So it's your assertion then that people who agree with a certain
position, are somehow "hateful"?

Dave

You already know the answer, Dave.

It depends on the position.

Agreeing with: "I think the war in Iraq makes good strategic sense for the
United States because it will allow us to establish a base in the mid east and
improve the reliability of our oil supply" is conservative, but not hateful.

Agreeing with: "The liberals in this country wake up every morning hoping that
thousands of innocent Americans will be killed in a terrorist strike just to
make the Bush administration look bad" is hateful and divisive.

Surely you can see the difference. Can't you?

It is not hateful to draw conclusions. That you guys on the left try
to taint such conclusions by demonizing them as hate (and therefore
invalid) is the point.

Only extreme idiots ordinarily substitute stereotyping for individual
observation.
As you're not an extreme idiot, I'm genuinely surprised you would lump *all* of
any group into a single category.


Sean Hannity put it best one day when he made the statement: "I don't
hate liberals. I have plenty of liberal friends. I play golf with
them, I go to dinner with them. I just don't want them in power."


Oh, puhleeeeeeeeeeeze. We could spend the next year listing hateful things SH
has said about liberals.

I don't deal in absolutes.

You were defending those who do, "as long as they have evidence to back them
up"

I listen to Hannity fairly regularly, as he's on during my afternoon
drive time. He strongly refutes liberal policies, but he have never
made a statement of a personal nature that could be construed as
"hate".

Horse puckey. I have listened to him. I'll keep track of some of his next few
*zingers* and ask for your opinion soon.

I wrote:

It's the same group of techniques that over the years have rallied the
gullible
against "******s" "kikes" "spics" and what not.

Dave wrote:

There you go again, attempting to demonize the messengers and the
message by comparing similar techniques that were used to promote
ideals in the past which are now generally regarded as "bad".

Good grief. What prompted that moment of frank honesty? At least you do admit
the techniques are indeed (at least) "similar".

Where there is smoke there is fire. Even if the Non_scholarly" do not
completely understand the nuances of many liberal ideas, they do
understand the final outcome. Anything which takes away from their
choices, and their financial sovereignty is a bad thing.

Lot of choice these days in the average police state?

Lot of financial sovereignty when the government has a $25,000 mortgage on the
future earnings of every American, (*plus* future taxation for upcoming
expenses)?

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:10:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:14:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't think that mainstream America is ready for a liberal. Liberals
downplay those values and morals that most of the heartland live by.


Nah....that's not true. Liberals don't try to legislate morals, or preach
about them. We get in your face about some stuff, but not about other
stuff.
The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is which areas they
acknowledge as "None of anybody's business".

It's 100% based on the opinions of human beings, not natural law or
deities.
Therefore, it's fair play to meddle until the next person is elected. If
I
were elected, there'd be a law saying that if your car leaks oil all over
parking lots and you don't fix it within 30 days of getting a ticket,
someone comes to your house and breaks your kneecaps, and all five
fingers
on one hand. But that's just me.


My law would be that you'd be legally allowed to shoot the fool that
came to your house to break your kneecaps.

Dave

I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching fire,
or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick. Is
that what you want for your kids?

Nope, but I'm not cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to the
environment. I'm not an alarmist who wants to redefine every power
enthusiast's lifestyle by claiming that these things are more
responsible for pollution than agricultural or industrial sources.

I'm not in favor of rules which unnecessarily burden those who can
least afford it. And I don't think the government (And by extension
the taxpayers) should be forced to "fix" that problem by subsidizing
the poor.

Dave

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:09:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:33:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



That law's been on the books in Germany for a long time!

John H

I like it! Seriously....it washes into the storm drains and ends up in MY
fishing water. My mechanic says 99% of the leakers he sees need a $1.50
washer around the oil pan drain plug.

But you fail to consider the poor people, who routinely drive 20 year
old cars, who can't afford to replace the front main seal in the
engine, or the valve cover gaskets.

See, this is what I mean about the duplicity of the left. You guys
become single focussed when you adopt a cause. But you fail to
consider the interactivity that results when your "vision" is applied
in practice.

What is more important to you? Helping the poor stay afloat, or being
cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to little environmental
issues?

Dave, what is it with you today? Are you on cold medication or something? I
said my mechanic finds that 99% of leakers need a washer that costs as much
as one and a half lottery tickets.

I don't believe that. Every car that I've ever owned or worked on
(which has been many) which leaked, did so through aging seals or
gaskets. I have NEVER had a leaky oil drain plug, and I'd be quite
surprised that they are that big of an issue. Even if there were no
washer on the plug, the amount of oil seepage around the (tight)
threads of the plug would amount to what, a drop or two a week?


Even low-income people often change their
oil.

Many have no other economical choice.


The fault lies with the mechanics who don't give a damn about the
quality of their work. Joe the mechanic puts a new washer on every car, at
every oil change.

I put 23,000 miles a year on my Geo. I change my oil every 3500 miles.
I've had the car for 4 years now. You figure out how many times I've
changed it. I've NEVER changed the washer on the plug, and it doesn't
leak a drop.



I fully understand that some cars have much more serious problems, and that
people sometimes can't afford the repairs. I was in that situation at one
point in my life.

Then you should be empathetic with those who still are.

But if you read what I wrote, it's clear that a nasty
automotive problem could be virtually eliminated for next to nothing.

And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue.


Want
another example? Like many astute guys, I can tell when someone's tires are
low on air. So, at my office or apartment, if I have a pen & paper handy,
I'll stick a note on someone's windshield saying something like "Hey! Your
tires are REALLY low on air. Get to the pump before you get hurt". Why? It
snows here. For tires that need 32 psi, being 5 pounds low can make them
behave as if they were bald.

Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as
it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to
around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide
to go.

But you bring up a good related point and that is that you can lose up
to 2 MPG from severely under inflated tires. You guys who like to
compute and extrapolate statistics can really appreciate the
significance of keeping tires inflated.




I don't want to see people get hurt. Sometimes,
someone sticks the note on the front door of the apt entrance, or the tenant
directory of the office building saying "Thanks to whomever - they were down
to 18 pounds!"

What does this achieve? /For either free, or 50 cents (the cost of some air
pumps), maybe someone didn't get into an accident.

I appreciate your sense of compassion, but any responsible driver
should check their tires, at least visually, every time they go out.
You should have to be their "Guardian Angel".


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching
fire,
or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick. Is
that what you want for your kids?

Nope, but I'm not cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to the
environment. I'm not an alarmist who wants to redefine every power
enthusiast's lifestyle by claiming that these things are more
responsible for pollution than agricultural or industrial sources.

I'm not in favor of rules which unnecessarily burden those who can
least afford it. And I don't think the government (And by extension
the taxpayers) should be forced to "fix" that problem by subsidizing
the poor.

Dave



You're spewing again, Dave. Because you said that you read so many different
information sources, surely you know that vast amounts of contamination can
be eliminated by people like us, for a buck or two a year. Or, by simply
doing something differently, something that costs absolutely zip.

You're smart. You read all sorts of stuff. You know these things.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

1) You have a short memory. We've discussed this. You are not permitted
to
use the word "socialism" unless you understand it. You do not understand
it.
If you disagree with me, please explain socialism and how it applies to
this
discussion.

I could give you the dictionary definition or the practical one. Which
one do you want? In either case, a system which artificially relocates
wealth from those who work for it to those who don't, is blatantly
unfair to those who work hard. It also promotes a sense of mediocrity,
as it remove incentives to better oneself. If one can make a living
wage as a street sweeper, why take on the additional responsibility
and stress of being a rocket scientist or CEO, if the rewards are not
that much greater?

You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the street sweeper should be
paid like a neurosurgeon. If you THINK you're aware of someone saying such
things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot.

Then you have no problem with the wages paid to Wal-Mart employees?


2) There's nothing wrong with classes within society, as long as people
are
free to choose their place.

That is precisely what we have. The problem is that many people's
class is the product of either poor choices or lack of ambition. Many
on the left feel that these people are victims, rather than
participants in their own situation, and that the rest of us should be
bound to "do something" about it.

Right. That's like "some". But not all. The welfare system is gradually
being overhauled to give certain people a kick in the pants. You know that.
You read the grownup news, right? You've heard reports about some of the
successes and failures of the new program.

Thanks largely to the efforts of conservatives who are sick and tired
of carrying dead weight. If it were up to liberals, we'd still be
mollycoddling those slackers. What infuriates me the most is having to
listen to the poor urban black single mom complaining about being cut
off, and her advocates attempting to turn the situation into a racial
issue.



If I'm happy laying bricks, and my lack of
stress leads my doctor to say I'm the healthiest man he's ever seen,
that's
my choice. If, on the other hand, I can accept chaos and stress and
choose
to be an emergency room doctor, that also my choice.

Then don't complain if you can't afford to live the same standard of
life that your CEO neighbor lives.

You are not aware of any bricklayers who think they should live in $3
million homes like a neurosurgeons.

I know a TON of people who think they should get the same thing as a
"rich" guy. To them, no one deserves to be rich, if the rest of us
can't be either.


If you THINK you're aware of someone
saying such things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot
or a whiner.

Most of them are. And most of them also buy into the left's idea of
socialism and the redistribution of wealth. They also, by no
coincidence, have little comprehension of the concept of personal
responsibility, and have been brought up in the "entitlement"
generation.




You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the salary of the ER doctor
should be lowered to the level of what the bricklayer is paid.

Not, actually just the opposite. Many of you on the left feel that the
bricklayer should be paid close to what the ER doctor is paid. Support
of unions is a prime example of promoting a disproportionate wage for
the intrinsic value of an un- or under skilled labor job.

Maybe we'd better establish some definitions. By "ER doctor", I'm not
talking about someone who's only been out of med school for a couple of
years. Their life is hell for awhile. I'm talking about a seasoned doctor
whose salary is at least in the $100-$300K range. Having established this
idea, I can say with 100% accuracy that you're not aware of anyone claiming
a union carpenter's salary should suddenly be boosted to anywhere near that
range. If a tradesman wants that kind of money, he usually goes independent
and becomes a builder, rather than hiring out for other peoples' projects.


As long as there is a wide disparity in wages, there will be those who
cry about the inequality and the unfairness of it all. But as long as
some skills are more valuable than others there will always be a
disparity in wages, in a free market economy. But that doesn't stop
the socialists from trying to artificially "correct" this through
lopsided tax rates or other methods of taking from those who earn to
give to those who don't.

Dave.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

What is more important to you? Helping the poor stay afloat, or being
cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to little environmental
issues?

Dave, what is it with you today? Are you on cold medication or something?
I
said my mechanic finds that 99% of leakers need a washer that costs as
much
as one and a half lottery tickets.

I don't believe that. Every car that I've ever owned or worked on
(which has been many) which leaked, did so through aging seals or
gaskets. I have NEVER had a leaky oil drain plug, and I'd be quite
surprised that they are that big of an issue. Even if there were no
washer on the plug, the amount of oil seepage around the (tight)
threads of the plug would amount to what, a drop or two a week?

Mrs Hall must be feeling frisky this week, because you are obviously not
getting enough sleep. I said "99% of leakers are leaking from the oil plug".
I did NOT say "99% of all cars".

If Joe the mechanic said "99% of the cars we see need an air filter, wipers,
oxygen sensor, radiator flush and new spare tire, at every visit", his
suggestions would be suspect. But he's talking about a $1.50 part. This is
the same mechanic who has told me at least 20 times in 15 years "I don't
care WHAT you think, you do NOT need a new insert part name here. If you
insist, we'll install it, but you don't need it. You're not even sure how
much longer you're keeping the car".


Even low-income people often change their
oil.

Many have no other economical choice.

Cripes...I have to explain everything. The statement was meant to include
people who pay to have it changed AND people who do it themselves.


But if you read what I wrote, it's clear that a nasty
automotive problem could be virtually eliminated for next to nothing.

And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue.

That's not surprising. You have no interest in your environment. You're
probably the type of monkey who, if camping, burns all the plastic garbage
in the campfire, right?


Want
another example? Like many astute guys, I can tell when someone's tires
are
low on air. So, at my office or apartment, if I have a pen & paper handy,
I'll stick a note on someone's windshield saying something like "Hey!
Your
tires are REALLY low on air. Get to the pump before you get hurt". Why?
It
snows here. For tires that need 32 psi, being 5 pounds low can make them
behave as if they were bald.

Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as
it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to
around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide
to go.

This is fine for people who are systematic about checking it. You're talking
about a conscious decision. But, next time you're walking through a parking
lot, take a look at some tires. The NY Dept of Transportation sometimes runs
radio ads saying they have stats which indicate something like 50% of
drivers never check their tires. Couple this with the fact that full-service
gas stations are practically non-existent. You understand the significance
of that last statement, right?

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:33:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:02:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Do you want to pay more in taxes or less? For most people the answer
is easy.

As long as you don't ask them if they understand the long term
consequences
of such a tax decision, you're all set. At least in terms of getting
yourself elected, and the aforementioned consequences don't come down the
chute until your term of office ends and you're back on your ranch.


And just what are those consequences?

An economist can explain that to you.


I'm asking you. I already know.




My only concern is our ability to sell
more bonds when interest rates are a complete snooze, as they are now.

I'm solidly into stocks now. I've almost made up for the slump of the
last 2 years.



We can support our lowered tax
structure as long as we roll back much of the left's entitlement
programs

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

Yea, same old. But still just as true.





, and policies such as awarding huge grants of money to study
such trivial items as the sex life of a tse-tse fly.

For people who place zero value on knowledge, this is a great idea. Heard a
great news story today, on NPR, the shameless left wing news source. Some
left wing scientist has discovered something about the inner workings of
mitochondria and how it's connected with genetic aspects of diseases like
diabetes. What a friggin' waste of grant money.

Once again, you take a comment and push it to the extreme. I never
said that we should abandon legitimate medical research. But if you
look at the list of grants and what they were given for, you may be
surprised at the trivial subjects that many of them were paid to
study. There is a web site somewhere where this information can be
found. It's been a while since I've been there so I forgot the URL.
But I'm sure a Google search will turn up something if you are
interested enough to look.




Who needs knowledge when you
have Cheetos, the Simpsons, and that third thing - the opiate of the masses?
You understand that last reference, I'm sure, because you have knowledge.

Opiates imply illicit drugs. But you could be using the term
metaphorically, to refer to such carnal activities such as sex.

We can also
insist that all of those countries that we provided unselfish aid at
times of crisis (That they have promptly forgot) repay much of the
debt that we routinely forgive.

The more money you give back to the people, the better their standard
of living becomes.

Yeah. We'll give you back your share of all research grant money. When
someone in your family gets diabetes, you can conduct your own research.

I won't complain that some research student won't be able to complete
their study of the life cycle of dust mites. The money will be put to
better use buying a new prop for my boat, and a bunch of other things.

Dave

On 09 Jan 2004 16:16:30 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:


Right wing radio *is* an institution, and it rather unfortunately sets the tone
for its listening audience. The largest such audience in the US.

A highly profitable and successful business. Did you ever wonder why
liberal talk radio went over like a fart in a space suit (and they
have tried on many occasions)? You may want to claim that delivery is
the reason, but most people will not stick by and listen to what they
don't like. I offer then that the greatest majority of citizens in
this country can relate better to conservatives than liberals. I know
this is an especially tough pill to swallow for those liberal urban
types who judge the rest of the country's demographics by their own
small microcosm of idealogues.


Did you know the largest owner of radio stations in the country is the
corporation that broadcasts the Rush Limbaugh show?

More reason to grab those nitro pills.....


It would be ridiculous to say that a right wing poster flames and insults when
he has nothing intelligent to offer, but that a left wing poster can do the
same thing and it's a sign of inspired genius.

You say that, but you and many of your biased compadres have done
exactly that in the past. Maybe not to the extreme in your example,
but the lefties have been guilty of posting outlandish comments and
unsubstantiated news stories, and attempted to pass them off as truth.




But hey. It's an election year. The dirtiest ******* will win, and both sides
are out to
make sure they're dirtier than the other. Same old thing.

Your signature rationale. You make a basically accurate, if a bit
cynical, statement when you say that "hey they're all bad", but then
later on in another thread, you slowly attempt to justify the reasons
why the bad guy on the left is somehow a better choice than the bad
guy on the right.

Dave