Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
   "David J. Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>    "David J. Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left.  When they find them on the wrong
>side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality.  Now it's science.  If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science.  Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity,
>honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility.  It's now support for the policies of the
>left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who?  Me?  I don't buy into "Creation Science".  But the lefts
>redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis.  Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma.  That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists
>and
>> >> >Communists.  They are idealogical siblings to protect people from
>"evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and Nazis.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names?  OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all.  When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
>over
>> >the place.  No "name" calling was intended.  And if you're looking for
>nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
>and
>> >Nazi.  Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away
>from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
>genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>
>This one again?  Ok, I'll repeat myself.  Conservatives believe some rights
>are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>themselves.  That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
>nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right 
reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)?  Surely if there are any 
"inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with 
intimate relationships and behaviors.  Aren't you arguing the 9th amendment is 
meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the states?

>
>The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
>but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves.  The only time
>conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>
>Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
>of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted".  All those labels are debate
>enders.  The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
>with honorable arguments on both sides.  Yet people like you never engage in
>it.  You resort to this name calling instead.
>
>> >
>> >
>
>