Posted on 12/05/2008 3:46:03 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
In the social circles of the New York Times editorialists, it's OK to have one kid. Two is pushing the envelope. Three or more is tacky, and a threat to the survival of the planet.
That being so, there's really no reason to let any car bigger than a Prius be built. Doing so just encourages the unenlightened to overbreed. And so it is that in its editorial of today, the Grey-but-barren Lady suggests that as a condition of the Detroit bailout, "Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Except for the military jeep for hunting only, I wouldn’t have one for free, they are in my estimation Tonka Toys.
They shouldn’t even allow that miniture crap on the street.
So, you would like us all to drive MACK trucks?
You are on the wrong forum, troll. If you want to support your Allah-worshipping jihadifriends by sending them petro-dollars, go ahead, but don’t call yourself American.
So, when was the last time got the call from Abdul to send more $$ to Makkah and Madinah, eh? Recite the AlllahuAkbar daily along with your chants of Def to America, send more petrodollars to saudia?
And, I suppose you also liked John Walker lindh and support him, eh?
You are a bizarre little creature.
Have you served your country in a war zone? Do not question my patriotism until you do so.
I’m a strict constructionist. I extend the lessons of our American founding fathers to this situation “ Free and honest trade with all nations and entangling alliances with none”.
I’m a free trader. On the other hand, any nation that supports terrorists should be punished militarily through the application of overwhelming force. We would not have a problem with these little pissant countries if this policy was used.
Instead we fiddle-fart around with these petty little tyrannies, all the while buying their stuff.
Your answer to this is to restrict the freedoms of Americans! Typical Euro-marxist response. Expedient policies got us here and will not get us out of the problem.
“Public Morality” sounds like a term used on the Continent in the 30’s.
“That’s NOT freedom, that is naked consumerism with disregard to others and to the country and to the future” sounds like more of the same. Long live National Socialism. Sieg Heil!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The amount of oil imported into the US (a majority of which does NOT come from the Middle East) is a direct result of our left-wing government's restrictions on domestic drilling and production. So why do some advocate, as it seems that you do, that the same government that caused this situation should further crush individual freedom to force another "solution"?
The solution would come quickly from the free market, if it were allowed to be free. The government stands in the way.
I recall when the government decided to "deregulate" the electric utility industry. They called it deregulation, but it was no such thing. They claimed that there'd be more competitors producing power and that the price would drop. But while they said all that, they continued to restrict or prevent the construction of the very power plants that would provide the competition needed to push prices down. The result - "deregulation" has brought about more restrictions on the electric utility industry, as well as a plethora of paperwork and unnecessary chicanery needed to satisfy the new regulations. "Deregulation" in this case meant thousands of pages of additional regulations and controls on an industry that needed no such thing.
Such is the way of government solutions - they usually cost a great deal and seldom provide the advertized results.
That question was not worth asking twice.
Your roots are showing in your use of Paki-land.
It’s worth asking if you don’t answer it.
You do not understand where freedom comes from, nor how it is maintained. My answer would be pearls before swine and our exchange thus far has been a monumental waste of my time. I’ll not add to that waste. Bye bye Subject.
“Answer me honestly, does Person A driving an SUV in the city only for city driving have as compelling a need as person B who’s a farmer?”
Honestly? Up till now I thought you wanted me to lie to you.
...here is the answer. You are a socialist but maybe you just don’t know it yet. Don’t worry, you are slowly realizing it.
I don’t care about compelling needs, petrodollars and mcmansions like you do. I care about freedom, something you apparently have lost.
As long as we are ranking needs to determine who can use what, I can tell that you don’t need any cars at all, ever. Give yours away or prove to me you NEED one. Please fill out the form below in triplicate, I’ll review it and take it under advisement and let you in no less than 6 months whether you merit any form of motorized transportation. I am sure you won’t mind. It’ll save on Petro-dollars.
Did you vote for Obama?
“Freedom does not mean blowign up the country’s money.”
Cronos, do you have any idea how communistic that is?
As much as I love my country, its heritage, the founding fathers, those that have fought and died defending my freedoms, it is not America’s money.
I have said not one thing about oil. If the US embargoed all arabian oil, I would have no problem. I will pay more for American oil right now, today at the pump if possible.
As far as your freedom, you will be the one that will take it away from not only yourself but others.
Exactly — all of your statements have been invective, with no valid arguments or point, just vehemence. Buh-bye.
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.