Climate change will change thing, not for the better

On Mon, 5 May 2014 01:29:24 +0000 (UTC), Brian Tung
wrote:

Well, to be sure, they probably lack the will, not the wits, right?

Good point. Although I sense that both may be lacking.

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 9:29:24 PM UTC-4, Brian Tung wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:

You presume correctly. Whether mine or some inadvertent autocorrect
feature I can't say. I have no doubt that there are some who lack the
wits to detect the error, however...

Well, to be sure, they probably lack the will, not the wits, right?

(Been in too many fruitless debates in which someone insisted on taking
an inadvertent slip as iron-clad evidence that I subconsciously cleaved
to his point of view. Sometimes, I think patriotism and a certain kind
of depraved literalism run neck and neck as last refuge.)

Peterson will often substitute words, redefine words, etc., in order to cover up his losing arguments. He is really bad about quoting out of context.

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:02:24 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

You are the one calling a government takeover of health care "immensely popular." You are clearly ignorant, period.

I haven't observed any government takeover of healthcare at all. Not
in the U.S., not in any other country.

Then you must not be paying attention.

You wish to inflict your views on everyone else. That is fascism pure and simple.

No. I want to see the government actually provide people with what
they ask for.

You seem not to understand how vague, pointless and yet totally incorrect that statement is. It is not the job of the federal govt to provide what people ask for in terms of health insurance.

It is you who resists changes even when society seeks them. It is you
who stands against what everyone else wants.

You are calling for mob rule, pure and simple.

On Mon, 5 May 2014 05:16:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It is not the job of the federal govt to provide what people ask for in terms of health insurance.

In that we disagree. I believe it is the job of any government to
provide what the people ask it to provide.

You are calling for mob rule, pure and simple.

No, I'm calling for a government that reflects the consensus view of
its citizens. That is quite different from mob rule.

On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:17:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 05:16:44 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

It is not the job of the federal govt to provide what people ask for in terms of health insurance.

In that we disagree. I believe it is the job of any government to
provide what the people ask it to provide.

That is an absolutely asinine statement. If "the people" want new cars every year, do you think it's the job of govt to provide each of them with new cars?

You are calling for mob rule, pure and simple.

No, I'm calling for a government that reflects the consensus view of
its citizens.

What meaning of "consensus" are you using here? When you say "its citizens" do you mean ALL of its citizens, almost all of its citizens, most of its citizens, a large number of its citizens, a few of its citizens who happen to be in control, what?

That is quite different from mob rule.

No, that would BE mob rule!

On Mon, 5 May 2014 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

In that we disagree. I believe it is the job of any government to
provide what the people ask it to provide.

That is an absolutely asinine statement. If "the people" want new cars every year, do you think it's the job of govt to provide each of them with new cars?

Yes.

No, I'm calling for a government that reflects the consensus view of
its citizens.

What meaning of "consensus" are you using here? When you say "its citizens" do you mean ALL of its citizens, almost all of its citizens, most of its citizens, a large number of its citizens, a few of its citizens who happen to be in control, what?

What constitutes a consensus depends on context. I would not expect a
government to pass restrictive laws without the support of a very
large majority. For instance, we should not restrict something like
same-sex marriage without at least 90% of the population making that
choice. Simple administrative things like what services taxes support
are reasonably managed with nothing more than simple majorities.

On Monday, May 5, 2014 11:02:35 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

In that we disagree. I believe it is the job of any government to
provide what the people ask it to provide.

That is an absolutely asinine statement. If "the people" want new cars every year, do you think it's the job of govt to provide each of them with new cars?

Yes.

And where will the govt get the money to pay for all of these new cars?

No, I'm calling for a government that reflects the consensus view of
its citizens.

What meaning of "consensus" are you using here? When you say "its citizens" do you mean ALL of its citizens, almost all of its citizens, most of its citizens, a large number of its citizens, a few of its citizens who happen to be in control, what?

What constitutes a consensus depends on context.

That doesn't answer the questions, dimwit.

Tell us what you mean by "consensus."

peterson's nonsense deleted

On Mon, 5 May 2014 08:14:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

That is an absolutely asinine statement. If "the people" want new cars every year, do you think it's the job of govt to provide each of them with new cars?

Yes.

And where will the govt get the money to pay for all of these new cars?

Where any government gets its revenue: taxes.

I'm a fiscal conservative. That means I think government should only
operate within its means. If a society is rich enough that it can
collectively provide cars to every citizen without going into debt or
without adversely impacting higher priority services, why should I
find fault in that?

Realistically, it would probably be a foolish decision for a society
to decide everybody should receive a car. But voters can and do make
foolish decisions, and I wouldn't care much for any system that
prevented them from doing so.

What constitutes a consensus depends on context.

That doesn't answer the questions, dimwit.

I answered the question very precisely.

On Monday, May 5, 2014 12:00:07 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 08:14:49 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

That is an absolutely asinine statement. If "the people" want new cars every year, do you think it's the job of govt to provide each of them with new cars?

Yes.

And where will the govt get the money to pay for all of these new cars?

Where any government gets its revenue: taxes.

Then would it not make more sense to let each individual taxpayer decide for himself whether or not to buy a new car every year?

I'm a fiscal conservative.

No, you are not.

That means I think government should only
operate within its means. If a society is rich enough that it can
collectively provide cars to every citizen without going into debt or
without adversely impacting higher priority services, why should I
find fault in that?

Another asinine statement from peterson.

Realistically, it would probably be a foolish decision for a society
to decide everybody should receive a car.

So let's not tax people to pay for that!

But voters can and do make
foolish decisions, and I wouldn't care much for any system that
prevented them from doing so.

However, you said:

"I believe it is the job of any government to provide what the people ask it to provide."

So should the govt provide new cars to everyone every year if that's what "the people" (or it is "voters" now) decide?

peterson wrote:

What constitutes a consensus depends on context.

wsnell01 wrote:

That doesn't answer the questions, dimwit.

peterson wrote:

I answered the question very precisely.

You didn't answer the questions... maybe you answered some other question, that wasn't asked.

Let's try again shall we?

What meaning of "consensus" are you using here? When you say "its citizens" do you mean ALL of its citizens, almost all of its citizens, most of its citizens, a large number of its citizens, a few of its citizens who happen to be in control, what?