Global Warming News

[dave1949]

The lure of contemporaneous arrogance, i.e., we've outgrown our original government model and it must 'adapt' to modern society. A euphemism for the federal government must get bigger, more powerful, take more in taxes and take away more freedom. Our problems are just so big only a big government can solve them. Pitiful and saddening. Some citizens of a once self reliant population is willing to sell their vote in order to trade independence for a spot at the government trough. A statist's view of perfection is every citizen standing, like Oliver Twist, with bowl in hand, pleading, "Please, sir, I want some more."

Anything really nasty you would like to say? Your response is way out of context to my post, not to mention insulting.
Dave.

 

[Pilot]

Remember the silicone breast implant lawsuits? Juries awarded $billions regardless of the fact that many scientific studies showed only minor local problems and no studies found that the implants caused the systemic problems or cancer as was claimed by the plaintiffs. Dow Corning went under, putting employees out on the street for no valid reason.

There needs to be some kind of control on product liability lawsuits. In the mean time. and to get back on track, can we sue the IPCC for fraud?

 

[IH3444]

Good points. Probably, if you had the 'right' haircut, they would have trusted you more People do get strange ideas in their heads and nothing will dislodge them.
Dave.

Well true, I was raised by an 82nd Airbourne Master Jump Sargent Combat Engineer, and my hair is cut rather short.....

 

[MikePA]

Anything really nasty you would like to say? Your response is way out of context to my post, not to mention insulting.
Dave.

I'm insulted by people who think our government, as founded, is not up to the task. Statists use this an an excuse to interfere, pass laws and generally yank freedoms away in order to 'protect' us. If that's not what you were saying, I apologize.

 

[IH3444]

Dave, I don't think that Mike was trying to be insulting to you, but mearly stating a saying by Ben Franklin. Something like "Those who would trade freedom for security, don't deserve either" I'm got a Ben Franklin book which I read years ago. I should reread that one also.

I've noticed that we all at times take post as being directed to us a personal attack, but by rereading them, they are usually just blunt words, with no attack intended. Although as previously stated by whom raised me, I have a rather thicker skin than some of my friends...

 

[IH3444]

Remember the silicone breast implant lawsuits? Juries awarded $billions regardless of the fact that many scientific studies showed only minor local problems and no studies found that the implants caused the systemic problems or cancer as was claimed by the plaintiffs. Dow Corning went under, putting employees out on the street for no valid reason.

There needs to be some kind of control on product liability lawsuits. In the mean time. and to get back on track, can we sue the IPCC for fraud?

Not to mention the ooogalings that were missed before they started to sell them again as saline bags.....

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer- I feel the same each morning but I turn in at about 830 eastern time and get up at about 5AM so I'm on early compared. I always was a little better at softball than baseball. Looks like your pinch hitting for LMTC. (just a little humor)

Not sure that internet was a great example but note from the site and quote below that law scholars, along with the Supreme Court, who are much better versed than we are seem to be allowing some Federal Regs. Maybe in the end it will go in your direction. Let me add banking to the list - I believe that none of my list is addressed specifically in the Constitution but interstate commerce may be where they feel that the Fed Gov has the authority. I would suggest that the things the CIA, NSA, and domestic spying do are not covered specifically in the Constitution but general authority for defence is stated in the preamble just as general welfare of the people is rationale for many other things. I do not claim that these things are listed in Constitution - I may be slow but most did not exist 230 years ago. I've tried to point out that the courts have decided, many times our highest court, that these things are constitutional. We can either whine, work for change, challenge in court or accept what we can and go on. (or any combination) I doubt if we'd find one person who agreed with all Federal Regulations but I'm sure we'd never agree on which should be eliminated.

Is Regulation of the Internet Explicitly a Federal Domain? | Venture Chronicles

Home About Venture Chronicles
Is Regulation of the Internet Explicitly a Federal Domain?
Posted on March 29, 2007
Filed Under Public Policy | Comments (1)
"Because material on a website may be viewed across the Internet, and thus in more than one state at a time, permitting the reach of any particular state逞ｴ definition of intellectual property to dictate the contours of this federal immunity would be contrary to Congress逞ｴ expressed goal of insulating the development of the Internet from the various state-law regimes. See 47 U.S.C. ?ゑｽｧ?ゑｽｧ 230(a) and (b); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1027 (noting that "courts construing ?ゑｽｧ 230 have recognized as critical in applying the statute the concern that lawsuits could threaten the 邏*reedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium?)."

"This does appear to be a pretty important decision regarding regulation of web sites, it would seem to suggest that web sites are by their nature viewable across the entire web and therefore subject to Federal regulation and immune from state regulation that conflicts with Federal law. In other words, if Federal law regulates a specific aspect of the web, then states are pre-empted from regulating them on their own. This case applies specifically to intellectual property but it would seem reasonable that this would be used in other cases involving regulation of the web"

Federal Taxes-the main reason the tax code is so complex in trying to clarify what is deductible as a business expense (or corporate) and taxation of investments. For every regulation there is a creative way for companies with enough attorneys to find a loophole which results in new regulations. Also for the no tax on business or investments - if they pay a billion less then either our national debt or personal income taxes go up. None of the complexity would change with the mythical "flat tax" (actually it might save 5 pages)


I believe that the doctors you trust more than government (I agree) were pretty clearly in favor of a public option last summer. I know that just because you have some trust in them doesn't mean you agree with them. As an aside - our number of doctors per capita is low compared to many countries who seem to be doing better at health care. We're way low on primary care physicians (preventative care).

The pressure and expense of health insurance is a huge challenge to small business. (maybe worse than taxes - if 100% is paid its about 6-7 thousand per single employee and almost double that for family) Its killing business growth.


Loren

1. Off the top of my Head: Those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Gov are reserved to the states.
2. The same argument vis a vis the 2nd amendment, because the Framers didn't know about automatic weapons is just as bogus. Same Logic: The framers couldn't have none about Linotype machines, so no freedom of the press, Right?
3. Most of the doctor's that I know are totally opposed to any further meddling of the government in their business. How many Doctor's do you know now that refuse to take Medicare/Medicaid patients? I know a lot.

 

[dave1949]

MikePA:
The lure of contemporaneous arrogance, i.e., we've outgrown our original government model and it must 'adapt' to modern society. A euphemism for the federal government must get bigger, more powerful, take more in taxes and take away more freedom. Our problems are just so big only a big government can solve them. Pitiful and saddening. Some citizens of a once self reliant population is willing to sell their vote in order to trade independence for a spot at the government trough. A statist's view of perfection is every citizen standing, like Oliver Twist, with bowl in hand, pleading, "Please, sir, I want some more."

You are clearly comparing my opinion to someone who is arrogant, wants bigger gov't, is willing to sell my vote, etc. If you read my post, you will not find any mention of bigger gov't, more taxes, or any begging for gruel.

I have no intention of making a religion out of the Constitution. It was made to be amendable, has been amended, and will be again. If you are of the opinion that late 18th Century people could foresee the next 200+ years with perfect clarity, that's your opinion. Mine is that it is likely that was not the case. In fact, I think your concept would sadden the Founders. The Founders were people with ideals yet practical at the same time. They were forward looking, but not clairvoyant. I don't believe their intention was to create a rigid structure that would be just perfect for all ages. What evidence do you have that they believed that?

In the early days of our country, the practical approaches that Americans took were admired by European visitors. We all seem to agree that gov't is not what we want it to be. A practical approach might be to examine it to see why that is, and if warranted, make the changes needed to allow gov't to function better under the existing conditions. It could just be that in 200+ years, we have outgrown some things that were 'givens' earlier.

Making changes to the gov't does not automatically mean making it bigger, or taking away freedoms, or advocating more taxes, or making us less self reliant. In fact, I didn't say what changes could be made - because I'm sure I don't know. You jumped to those conclusions on your own. I do know that our current state of government has many of the traits of a system that is not functioning well - it is costing more and delivering less being the most obvious symptoms.

Whether it is possible to improve upon it or not, we owe to ourselves and our country to at least examine the gov't and how it works, in that light. We won't know if we don't look. I think the Founders would have been of the mind that looking and fixing where possible is the thing to do. If that were not the case, they wouldn't be the Founders - would they?
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

MikePA:
The lure of contemporaneous arrogance, i.e., we've outgrown our original government model and it must 'adapt' to modern society. A euphemism for the federal government must get bigger, more powerful, take more in taxes and take away more freedom. Our problems are just so big only a big government can solve them. Pitiful and saddening. Some citizens of a once self reliant population is willing to sell their vote in order to trade independence for a spot at the government trough. A statist's view of perfection is every citizen standing, like Oliver Twist, with bowl in hand, pleading, "Please, sir, I want some more."

You are clearly comparing my opinion to someone who is arrogant, wants bigger gov't, is willing to sell my vote, etc. If you read my post, you will not find any mention of bigger gov't, more taxes, or any begging for gruel.

I have no intention of making a religion out of the Constitution. It was made to be amendable, has been amended, and will be again. If you are of the opinion that late 18th Century people could foresee the next 200+ years with perfect clarity, that's your opinion. Mine is that it is likely that was not the case. In fact, I think your concept would sadden the Founders. The Founders were people with ideals yet practical at the same time. They were forward looking, but not clairvoyant. I don't believe their intention was to create a rigid structure that would be just perfect for all ages. What evidence do you have that they believed that?

In the early days of our country, the practical approaches that Americans took were admired by European visitors. We all seem to agree that gov't is not what we want it to be. A practical approach might be to examine it to see why that is, and if warranted, make the changes needed to allow gov't to function better under the existing conditions. It could just be that in 200+ years, we have outgrown some things that were 'givens' earlier.

Making changes to the gov't does not automatically mean making it bigger, or taking away freedoms, or advocating more taxes, or making us less self reliant. In fact, I didn't say what changes could be made - because I'm sure I don't know. You jumped to those conclusions on your own. I do know that our current state of government has many of the traits of a system that is not functioning well - it is costing more and delivering less being the most obvious symptoms.

Whether it is possible to improve upon it or not, we owe to ourselves and our country to at least examine the gov't and how it works, in that light. We won't know if we don't look. I think the Founders would have been of the mind that looking and fixing where possible is the thing to do. If that were not the case, they wouldn't be the Founders - would they?
Dave.

1. I don't intend to make a religion out of the Constitution.
The president of the United States take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution".
Why do you think that he takes this oath(while resting his right hand on a bible)?Similar oaths are taking by officers inducted into the services. Why?
Our whole society is based on a reliance on our elected officials swearing allegiance and obeying the Constitution.
Obviously some of them feel that it is a "living document"
Personally, I feel that my basic rights as a citizen should not be subject to some politicians interpretation of what those rights should be. Question ,is your mortgage a "living document" Would you be upset if the bank decided to change the terms to increase the payment . I fell that my rights as a citizen should be as least as sacrosanct as some mortgage.
So if someone comes along and starts advocating for "rights" that are not granted by the Constitution(Particularly is those "rights" are going infringing on my rights) I'm am not going to go along quietly.
In terms of "making changes to the government,does not automatically mean making it bigger" Please give me just one example when we have made a change to government and it got smaller! If you can come up with one, I will be surprised and then show you 10,000 with the opposite result.

 

[keegs]

I'm insulted by people who think our government, as founded, is not up to the task. Statists use this an an excuse to interfere, pass laws and generally yank freedoms away in order to 'protect' us. If that's not what you were saying, I apologize.

I have a friend who never married and never had kids. He had a stroke about five years ago. Prior to the stroke, when he could talk, he voiced the same libertarian point of view Mike. The affects of the stroke are debilitating to a degree that he needs 24 hour nursing care. He was wiped out financially in less than a year.

They didn't have nursing homes when they wrote the constitution.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I have a friend who never married and never had kids. He had a stroke about five years ago. Prior to the stroke, when he could talk, he voiced the same libertarian point of view Mike. The affects of the stroke are debilitating to a degree that he needs 24 hour nursing care. He was wiped out financially in less than a year.

They didn't have nursing homes when they wrote the constitution.

Wha ??????????????
They also didn't have hula hoops. Sorry don't get the point.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

And now for something completely different a post about Global Warming.
Can you post a article from a newspaper here? One of these days I'm going to figure out this whole internet number thing!
Anyway, Go to Drudge, look for the link:" UN Panels based claims about disappearing ice based on student dissertation"
I think this pretty much sums it up.

 

[dave1949]

1. I don't intend to make a religion out of the Constitution.
The president of the United States take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution".
Why do you think that he takes this oath(while resting his right hand on a bible)?Similar oaths are taking by officers inducted into the services. Why?
Our whole society is based on a reliance on our elected officials swearing allegiance and obeying the Constitution.
Obviously some of them feel that it is a "living document"
Personally, I feel that my basic rights as a citizen should not be subject to some politicians interpretation of what those rights should be. Question ,is your mortgage a "living document" Would you be upset if the bank decided to change the terms to increase the payment . I fell that my rights as a citizen should be as least as sacrosanct as some mortgage.
So if someone comes along and starts advocating for "rights" that are not granted by the Constitution(Particularly is those "rights" are going infringing on my rights) I'm am not going to go along quietly.
In terms of "making changes to the government,does not automatically mean making it bigger" Please give me just one example when we have made a change to government and it got smaller! If you can come up with one, I will be surprised and then show you 10,000 with the opposite result.

Why is it that making changes to gov't is unconstitutional? The Pres. swears to uphold the constitution in it's current form, not what is was 200+ years ago. You have lost me there.

It certainly isn't something I would advocate willy-nilly, I think we are protected from any one region or interest group or cause of the moment hijacking the constitution by the requirements of the amendment process.

I realize that often changes result in the growth of the government. Those changes were all made by duly elected folks who swore to uphold the constitution. Were they all wrong or all traitors? The Supreme Court exists to make the determination as what is or isn't constitutional. They have struck down many laws.

This doesn't mean I personally believe only bigger is better. I'm just remarking on what has happened. Maybe, since it seems we cannot afford our current lifestyle, people will lean towards smaller gov't in the future by necessity.

It would be nice if we constrained our defense spending to what it actually costs to defend our country. In that area of spending and policy, you have to stretch the intent of the constitution to justify what we do also. But, all those dollars are voted on by duly elected people who also swore to uphold the constitution.

I don't know what else to say about it, it's a messy process, always has been. You seem to think the framing documents are infallible for all ages. From day one, if you take the slavery issue for example, what was written and what actually happened are two different things. An ideal was written, and a practical agreement (for non-slaves at least) was reached and followed for decades.

I feel pretty certain many of the framers went along to get along on that issue. They weren't willing to let their ideals scuttle the practical solutions to the challenge of organizing a working nation out of disparate states.

I think you have higher expectations than the framers ever did. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it needs to be realized. Didn't we have these same conversations in the 'love it or leave it' days of the 60's and 70's? There are many ways to love one's country.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

Wha ??????????????
They also didn't have hula hoops. Sorry don't get the point.

I think the point may be, you should offer your opinion as to whether or not we should use tax dollars administered by gov't agencies to keep him alive?

I hate to hear of stories like that. I am not sure I would wish to be alive, but that would be a personal choice.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Why is it that making changes to gov't is unconstitutional? The Pres. swears to uphold the constitution in it's current form, not what is was 200+ years ago. You have lost me there.

It certainly isn't something I would advocate willy-nilly, I think we are protected from any one region or interest group or cause of the moment hijacking the constitution by the requirements of the amendment process.

I realize that often changes result in the growth of the government. Those changes were all made by duly elected folks who swore to uphold the constitution. Were they all wrong or all traitors? The Supreme Court exists to make the determination as what is or isn't constitutional. They have struck down many laws.

This doesn't mean I personally believe only bigger is better. I'm just remarking on what has happened. Maybe, since it seems we cannot afford our current lifestyle, people will lean towards smaller gov't in the future by necessity.

It would be nice if we constrained our defense spending to what it actually costs to defend our country. In that area of spending and policy, you have to stretch the intent of the constitution to justify what we do also. But, all those dollars are voted on by duly elected people who also swore to uphold the constitution.

I don't know what else to say about it, it's a messy process, always has been. You seem to think the framing documents are infallible for all ages. From day one, if you take the slavery issue for example, what was written and what actually happened are two different things. An ideal was written, and a practical agreement (for non-slaves at least) was reached and followed for decades.

I feel pretty certain many of the framers went along to get along on that issue. They weren't willing to let their ideals scuttle the practical solutions to the challenge of organizing a working nation out of disparate states.

I think you have higher expectations than the framers ever did. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it needs to be realized. Didn't we have these same conversations in the 'love it or leave it' days of the 60's and 70's? There are many ways to love one's country.
Dave.

As of October 2009 5 states have introduced legislation that would declare certain provisions of any national health care proposal to be null and void.
So hey lets throw out the tenth amendment, it was written 200+ years ago.
And the 2nd, everybody knows that the framers couldn't have foreseen "assault weapons.
That pesky Ist amendment, Well we already got rid of that with McCann-Finegold .
The Fifth, Ha When the local authorities want to take your property for a "public use" I guess that it's okay.
As a matter of fact lets just chuck the whole thing and start over. Oh wait there is a certain politician who in a PBS interview a number of years ago made reference to doing just that. He said that the Constitution stood in the way of making "reforms". Now Let me see if I can remember his name ' Braak, or Obooma or something like that. Now that guy was onto something. Lets reform everything, so that we can "Spread the wealth around"
Yeah.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I think the point may be, you should offer your opinion as to whether or not we should use tax dollars administered by gov't agencies to keep him alive?

I hate to hear of stories like that. I am not sure I would wish to be alive, but that would be a personal choice.
Dave.

To Paraphrase Dickens " Are there no more poorhouses"....
All conservatives/constitutionalists believe that the poor should be locked away so they don't upset the fragile nature of the upper class.
C'mon talk about setting up a straw man argument.

 

[dave1949]

To Paraphrase Dickens " Are there no more poorhouses"....
All conservatives/constitutionalists believe that the poor should be locked away so they don't upset the fragile nature of the upper class.
C'mon talk about setting up a straw man argument.

Wasn't the 'Artful Dodger' a Dickens character? Yes, he was in 'Oliver Twist', I just googled it.

Whatever, I'm off to bed.
Goodnight.

 

[keegs]

To Paraphrase Dickens " Are there no more poorhouses"....
All conservatives/constitutionalists believe that the poor should be locked away so they don't upset the fragile nature of the upper class.
C'mon talk about setting up a straw man argument.

Healthcare spending continues to grow as a proportion of federal and state budgets. A relatively small number of us consume a disproportionately large share of those healthcare resources and among that group there are those of every political and socioeconomic persuasion. The rate of increase in healthcare spending is unsustainable.

Those facts have nothing to do with straw men and very little to do with one's perceived abuse of emergency ambulance services.

 

[IH3444]

And now for something completely different a post about Global Warming.
Can you post a article from a newspaper here? One of these days I'm going to figure out this whole internet number thing!
Anyway, Go to Drudge, look for the link:" UN Panels based claims about disappearing ice based on student dissertation"
I think this pretty much sums it up.

Fallbrook, see post #668.

 

[IH3444]

I think the point may be, you should offer your opinion as to whether or not we should use tax dollars administered by gov't agencies to keep him alive?

I hate to hear of stories like that. I am not sure I would wish to be alive, but that would be a personal choice.
Dave.

Ditto....Doc, give me the needle to end it all, and let me move on.