wanted to see what others have to say about it as well. This is my first post and I don't want to start off on the wrong foot.

I have an '85 Chevy pickup (with factory dual fuel tanks) that I just converted from gas to diesel, and am working on a biodiesel/WVO setup.

I've been lurking for a few days and already picked up alot from this forum, it's a great resource!

[Ryan DeWald]

Okay LD, I'll bite,

Driving a vehicle that consumes a lot of energy is socially worse than driving a vehicle that consumes less energy.

We can distinguish that argument from the following:

Driving a vehicle that uses a non-renewable or precious fuel is socially worse than driving a vehicle that uses a renewable or diversified fuel.

It sounds like you can see the reasoning in the second premise but reject the reasoning in the first. Personally, I see the reasoning in both premises. If someone were to drive a very high-efficiency vehicle on gasoline I would applaud that as better than driving a low-efficiency vehicle but I might point out that the fuel he is using is still finite. If someone were to drive a Unimog on vegetable oil I would applaud the use of a renewable fuel (and insist on a ride) but I might point out that while vegetable oil is renewable, it is still available only in finite quantities at any time and the production of veg oil requires vast amounts of land converted to farm production, use of petr-chemical pesticides, use of energy in farming, transport and refining of the fuel. Thus, fuel efficiency is still important for reducing the overall impact of driving, even when using a renewable fuel.

Of course it's your choice as you emphasized. We are all within our rights to do all sorts of non-sustainable things that are socially irresponsible and mean-spirited etc. We all, in fact do perform such irresponsible acts from time-to-time as people are wont to do. There are many reasons for justifying such activities. For example I like a big truck with 4x4 so I can get through the rugged terrain of southern AZ to get the the caves I love to explore. Does it justify me doing so? Well, I just try to minimize the impact as best as I can.

But one justification that simply carries no weight at all in my opinion is to say, "It's my choice". That's the same argument as "I want to." which is already obvious since the issue would not have come up otherwise. The question is "Why do you chose it?" and "Can you justify it?"

[LDPosse]

Ryan -

I wouldn't say that I necesarily "reject" your first statement. I'm looking more for a balance in economy, safety, and environmental responsibility. The 6.2L engine gets good fuel milage as far as full size pickup engines go. I'm trying to tune it for maximum economy, hopefully I can achieve 25+ MPG that others have. I just happen to feel that my personal safety is worth a sacrifice in economy. I think the social responsibility in that thought depends on the disposition of the person you're talking to.

I use my truck about 2-3 times per month as an actual work truck, the rest is my daily commute to work (well, it will be once it's on BioD/WVO). As far as full size trucks go, I think it's one of the better combinations to use. 2 wheel drive (no wasted fuel turning extra axles and driveshafts, less weight), moderately sized tires on very light aluminum wheels, overdrive transmission, etc.

My current daily driver (88 Colt Vista) gets 26-27 MPG on gasoline. Once I start making fuel for the truck, the vista will be getting parked even though it gets slightly better fuel economy, just due to the $ I will save.
My main gripe in my original post was just that it seems that some people want all or nothing, that if they can't have everyone give up their current ride and start driving a bio-powered roller skate, then the bio fuels agenda should not be advanced at all.
I appreciate the civility of your response, always nice to have a thought provoking discussion without a flame war! :)

[Wreckerman]

Having been a commercial drver for many years I can say that I am never going to drive a tiny vehicle for any reason. I drive an 04 Nissan 2wd 4cyl 5 speed. That gives me good fuel economy and some measure of safety. There are far too many morons riding around with a cell phone in their ear and their heads up their wazoos in SUVs for me to trust a mini-anything. I have a 2000 Dodge dually I'm converting but I will still use the Nissan to commute because it makes economic sense even using "free" vegie to power it. The amount of petro is finite, at some point in time we will price ourselves out of the oil economy. The big question is will we be ready? I doubt it because like Social Security no one want to admit that the emperor has no clothes on. By the time the crisis hits it will be to late. The gutless political whores that we have elected will not tackle this issue because they have sold out to big business. Not just the oil companies, but any company that depends on oil. Check out this site: www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net. I'm not a doomsayer, I've been in the "survialist" mindset for years, but this will make you think. As with everything I read, especially on the net, I take it with a grain of salt. But if even part of this is true this country and the whole planet could be in for a rude awakening in the near future.
Just my thoughts on the subject.

[shawn]

If we are talkiing about big safe vehicles that run on alternative fuel, then I have a suggestion.

How about diesel trains converted to run on WVO?

We can run our vehicles all day long on veg, but the truth is that even if everyone did that there would still be more demand than supply (I don't think that it is possible for us to grow enough fuel to meet our consumption).

Our transportation infrastructure sucks in the US. anytime there is a traffic jam take a look around you, try and count how many vehicles there are with more than one person in them...answer will probably be very few

[abenjaminc]

Well... actually a few countries are starting to get their trains on the biodiesel wagon. But I think fueling a train with waste fryer oil isn't going to happen, ever. I can just picture the number of years it would take going from donut shop to donut shop collecting grease for a diesel locomotive that has a 2,000 gallon tank.
BUT try this... every day, I go to Google.com, open the news section, and type in 'biodiesel' ... sort it by date, or relevance, and read how many countries, states, and counties are now starting to use the fuel. I remember .. was it Thailand? I can't recall... several countries are actually testing biodiesel in diesel locomotives. It's really exciting, actually.. it shows that with the right incentives, we humans may actually have a future!
I would like that for my kids.
Now, if we could get the gummint to actually raise the price of oil a bit, with a small tax... we could spend the tax on developing biodiesel infrastructure, and SOMEday get off the dino oil stuff... we're going to have to do it, one way or another.. MUCH sooner than later, is my guess, and everyone else's...

Ben

[Ryan DeWald]

Hey Ben,

I assume that you were kidding about the need to dumpster-dive the WVO for running a train. (a funny prospect indeed) In reality, if there's the VO for making bio-d for trains, then there's the VO for buring straight in trains. I wonder how a diesel train engine works. Anyone? Could it be run on SVO?

[Greenlion]

Yes a diesel locomotive could run on grease. It's a large stationary diesel engine-hooked to a large electric generator that provides current to electric drive motors. The big POP would occur for the masses if the Government were to reverse the money flow, and allow oil to be sold at free market prices here. We (America) get the volume discount as the conspicuous consumers of the world, and our electeds pay farmers more to leave land fallow in order to keep vegetable and grain prices up. If we subsidize farmers to grow oil crops and REDUCE our dependence with greasy generators and higher-efficiency cars, we can deal with the free-market issues without having to kill people on both sides for it. But will our general populace stand for $5/gal gas?

I found a 300D with drivetrain but crap body, and a Jeep Cherokee with a toasted motor. Kinda like the Frybrid Samurai, but on a Luddite tech scale. It'll be a real bastard, but It should be safe enough, economical enough, and cheap enough to get me started.

[Greenlion]

BTW Ryan, your ride would be courtesy of coachgeo down here in Florida- his Moggie has been set up with a 617 motor. Former fire truck he carries his doggie in. He came over to help with Waorgany's 6.5 TD conversion- Boy did that thing get looks! :eek:

[cgoodwin]

I lived in NYC for years and in London for 5 years. In both cities, there is very good public transportation, subways. I used them exclusively while in NYC the company I was contracting with provided me with a car, in London I have a motorcycle, a land rover and a mountain bike. Much of the time I simply took the tube, I could walk 3 minutes from my boat, get on the tube and go, stations were underground and out of the weather and there was almost no place in London I could not get within a few blocks of by tube. In NYC the same was true. When I needed to travel outside the city (London) I would put my mountain bike in the rover and go and if traffic was bad I could always park and bike.

I now live in Seattle and we have a "Good" bus system, you walk blocks in the rain and cold and wait in the rain for 30 minutes, get on a bus which stops every block for 45 minutes, get off and wait for another bus, same story, after 1.5 hours I am at my work 5.2 miles from my home. I drive to work every day, drop my daughter for a 1/2 day at daycare and drive home alone in the evening. Average time: 1 hour each way. I sit in traffic and look around and all I see are SUV's with one person in each one.

Seattle finally decided to build mass transit, they are building a Monorail (because it looks cool) which will connect two of the least used areas of town, while the main bottlenecks running north south are still a problem. Seattle is built on hills seperated by water and to get N-S you must cross one of three bridges, all built at the turn of the century, all but one are 2 lane. Several years ago they built an underground tunnel through downtown, which is small to begin with - no one uses it either and the 6 multimillion dollar diesel/electric busses they ordered from germany were ordered 6" too large to fit through the tunnel!

Better conservation of natural resourcees here would require the city to become responsible to its citizens rather than to the companies they give foolish contracts to.

Not going to happen.

Chirs

[Ryan DeWald]

Greenlion wrote:
"BTW Ryan, your ride would be courtesy of coachgeo down here in Florida- his Moggie has been set up with a 617 motor. Former fire truck he carries his doggie in. Boy did that thing get looks!"

I bet! If and when I move back to Tucson I hope to find me one of those badboys and never high center on a cave trip again!! Is Coachgeo's mog VO-converted?

My dream is to have a VO jetta for the girlfriend and big trips and a VO Moggie or bigwheel for offroad. One of these days we'll be able to buy a liftable, AWD, diesel, manual trans, wagon in this country and I'll buy 4 of them and never drive anything else again!

[ZukiFrodo]

Chris, Seattle's transportation department reminds me quite a bit of the leadership here in Georgia!

[cgoodwin]

Our public transport is a MESS!

If you look at the map you will see that to travel N-S you must cross one of 4 bridges (marked with red circles), just at the junctions of these bridges is the interchange to get on the 520 floating bridge going to Bellvue (Land-o-Microsoft), as a result it takes an hour to get through the one mile area around this interchange and there is no way to avoid it. I live just north of this mess and work just south of it. It is in fact so bad that I am considering moving!

http://www.frybrid.com/images/seattle.gif

Chris

[luckys420]

goodwin, did you just say floating bridge? is it really floating?
will

[cgoodwin]

It sure is, check it out... we also have the I-90 bridge just below in the map, same idea.

Evergreen Point Floating Bridge: The longest floating bridge in the world, at 12,596 feet - 7,518 of which float.

There are three floating bridges close to Seattle on Lake Washington, connecting Seattle to Bellevue. The new Lacey V. Murrow Floating Bridge replaced an earlier bridge which sank. Next to it is the Homer M. Hadley Floating Bridge. Photograph (http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cletheroe/usa_can/pictures/90001.htm) (29KB).


The third and longest floating bridge close to Seattle is The Governor Albert D. Rosselini (Evergreen Point) Floating Bridge. This is a concrete-pontoon bridge, more than a mile long, consisting of twenty-five floating sections bolted together and anchored in place, with a telescoping floating span that can be opened to permit the passage of large ships.

There is a fourth floating bridge in the Seattle area, namely the Hood Canal Floating Bridge across Puget Sound, northwest of Seattle.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge carries Washington State Highway 16 across the Tacoma Narrows, between Tacoma and the Kitsap Peninsula (http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cletheroe/usa_can/usa/pnwbrief.htm#kitsap_peninsula) to its north. The bridge, which opened in 1951, is the replacement for the famous original suspension bridge which collapsed due to resonance in winds of only 40 miles per hour a few months after its completion in 1940. The original bridge had a suspended span of 2800 feet with a very narrow and thin roadway deck (39 feet in width, 8 feet in depth). The resonance problem was made worse by the roadway having solid sides instead of the open truss design which tends to break up the wind. The replacement bridge, also a suspension bridge, has a roadway width of 60 feet and a truss deck with a depth of 33 feet. Many thanks to Steven Arnold who supplied not only much of the detailed information about the Seattle floating bridges and also the excellent photograph (http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cletheroe/usa_can/pictures/90001.htm) (29KB) of two of the floating bridges.


http://www.phenry.org/wsh/sr520.html

[vegipete]

Gasoline at $2 a gallon is hardly incentive to develop effective public transit, especially since North America is based in living out in the suburbs and everyone thinks it is their god-given right to drive all over hell's half acre.

I'm always amazed at the contrast between home (Vancouver) and Europe where I visit often. Over there, transit works. Buses and undergrounds cover the cities, trains are quick between them. In Munich, Germany, commuter rail was built as part of the new airport - 1/2 hour or so from the airport to downtown, running every ten minutes. Then I get back to Vancouver and laugh my head off. If you know where to look, you can find the bus stop, and a bus appears every 30 minutes during the day. Recently a big bus line was added, passing near the airport but missing by about a mile. So you can wait for the regular bus, perhaps half an hour, or walk. Duh.

A rapid transit line between the airport and downtown Vancouver is finally being planned, but of course locals are all screaming, demaning that it be built in someone else's back yard.
(NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard)
(BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody)

I am marginally encouraged by the stats that say the monster SUVs are staying on dealer lots for an average of 3 months now, compared to one month a year or two ago.

I don't see a problem with taxing petroleum products to the limit, and using the revenue to build effective transportation alternatives. We ought to do it now while we still can.

P.

[shawn]

I lived in seattle for a bit and one thing that they have done right as far as planning for transportation is to create bicycle paths all around the city.
you can bike across the I-90 bridge (you need a freakin oxygen tank though with that damn traffic).

its nice though. there are some good paved and unpaved raodways for bikes that I used to communte all over the city.

competeing with the traffic is inevitable though and I lost a battle once with an suv (broadsided by a bronco )

what seattle needs is a light rain system that streches into the burbs to get the commuters out of the gridlock

I hate driving my car near seattle, even though I cruise through it on veg

[Wreckerman]

I too have lived in countries with good mass transit (Germany and South Korea). But I saw the same thing in both countries, people abandoning mass transit and buying cars. Seoul had 9 million people and 12 million cars when I was there in 94.

People want the convienence of traveling at their liesure and not having to carry stuff home on the bus/train. America once had good mass transit but the auto, tire, oil industries conspired to kill it in the 30's, 40's and 50's. My small boyhood town had streetcars that served all areas and carried people to work, school and the shopping/entertainment district. Cheap automobiles and gas killed mass transit.

Now Americans commute to the big cites to work because they don't want to live in them. The social vote buying programs of the last 40 years rewarded bad behavior and produced three or more generations of "you owe me a living" people in the inner cities. Drugs, crime and unsafe neighborhoods sent honest hard working people to the burbs where they had good schools, and a safer environment for their families.

Unless society is willing to implement draconian laws and exterminate the worthless dregs of humanity that waste resources the situation won't change. Strict birth control with an eye toward zero population growth might avert the crash that is coming. But every liberal in the world would oppose these actions. The same liberals that demand we "DO something" about pollution, drilling more oil wells, guns, excetra would be the ones to oppose what might actually work because it would infringe on somebodys "rights".

High speed bullet trains could replace airliners except for international travel or travel to very remote locations. Major cities could mandate the use of mass transit but would have to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Locking violent criminals up and keeping them locked up might convince some people to take the train/bus (that and conceled weapons permits).

Since I will live in a rural area when I retire I don't want to be priced out of driving my vehicle but I do think a 50 cent a gallon tax might wake up "Joe Sixpack" and make people realize that at some point in time the cheap oil ride will be over.

That tax would by law only be used for the development of alternative vehicles, fuels, transit systems or built from the ground communities that don't require everyone to have a vehicle.

Just more of Wrecker's ranting.

[81SD]

Shawn - is that a Freudian slip "what seattle needs is a light rain system"...? I think that has been provided for... Your meaning is understood though...

Chris - if you guys in Seattle would quit sinking your bridges, it would help.

Atlanta's Marta system works pretty well - I'm not sure what the cost/reward value is, but they did a nice job of making light rail convenient. Combined with the park and ride system, it made it easier and quicker to navigate the downtown area than trying to drive yourself.

People keep talking about using a tax structure, or subsidizing industries to force events that they find desireable. If you really want to "save the world", consider that the main problem is overpopulation. The earth can easily shake off the effects of a small population - it's only when that population reaches naturally unsustainable levels that serious conservation becomes a requirement. Given that it is against human nature to be completely "eco-friendly" (even the worst of the tree-humping crazies seem to commute to work), the best solution would be a better system of responsible population management. Any other form of control only postpones the problem - it does not solve it. We have a finite amount of space and resources - it seems the human population is doing what it can to fill their "cage".

[cgoodwin]

Now Americans commute to the big cites to work because they don't want to live in them. The social vote buying programs of the last 40 years rewarded bad behavior and produced three or more generations of "you owe me a living" people in the inner cities. Drugs, crime and unsafe neighborhoods sent honest hard working people to the burbs where they had good schools, and a safer environment for their families.


People moved to the "Burbs" because commuting was easy, even in 22' cars, and everything the marketing machine that was the 1950's was focused on it. In the suburbs you can have space, a two car garage, shopping malls filled with goods to fill that big house, BBQ and cocktail parties, more malls to buy things you don't need or really want, etc. Drugs are a product of that same society, a salve to soothe the ache of realizing that just buying and having everything in sight will not bring happiness, coke, dope, Prozak, meth, smack, darvon, valium, oxycodone, vodka, x-box, S&M, strip clubs, hollywood, burger king, uppers, downers, spinners, flippers, anything toi distract you from the fact that you are a consumer first and foremost. Our society functions on the premise that you are trained to produce and consume until you die, period. Society does not really care if you are happy, just that you buy thier crap, over and over. Americans consume more mood adjusting drugs than anyone else on the planet, and we have it better.... What is wrong with this picture?

What happened to having some aspirations, some social responsibility, have some self responsibility? You talk about "Drugs, crime and unsafe neighborhoods sent honest hard working people to the burbs where they had good schools, and a safer environment for their families" Who do you think is consuming the drugs, creating the market? The disillusioned "Honest and hard woorking people and their children" living in the suburban hell they created, you write as though some alien specie was imported and is responsible for all the ills of our sick society, WE ARE THEM.

Unless society is willing to implement draconian laws and exterminate the worthless dregs of humanity that waste resources the situation won't change. Strict birth control with an eye toward zero population growth might avert the crash that is coming. But every liberal in the world would oppose these actions. The same liberals that demand we "DO something" about pollution, drilling more oil wells, guns, excetra would be the ones to oppose what might actually work because it would infringe on somebodys "rights".


Here you sound a little Hitleresque, whom do you suppose should decide who can and can not reproduce? You? Someone who thinks like you? Who are these "worthless dregs of humanity that waste resources " the veterans whom are turned out on the streets still suffering from conditions inflicted while "Defending" America? The retired people who can barely afford to eat dog food? The 2% of any human population whom are mentally ill? Your brothers son who is so disturbed that he smokes crack to forget his pain? The words Professor M. Bleuler said more than half a century ago are even more true today: “How civilized a society is can be judged from its attitude towards its mentally ill people”

My wife works at the King County Jail, it is estimated that it costs better than $200 a night to house people there. Every cold night it is filled to capacity with indigents looking for a warm bed (3 hots and a cot they call it), the majority of the permenant population are incarcerated for drug related offences...at $200 a night. For $200 a day I could travel the world and stay in the best hotels, a 5 star safari in Africa is about $200 a night, Diving in the Red Sea is only $150 a night all in! This is what we spend to house our mentally ill population and out addicts? How about making it a part of jail that you must do something to benefit the society you were a part of. Build inner city schools, clean roads, repair damage caused by Graffiti? In Mexico if you end up in jail you get a bed, rice and beans. If you want anything else you work for it or your family provides it for you. When you get locked up your debts are frozen as are your physical assets. You house payment freezes and when you get out you start right where you left off, thus insuring that you don't end up being forced into a life of crime.

High speed bullet trains could replace airliners except for international travel or travel to very remote locations. Major cities could mandate the use of mass transit but would have to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Locking violent criminals up and keeping them locked up might convince some people to take the train/bus (that and conceled weapons permits).

Yes, here in seattle people are affraid to take the bus because of all the violent criminals who use mass transit, same in other major cities, mass transit filled with violent criminals.... London charges an arm and a leg for parking and charges a toll to enter the city center by car during the day. No dilivery trucks are allowed in the city between 7am and 7pm reducing traffic congestion. I also seem to remember that anyone convicted of a felony was given a free tube pass ;-)

chris

[parmm]

Don't even get me going on mass transit. I help pay for it and can not take advantage of it. I can't take a bus anywhere because there is not on to take. No subway or overhead to take either. But they raise my taxes so the people taking them don't have to pay higher fares.

[Wreckerman]

Let me explain this in terms that even an dyed-in-the wool liberal can understand.

(1) There are some people in the world that no one can help because they don't want help. Does that mean I'm unsympathetic to their plight. NO. I'm just tired of footing the bill for them to keep making stupid decsions and expecting everyone else to take care of them. They used to keep the mentally ill in controlled environments until the liberals decided that it was against their "rights". So they were turned loose to live on the streets and receive care the best way they could. Were these hospitals perfect? No. But at least there was some oversight. Being in the military I am very concerned about veterans. The number of homeless vets is proportional to the general population. And again, they could go to any VA hospital and be treated. See the first sentence of this paragraph.

(2) Do I want to build concentration camps. No. But forced sterilization of people who continue to breed on the taxpayers nickle is not unreasonable. One unplanned pregnancy is a mistake, anything past that is pure stupidity. He who has the gold makes the rules. If all the rich liberals want to get together and privatize welfare, food stamps, public housing and all the other you-owe-me-a-living programs, please, be my guest. The "poor" have been rewarded for bad behavior and adapted to the handouts. Go to any public assistance office and see who is working there. Products of the welfare system keeping that system alive. You think these people want to end poverty? Poverty is their bread and butter.

(3) No one owes you a living. I've had a job since I was 15 and since the political whores in govenment don't have the guts to fix the Ponzi scheme I have been forced to participate in, I'll probably work till the day I die.
Even if a good plan is proposed the Democrats will fight it tooth and nail just to keep the Republicans from making political hay over it. Social Security is not, and never was, a "retirement plan". It was meant to provide some income to people who were too irresponsible to save for their later years. I have property paid for, an IRA and other assets. I did it by saving money while drawing military pay. I know retired people who never saved a dime and now depend on SS and all they do is bitch because they never have any money.

(4) No government entitlement ever goes away no matter how bad it is. Go through the new federal budget and look at some of the assinine things they are spending your hard earned money on. The elected hacks use tax money to buy votes with. If you don't believe that you are nieve as hell or plain stupid. No president, Dem or Rep, ever got a line item veto. One mans pork barrel project is another mans necessary funding, no one wants their ox gored. But the fat, dumb and happy voter just keeps electing the same glib bottom feeders to power.

(5) The so called "war on drugs" is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public. Legalize everything, tax the hell out of it, and let John Q. Public smoke, snort, shoot, drink unitil he dies or realizes what a dumbass he is and cleans up his act. Use the money currently being spent to outfit the DEA, drug task forces, SWAT teams, anti-drug operations in third world countries, prosecuting drug case and public defenders for drug cases on treatment and rehab for those who come to their senses. Local, state, federal and private employers would have the right to fire you sorry ass for using drugs but if you can earn a living otherwise and still be a junkie, more power to you.

(6) The current war is about stablizing the middle east and keeping the oil flowing. I know and accept it. Does that mean I like it? No. I have a son in the 101st Airbone Division headed to Iraq in a few months. I could be on my way as well if they need me. Whether you like it or not we are dependent on that oil. Iraq will be the staging base for the oil wars that will result when production peaks. All the alternative energy in the world can't replace oil at this stage of the game. Does that mean we should not do everything possible to develop AE. Of course we should, but try to convince the powers that be that we need to do something now. You will get a knowing smile, a handshake and the old political brushoff. I see a lot of liberals, tree huggers, global warming shouters and other people yelling "DO SOMETHING" but I'll bet they all drove to the rally, ate at a fast food joint and shopped at Wal-Mart in the last week.

(7) North Korea announced officially that they have tactical nuclear weapons and Iran is suspected of being close to having them. OK, you tell me what we do. We can keep negotiating, threaten them with sanctions and hope they don't sell some to the nutcases of the world or we can drop a 20 megaton "silo cracker" on their respective nuclear facilities and solve the problem. Since you live on the left coast in a major port city I'm sure you can provide some keen insight on how secure you feel. Personally I have no compunctions about eradicating a milllion or so North Koreans if it means saving the lives of 20 thousand American soldiers in South Korea. Having spent 2 1/2 years over there I speak from experience. A ground war over there would be brutal and costly.

(8) I am a middle-aged, middle class, white southern male and I am never going to apologise for it. If you were born anything else that's the breaks but you have as much opportunity as anyone else. If you are too stupid, lazy, drug impaired or too busy being oppressed to take advantage of the opportunities this country offers, life just sucks for you. Get over it.

Your turn.

[cgoodwin]

Awesome!



I respect anyone with a well formed opinion, even when I don't agree with them, even when they have opinions I find abhorrent. At least you are not another mindless sheep regurgitating someone else’s rhetoric you do not understand. I in fact find your opinions abhorrent, and your ability to voice them is one of the greatest things about this country...This does not stop me from thinking you a maniac.

Unfortunately I do not now have the time to respond as this weekend my girlfriend is working and I have charge of my illegitimate spawn. I will, however do so at the earliest opportunity....Unless I am forcibly sterilized before then, in which case it may take me a while longer.

As for being liberal, I am not. As for being a white middle class, middle aged southerner whom has worked since he was fifteen. I was born in Richmond, Virginia, I am 41, both my parents had collage degrees, and I moved away from their home at 15 and have worked everyday since... No one is asking you to apologize for being who you are, if this is a need you feel then I suggest you own it as it is purely yours.

I will reply in detail ASAP.

Chris

[parmm]

Wreckerman,
1. You say you are in the military and concerned about vets. I hate to tell you this, but those homeless Vets would likely be turned away at the VA hospitals. I too, as in the military for many years until I made big waves which went across the Atlantic several times. They got rid of me, or you could also say I got out on a resentment. I am involved in the VFW and American Legion. Those homeless Vets need a address before anyone from the government will help them. And Bush just cut VA benefits again!
2. Forced sterilization? Wow! Don't run for public office. If you do, don't mention that thought.
3. Social Security. It is a safety net for those who are not fortunate enough to work for some big outfit with retirement. For what is paided in the return is very low. It is for the guy who works at the local Walmart who has to pay of medical insurance because he has kids and is barely making ends meet. Lots of those guys are working two jobs just to make it. Oh, if you did it while saving while drawing military pay, it must be a lot better today than when I got out. I was E6 over 10 with wife and two kids. Wasn't much to go around.
4. I agree one hundred percent.
5. I agree. Government can throw all the money they have at it and it will not go away.
6. Agree again.
7. North Korea. We are between a rock and a hard place and it looks like we are going to let them have their nukes. We fail to recognizance how to deal with them on their level. It is all about saving face. You are right about a ground war over there. That was in the "lessons learned" from the last one. But I do wonder if they still have the will to fight, because they have been "beatened" by their own leaders.
8. Guess I'm over middle aged. Retired and loving life. Oh, am involved in politics and trying to make a difference. You can call me somewhere between conservative and liberal, but not a fence sitter. I've seen over the "wall" when it was there and know how well we have it. The thing is we have to protect it. Protect it from the breaucrats!

[dana linscott]

Sorry I had to embed my answers in your post...I wanted to keep it as short as possible and I thought it might help keep me on task. I marked my replies with ******* but have not spell checked it. Some day I will need to learn to type :rolleyes:

Let me explain this in terms that even an dyed-in-the wool liberal can understand.

*****Well...I consider myself a "true conservative" and hate to weigh in here..but I here I go anyway...

(1) There are some people in the world that no one can help because they don't want help. Does that mean I'm unsympathetic to their plight. NO. I'm just tired of footing the bill for them to keep making stupid decsions and expecting everyone else to take care of them. They used to keep the mentally ill in controlled environments until the liberals decided that it was against their "rights".

****This is simply not correct. It was during the Reagan administation that funding which provided minimal care and housing for the mentally ill in our country was severly cut. As a result the existing legal minimum housing and care standards could not be met. The courts ruled that these minimum standards had to be met or the menatlly ill had to be released. Rather than restore adequate funding the administration supported releasing them to the streets.

This resulted in costs several times higher than simply restoring adequate funding for minimal humane housing and care of our societys severely mentally ill. What on the surface appeared to be a cost saving measure had consequences costing much, much more. Blaming the consequences of releasing these mentally ill citizens to the streets on the "liberals" that brought suit to force restoration of funding of a cost effective program is placing the responsability on the wrong folks. They simply felt (as I do) that those most vulnerable to neglect and abuse need to have advocates in order to keep it to a minimum. In my book the responsability lies much more squarely on the shoulders of the pseudo-conservatives who failed to look at the consequences of their action any further down the line than the next election.*********


So they were turned loose to live on the streets and receive care the best way they could. Were these hospitals perfect? No. But at least there was some oversight. Being in the military I am very concerned about veterans. The number of homeless vets is proportional to the general population. And again, they could go to any VA hospital and be treated. See the first sentence of this paragraph.

*******If only this were true. I work with the homeless and you are correct that vets make up a large portion of those with no place to call home. But getting the local vet hospital to provide ANY care for them is not possible until after they have an address. I have a hard time beleiveing that this is simply a bureacratic catch 22 since the vets have ALWAYS made up a large portion fo the homeless population. Like so many benefits our country promises those servin in the military services this one is not really full availabel once you are out of the service.**************

(2) Do I want to build concentration camps. No. But forced sterilization of people who continue to breed on the taxpayers nickle is not unreasonable. One unplanned pregnancy is a mistake, anything past that is pure stupidity. He who has the gold makes the rules. If all the rich liberals want to get together and privatize welfare, food stamps, public housing and all the other you-owe-me-a-living programs, please, be my guest. The "poor" have been rewarded for bad behavior and adapted to the handouts. Go to any public assistance office and see who is working there. Products of the welfare system keeping that system alive. You think these people want to end poverty? Poverty is their bread and butter.


*******Rich liberal....boy I sure don't see many of them. Nor do I see "liberals" (I wish you would define this term for me) rushing to support bad behavior in individuals. I DO however see psuedo-conservatives rushing to pull support from nearly every social support program and increase subsidies for large corporations..which often behave very badly. Maybe I am what youwoudl call a "liberal" for failing to see how pulling the social support program funding (which has a result of filling our jails) only to spend the funds on encouraging such corporate activity as sending jobs off shore is a better/wiser expenditure of tax dollars. I work (volunteer) with local "social services" employees all the time. And yes..every now and then I do run into a person that has no wish to work toward ending poverty. About 5% of them if I have to quantify it. But most would love to see the growing flood of people that can no longer support themselves slow down a bit. They don't get paid more to work harder..and their jobs/retirements are pretty much assured regardless of how much work there is for them to do. The key to ending poverty is education..and not just school type education. As for forced sterilization. Well if that is a "solution" that actually looks like it might become a reality in the US we will be a very different country than we have ever been. And not one I am sure I would care to live in or raise my cildren in. And I have to disagree. Forced sterilization IS UNREASONABLE.******

(3) No one owes you a living. I've had a job since I was 15 and since the political whores in govenment don't have the guts to fix the Ponzi scheme I have been forced to participate in, I'll probably work till the day I die.
Even if a good plan is proposed the Democrats will fight it tooth and nail just to keep the Republicans from making political hay over it. Social Security is not, and never was, a "retirement plan". It was meant to provide some income to people who were too irresponsible to save for their later years. I have property paid for, an IRA and other assets. I did it by saving money while drawing military pay. I know retired people who never saved a dime and now depend on SS and all they do is bitch because they never have any money.

*********Ahh..I see. It is an US vs THEM thing. (republicans vs democtrats) I agree Social Security is not a "retirement plan" and was never designed to be. It is a safty net to prevent our elderly from living and dying in abject poverty. I got my first job at 8..and started my first real business at 15. And I have never for a moment thought I would ever get a penny of my the money I paid into SS. I had no plans to end up depending on it. I still don't. I thought that it was for people that were so disabled or elderly they could not earn enough to pay for basic living expenses. It has been underfunded ever since our govt leaders found they could make "loans" to cover budget deficits at near 0% interest. This allowed an easy (but short sighted) alternative to raising taxes or cutting PORK from budgets.

The current "crisis" is simply a dog and pony show. The "crisis" can be easily fixed by raising the income exemption limits and not paying SS to folks that don't need it. The folks that will need SS the most are the very people that will not be able to wisely invest it themselves. The simple fact that the people you know that depend on SS to live "bitch" they never have any money should be pretty good proof that SS only provides enough money for a minimal standard of living. So unless you feel our countrys elderly SHOULD live in poverty or we should implement euthanasia to work in conjustion with forced sterilization to solve our coutries problems...small changes to SS are probably the answer to the 4% shortfall projected in SS by 2012.

(4) No government entitlement ever goes away no matter how bad it is. Go through the new federal budget and look at some of the assinine things they are spending your hard earned money on. The elected hacks use tax money to buy votes with. If you don't believe that you are nieve as hell or plain stupid. No president, Dem or Rep, ever got a line item veto. One mans pork barrel project is another mans necessary funding, no one wants their ox gored. But the fat, dumb and happy voter just keeps electing the same glib bottom feeders to power.

*******I could not agree more...Why do we allow political propaganda to make us do that. Is it so hard to shake off the lables of democrat or republican and see we really all wnat basically the same thing. People are not stupid..but are easily misled by professional propaganda producers. If we are going to go with forced sterilization or euthanasia as possibl elsolutions..lets start with them. *******

(5) The so called "war on drugs" is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public. Legalize everything, tax the hell out of it, and let John Q. Public smoke, snort, shoot, drink unitil he dies or realizes what a dumbass he is and cleans up his act. Use the money currently being spent to outfit the DEA, drug task forces, SWAT teams, anti-drug operations in third world countries, prosecuting drug case and public defenders for drug cases on treatment and rehab for those who come to their senses. Local, state, federal and private employers would have the right to fire you sorry ass for using drugs but if you can earn a living otherwise and still be a junkie, more power to you.

*******WAIT...we are beginning to completely agree...whats happening?****

(6) The current war is about stablizing the middle east and keeping the oil flowing. I know and accept it. Does that mean I like it? No. I have a son in the 101st Airbone Division headed to Iraq in a few months. I could be on my way as well if they need me. Whether you like it or not we are dependent on that oil. Iraq will be the staging base for the oil wars that will result when production peaks. All the alternative energy in the world can't replace oil at this stage of the game. Does that mean we should not do everything possible to develop AE. Of course we should, but try to convince the powers that be that we need to do something now. You will get a knowing smile, a handshake and the old political brushoff. I see a lot of liberals, tree huggers, global warming shouters and other people yelling "DO SOMETHING" but I'll bet they all drove to the rally, ate at a fast food joint and shopped at Wal-Mart in the last week.

******OK I agree except for this.
Oil would not stop flowing if we did not militarily control the mid east. CHEAP OIL would. I for one do not want cheap oil to flow up to the point of no oil flowing. And the way to accomplish fast development of AE sources is to FUND AE research and allow oil prices to rise "naturally". The current administration has dramatically CUT AE funding and spend billions on attempting to control oil prices using our limited military options. And it is NOT working. Again..short term planning for long term problems by a psuedo-conservative administration/legislature.***********

(7) North Korea announced officially that they have tactical nuclear weapons and Iran is suspected of being close to having them. OK, you tell me what we do. We can keep negotiating, threaten them with sanctions and hope they don't sell some to the nutcases of the world or we can drop a 20 megaton "silo cracker" on their respective nuclear facilities and solve the problem. Since you live on the left coast in a major port city I'm sure you can provide some keen insight on how secure you feel. Personally I have no compunctions about eradicating a milllion or so North Koreans if it means saving the lives of 20 thousand American soldiers in South Korea. Having spent 2 1/2 years over there I speak from experience. A ground war over there would be brutal and costly.

*****Agreed. Besides China has much more control over N. Korea than we do. And N.Koreas recent demand that China be cut from the talks is a good sign negotiation are ot working. If N.Korea actually ever launches a nuke our reataliatory lauches would arrive about 20 minutes later than Chinas would. Not a big problem IMO. Diplomacy will end up de-fusing this time bomb.

(8) I am a middle-aged, middle class, white southern male and I am never going to apologise for it. If you were born anything else that's the breaks but you have as much opportunity as anyone else. If you are too stupid, lazy, drug impaired or too busy being oppressed to take advantage of the opportunities this country offers, life just sucks for you. Get over it.

*****How fortunate you were not born a woman, disabled, or a black person. I suspect your opportunties would have been a bit fewer.

Count your blessings..but don't for a moment thinik EVERYONE ELSE had the same opportunities as you did. I hope your good luck continues...because a single auto accident or illness could quickly change your perceptions of what is "fair" and what is not.**********

Your turn.

[ZukiFrodo]

Boy, this one REALLY got hijacked. TWICE!

In retrospect, I'd really like to get 81 mpg. :)

[81SD]

Dana - if he had been born a black woman, maybe he could have been Secretary of State... I hear that's been done before.

In this country, race, sex and religion aren't usually big obstacles. Intelligence is the limiting factor most of the time.

The big question - the root question in all of the points you guys have been debating is:

1. Does a person have the right to the product of another person's labor simply because they want or "need" it?

We can toss in some other related questions:

2. Do we completely disregard the notion of property and property rights for the "greater good"?

3. Are you responsible for other's well being? The choices they make? The consequences of their actions?

These questions are approached from two main viewpoints. To me, one is much more realistic - the other one is a little too touchy-feely. If my money is going to be forcibly taken from me to provide for someone else's care and feeding, I do believe that it is in everyone's best interest to be able to dictate that the person receiving the aid is properly cared for. They much not take undue risks - smoking, drinking, unprotected sex - anything that can hurt them (and drive up my costs) should not be tolerated. The control over their life should be total - after all, we are "taking care of them" and it is only to provide the best health that we are after... Seems like that would be violating their rights though... What about the people that are forced to subsidize the care and feeding of these poor, rights-violated people? The general concensus seems to be that they (the tax base) can deal with it.

This burden is the distinction that seems to separate the "right side" from the "left side". On the "right side", this burden is voluntary (donate all you want to) - while on the "left side" it is mandatory (tax the snot out of them and redistribute it). Call it Republican vs Democrat, Republicrat vs Libertarian... whatever - the issue is does one person have the right to force the labor of another away in order to make themselves feel better?

Here's a good article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml
Next come the portable respirators - so they can literally tax "Every breathe you take, every move you make"... Hopefully it only strikes in the "blue states" because open rebellion may occur if it happens in the "red states". (I still want to know why my lightweight, grease burning vehicle without studded tires would need to pay the same fuel tax that a semi-truck sporting chains or studded tires would have to? My car does virtually no damage at all to the road, while the other one shreds and pulverizes it...)

Does voting about it make it right? I vote that Wreckerman and I need a Porsche and that your assets be sold to pay for it. Wreckerman gets to drive it on even days, I'll take it on odd days (I'm guessing that is a good compromise to buy his vote). No one else is eligible to vote, so whatever your vote is, we win... Is it morally correct? No. But it is the exact same mentality that you seem to be advocating. A large group of people currently think it is ok to take the assets of another group of people away to redistribute.

No - I don't think the elderly should live in abject poverty. I think they shouldn't be taxed as heavily all their lives so they can save more and provide for themselves the best retirement possible. They are free to succeed or fail - but it is their choice and not mine or yours. It's nice how the people that stick us with this SS ponzi scheme opt out of it themselves for a much more lucrative one.

As to the sterilization issue. Ugly scene all around - but if someone has kids that they are unable or unwilling to take care of, they aren't much of a human. Sterilization would be the most gentle way of helping them. If the result is that others are forced to cough up money in order to provide care and feeding of these children, it only seems fair that if ANY of those that are paying fall ill and require an organ donation (so they can keep working and paying for "the children", the irresponsible parent cough up that needed organ... Tough luck if it is a heart or liver - but it wouldn't be "fair" to the children to do anything less. Hitleresque? I don't care. When a parent neglects or harms a child in this manner, they aren't worth the oxygen they breathe. When they use their vote to force others to pay for the consequences of their actions, I think the idea behind "Soylent Green" would be perfectly fine.

Bottom line is life isn't fair. The burden is being moved around in the interest of "compassion". That's not good. Maybe too far - the political swinging pendulum may overcorrect when a backlash occurs. That definitely won't be good for anyone.

[Wreckerman]

OK, at the risk of turning this into a battle of written wills I'll try to keep this brief. Your worked around several of my points without addressing them.

There are some people that you can't help. Agree or disagree?

Reagan budget cuts. There were several Democratic administrations since then. How much funding was restored to these programs under them. Inaction implies acceptance.

Homeless vets. I have never seen any honorably discharged vet refused treatment if they required urgent care. My uncle was a regional director for the VA for many years, my Grandpa passed away in a VA hospital and I have been treated in one. All health systems have flaws. Many of these vets draw disability pay and other benefits. Again, see the first sentence.

Rich liberals? See Hollyweird, Ca. phone book.

No one owes you a living/SS. One of the problems with SS is SSI or as I call it, "the lazy man's Holy Grail". I support public asstance for those truly in need. Some lawyers have made a cottage industry of getting people on SSI that are just too sorry to work. I personally know three men who are too "disabled" to work but don't have a problem climbing into a deer stand, working on cars or doing other things that could be defined as work.

Corporate welfare. Cut it all off, even subsidies to alternatve energy (oh wait, that's us). Also cut off funding to all the arts programs, medical research, HUD, FANNIE MAE and a butt load of other subsidies. Again, no one wants their ox gored.

US vs THEM mentality. The realities of politics is that the party that wants to be back in power is never going to go along with the plans of of the one in power. If a bipartisan plan to overhaul SS is presented the hard line Demos will fight to kill it because it will be on the other guys watch. Unless public opinion is overwhelming enough to make them do it it will die a hard death. If there was a viable alternative party that served my interests I'd drop the republican party like a hot rock.

War for oil. Unless we as Americans convince our leaders that we are willing to make radical changes in our lifestyle and demand change I forsee a continuation of the oil wars. Again, inaction implies acceptance.

Nukes for nuts. In the sage advice of Barney Fife, "you got to nip it in the bud". Waiting around with our collective thumbs up our wazoos gives the impression that we accept the nuclear blackmail that North Korea is engaging in. A five mile high mushroom cloud would convince all parties that it is in their best interest to rethink their WMD programs. If these weapons are allowed to be deveolped it will only be a matter of time before one is sealed in a shipping container, sailed or flown into a major city and detonated. The anti-war crowd will be the loudest and shrillest to cry "why wasn't something done" and point fingers.

Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

[Ryan DeWald]

Wreckerman said:

" five mile high mushroom cloud would convince all parties that it is in their best interest to rethink their WMD programs. "

While it is true that detonating a nuclear bomb over North Korea or Iran would certainly halt their nuclear development and would probably lead to the disarming of the other one, good people, righteous people do not kill hundreds of thousands of people pre-emptively because there is a danger of being struck first. It's totally wrong from every moral and ethical angle. The only justification is that it's them and not you. The moral dereliction in suggesting a nuclear pre-emptive strike should be enough of reason to abandon thoughts about it. But if that is not enough, then take a moment to consider how the world, today and in the future would view such an abysmal act.
It is a sure thing that nations of the world would unite in opposition of the United States as a pyriah and a harbinger of death.

Perhaps a more thought-out strategy that strives to leave as many people not incinerated as possible *might* be tried before you whip out the nukes?

[81SD]

I concur completely. Talk first. Attempt to settle things peacefully and without violence. The entire "Art of War" bit applies here, we may win the war, but there will be repercussions and it is in both parties interest to find a middle ground. But - if they refuse to make progress in negotiating a solution and in a relatively timely manner, nuke them out of existence. Leave nothing alive - and be prepared for a whole lotta whining... The goal is to accomplish our objectives WITH their cooperation, but to accomplish those objectives regardless. Nuking them is the 2cd to the last thing we want to do. The last thing we want to do is to allow them to win - and keep their nuclear ability.

It is necessary for them to believe that we are willing to do whatever it takes - and give them an honorable way to choose the cooperative method. It may just be that all of their sword-pounding is just a way to raise the stakes - to make us pay more.

As to the future...? History is always written by the victor. If we win, we get to write about it...

[parmm]

Do you realize that under the true definition (as I understand it) concerning the words conservative and liberal that conservatives would be for more gun control and liberals would be for less gun control. Sometimes I wonder why I belong to a particular political party!

[cgoodwin]

I say let Bush, Halliburton and the Christain Right stay the course and appoint Wreckerman head of genocide. We can continue to occupy Afganistan while fighting over the rights to build a Caspain Sea pipeline across that very poor country who spent 10 years begging the world for help ridding itself of the Taliban, we can continue to stabilize only a small area occupied by our troops and allow warlords to rape, pillage and burn the rest to clear it for our construction.

We can continue in Iraq where every anti-American loony is flocking, pour more troops in there and get Cirque de Soleil and larry Flint together to train the prisioners to perform forced homosexual acrobactics, the force our own "Dregs of Society" to watch them ala clockwork orange rendering them incapable of sex acts and therefore, reproduction. Hell we could just sweep the streets and force them all into the military.

Ship a bunch more troops to Iran to stop them from doing what we are doing, and just when we are spread really thin, we can attack Korea (Didn't we already do that once with poor results).

Overstreached, undermanned and having pissed off everyone else in the world we would be..... Just where Hitler was! Strutting around making the rest of the world conform to our wishes, sterilizing people, bombing others into oblivion and running entire countries as prison camps commiting atrocities "in the name of freedom".

Screw the constitution, screw helping our own, screw the very freedom our fathers died protecting. Every man for himself, if you can't cut it in my world you better get off. Wealthy states on the coasts should band together and make those middle states provide out food, we are stronger and can cut them off, the south as a whole should be repopulated and the land put to better use, hell they lost the civil war and we have been carrying the embarrassing inbred step children every since, ship them off to Iraq with thier overalls and shotguns. NYC, comb the streets for anyone not working in trade or for Wallstreet and stuff them through a bridge or tunnel and make NYC a clean, American, center of commerce from which we can control the world.

Brown shirts for everyone, train our children early. Sterilize, sterlize, sterlize, we should decide on a perfect "American" and begin breeding them while wiping out non-conformers. Anyone who becomes weak will be fodder for the war machinge!!!!! I can hardly control myself, I feel German Facism comming out of my every pore! Marching, marching, marching, oh what fun!

Incidentaly, my father (born and Richmond, VA as was I) was last working as an expert witness. Regans great social advancements left hundreds of thousands of mentally ill persons on the streets and no oversight for the ones who were not. Social workers now only need a highschool diploma, etc. Law firms comb the streets looking for mentally ill people and track their families down, the families give power to the attorney who then gets the homeless mentaly ill person into treatment and stabilized, an expert witness is brought in to look at this persons medical record and establish that they never should have been cut from the fat of the land. The courts award all benefits retrospectively, the lawyers take a third, the families get a third and the poor fool gets whatever is left after court costs and fees. Great plan! Years suffering on the streets and the only active effort made to "Help" is done by those exploiting them for a dollar. Regan made the cuts and no one could get it all back in the box after. Further cuts and general lack of interest have driven the social services in this country into the gutter, we are all to blame.

As for ruling the world and killing anyone we disagree with, it has never worked and is a power trip carried out by those who feel weak and that somehow everyone else is cheating them out of the America they envision, usually one ruled by and governed for people who are in thier same social, racial, economic and educational "class". We are quickly alienating ourselves from the rest of the world, once respected, we are now exploited and our own government and businesses are behind it. I remember when being American got you some respect when traveling the world, now it makes you a traget. Each and every one of us is to the world a symbol of the acts our government carries out and today much of the world hates us, the news they recieve is just as warped as the crap our "news" stations spew, and they, like us, believe it.

What frightens me most is that people actually have the balls to call themselves American, yet spout crap about forced sterlization and world domination. Our founding fathers would be ashamed to see you wiping your fat arse with the constitution and everything this country has stood for.

Social security??? How can you force your citizens to give a % of thier income to Rome...OOOps.... to the government so that it can be given back when they are old, then not give it back. I think it should be an elective. How is working and paying into a system "the lazy man's Holy Grail"

"Corporate welfare. Cut it all off, even subsidies to alternatve energy (oh wait, that's us). Also cut off funding to all the arts programs, medical research, HUD, FANNIE MAE and a butt load of other subsidies. Again, no one wants their ox gored." Great, now we are back in the dark ages! I think it a good idea to stop all farm subsidies and we can just import our food, then we can have wheat and oil wars!

"War for oil. Unless we as Americans convince our leaders that we are willing to make radical changes in our lifestyle and demand change I forsee a continuation of the oil wars. Again, inaction implies acceptance."

There are no oil wars, we are spreading freedom and liberating Iraq!

Operation
Iraqui
Liberation

[cgoodwin]

These questions are approached from two main viewpoints. To me, one is much more realistic - the other one is a little too touchy-feely. If my money is going to be forcibly taken from me to provide for someone else's care and feeding, I do believe that it is in everyone's best interest to be able to dictate that the person receiving the aid is properly cared for. They much not take undue risks - smoking, drinking, unprotected sex - anything that can hurt them (and drive up my costs) should not be tolerated. The control over their life should be total - after all, we are "taking care of them" and it is only to provide the best health that we are after... Seems like that would be violating their rights though... What about the people that are forced to subsidize the care and feeding of these poor, rights-violated people? The general concensus seems to be that they (the tax base) can deal with it.

You only are somewhat socially responisble here, you choose to live here, you can always live an another country which does not value compassion. These questions always avoid the responsibility of moral judgement, who would decide what "Undue risks" are? How would you "totally control them"? A prison camp perhaps?

Does voting about it make it right? I vote that Wreckerman and I need a Porsche and that your assets be sold to pay for it. Wreckerman gets to drive it on even days, I'll take it on odd days (I'm guessing that is a good compromise to buy his vote). No one else is eligible to vote, so whatever your vote is, we win... Is it morally correct? No. But it is the exact same mentality that you seem to be advocating. A large group of people currently think it is ok to take the assets of another group of people away to redistribute.

Was this country not founded on majority rules? If a larger group feel in a way that you do not, you loose. This is the core of the American way - you are being unpatriotic! almost treasonous !



As to the sterilization issue. Ugly scene all around - but if someone has kids that they are unable or unwilling to take care of, they aren't much of a human. Sterilization would be the most gentle way of helping them. If the result is that others are forced to cough up money in order to provide care and feeding of these children, it only seems fair that if ANY of those that are paying fall ill and require an organ donation (so they can keep working and paying for "the children", the irresponsible parent cough up that needed organ... Tough luck if it is a heart or liver - but it wouldn't be "fair" to the children to do anything less. Hitleresque? I don't care. When a parent neglects or harms a child in this manner, they aren't worth the oxygen they breathe. When they use their vote to force others to pay for the consequences of their actions, I think the idea behind "Soylent Green" would be perfectly fine.

You really can not be serious, please tell me this is a "Devils Advocate" thing. What is your heritage? Irish, English? If it is Irish then your family came here endentured and had as many children as they could keep alive to support them, same if English or just about any other immigrant. You answer to a social mess is to farm organs and make food from humans, you are a sick person. If you do not want to "Pay for others mistakes" then vote on some social issues. AFDC encourages mothers to remain unmarried and continue to have children, welfare penalizes those who seek work...How does this make any sense? Hand Ups are Hand Outs and everyone wants to cut everything rather than just have it run in a way that benefits everyone. If you get in the shit and need a hand up, the government should be there for you, loan you some money, carefully, for food etc., help with children, you should be required to work for this. Help out in the clinics, or public housing, participate and lessen your burden on society. If you are granted $500 a month and you get a job paying $300, you should not loose the other $200 as you do now, this encourages people not to work. I think you should be required to work, for minimum wage. This would encourage people to find a job and get off the dole. If you can not support your children, every effort should be ade to help you and if you refuse you loose your kids, foster care, adoption, etc. But I think we can skip the organ banks.

It truly frightens me to think that people think this way, makes me happy I have a little piece of beach in a desolate corner of the Baja where I can one day sit by the sea and try to forget the inhumanity I have seen, much of it right here at home.

chris

[81SD]

Tell me - does this little piece of beach have other people on it that insist that you subsidize their lives? Do they force you to work so they can take away your efforts to provide for others? Because if it DOESN'T have those types of people around, I'll be heading down there soon!

At no point did I say that compassion is not a virtue. I do believe that you should help others - by choice. To me, it seems that you think that unless the "government" liberates funds from the people to redistribute, charity would be gone. Do you REALLY feel this way? Are you that socially impaired? Why would you expect everyone else to be the same way? If I want a new pair of shoes and use a weapon to confiscate your money directly, I'm a thief. If I use my vote to confiscate your money, I'm patriotic? That ain't right.

No - I do not want anyone deciding for others what they can and cannot do (within the constraints of "The Golden Rule"). Likewise, I do not want anyone to decide what I do with the earnings I make from my labor. It only seems fair that if I have to subsidize another person, I can make the rules for them. Call it the "Under my roof" rule - parents typically enforce that one - but they are subsidizing their children and it is only right that they look out for the child's best interest.

Certain common necessities need to be provided for with tax revenue - and I'm all for usage taxes paying for what people use. Don't nit-pick on this topic, I'm sure we can all agree that there needs to be some level of services provided for by society and it has to be paid for. What we are arguing about is what that level is.

(Hey Wreckerman! When do we pick up our Porsche?) You may want to rethink that bit about majority rule... One reason our Congress has two components to the makeup is to put a chokehold on pure majority rule. You used to have to be a landowner in order to vote as well - something about having a vested interest in the land in order to make decisions for it. We are not a democracy, as many would like to believe. We have a representative government. Sure - the democracy part works to elect the leader, but the leader doesn't (or isn't supposed to!) take a vote on every issue to make a decision. If the majority want something, they can pick a leader - but the leader makes the decision.

As to irresponsible parents - married or unmarried - when they are on the dole and still reproducing, we subsidize them now and make it possible for the problem to get worse. (It really would be ugly if we simply left the family to starve - the children are not guilty of anything.) I'm quite confident that if just the threat of recycling was possible for the worst offenders, we'd see a lot fewer offenders. The goal on this idea was not to "recycle" - but to stop the problem. I would sincerely hope that when the possibility of losing life, limb (or just pieces) became rule, the people that might be affected would snap out of it. The problem becomes solved one way or another though - and the people affected get to make their own decision (between the choices) on how they want it handled.

You didn't give me a clear answer to any question that I brought up - you danced around the questions and provided mostly an emotional response to my viewpoints. If you are attempting to alter my views, I'd be more interested in understanding your answers and not your reactions to mine.

[cgoodwin]

"1. Does a person have the right to the product of another person's labor simply because they want or "need" it?

We can toss in some other related questions:

2. Do we completely disregard the notion of property and property rights for the "greater good"?

3. Are you responsible for other's well being? The choices they make? The consequences of their actions?"

Clear answers:
1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

Simple explanations:

1)"Does a person have the right to the product of another person's labor simply because they want or "need" it?"

Yes, in a society where you choose to live with others, a society which places a value on caring for the Human condition, a society which has agreed philosophically that the weak and unfortunate need to be cared for. Yes if you choose to live in this society, it is a "Right". When you get in a car wreck and the fire department responds and Medics arrive to stabilize you, should you be charged for those services and for the time they sat idle waiting to help you? For the time and expense it took to develop the tools and procedures used to save your life?

A society which values life finds itself in a quandry as to what to do with those who would take advantage of its charity, this is the human condition. Kindness is mistaken for weakness, services exploited, and those whom suffer are those being productive, those who produce this society which values human life and abhores needless suffering.

I find the reactionary views of concentration camps, forced sterilization, organ farming to be every bit as sad an extreme as the situation we currently have, however, I would rather feel that my money was being stolen, than that my self respect was. I could not face myself knowing that I willing participate in a system which forced sterilization - nor could most of the citizens of this country. It is simply morally wrong to enforce your will on the body of another person.

2) "Do we completely disregard the notion of property and property rights for the "greater good"? "

Not sure where this came from but the answer is NO, social experiments such as the USSR have shown that this does not work. If we were ants it would be great but human beings do not function this way. If you want proliferation of ideas and advancement, there must be reward. Funny that our society does disregard that property rights of "Intellectual Property" and our society, culture and future all rely of the sharing of information. We live in a complex time where no single person could build even the simplest tool we use daily, from cars, to computers, each is the combined effort of many people who in one way or another freely share thier discoveries.

3.) "Are you responsible for other's well being? The choices they make? The consequences of their actions?"

See answer one.

Is those clear enough answers to the questions posed?

Chris

[dana linscott]

There are some people that you can't help. Agree or disagree?

I agree that there are people who no matter how much money you throw at them will have no improvement in thier behavior or quality of life. I disagree that there are many who cannot be helped with a well thought out application of some available resource.

Reagan budget cuts. There were several Democratic administrations since then. How much funding was restored to these programs under them. Inaction implies acceptance.

Sorry...it is NOT dems vs.reps with me. I agree that the mentally disabled/homeless population of this country has been nearly equally ignored by both parties. But it was Reagan that dealt the death blow to the programs and created a whole new (more expensive) problem. Rebuilding from scratch is 10 times more costly than keeping an existing program functioning. If someone burns your house and you can't afford to rebuild it...does your failure to rebuild constitute "acceptance"? Who in your opinion is most responsible for you being homeless in that case?

Homeless vets. I have never seen any honorably discharged vet refused treatment if they required urgent care.

I have. Maybe you need to look harder. :(

No one owes you a living/SS. One of the problems with SS is SSI or as I call it, "the lazy man's Holy Grail". I support public asstance for those truly in need. Some lawyers have made a cottage industry of getting people on SSI that are just too sorry to work. I personally know three men who are too "disabled" to work but don't have a problem climbing into a deer stand, working on cars or doing other things that could be defined as work.

This is called WELFARE FRAUD. Do your civic duty and report the "three men who are too "disabled" to work but don't have a problem..etc" And then testify when they are prosecuted. The problem is not with the program..the problem is with the folks that abuse the program and the folks that are aware of the fraud but choose to DO NOTHING but bitch about how the program is abused. The solution you are proposing has the advantage of not requiring any effort on your part...at the expense of creating misery for millions of legitmately disabled fellow citizens. I imagine though you consider that a fair trade. Or haven't you though it through that far?

And as far as Lawyers that profit by facilitating wealfare fraud...take them fishing...and come back alone.

And before you too quickly decide that the privatization of SS is a good thing hte demos jut want to scuttle for no good reason. It has been done before and we can look at the results. Thats right another country has gone from a system similar to ours to one very similar to that proposed by the current administraton..and is trying to see if it would be possible to switch back. Since it was such a horrible finacial disaster it may not be possible. It is rare when we as a nation have a chance to look into the future with such a amajor change. In this case all we have to do is look to the UK.

Corporate welfare. Cut it all off, even subsidies to alternatve energy (oh wait, that's us). Also cut off funding to all the arts programs, medical research, HUD, FANNIE MAE and a butt load of other subsidies. Again, no one wants their ox gored

Umm..I agree that if you are business you should probably not be subsidized..and if you are a corporation making millions or billions in profit each year you should definitley not be subsidised. But public funding of research is one of the few investments of our tax $$ which has paid off in a big way consistently. I have no ox. If a research program shows promise keep funding it...if not shut it down. Two very different animals we are talking about.

US vs THEM mentality. The realities of politics is that the party that wants to be back in power is never going to go along with the plans of of the one in power. If a bipartisan plan to overhaul SS is presented the hard line Demos will fight to kill it because it will be on the other guys watch. Unless public opinion is overwhelming enough to make them do it it will die a hard death. If there was a viable alternative party that served my interests I'd drop the republican party like a hot rock.

So I take it you never consider voting other than along a party line? It won't be the Demos that kill this administrations SS privatization bill. It is the Repos that need to get re-elected. If I am to follow your reasoning that one party will automatically "sabotage" a good thing for no other reason than the "other guys" did it....I finally understand why this administration decided a balanced budget and huge budget surplus "had to go". Wake up and look around Buddy, the Repos are now the tax and spend party. I know it just looks like they are the "spend" party now..but eventually all that spending has to be paid for. Then it will be "tax" time. Oh wait taxes have not gone down since GB 1 said "read my lips". I think that you vote repo not because they actually serve your interests...but because they promise to. :rolleyes: And you fall for it.

Can you name 3 things that the repos have done that actually DO serve your interests? I would bet you can't. Of course if your interests mainly lay in raising the price of Haliburten stock, raising the net profit for the 3 major oil companies, saving money on pollution control equipment, or alienating the rest of the world when it comes to co-ordinated diplomacy then I would be mistaken. :o


War for oil. Unless we as Americans convince our leaders that we are willing to make radical changes in our lifestyle and demand change I forsee a continuation of the oil wars. Again, inaction implies acceptance.

You realize that these "radical changes" are going to be expensive don't you? That means they are going to cost YOU more money. I just don't see you being too willing to make that kind of a committment. Or are you talking about "we" in the abstract? :rolleyes:

Nukes for nuts. In the sage advice of Barney Fife, "you got to nip it in the bud". Waiting around with our collective thumbs up our wazoos gives the impression that we accept the nuclear blackmail that North Korea is engaging in. A five mile high mushroom cloud would convince all parties that it is in their best interest to rethink their WMD programs. If these weapons are allowed to be deveolped it will only be a matter of time before one is sealed in a shipping container, sailed or flown into a major city and detonated. The anti-war crowd will be the loudest and shrillest to cry "why wasn't something done" and point fingers.

Let me get this strait...your solution to dealing with percieved threats is to kill a few million innocent people? :confused:

So if your neighbor called you up one night and said "Im hungry and I have a gun" you would run over there and shoot his whole family? :eek:

That would certainly "nip it in the bud", Bud. Now I understand why Sheriff Taylor only gave Barney a single bullet..and made him keep it in his pocket. ;)

I am very glad that (with one notable exception) our nations leaders do not subscribe to the "Barney Phife" school of diplomacy. If we all decided to "nip it in the bud" we would have a very barbaric society indeed. And I think we trivialize the actual consequences of such a policy by even calling it that. Since million of innocent humans die when sucha policy is used by a leader we should probalby call it the Stalin or Pol Pot school of diplomacy. Of course they used it on their own citizens once they had enough practice on "other people".

Keep voting based on your fears.
After all.. how bad can it get? :confused:

[Wreckerman]

The North Korean nuke facility is located in a remote, mountainous area of the country. The loss of life would be probably be less than we lost on 9/11 or if they sell a device to some nutcase and it is detonated in a major metropolitan area.
If they use a thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb for you weapons impaired people) a lot of the radiation will be consumed in the initial blast (you don't want to know how I know this). There would be some residual radiation but life is rough when your leaders are stupid.
Negotiating with the North Koreans? I spent 30 months in South Korea, 12 of them 10 miles from the DMZ. We have been negotiating with them since the end of the Korean war. The north side of the DMZ is the most heavily fortified and mined piece of land in the world. Not only to keep us out but to keep in the happy citizens of the communist paradise N Korea has become.
I will be glad to post some pictures of the infiltration tunnels they constructed under the DMZ back in the 80's. Tunnels capable of moving thousands of troops per hour under the border (oh, I forgot, the official explaination from N Korea was that they were coal mines dug through 6000 feet of solid granite).
They bluster, threaten, lie and continue their WMD reasearch while accepting the food, fuel, and aid we have been sending them for years. If we were truly "barbaric" we would starve and freeze them until they came out fighting or until their citizens overthrew them (watching your children starve is a great motivator).
If someone is coming toward you with a weapon and obviously intent on doing you harm at what point do you stop talking, pull out a 9mm and teminate their advance (pacifists...feel free to continue negotiation while being assaulted, robbed and murdered)?
I have no problem exterminating the enemy. If I could save the life of one of US soldier in Korea I would turn everything north of the DMZ into a glass covered parking lot and build a Wal-Mart on top of it. If you don't think the lives of our soldiers are worth a pre-emptive strike against one of the most fanatical armies in the world you aren't fit to draw a free breath in this country. Everytime I hear some hypocitical sniveler whine "I support our troops but don't support Bush" I want to puke. I may disagree with your opinion but I will fight to the death for your right to express it. Just don't patronize me.
During our training over there it was assumed that we would be hit by conventional and chemical weapons and that most of the 10-15 thousand soldiers in the field would become casualties (dead or wounded) in the first week of the war. The north has a million man army and 30 thousand heavy artillery tubes dug into the mountains above the DMZ. It's hard to open a blast door when the outside temprature is 10,000 degrees. If that's "barbaric" then I am guilty as charged.
Being the policeman of the world has been thrust on us by people that would happily murder you and your family because you are an infidel.
If you feel guilty because the United States pissed off the Europeans that were profiting from "Oil for Food" program you are certainly welcome to move in with them. You will be real happy in a truly socialist state where they take 45% or more of your income to pay for free medical care, public housing, welfare, three weeks or more of govenment mandated vaccation and other assorted programs. I lived in Germany for two years and saw true wealth redistirbution at work.
As for the whole world being mad at us I don't give a rat's ass what any of them think. If it wasn't for the US resolve to use our blood and treasure to save their sorry asses most of them would be speaking German and Japanese now.
Who came to the aid of the Tsunami victims first? France? Nope, Germany? Nope. China? Nope. We were there "firstest with the mostest" while still carring on a war. One of the ingrate third world cesspools had the gall to allow our aid in but wouldn't allow our Marines to stay on their soil overnight. Screw them!
Am I willing to change my lifestyle? Sure, just as soon as Germany, France, Japan and all the other civilized, oil consuming countries show me how. If you are "against the war" and have pumped fuel into your vehicle in the last two years you are a "warmonger" by proxy, again, inaction implies acceptance. If there was no demand for petroleum the Arabs couldn't give it away. Why aren't all the anti-war zealots demanding a two dollar a gallon tax on dino fuel? Where are the protesters out on the Washington Mall demanding mandatory mass transit? Because they either don't want it themselves or know most of the rest of us don't want it.
Do I wish all the money spent on the war was being used for Alternate Energy? Hell yes. But it is not and won't be in the near future.
In the grand scheme of things it would suit me if we pulled all our troops home, cut off all foreign aid to every ingrate country in the world, resigned from the UN (Useless Nations) and tended to our own business. But that ain't happening either.
So what do I do now? I practice organinc gardening, grow non-hybird crops, raise animals, drive a small, fairly fuel efficeint PU truck, add to my alternative energy system (1100 watts and counting), work on a biodiesel project, give to private charity, continue to increase my basic load of ammunition and hope the peak oil production balloon doesn't go up in the next four years.

[Ryan DeWald]

Wreckerman wrote:

"If I could save the life of one of US soldier in Korea I would turn everything north of the DMZ into a glass covered parking lot and build a Wal-Mart on top of it. If you don't think the lives of our soldiers are worth a pre-emptive strike against one of the most fanatical armies in the world you aren't fit to draw a free breath in this country."

Embedded in that statement is a critical flaw of logic. Wreckerman, you dance between speaking of the Nroth Korean army and the North Korean people as if they were interchangeable. The final statement pits the life of one U.S. soldier against all North Korean soldiers. But the earlier statement refers to nuking all of North Korea. Several times you have interchanged the governments and the ctitizens of nations implying that wildly killing all before you is justified because some despot is accumulating nuclear weapons, an act that the United States itself has been guilty of for 50 years.

If you were North Korean, would you feel as justified hoping that NK nukes the U.S. because you heard that some crazy guy in the U.S. is advocating nuking you?

I am baffled by this agro talk and pre-emptive policy. It seems that, between sputtering fury about killing and turning places into glass, etc., the only real argument for America's escalation of tensions around the world, including Iraq is that it will make American's more secure. (of course a moment or two later we will hear some claim about policing the worls, but this claim rings rather hollow after we have just heard how the rest of the world can get bent).

Well the notion that any use of force, provided we win will result in a more secure condition for Americans is just as foolish as a claim that peaceful measures will always make Americans more safe. These absolutes, in either direction, are for arguments of hyperbole and do not belong in a legitimate discussion of international policy.

The use of force in Iraq has lead to more innocent people dying, Americans and otherwise than would have if the U.S. would have maintained non-war methods for disarming Hussein. The use of force in Iraq has resulting in thousands of Iraqis with stories of how a loved one was killed or maimed by U.S. military action. I think I can probably count you, Wreckerman, as well as myself in the category of people who would take up arms against a foriegn occupying force, however benevolent they might truly be, if your son was burned to death from a bombing raid.

This continued combat presence in Iraq adds to the number of arabs who go blind with hatred against the U.S. for the entirely legitmate reason that someone they know has been killed or wounded by an American. This growing faction does not improve security for Americans.

Constant prattling on about Christian beliefs as the guiding principles behind U.S. government policy does not improve security for Americans.

Showing disregard, even disrespect for international public opinion does not improve security for Americans.

I know that force can be justified, I agree with force at times, but the United States has been misusing force for decades and under the current administration it is reaching proportions that border upon the criminal, as outlined in the Geneva Convention Rules of War.

Changing gears.

The money spent on Iraq could have funded enormous public works projects in the U.S. Or, if you prefer, Nearly every person in America could have afforded to convert a vehicle to run on SVO (assuming they all had diesels).
I don't understand how people can jump from happily swallowing $200 billion for this war and then, to borrow an 81SD favorite, 'whine' about funding social programs at home. It's as though gross overspending is okay as long as it's in the furtherance of destroying things. If it's about helping people, then it must be communist, or gay.

[abenjaminc]

I am always amazed at the effort that so-called 'conservatives' (state reactionaries, or fascists actually by way of better definition) put into trying to dismantle the so-called 'welfare state.' Black welfare mothers driving Cadillacs and healthy guys deerhunting are what percentage of the federal budget? Oh, you don't have a figure? You don't know? Then I guess you're just talking trash. Blowing smoke, like the popular shock jock media.
Why should anyone listen to what you say? You're trying to pass off opinion as fact, and you'd flunk the persuasive writing exam I give to high schoolers. You make a claim, YOU provide evidence!
You want money from us to buy a Porsche? Great idea! It's exactly what happens in most of the military budget (weapons systems mostly), no-bid government contracts to firms like Halliburton, and giving away free 'public airtime' to corporations like Fox; land and irrigation subsidies to ranchers, farmers, and everyone who uses cars (cheap oil), the Internet, computers, etc.
Individual welfare programs are perhaps ten percent of the US budget, depending on what figures you tend to use and or ignore.
If you factor out social security (which has its own system of inflows and outflows), the US military budget has been perhaps 60 percent of the US budget over the past 30 years. Advanced weapons systems are great socialist engineering programs.. you can employ lots of engineers, but not too many other personnel. Spending money on the military has one of the lower multiplier effects of any public spending of any kind.
You gentlemen 'conservatives' seem to think the hand in your pocket is mine. I'm sorry, it's not. The hand in your pocket is every corporation who got a big government handout (remember those figures?). That's called 'welfare for the rich.' Welfare mothers aren't putting the bite on your wallet.
The only reason ANY government entity is putting a finger in your purse is because the WEALTHY (people earning over $175k per year, and those whose main income is NOT wages) are paying less, and less... even ZERO (offshore corporations, real estate tax breaks, etc.)
Biodiesel tax breaks? Sure, I think they're fine. The goal is survival... we're going to start running out of dino oil real fast (peakoil.org), maybe the next 18 months we'll start a downward trend. How fast can we build a renewable future with public transit, smaller cities, etc... THE ONLY THING THAT MAY SURVIVE A POST-OIL world? Certainly not by depending on your voluntary charity.
By the way, did you guys know that you pay ZERO Social Security taxes after your first $90,000 of income? Did you know that if you just extended the social security tax to $200k, Social Security would be solvent until past the year 2080? It's ALREADY fine for until 2054, did you know that?
But then, I imagine you know all this, that's why you have provided no evidence at all.
Ben

[abenjaminc]

"Why aren't all the anti-war zealots demanding a two dollar a gallon tax on dino fuel?"
Gee, in the debates, John Kerry (not a friend of mine) asked for a 50 cent a gallon increase to fund alternative fuels. George Bush laughed at him, and so did the AM talk jocks the next day. Most environmental groups that I am aware of (greenpeace, sierra, etc.) have long endorsed this. Europe and most other countries DO tax gasoline very heavily! Why don't we?
Because corporations (along with the US Military) have created the unsustainable car-only transportation that is the US (profit motive, remember?) ... and have given as their sop to people in the US... 'cheap' gas, and its attendant, crazy 'suburb and mall' development. (for evidence, see comments made in 1946 by US Military planners.. G. Kennan called Saudi Arabia "The greatest prize in all the world," and helped draw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc... with help from the British Partition Plan).
Many other countries have long recognized that oil is limited. Last month, there was a big sustainability conference in BANGALORE, INDIA... they want to be 100% off fossil fuels in 25 years. Europe, for all its problems... actually has more than 1,000 service stations where you can buy biodiesel at the service station.... (see www.greaseworks.org) and 52 percent of new cars sold in Europe... are diesel! They're starting to prepare for the day the dino oil is gone. THE US ISN'T!!
And you think that US short-sightedness has ANYTHING to do with welfare mothers and welfare cheats?

[Wreckerman]

The population of North Korea has be indoctrinated with anti-western propaganda for decades. A ground war would require an invasion and every able bodied person in that country (women included) has military training and would be expected to fight to the death, much like the Japanese in WWII.
Everyone over 12 years of age would be a potiential combatant.

I did not advocate bombing cities. I advocated a surgical strike on a remote, well defended, research and development center situated largely below ground. If, in response to the preventitive strike, the North made ANY sort of military movement, their hardend offensive sites along the DMZ would be obliterated. They will have no compunctions about lobing conventional and chemical rounds into Seoul (population 10 million, 30 miles from the DMZ).

If we and our allies cut off humanitarian aid (sanctions) North Korea will consider this just as much of an act of war as a first strike. They have been treated like a spoiled child who, when he can't have his way, will act out.

If you are a weak parent you allow this behavior to continue and make everyone around you miserable. If you are a strong parent you explain that there are consequences to bad actions and draw a line.

If the spoiled brat crosses the line again you pick his little ass up, take off your belt and blister his bottom. That always worked for my Grandma and I turned out to be a fairly good (if not outspoken) citizen. And for the record, I spanked each of my two sons once or twice in their lives, just enough to get their attention and show who the Alpha male in the family was. I don't condone hitting for the sake of hitting.

The despots of the world only understand force. I have no interest in seeing the US rule the world, most of it isn't fit to rule anyway. What I, and every other American have, is a vested intrest in is making sure that those despots
don't have the means to destabilze the world to the point where our lives are threatened. Any serious threat should result in an immediate and overwhelming military response to include a nuclear first strike.

If don't want your leaders to use the military to kill on your behalf, I would suggest that you move to a country that can guarentee your safety without a military.


"The only reason the innocent sleep safely in their beds is because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"

[81SD]

Chris - thanks for spelling that out. I guess where we differ is that I think the duty to care for others is a moral one, not a legal one. I don't recall getting a vote in the situation when society agreed philosophically that the weak and unfortunate need to be cared for WITH MY MONEY, AGAINST MY WILL. I don't even get to specify the amount I am comfortable parting with? If I want to share with others, that's my perogative. To have it forcibly stolen - for any reason - is wrong. The three questions are closely related - you are saying that "society" has the right to disregard property rights for some things, but for others it is ok... Personal responsibility be damned, everyone else will take care of you...

Most of the big discoveries resulted in their inventor getting paid. There was money involved. Money is the way accumulated time and labor is represented. That time and labor are property and the money that represents it is property as well. When money is taken away forcibly, it is the same as taking a part of your life (time).

As to some of these other arguments, I've spent enough time working in grocery stores as a student, watching welfare checks get spent on meat for their pets, having people come through the checkout lanes multiple times with cheap items - so they can accumulate the change and buy beer or cigarettes...

As to individual welfare programs being 10%? I trust we aren't including social security, medicare, medicaid, etc... Hell - toss in our public school system - for what we pay, we get very little in return outside of babysitting service. European schools always demanded much more for their education money and got it. I went to a very good engineering school with some absolutely brilliant people and as a caucasion was definitely in the minority. There were only a handful of people from public US schools.

As long as you vote with a socialistic attitude and help to push social programs, you have a hand in my pocket as well. If you resent the wealthy that much, remember that it is income that is taxed - your major impediment to collecting wealth is keeping it. The wealthy get to keep their money - it's those of us that are working and trying to get ahead that are being punished for our ambition. Don't even get me started on our tax code...

Your fear of this peakoil thing may be realistic from a different angle. China and India are working really hard to become industrial powers. They are bidding up the price of fuel. There is still a lot of untapped oil in the ground - the current reserves may be fading, but there is a lot more oil that can be reached. It just costs more to reach. I seriously doubt that we'll have to worry about "post-oil" in our lifetimes - but an expanded demand and a constant or decreasing supply will bring about a pretty harsh effect - not unlike what you are talking about.

What brands me as a conservative? Those folks are too liberal for me! I'm more into the Libertarian thing - I don't want your money, your time or your instructions on how to live my life. I don't want you to have my money, time or have to deal with my commands. I'd like to be wealthy - and I resent any and all that insist on hampering my efforts.

Yes, I know about the social security breaks at certain income levels. It used to be a lot less - I do remember when $60k was the level.... (That's a lot of money for a teacher... Can we count that high?) Did you know that if we extended a tax on teachers to 100%, and terminated their benefits, the social security system would be in much better shape? (This is just a great illustration) Who the hell gave you the authority to steal from others to redistribute as you see fit? And feel justified... It's not at all far from a mugger beating the snot out of you to take you money - they need it for drugs (to share with their friends - or some other social spending...). I'm going to stop now before I really go off on you...

Forget it Wreckerman, logic is wasted on blithering socialists. They cannot separate their fantasy world from reality. The fantasy is nice and should be what we strive for individually - but the real world isn't as nice and absolutes exist. There are bad people out there (not just the militant socialists) and their desire to rule will always require diligence and strength to stop.

[Ryan DeWald]

Wreckerman said:
"If we and our allies cut off humanitarian aid (sanctions) North Korea will consider this just as much of an act of war as a first strike. They have been treated like a spoiled child who, when he can't have his way, will act out. "

I agree with you there entirely. I don't believe that humanitarian aid should ever be used as a bargaining chip either by the nation being humanitarian in their giving nor (especially) the country in need of that aid. The only two reasons to give aid to North Korea are 1.) the citizins of that nation will suffer terribly and 2.) North Korea will strike militarily at South Korea id the aid stops. The former is a laudable reason and I believe that if the U.S. can, it should offer this salvation. But if the latter is ever suggested by North Korea, and I'm sure it has, then I have no qualms about ceasing that aid until a more thankful attitude is assumed. I think there is a difference between sanctions and aid. If we give North Korea heating fuel for the sake of their people, that is aid. To stop that for any reason is to go from being gracious and helpful to becoming neutral. To blockade would be to create a sanction, another level entirely.

[Wreckerman]

Ah, I see now. Since I advocate personal responsibility and resent financing those who are too stupid, lazy or otherwise disinclined to pay their own way I am a "reactionary" and a "facist".

Because I worked my ass off to get where I am today I am supposed to accept excuses for the bad behavior of others and not complain when my taxes are siphoned off to pay for another generation of the idle poor.

I'd rather see my taxes pay for an M-1 tank than to keep 2000 undeserving ingrates on welfare. Why? Because somebody got paid to design, build, and provide spares for it. It will be used in the defense of the greatest country in the world to make sure that the undeserving can sleep just as well at night as the ones who fill the treasury.

"Corporate welfare", the cry of the downtrodden, the exploited, the ones being held down by "the man". It's always some big entity that's to blame.

Don't blame the asshole who spent most of his time in school making the intelligent students life hell and then can't get a job at Wal-mart. Don't blame the junkie that burned his brain out on dope because "the man" was keeping him down. Don't blame the unwed mother that had a kid every year and lives in subsidized housing drawing every handout in the book. Everbody knows pregnancy can't be prevented.

Corporations provide jobs, high and low paying jobs, how hard you work and how smart you are determines how much money you make.

Very few social programs provide any jobs. Some of them will assist you in improving your condition and obtaining a better job if you are willing to get off you ass and work at it. I'm all for them as long as they work and have oversight.

This country is rapidly filling with "victims" and enablers. Too financially irresponsible to budget your money to buy food? Don't worry, the food bank and soup kitchen will feed you. Spend all your money on drugs or other stupid shit at Christmas? Don't worry. The Savation Army and Toys for Tots will make sure your kids have toys. No medical care at your explotive minimum wage job? Just pop into the emergency room and the rest of us will foot the bill when we pay for our healthcare. The list goes on and on.

So now I am the mean spirited conservitive that doesn't understand the plight of the poor. WRONG. I have been a single father wondering how I would feed my son. I have been on Food Stamps, driven a beater car, and been one paycheck away from homeless.

But you know what I did. Here's a concept! I got off my ass and did something about it. I worked two jobs when one wasn't enough. I cut and sold firewood. I didn't smoke, drink, injest drugs or sit on my ass and blame others for my problems. And I have no patience with anybody not willing to do the same.

Does that mean I am unsympathetic to the truly needy, the mentally ill or diabled, or the elderly? No. Please take my tax money and see to their needs. But don't tell me I have to like paying for the leeches that are not in need.
I don't have to like it and if the socialist wannabes try to make me like it then we are going to have a real problem. Me and millions of other "reactionary facists".

[cgoodwin]

Ah, I see now. Since I advocate personal responsibility and resent financing those who are too stupid, lazy or otherwise disinclined to pay their own way I am a "reactionary" and a "facist".

No advocating forced sterlization of those you deem unfit has.

Because I worked my ass off to get where I am today I am supposed to accept excuses for the bad behavior of others and not complain when my taxes are siphoned off to pay for another generation of the idle poor.

Please complain, and do it loudly! Makes me sick as well, but extreme reactions such as forces sterlization or forced organ donation are extreme and will get a reaction.

I'd rather see my taxes pay for an M-1 tank than to keep 2000 undeserving ingrates on welfare. Why? Because somebody got paid to design, build, and provide spares for it. It will be used in the defense of the greatest country in the world to make sure that the undeserving can sleep just as well at night as the ones who fill the treasury.

Yep, great country and part of that is because we do not force sterlization or organ removal from the indigent.

"Corporate welfare", the cry of the downtrodden, the exploited, the ones being held down by "the man". It's always some big entity that's to blame.

The homeless, mentally ill and indigent seem to be your BIG ENTITY don't they?

Don't blame the asshole who spent most of his time in school making the intelligent students life hell and then can't get a job at Wal-mart. Don't blame the junkie that burned his brain out on dope because "the man" was keeping him down. Don't blame the unwed mother that had a kid every year and lives in subsidized housing drawing every handout in the book. Everbody knows pregnancy can't be prevented.

I have no time for junkies and they are already doing to themselves what is most likely a just desert. As for those who insist on living on the dole, make them work...With all their organs intact.


Very few social programs provide any jobs. Some of them will assist you in improving your condition and obtaining a better job if you are willing to get off you ass and work at it. I'm all for them as long as they work and have oversight.

Agreed! I asked a spare changing man outside a local store to help me unload two truckloads of tools into my new shop a few years back, for $12 an hour, he laughed and told me he did better than that standing where he was. I bought a sandwich and spent an hour standing in front of the store telling everyone he approached that I had offered him a job!

This country is rapidly filling with "victi