Posted on 12/17/2005 8:22:07 AM PST by new yorker 77
In America there are winners and losers.. That is the way it is has been and it always will be...
Earlier climate variations were a result of natural forces...still only partly understood.
But I look at the environment around modern cities like Los Angeles, Tokyo, Mexico City, and at observable atmospheric pollution in remote places like Grand Canyon, and at the condition of the oceans, and I KNOW that human economic activity can have a local or regional effect. It's therefore easy for me to believe the effect could become global as that activity increases.
That the scientific community increasingly confirms this speculation gives my beliefs solidity.
Yes, but their numbers and distribution are strongly influenced by government policies and actions...and by culture and demographics and other things.
Well I think the less government the better. I don't want our economy to be like Europe...
The daughter of a French neighbor has told her that it no longer pays for her to work, that she makes more just loafing...so I, too, don't want our economy to be like Europe. But I don't want to see a return to the conditions of the late 1800's with child labor, union wars, etc.
Exactly my point. Your support in one policy area, in your mind, shields you from any criticism when you bash in another policy area, which in case you noticed, is even more successful. You can't have it both ways.
There are several kinds of debt - personal, business, government - but a booming economy works toward mitigating them all. The immigration is also of two kinds, as you note, but both are usually put immediately to work, again increasing economic activity and adding rather than subtracting from the economy.
The other two - religious turmoil and confrontation and "signs of environmental stress" - are sometimes real and sometimes just liberal ballyhoo. Either way, their impetus is from the liberals and the liberals are working more to destroy our country than improve it.
Domestic religious turmoil is the result of liberals trying to eliminate Christianity, first, and all religion later. International religious turmoil is laid at the feet of the Democrats friends, the Islamists.
I'll have to confess I have not seen the environmental stress you mentioned and especially none that affect the economy. If you are talking about "Global Warming" I relegate that to the Grimm's Fairy Tales corner.
Oh but I can...because I'm an independent thinker, not a party loyalist.
I believe that our nation and culture should and must be preserved, that we are better than our enemies. So I support the Administration on foreign policy.
But that same Administration is wrong on the environment and wrong on labor and I would vote them out if foreign policy wasn't paramount and if the domestic opposition had policies I could believe in.
International religious turmoil is laid at the feet of the Democrats friends, the Islamists.
You can lay blame but you can't deny the increase in turmoil.
I'll have to confess I have not seen the environmental stress you mentioned and especially none that affect the economy
Smog. Toxic waste. Depletion of fish stocks. Water pollution due to agricultural runoff. Depletion of forests, oil sources, and other natural resources. Those come to mind immediately.
If you truly believe that, you are living in a toxic liberal smog of your own. If you care to see all these thoroughly debunked, to to know the truth and be on the correct side of issues rather than the ideological side, read John Stossel's Give Me a Break. Stossel used to be the liberals' darling, and was a liberal himself, while doing 20/20 on various MSM networks.
When his research began to show that many of our problems were government caused, especially by liberal policies, he reported that, too. All of a sudden he became a pariah to the media. They didn't want facts, they wanted propaganda. Which do you want?
Less dependence on government to solve your economic problems is the way to go. I've been a union member for most of my working life (currently over fifty), and I'll guarantee you that most of the union members I know, even the staunch Dems, are huge participants in the various thrift savings plans or IRAs which involve deep investment in the stock market. Getting into the stock market makes everyone richer...including my wife who made a bundle while working at Walmart. She invested in their stock option plan, and made quite a bit. The Dow is good for everybody sir.
Outsourcing amounts to about one percent of total job losses nationwide. Many more are created. It's called "creative destruction". Or capitalism.
Earlier climate variations were a result of natural forces...still only partly understood.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a Masters of Science degree. I pretty much learned that I would only intervene in a system when I understood it well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
But I look at the environment around modern cities like Los Angeles, Tokyo, Mexico City, and at observable atmospheric pollution in remote places like Grand Canyon, and at the condition of the oceans, and I KNOW that human economic ..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
But in the 1800's coal heating and horse manure made large cities nearly unlivable.
""You KNOW"". I respect your religous faith.
Back to the subject. Have you invested in the stock market to reflect your knowledge? There have to be lots of alternative energy companies that will rush in and rescue us.
By the way, that book 'Do as I say' was great. Who knew that Roger Moore and Ralph Nader are huge stock market investors.
Of course, government encouraged economic growth in certain ways which had certain consequences but claiming that without government that growth would have been less environmentally destructive is a sure loser.
Getting into the stock market, or into any kind of investment, is a good thing. It makes people participants, and appreciative of the risks facing business. But it is no guarantee of wealth and doesn't address the problems of wage earners.
Ah, if only life allowed us to act only when we were certain...
But in the 1800's coal heating and horse manure made large cities nearly unlivable.
This is presented in support of, or in opposition to, my view that human activity can influence the climate and environment?
I built an underground house which takes advantage of passive solar heating. It works. I try to keep abreast of advances in technology. I try to make people conscious of the problems. I don't argue that I have the solutions.
I assume this means you have no intention of reading Stossel's book.
Thats correct. "Influenced"...
But the fact remains:
The winners will always come out on top, and the losers will end up with the dregs.
I suppose you want to make it more difficult for the winners to succeed and less lucrative.
Further your logic then demands that it is easier for losers to win(?), and more lucrative.
That is the conclusion of your socialist desires, and defies all logic.
There is one thing the liberals never quite explain in their wealth distribution world: Who gets to decide (power) which purse strings are pulled?
Power is like money, its a zero sum game. If you strip one class of power, by necessity another class gains power. Power is neither created nor destroyed, it is only transfered.
Capitalists want power to be in the hands of the people, and Socialists want power to be in the hands of government.
Now explain to my Larry why in your right mind would you give up control of your life to the government? and If your so hell bent on redistributing wealth, how much of your annual income do you give to your poor neighbors?
definition: Communist
1)A liberal social progressive democrat in a hurry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.