Re: Life Duty Death

mark (
26 Sep 1995 23:31:04 -0500

In article <>, (Joseph Askew) wrote:
> In article <j/> (mark) writes:
> >> Really? They have some problems I will agree. But then the
> >> system that made these problems is dead. You claim that is
> >> not a great leap forward? Why?
> >What does your question have to do with the previous question? I have
> >heard that Lake Baikal is nearly collapsed, ecologically speaking. What's
> >going to try to bring it back?
> Lake Baikal isn't by the way. Not to worry. The relevance is

Isn't what?
> Perhaps you don't think that killing 20 million people is evil?

1) I have heard a *lot* of variations on that number bandied about. Almost
as many as 9M (for those here on a.p)...I'd say that the number
is still unsettled.

2) More importantly, how many million have they killed in Great Britain,
or Sweden? Y'know, *both* of those have been socialist economies, to
a greater or lesser degree. You have the misguided idea that what
they had in the USSR was the purest form of socialism...which is about
on par with thinking that the Chilean dictatorship under Pinochet
was the purest form of capitalism.
> The USSR. And the Green movement has the people to
> do it by the looks of your post. Ecofascism.

Show me where I have condoned violence. Show me where I said I was
in the Greens? You pull out a Limbererism, which has no definition
beyond a sound-bite nastyness...hell, I could yell "RADFAHRWEGism",
and it would be as meaningful and sound as nasty.
> >Sorry, but it's depleted so badly that the reproductive and habit
> >cycle is close to breaking. They very well may *not* come back, just like
> >the salmon in the northwest.
> The slightest evidence for this stupid claim?

Um, the news that I've been listening to for years, and if I need to
look it up, I b'lieve the US Fish and Wildlife Sevice could confirm it.
Or do you believe that folks (like the Sierra Club) can bring a case
to court that *literally* has no merit, no evidence, and have it
get anywhere? If that's true, then why haven't the stormtroopers kicked
down your door, and stopped you from speaking out.

'Cause a) there's plenty of evidence, b) there's nothing stupid about
the claim (other than your word).
> >Let's try this: what's your current salary (assuming you work)?
> Essentially zero.
> >I figure that *real* money means figuring out what the current dollar is
> >worth compared to when I started working full-time, (pulls out rocking
> >chair).
> So you are old fashioned. So what?

So you can pull out a meaningless sophomoric line, that has no function
other than to try to insult me.
> >So, what was your father making in the late sixties? Now take whatever
> >you're earning, and divide it by six, since the current dollar is worth
> >about 16.67% of the 1968 dollar.
> And the relevance of this is? Real wages have gone up in
> America by 65% since 1969. Deal with the real world. In

Say *what*? Sorry, but real wages have been going *down* since 1976,
which was when, in adjusted dollars, the US had its highest standard
of living. Hell, even in *non*-adjusted dollars, the everage income
in the US has dropped by several k$ in the last three years. I've heard
this on the news, as being from the OMB, from the Treasury Dept, and
from private studies. Where do you get your evidence?

Enjoy being the victim of the folks making you poor, do you? Ol' Newt
loves ya, baby.