UK to Ban Plasmas?

[Davemcc]

Well, conservatives here is with a small "c", and over the pond it is with a large "C"...it is a political party. That does not mean they are "conservative" in the sense of the word, let alone in the American context...think globally.

It doesn't have to be "over the pond". Canada currently has a big-C Conservative government and the current opposition and former government are the big-L Liberals. There are few, if any, significant policy differences between the two.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

If the Conservatives are moving to mindless economics, Britain is in trouble. This doesn't even rise to the level of voo-doo economics. Margaret Thatcher must have puked in her mouth, just a little.

Can we get a link to the source of the article? It seems surreal.

Either the entire article is a joke, or the "Sun" is twisting the facts.

A newspaper would never do such a thing........................would it?

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Since hating right-wingers is a good thing, I don't find it unflattering in the least.
(Because of the turn it has been taking, this discussion should really be moved to the Steam Vent.)

LOL.... At least you represent your people well

 

[stratman]

Since hating right-wingers is a good thing, I don't find it unflattering in the least.

You know that Lenin, Engels, Stalin, Mao and a few other shady characters were fond of saying this.

 

[emorphien]

Hey I'm a conservative, I haven't raped anything! Lets take this to the steam vent.

You're a conservative? You just think you haven't been raping anything!

 

[stratman]

You're a conservative? You just think you haven't been raping anything!

Do tell, Mr.E.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I am a caveman you know.

You don't work for GEICO, do you?

 

[AbyssalLoris]

Since hating right-wingers is a good thing, I don't find it unflattering in the least.

You know that Lenin, Engels, Stalin, Mao and a few other shady characters were fond of saying this.

Maybe my knowledge of history is limited, and I do dislike getting political, but I wouldn't put Lenin and Engels in that crowd.

 

[Davemcc]

Maybe my knowledge of history is limited, and I do dislike getting political, but I wouldn't put Lenin and Engels in that crowd.

Marx and Engels provided the intellectual framework within which to hate capitalism. Lenin put it into practice. I'd have to think they qualify.

 

[Johnd]

Hate is a pretty strong word.

Geez. I wonder why some 3rd worlders (or non-capitalistic countries) may "hate" (dislike...misunderstand...not comprehend) capitalism?

 

[Johnd]

Maybe my knowledge of history is limited, and I do dislike getting political, but I wouldn't put Lenin and Engels in that crowd.

I agree with you Abyssal. Comparing Lenin to Stalin (or lumping him in) is akin to lumping Trotsky in as well. They are plainly not the same...nor do they belong in the same category. One was an ego-maniacal tyrant, the other two were humanists looking out for their people.

 

[stratman]

I agree with you Abyssal. Comparing Lenin to Stalin (or lumping him in) is akin to lumping Trotsky in as well. They are plainly not the same...nor do they belong in the same category. One was an ego-maniacal tyrant, the other two were humanists looking out for their people.

Humanists looking out for their people, please tell me you're kidding. There's nothing redeeming in communist/socialist philosophy as evidence I present to you Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc, wherever it is employed the so called humanist philosophy leads to wholesale murder of that population along with untold suffering. One planted the seed, the others nutured it untill it became what it is. Evil. It's basic creed is hate, hate of the middle class, hate of wealth (unless you're getting it), hate of individual rights.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Simplicity

I say, if a person pays his own energy bills, than he should be allowed to use the energy. No need for incentives or heavy regulations. That almost always leads to inefficiency, dependence, and burdens. There is ample amounts of energy in the world. Let's use it, develope it, improve it, refine it, etc; but, please, ease up on regulating it.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Conservatives - Joe Schmoe

Yeah, I thought that was odd. US conservatives are in favor of wholesale rape of the environment, while it is liberals who want to protect it.

Stratman beat me to it, but, like him, I'm a conservative and have not raped anybody, or anything. Liberals love Mao who murdered, what, over 60 million of his own citizens? Great preservation of the enviroment, huh?

What conservative is raping the environment? Conservatives pretty much think that individuals should have control as to the goods and services produced and consumed. No need to laden them with heavy taxes (and boy do I EVER support the FairTax), regulations (fundamental ones are fine, like, making sure mercury doesn't enter into people's homes f they do not wat to purchase fluorescent bulbs). I by the way, have a fluorescent bulb plugged into virtually every socket in my house and love the savings. But what if people do not want to buy them? Why make them? Why tax them if they don't? Why ban traditonal bulbs? That's raping people's choices, isn't it? And what of the flourescenct bulbs being tossed into the trash? What of the mercury build up right in our dumpsters? Mind you, Liberals want to ban all bulbs except the flourescent ones. talk about destroyingthe environment!!!

 

[Davemcc]

I agree with you Abyssal. Comparing Lenin to Stalin (or lumping him in) is akin to lumping Trotsky in as well. They are plainly not the same...nor do they belong in the same category. One was an ego-maniacal tyrant, the other two were humanists looking out for their people.

The Communist Revolution and the resulting civil war between White and Red Russians was not the work of humanists, nor was the repression of human, civil and political rights that followed the civil war the work of humanists. It was, however, the work of Lenin, Trostsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin incited by the inflammatory vitriol written by Marx and Engels.

 

[MapleSyrup]

The Communist Revolution and the resulting civil war between White and Red Russians was not the work of humanists, nor was the repression of human, civil and political rights that followed the civil war the work of humanists. It was, however, the work of Lenin, Trostsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin incited by the inflammatory vitriol written by Marx and Engels.

I'll also throw in "godless" with "humanist". No, atheists are not inherently bad. But even their "moral code", if you will, can easily be traced to biblical teachings. the type of atheism as practiced officially in the Soviet union and China are/were imposed by the sword and forced upon people. Many good morals today like honesty, hard work, freedom, acceptance, etc. are all found in God's teachings. this includes allowing people to be free to worship him as their conscience dictates, not as the state whishes (and shall we throw in enviromentalists as well as communists?)

 

[avaserfi]

I'll also throw in "godless" with "humanist". No, atheists are not inherently bad. But even their "moral code", if you will, can easily be traced to biblical teachings. the type of atheism as practiced officially in the Soviet union and China are/were imposed by the sword and forced upon people. Many good morals today like honesty, hard work, freedom, acceptance, etc. are all found in God's teachings. this includes allowing people to be free to worship him as their conscience dictates, not as the state whishes (and shall we throw in enviromentalists as well as communists?)

You are making one possibly false assumption with the argument that religious teachings are actually from a being other than humans. As far as much of science dictates the majority of religious teachings have human origins so perhaps all these ideals aren't necessarily of a religious origin and one that benefits mankind. After all couldn't religion be seen as a form of social control?

Just playing devil's advocate here. If someone wants to know my views start a thread or PM me, I am not shy .

 

[MapleSyrup]

You are making one possibly false assumption with the argument that religious teachings are actually from a being other than humans. As far as much of science dictates the majority of religious teachings have human origins so perhaps all these ideals aren't necessarily of a religious origin and one that benefits mankind. After all couldn't religion be seen as a form of social control?

Just playing devil's advocate here. If someone wants to know my views start a thread or PM me, I am not shy .

Sure religion can be a form of social control. Like science though, religion requires faith. It also requires experimenting, thought, analysis, hypothesis, conclusions, and everything else required in science.

I'd be a fool to say there is absolute proof, at least scientific, that there is a divine creator. There is no doubt in my mind there is, but I've concluded that in large part because I chose to place my faith in that idea; and I've thought long and hard and I've prayed about it. I've concluded that there is a God. Not only that there is a God, but that God has and does communicate with man. We can find His communications in scripture. I personally adhire to Christian scripture and do so with the upmost respect to those of all other faiths. christian scripture teaches there is a God and He sent His son, known as Jesus christ to be our savior. He's our mediator between man and God.

My orginal post on godless people controlling others, as seen in the former Soviet Union, was directed squarely to comment on how, if there is no God, than there is only the state/man that is supreme. I personally believe that my freedoms derive from God and therefore man cannot take them away. I also use that fundamental belief to view goverments as responsible to uphold the freedoms God desires all to enjoy. Now, if I did not think my freedoms come from God than I must think they come from man; and if I think they come from man, than I must justify that man can easily take them away, and rightfully so. That's where opporessive governments come in. They control pretty much for the sake of control. They should, however, be an insturment to ensure freedom to man. There is no way around this obligation since their stewartship derives from recognizing and ensuring "inalieanable rights", "bestowed by [our] Creator".

You devil you.

 

[Johnd]

Humanists looking out for their people, please tell me you're kidding. There's nothing redeeming in communist/socialist philosophy as evidence I present to you Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc, wherever it is employed the so called humanist philosophy leads to wholesale murder of that population along with untold suffering. One planted the seed, the others nutured it untill it became what it is. Evil. It's basic creed is hate, hate of the middle class, hate of wealth (unless you're getting it), hate of individual rights.

I do not fault you Neanderthal, as you know not how to read (yet).

If you know not the differences between Stalin and Lenin and Trotsky, I dare not attempt to teach you...especially here...school's out!

And your entire paragraph has gotten away from the three people I was discussing, and has delved into some whole other platform...no thanks.

 

[Johnd]

I say, if a person pays his own energy bills, than he should be allowed to use the energy. No need for incentives or heavy regulations. That almost always leads to inefficiency, dependence, and burdens. There is ample amounts of energy in the world. Let's use it, develope it, improve it, refine it, etc; but, please, ease up on regulating it.

Well, sir, that is simply contrary to the facts. Energy wasters are a primary reason for our shortage. Additionally, you fail to mention/recognize the costs associated with heavy energy use. That is the reason for conservation.