Poplulation control was Re: OT: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:02:59 -0500, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:50:44 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> 
>
>That is true.  I'd like to see a consumption tax imposed.  If you
>build cars and small trucks (which includes vans, mini-vans, SUVs and
>pickup trucks) and they get less than 30 MPG, you are assessed a 1%
>per vehicle tax on the MSRP.  This cannot be passed on to the buyer.
>If you own vehicles in a non-commercial entity that get less than 30
>MPG you are assessed a 1% tax on the purchase price every year you own
>that vehichle.
>
>If you build and sell vehicles that run on alternative fuels and/or
>get more than 30 MPG, you get a 2% credit on the MSRP to apply against
>any 1% taxes.
>
>If you own those same vehicles, you get a 2% of the purchase price tax
>credit every year you own the vehicle for 10 years.
>
>In addition, the way the MPG are calculated by the EPA needs to be
>changed.  The way it is now, it is not accurate.  Let a non government
>group, Consumer's Union for example, calculate it.
> 
>
>Good ideas indeed, but it takes about 10 years to build a nuclear
>plant.
> 
>
>That'll never fly in the USA.  We are not China.
> 
>
>True.

As a US citizen living in Canada, I note that major portions of
Europe, the US and Canada are not having enough children to keep the
population steady.  A good social security and pension system seems to
work wonders in keeping populations down.  Urbanization also helps
since children no longer are of as much economic benefit.  Again a
pension system gives people the feeling they don't need to have
children to take care of them in their old age.  In short, you don't
need to be a drastic as China to curb the population.

Clark Morris
> 
>
>Regards,
>          ////
>         (o o)
>-oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>"Marry me and I'll never look at another horse!."
>--  Groucho Marx
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Remove nospam to email me.
>
>Steve

"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> As a US citizen living in Canada, I note that major portions of
> Europe, the US and Canada are not having enough children to keep the
> population steady.  A good social security and pension system seems to
> work wonders in keeping populations down.  Urbanization also helps
> since children no longer are of as much economic benefit.  Again a
> pension system gives people the feeling they don't need to have
> children to take care of them in their old age.  In short, you don't
> need to be a drastic as China to curb the population.

Don't know about the other countries you mentioned, but since Roe Vs.
Wade, the United States alone has killed more than 50 million unborn
children.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:jrKwj.93982$rc2.79267@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: 
>
> Don't know about the other countries you mentioned, but since Roe Vs.
> Wade, the United States alone has killed more than 50 million unborn
> children.

I don't know what country Judson lives in <G>, but since Roe vs Wade there h
ave
been ZERO " children" killed as a result of that change.  There have been ma
ny
pregnancies terminated, but as defined in the US today, no CHILDREN have bee
n
killed by this.

(I think there have been some adults wounded if not killed since that decisi
on,
but I don't hold the behavior of some extreme anti-abortionists to be direct
ly
related to the decision, only to the value the place on the lives of adults 
who
disagreee with them.)

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote: 
>
> I don't know what country Judson lives in <G>, but since Roe vs Wade there
 have been ZERO " children" killed as a result of that
> change.  There have been many pregnancies terminated, but as defined in the US tod
ay, no CHILDREN have been killed by this.

Please note that I said "unborn children". Do you say that the unborn
babies who are alive right now are not the children of their mother?
Many of them (partial birth abortions) were killed seconds before full
birth. By what twisted perverted logic does one say that a baby that is
being born, and all it's body is outside the mother's body except for
part of the head, is not a child of the mother? Obviously, the twisted
and perverted logic that permits one to murder their own flesh and
blood for the sake of convenience.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

In article <kyWwj.109788$L%6.21812@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

[snip]

>By what twisted perverted logic does one say that a baby that is
>being born, and all it's body is outside the mother's body except for
>part of the head, is not a child of the mother?

Mr McClendon, one might use the same logic that one uses to determine
pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions.

Pre-natally what exists is a foetus.

Para-natally what is coming-into-being is a child.

Post-natally what exists is a child.

(Not, of course, that this sort of logic seems to be frequently considered
by those bandying about terms like 'murdering babies' and 'killing
children'.)

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> 
>
> Mr McClendon, one might use the same logic that one uses to determine
> pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions.
>
> Pre-natally what exists is a foetus.
>
> Para-natally what is coming-into-being is a child.
>
> Post-natally what exists is a child.
>
> (Not, of course, that this sort of logic seems to be frequently considered
> by those bandying about terms like 'murdering babies' and 'killing
> children'.)

Right. It only gets "bandied about" by those morally bankrupt enough
not to know or care; those who hide behind technical definitions
created and used for the purpose of doing murder while claiming
innocence.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

In article <xyXwj.109826$L%6.47869@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote: 
>
>You're doing precisely what you accuse me of.

Mr McClendon, you asked a question about logic and I supplied a possible
answer; you've not addressed how that answer fails.  Third and final
request: what is logically 'twisted or perverted' with differentiating
between pre-natal, para-natal and post-natal conditions?

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote: 
>
> Mr McClendon, you asked a question about logic and I supplied a possible
> answer; you've not addressed how that answer fails.  Third and final

Good.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

I place statements (at least dealing with legal issues in the US) about
"unborn children"

in the same category as information about
- unmarried spouses
- living corpses

Or any other "impossible" situation.

If parents who go to a maternity ward for the birth of their first child, it
 is
said they (she) is EXPECTING her first child. Such parents (for all legal
purposes that I am aware of in the US) have ZERO children before such a deli
very
of a child.

I fully understand that there are individuals, religions, and otherwise in t
he
US that want to state that pre-birth that part of a woman's body is already 
a
CHILD, but I don't think that corresponds to current US law.  (And if you ar
en't
talking about US law, then why mention Roe v Wade?)

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:kyWwj.109788$L%6.21812@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote: 
>
> Please note that I said "unborn children". Do you say that the unborn
> babies who are alive right now are not the children of their mother?
> Many of them (partial birth abortions) were killed seconds before full
> birth. By what twisted perverted logic does one say that a baby that is
> being born, and all it's body is outside the mother's body except for
> part of the head, is not a child of the mother? Obviously, the twisted
> and perverted logic that permits one to murder their own flesh and
> blood for the sake of convenience.
> --
> Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>

In article <jFXwj.109829$L%6.28507@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:

[snip]
 
>
>Good.

Thrice asked and thrice refused, Mr McClendon... no more needs be said.

DD