IGX

Any philosophy that ~@~ embraces is obviously faulty. Our ersatz John Galt seems to believe that his minimum wage interests are best served by the folks who laugh at people like him.

cleaner464 wrote:Any philosophy that ~@~ embraces is obviously faulty. Our ersatz John Galt seems to believe that his minimum wage interests are best served by the folks who laugh at people like him.

You mean Progressives like you, Joe?

dead man walking wrote:

Gene wrote:
You sue for damages.... real damages, like acid rain, depositing polonium or mercury onto private property.

Not imaginary damages, like "global warming" or asthma.

a just society would not allow people to shoot neurotoxins into the air. it wouldn't make me sue to protect my health.

A Just Society, DMW, wouldn't allow Ideologues to saddle us with 18th century sources of energy, mostly to benefit a few large Corporations.

You don't see many small companies wanting to build Windmills, do you?

People sue Corporations all of the time for damages. Why is pollution excluded?

Are those narratives Online true, that US Courts followed the lead of British Courts who tossed out pollution lawsuits because such suits "impeded progress"?

Turdacious wrote:

http://video.xnxx.com/video642363/anal_ ... o_in_paris

F@ck @ff Th@d.

I'm trying to figure out where Bux found this gaggle of pro-life libertarians who don't believe in evolution. I've known a lot of libertarians ranging from borderline anarchists to the more moderate libertarians that are common in the economics profession. Libertarians who are either pro-life or creationists are a very small minority.

Gene wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Gene wrote:
You sue for damages.... real damages, like acid rain, depositing polonium or mercury onto private property.

Not imaginary damages, like "global warming" or asthma.

a just society would not allow people to shoot neurotoxins into the air. it wouldn't make me sue to protect my health.

A Just Society, DMW, wouldn't allow Ideologues to saddle us with 18th century sources of energy, mostly to benefit a few large Corporations.

You don't see many small companies wanting to build Windmills, do you?

to the contrary. here's one example among many.

and for the record, the wind portfolio requirement in texas was signed into law by george bush.

http://www.performanceservices.com/services/wind_power

dead man walking wrote:to the contrary. here's one example among many.

and for the record, the wind portfolio requirement in texas was signed into law by george bush.

http://www.performanceservices.com/services/wind_power

Bush did a lot of stupid things, DMW. Pretty cynical for you to cite him as "justification" for Crony capitalism.


Wind Turbine Manufacturers, per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wi ... ufacturers)

Vestas 6 Billion Euros annually, that's a pretty big company, DMW.
Sinovel - China
Goldwind - China
Gamesa - Spain (division of Gamesa CT SA total 2.736 Billion Euros)
Enercon - Germany
GE Energy (formerly Enron Zond Windpower, acquired by GE at a bankruptcy hearings - how convenient) General Electric income is at 14 Billion US Dollars, no income taxes and plenty of subsidies.
Siemens Windpower - Another Corporate giant, 7.4 Billion Euros
Ming Yang - China

Pinky wrote:I'm trying to figure out where Bux found this gaggle of pro-life libertarians who don't believe in evolution. I've known a lot of libertarians ranging from borderline anarchists to the more moderate libertarians that are common in the economics profession. Libertarians who are either pro-life or creationists are a very small minority.

Pinky, it may be confused. Not sure why evolution is in the first rant I posted, I've never heard of libertarians disputing evolution. However, I have met nothing but pro-life libertarians. They are all RonPaulians. It is a secular view that one of govts limited functions is to defend life.

BucketHead wrote:

Pinky wrote:I'm trying to figure out where Bux found this gaggle of pro-life libertarians who don't believe in evolution. I've known a lot of libertarians ranging from borderline anarchists to the more moderate libertarians that are common in the economics profession. Libertarians who are either pro-life or creationists are a very small minority.

Pinky, it may be confused. Not sure why evolution is in the first rant I posted, I've never heard of libertarians disputing evolution. However, I have met nothing but pro-life libertarians. They are all RonPaulians. It is a secular view that one of govts limited functions is to defend life.

Ron Paul's always been unusual among libertarians on this issue, and I'll admit that I know very few libertarians who were converted by Ron Paul. The dominant view among non-Paulites is that a woman has a right to not have a baby if she doesn't want to. It's also true that even Paul's converted conservatives do not believe that the government should protect life at the expense of other's rights in other circumstances. This "always defend life" view sounds like an attempt to shoe-horn a conservative view into libertarianism.

If you want Paulian lunacy that's more common among libertarians, look at the gold standard. But he and his son are still better than most Republicans.