2009-5-17 06:11:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group. Because of the length of the original post, the archived version of this post was broken up into multiple parts. This is Part Two. Links to the other parts can be found at the end of this article.]
A fat tax? Mr. Lunsford shouldn't give the bureaucrats and Congresspeople ideas. After all, a lot of them spend many waking hours using whatever little creativity they have to figure out ways to tax us so we think it is the other guy who is getting hit.
With all the economic shortfalls here are some taxes we can expect:
Let's hope legislators are not reading this.
JJ:
I had the same thoughts as Mr. Anderson. These people were not protesting taxes for parks, libraries, etc. so there was no hypocrisy in using a public park. That was indeed a screwy criticism. (Note: A writer criticized the tea party people for using a public park paid for by tax money.)
Also lost to the press was the fact that the tea party was more about overspending than direct taxation. We are borrowing so much money that after it is entirely integrated into the system we are bound to have some heavy inflation. When the present dollar becomes worth just 50 cents then this means that the rich and poor alike will suffer a tax of half their money in addition to what they already pay.
In this respect a protest against deficit spending is a tax protest, but a protest against the indirect tax of inflation.
It's almost funny that Obama is giving a $13 a week tax break on one hand and then setting up a stimulus that will take half their money through inflation on the other.
The Chinese are smart enough to realize this and say they hate us for our reckless spending.
JJ:
Good to have you back Atilla. What've you been up to? Are you the one I saw on TV sabotaging Obama's teleprompter?
I agree. If we are not going to enforce the laws then remove them. It is extremely hypocritical to claim to support law and then ignore, or in the case of illegal immigration, fight against it.
The Left does not have the guts of their own convictions. If they did they would put forth measures to do away with all immigration laws rather than just fight against them.
As far as plural marriage goes one can argue that it is not as harmful as the guy who has an affair going on the side. The plural relationship is done through free will (in most cases) and the affair only happens with the free will of two out of three. The third party is mad as hell and wouldn't mind of the other two fell out of an airplane with no parachute.
Yes, there is child and spousal abuse in some polygamous societies, but that is another subject and of course should be dealt with by law.
JJ:
If we hadn't used fossil fuels the way we have there would be mass starvation on the earth at this time and we wouldn't have developed the technology that will be needed to make the next great evolutionary step to the clean energy that will eventually be the norm.
We could be just about there if the environmentalists had not bullheadedly stopped nuclear energy development and production which is the one carbon free source that has had the ability to replace coal and oil. The nuclear plants we do have has saved more CO2 release than all other alternatives put together many times over.
If we figure unorthodox means of extracting oil we have plenty for at least 500 years and it will only take us 30-50 years to create good alternatives. If we suppress the use of oil the sluggishness projected on civilization could delay liberation an extra 50-100 years causing us to burn more oil not less.
Just another example of unintended consequences by "do-gooders."
"Prophet":
"Your ignorance of energy issues is astounding. Population expansion was a direct result of the increased use of fossil fuels. Technology and energy have nothing in common."
JJ:
So you are saying we would have went to the moon, developed our transportation system, and even power the computer you type on with no energy?
Wow...
You are the one with astounding ignorance.
Yes, we would have has less population without oil but only because of mass starvation and deprivation. Is that what you wanted?
"Prophet":
"There is no combination of alternatives that will replace even a small fraction of the energy we now get from fossil fuels."
JJ:
That's what I've been saying, but nuclear energy could do it.
"Prophet":
"It will soon take more energy to get 'unconventional' fossil fuels than they contain, meaning that nobody will ever try to get them."
JJ:
And you think this because? Where are your facts?
There is no problem getting oil from shale if the price is right and the technology is available to do it with close to zero CO2 emissions.
"Prophet":
"You've got some interesting opinions, but they are sadly devoid of facts._Anyone interested in this subject can go to www.energybulletin.net to find the truth."
JJ:
My facts are solid. Where are yours? That site you gave doesn't supply anything that conflicts with what I have written.
"Zim" wants us to read:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1672139/earths_temp_8th_warmest_on_record_in_march/index.html
There's some anecdotal stuff there for a three-month period. That means nothing.
Check out this website and weep:
http://www.iceagenow.com/
"The happiest excitement in life is to be convinced that one is fighting for all one is worth on behalf of some clearly seen and deeply felt good."
-- Ruth Benedict (1887 - 1948)
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved