Left-wing envirokooks better not oppose this

On 07/12/2010 00:14, wrote:
On Dec 6, 10:55 am, Martin
wrote:
On 04/12/2010 13:32, wrote:





On Dec 3, 5:34 am, Martin
wrote:
On 03/12/2010 00:45, wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:57 am, Martin
wrote:
On 02/12/2010 04:19, wrote:

On Dec 1, 9:10 pm, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:13 am, wrote:

I am a conservative, not a Republican. You seem to get the two ideas
confused.

It is difficult from your posts to determine how much further to the
extreme right you are than the Neocons though. The lunatic fringes of
conservatism are very ill defined.

The terms "left" and "right" refer ONLY to socialists, a group which
includes both communists and fascists. Communists are on the left and
fascists are on the right. Conservatives do not fall on that
political spectrum at all; we are neither left nor right, nor anywhere
in the middle of that morass.

You will have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
You have defined yourself as not any of the above without saying
anything about what you believe in. I am still no wiser about what you
mean by saying you are a "conservative". You have not defined the word.

Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,

You already have two mutually incompatible requirements in that line.

Nothing mutually incompatible at all.

OK. But you cannot have a big strong army and small taxes. Unless you
have an army of slaves that you don't pay properly - and that has its
own risks. The hardware costs are insanely high for modern warfare.

Strong national defense costs very serious money. And a powerful army
with an inadequate civilian government is a dictatorship.

A weak army almost guarantees that a (foreign) dictator will
eventually run your country, unless you have a powerful, stable ally
to save your hide and keep the peace.

So how low do you think taxes should be?

Much lower than they are now.

Lets have a number % and then we can examine what things will have to be
cut...

Chances are you don't believe in having roads and bridged maintained - a
frightening number of US bridges are rusting away now. One on I-35 fell
into a river spontaneously at Minneapolis and highlights the failings of
the US system. It had a pathetic maintenance regime.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20102713/ns/us_news-life/

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Dec 7, 4:18*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 07/12/2010 00:14, wrote:





On Dec 6, 10:55 am, Martin
wrote:
On 04/12/2010 13:32, wrote:

On Dec 3, 5:34 am, Martin
wrote:
On 03/12/2010 00:45, wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:57 am, Martin
wrote:
On 02/12/2010 04:19, wrote:

On Dec 1, 9:10 pm, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
* * * *wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:13 am, wrote:

I am a conservative, not a Republican. *You seem to get the two ideas
confused.

It is difficult from your posts to determine how much further to the
extreme right you are than the Neocons though. The lunatic fringes of
conservatism are very ill defined.

The terms "left" and "right" refer ONLY to socialists, a group which
includes both communists and fascists. Communists are on the left and
fascists are on the right. *Conservatives do not fall on that
political spectrum at all; we are neither left nor right, nor anywhere
in the middle of that morass.

You will have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
You have defined yourself as not any of the above without saying
anything about what you believe in. I am still no wiser about what you
mean by saying you are a "conservative". You have not defined the word.

Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,

You already have two mutually incompatible requirements in that line.

Nothing mutually incompatible at all.

OK. But you cannot have a big strong army and small taxes.

The US can have a strong military and smallER taxes.

Unless you
have an army of slaves that you don't pay properly - and that has its
own risks. The hardware costs are insanely high for modern warfare.

Modern weapons are more effective.

Strong national defense costs very serious money. And a powerful army
with an inadequate civilian government is a dictatorship.

A weak army almost guarantees that a (foreign) dictator will
eventually run your country, unless you have a powerful, stable ally
to save your hide and keep the peace.

So how low do you think taxes should be?

Much lower than they are now.

Lets have a number % and then we can examine what things will have to be
cut...

Almost any reduction will do for a start and we should not have to
endure a tax increase (Bush tax cuts will expire soon and the
socialists are playing politics once again.)

As for what to cut, start with discretionary spending then start
phasing out some of the "mandatory" spending.

Chances are you don't believe in having roads and bridged maintained -

Fact is you are wrong.

a
frightening number of US bridges are rusting away now. One on I-35 fell
into a river spontaneously at Minneapolis and highlights the failings of
the US system. It had a pathetic maintenance regime.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20102713/ns/us_news-life/

Bridges never collapse in th UK...do they?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...-collapse.html

On 07/12/2010 11:35, wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:18 am, Martin
wrote:
On 07/12/2010 00:14, wrote:





On Dec 6, 10:55 am, Martin
wrote:
On 04/12/2010 13:32, wrote:

On Dec 3, 5:34 am, Martin
wrote:
On 03/12/2010 00:45, wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:57 am, Martin
wrote:

It is difficult from your posts to determine how much further to the
extreme right you are than the Neocons though. The lunatic fringes of
conservatism are very ill defined.

The terms "left" and "right" refer ONLY to socialists, a group which
includes both communists and fascists. Communists are on the left and
fascists are on the right. Conservatives do not fall on that
political spectrum at all; we are neither left nor right, nor anywhere
in the middle of that morass.

You will have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
You have defined yourself as not any of the above without saying
anything about what you believe in. I am still no wiser about what you
mean by saying you are a "conservative". You have not defined the word.

Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,

You already have two mutually incompatible requirements in that line.

Nothing mutually incompatible at all.

OK. But you cannot have a big strong army and small taxes.

The US can have a strong military and smallER taxes.

Unless you
have an army of slaves that you don't pay properly - and that has its
own risks. The hardware costs are insanely high for modern warfare.

Modern weapons are more effective.

Strong national defense costs very serious money. And a powerful army
with an inadequate civilian government is a dictatorship.

A weak army almost guarantees that a (foreign) dictator will
eventually run your country, unless you have a powerful, stable ally
to save your hide and keep the peace.

So how low do you think taxes should be?

Much lower than they are now.

Lets have a number % and then we can examine what things will have to be
cut...

Almost any reduction will do for a start and we should not have to
endure a tax increase (Bush tax cuts will expire soon and the
socialists are playing politics once again.)

Lets have a number - the lowest that you think will support a realistic
military defence force (bearing in mind how much it costs for every day
of the Iraq crusade and maintaining the Afghanistan puppet government).

As for what to cut, start with discretionary spending then start
phasing out some of the "mandatory" spending.

Chances are you don't believe in having roads and bridged maintained -

Fact is you are wrong.

I am surprised. You sound exactly like the sort that would drive around
in a tracked vehicle destroying the roads for everyone else.

a
frightening number of US bridges are rusting away now. One on I-35 fell
into a river spontaneously at Minneapolis and highlights the failings of
the US system. It had a pathetic maintenance regime.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20102713/ns/us_news-life/

Bridges never collapse in th UK...do they?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...-collapse.html

Only when provoked by a once in a century storm that had river water
levels 20' higher than normal. Whole tree trunks were washed down and
smashed into the bridges that failed. The bridge failed because of
immense forces against it not through appalling maintenance practices.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...n-Cumbria.html

You are very selective with your cherry picked dittohead factoids.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Dec 7, 1:02*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

You are very selective with your cherry picked dittohead factoids.

Martin

Has it occurred to you that anyone who espouses such weird and lop-
sided ideas is probably trolling? He raises selfishness to the level
of religious fundamentalism. It might work in the medieval, Arabian
Peninsular but certainly not in the civilised world. This Marcos
apologist wants shoe sales taxes cut in the name of his soup kitchen
freedoms. Were his (claimed) ideology the norm, throughout human
history, we'd still be hanging from the trees. Cooperative society,
each contributing according to their ability, would never have
occurred! He would certainly not be enjoying his privileged position
right at the top of the heap. There would be no heap. Just bared teeth
and time stretching pointlessly into the infinite distance.

On Dec 7, 4:41*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:

Has it occurred to you that anyone who espouses such weird and lop-
sided ideas is probably trolling? He raises selfishness to the level

I've been to the place where he lives. Checking his IP addresses,
googling a bit here and there and using a few other resources should
even lead you to a picture of his house (thanks Google Street view for
that). Of course, there's a bit of uncertainty as Google maps isn't
perfect. Once you have that information, it's hard to be surprised by
his attitude. Come to think of it, the only thing about him that
surprises me is that he can actually spell and construct meaningful
sentences in his own language.

On Dec 7, 10:25*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 17:06:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:
No, what you say is not true. For example, many of the "non-
conservatives" want to bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine, which
violates the concept of free speech and a free press.

There is no unlimited right to free speech across the airwaves.

The Framers of the Constitution did not know that radio was possible.

Radio is
a limited access, publicly controlled medium. As such, rules limiting
how it is assigned are entirely reasonable.

Frequencies are assigned by a government agency to prevent chaos.

Requiring a range of opinions, or not allowing opinions at all, do not
violate any Constitutional rights or restrictions.

ROTFLMAO!

So if, in someone's opinion, the government is violating the
Constitution, then he would not be allowed to express that opinion on
the radio? What if he manages to do so anyway? What steps will the
government then take?

Society can decide
how this medium is used.

That's just great, a Ministry of Propaganda.

On Dec 7, 7:02*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 07/12/2010 11:35, wrote:





On Dec 7, 4:18 am, Martin
wrote:
On 07/12/2010 00:14, wrote:

On Dec 6, 10:55 am, Martin
wrote:
On 04/12/2010 13:32, wrote:

On Dec 3, 5:34 am, Martin
wrote:
On 03/12/2010 00:45, wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:57 am, Martin
wrote:
It is difficult from your posts to determine how much further to the
extreme right you are than the Neocons though. The lunatic fringes of
conservatism are very ill defined.

The terms "left" and "right" refer ONLY to socialists, a group which
includes both communists and fascists. Communists are on the left and
fascists are on the right. *Conservatives do not fall on that
political spectrum at all; we are neither left nor right, nor anywhere
in the middle of that morass.

You will have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
You have defined yourself as not any of the above without saying
anything about what you believe in. I am still no wiser about what you
mean by saying you are a "conservative". You have not defined the word.

Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,

You already have two mutually incompatible requirements in that line..

Nothing mutually incompatible at all.

OK. But you cannot have a big strong army and small taxes.

The US can have a strong military and smallER taxes.

Unless you
have an army of slaves that you don't pay properly - and that has its
own risks. The hardware costs are insanely high for modern warfare.

Modern weapons are more effective.

Strong national defense costs very serious money. And a powerful army
with an inadequate civilian government is a dictatorship.

A weak army almost guarantees that a (foreign) dictator will
eventually run your country, unless you have a powerful, stable ally
to save your hide and keep the peace.

So how low do you think taxes should be?

Much lower than they are now.

Lets have a number % and then we can examine what things will have to be
cut...

Almost any reduction will do for a start and we should not have to
endure a tax increase (Bush tax cuts will expire soon and the
socialists are playing politics once again.)

Lets have a number - the lowest that you think will support a realistic
military defence force (bearing in mind how much it costs for every day
of the Iraq crusade and maintaining the Afghanistan puppet government).



As for what to cut, start with discretionary spending then start
phasing out some of the "mandatory" spending.

Chances are you don't believe in having roads and bridged maintained -

Fact is you are wrong.

I am surprised. You sound exactly like the sort that would drive around
in a tracked vehicle destroying the roads for everyone else.



* a
frightening number of US bridges are rusting away now. One on I-35 fell
into a river spontaneously at Minneapolis and highlights the failings of
the US system. It had a pathetic maintenance regime.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20102713/ns/us_news-life/

Bridges never collapse in th UK...do they?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...ia-floods-hero...

Only when provoked by a once in a century storm that had river water
levels 20' higher than normal. Whole tree trunks were washed down and
smashed into the bridges that failed. The bridge failed because of
immense forces against it not through appalling maintenance practices.

The I-35 bridge was overloaded, based on its original design. In 1988
it was decided to increase traffic from four lanes to eight. Since
Minnesota went for Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election, we might
assume that Democrats might have made the decision to increase the
number of lanes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...s-two-more-fea...

You are very selective with your cherry picked dittohead factoids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

On Dec 8, 12:07*pm, whensenseless mumbled incoherently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

The world owes a great debt to De Havilland for discovering metal
fatigue in aircraft. The Americans wanted to be first (as usual) but
they were still flying biplane stringbags at the time. Spruce just
doesn't fatigue so easily... as all geese know.

That bridge wasn't brought down by traffic so much as the increasing
weight of the vehicles' occupants. The resonant frequency of all those
Mr and Mrs Blobbies bouncing up and down, excited by the raised
expansion joints, had a similar effect to troops marching in step
across a bridge. It couldn't cope with the (un)sympathetic vibration.

On Dec 8, 9:46*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Dec 8, 12:07*pm, whensenseless mumbled incoherently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

The world owes a great debt to De Havilland for discovering metal
fatigue in aircraft.

Do you think their engineers saw the movie called "No Highway in the
Sky" ?

http://www.aetherczar.com/?p=1312

The Americans wanted to be first (as usual) but
they were still flying biplane stringbags at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1

Looks like a monoplane to me.

On Dec 9, 4:31*am, wrote:

Do you think their engineers saw the movie called "No Highway in the
Sky" *?

The people who made the movie probably read (and licensed!) Nevil
Shute's book "No Highway".

And that book was probably written _after_ De Havilland discovered
metal fatigue, being based on the story of that discovery.

John Savard