a-train
-
Posts
2474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by a-train
-
-
Traveler, I thank you for your response, but I do not share your view. I do not believe men have any predisposition to selfishness. We are taught selfishness. Locke explained in his treatise on government that man has "a desire of happiness, and an aversion to misery". However, this is different from selfishness. As Jesus said of children: "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 19:14).
Selfishness must be chosen. Sin must be chosen. Those without knowledge of the law cannot choose to follow it. Locke actually wrote on the subject in his 1690 treatise as well. Speaking of children, he said they were born "ignorant and without the use of reason, they were not presently under that law; for nobody can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him; and this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his reason, cannot be said to be under this law" (Locke sec. 57).
Locke did not have benefit of the Book of Mormon which was published over a century after his death. "Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me" (Moro. 8:8).
Also look at verse 22: "For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law".
The newborn child is neither naturally selfish nor charitible. The child is a blank slate capable of learning all things. He is not any more selfish than he is a soccer fan or a lover of books.
We are not destructive by nature, such a nature is not the cause of all destructive forces in society. Such false doctrine was strongly repudiated by the prophet Joseph Smith. Our second Article of Faith is a straight forward disavowal of it. The LORD said also: "Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me" (D&C 29:47) .
-a-train
-
And neither are most english teachers.I had an English teacher say to me once, "'What If' is a question for Philosophers and Fools."
Most politicians are not philosophers.
-a-train
-
This here is something we need to tread on very lightly. At the time of the American Revolution and in the preceding centuries, it was argued by those in support of religious and political oppression that because men are born predisposed to destructive behaviour by virtue of original sin, there must be institutions which protect the man from himself. The Church, the King, law enforcement, they all must have power to be preemptive, to prevent a man from making bad decisions.We are self destructive by nature.
This falsehood also brought men to believe that certain races were born with less intellectual capacity and less integrity. These races were therefore kept in suspicion and total control: slavery.
John Locke argued (as did many before him) that man is born a blank slate: the "tabula rasa". We Mormons call it: "the viel." He argued that there is no predispositions born in a man. All he becomes, all he believes, all his thoughts and actions are learned.
Because of this, Locke argued that no institution can preempt man's evil predispositions because he has none. In fact, the classical liberal movement which came to be based on Locke's ideas looked to establish a society without such control. The United States came be one of the closest to such a society.
Man himself is not self destructive by nature. It is the strains and stresses put on him by his fellow man that lead him to destruction. And why does a man put the strains and stresses on him? Because he himself seeks self-preservation, the very opposite of self-destruction.
Although many members of the church and even some leaders at times have fallen into the error of believing that men are born with certain pre-dispositions, it is not true. It is a lie which the devil uses to get people to agree to give up on liberty. It is the lie that he used in the pre-mortal world. His followers wanted protection from their own behaviour more than they wanted freedom.
There are those who say: "Why won't the LORD just take away my temptations, just change me from an alcoholic?" It is because our liberty is his gift and he does not take it away. It is up to us in this life to choose.
-a-train
-
Congressman Ron Paul asked these questions to the Congress.
YouTube - RON PAUL: WHAT IF... The American People Learn Truth!
Do we not think the fact that the United States murdered Persians and overthrew democracy in Iran in 1953 to install the Shah has anything to do with their hatred toward us? Do we not think that the U.S. support for Saddam's invasion of Iran and the gassing of hundereds of thousands of Iranians in a 13 year war has anything to do with it? I wonder how many Iranians still remember that the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian passenger plane flying over Iranian airspace with 290 passengers on board.
The generations of distorting democratic processes, of bribes, of bombs, of war, of bloodshed, have nothing to do with it? It is simply religious?
The truth is, most middle easterners don't hate us at all. They realize it is not us that is pursuing this foreign policy, but a government which we have lost control of.
The saying: "Oh this is all religious strife hundreds of years old" is a complete cop out and a refusal to take in the facts. Our actions there are not based on religion. The U.S. does not bomb the middle east because we are in a religious war. If we do, if our policy is a religious policy, then it is even worse!
Saddam did not invade Iran because of their religion. We did not support him because of his religion. The Afghans did not repel the Soviet invasion because of the religion of the Soviets. We did not support the Afghans because of their religion. Saddam did not invade Kuwait because of the Kuwaiti religion, we did not repel that invasion because of the religion of Saddam. President Clinton did not order the bombing of Iraq because of the religion of Iraq. He did not call for the removal of Saddam because of his religion.
Perhaps Hitler could have called the Germans who thought it a bad policy to invade Poland "isolationists". Perhaps the Japanese who thought it a bad policy to bomb Pearl Harbor could have been called "isolationists". Is it really "isolationist" to believe that we should not START wars? That we should not be the first to strike?
America will sooner or later realize that our biggest problem is our foreign policy. We can put that fact in the bank. The only question remaining is how many lives will be lost, how many Americans will live in poverty, how utterly terrible the situation will get before we do so. I personally think we will figure this out a lot sooner than later.
-a-train
-
I would not care if my taxes were tripled so long as government spending came under restraint. Our problems have nothing to do with taxation and everything to do with spending. The Republicans since Reagan have thought that they have discovered some magic trick whereby they can increase spending while decreasing taxes. The explosion of this myth should be fully realized by most who are paying attention.
What we desperately need in this country is for the Congress to perform their Constitutional duty and control spending.
-a-train
-
Joseph Smith owned a bar in Nauvoo (after the Word of Wisdom was received).
Jesus turned water to wine at the celebration of a wedding. The guests found his wine to be the best.
I would definitely sell liquor and tobacco.
If we strictly abstained from the activity, Mormons would not work in grocery stores, stores like Wal-Mart, convenience stores, hotels, most restaurants, a whole assortment of jobs. The fireman cannot look down on those who work in such jobs or own such businesses. Just as others cannot look down on the fireman who has duties on the Sabbath.
Further, if we believe it a sin to sell liquor or tobacco, then it would not hold to believe that it is not a sin to sell coffee and tea. An even stricter interpretation would disallow us to sell soda drinks with stimulants in them. Our youth would not work at a local fast food joint.
Perhaps we would even say that selling rich cakes and sweets which can lead to weight gain or foods high in cholesterol should be avoided.
I have heard members demonize Marriot for selling alcohol, tobacco, and worse: pornographic movies, in his hotels.
To them, I would uphold again the original Mormon Creed, Joseph Smith Sr.'s 11th Commandment:
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
(The above plaque hung in the Logan temple for many years. The creed was also on the front of Mormon newspapers during the late 19th Century amid Washington's persecution of the Saints.)
-a-train
-
-a-train
-
Trust in the LORD, not in man. Read, pray, ponder, meditate. Let yourself be empowered by the LORD not dependent on others. The writings of the prophets cannot be overstated. Remember Lehi's vision? What is it that God has given us to guide us through the darkness?
If you are experiencing doubt, it is because the LORD has something to show you, just as He did Thomas. Go to Him, see what great things He has in store.
-a-train
-
We know that Satan sought to take away man's agency (Moses 4:3). His plan was one of prevention, of preemption, of proactive control, of man's dependence on him. The LORD's plan was one of liberty, of a probationary state, of a judgment that would come only in the end, of man's independence through the Atonement of the Lamb.
That war in heaven was fought over this point: agency. Satan would have us give away our responsibilities and with them our control. And as Lehi so well pointed out in 2 Nephi 2, "righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."
What was Satan's plan? To politicize salvation. Salvation under Satan's plan comes not through sacrifice, not through the merit, mercy, and power of the Messiah, but through Satan's benevolent dictatorship. Under this plan, evil would never be admitted into the earth. Satan, our dictator, would personally see to it and we all would be subjects of his. The political power structure under him would prevent any man to choose evil. But as Lehi pointed out, his preemption would also keep man from choosing good.
The LORD protected opposition, freedom of choice, individual responsibility, and ultimately our agency. (Moses 7:32).
The war in heaven that resulted on the question of agency continues today. In fact, the war rages tremendously. Those who were on the side of captivity, kept not their first estate. Those of us who stood on the side of agency came to the earth. The importance of this principle cannot be overstated. It is the second Article of Faith.
From Adam to this day, Satan has inspired men to take up paths toward political control of human beings. At every turn we are being pressured to accept some level of captivity, to give up some level of our agency. The pressure is shaded in tempting language, we are promised all the benefits of success without the hazards of responsibility, "one soul shall not be lost." (Moses 4:1) Indeed, many of those who support the usurpation of agency and the end of freedom have every good intention. They say: "Just give us control and we will end hunger, we will end poverty, we will end ignorance, we will take away the evils of the world."
All of these good intentions cannot make their failing efforts succeed. Men are constantly told: "Just give up one more freedom and that will be enough." After it is gone, another is always required to chase the ever illusive utopian ideal of a world without evil. What is worse, freedom itself is blamed for the evils of the world: "If only people could not choose evil, then there would be none." The only thing every really accomplished is the aggrandizement of a few through politicization at the expense of the many: "wherefore give me thine honor."
Our very salvation depended on our support for agency in the pre-mortal world. Can it be any different in our Second Estate?
"To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences?" -Ezra Taft Benson
-a-train
-
The first thing that comes to my mind is Paul's warning to Timothy about false prophets (1 Timothy 4:1-3):
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocracy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Of course, this is a far cry from any direct objection to the notions found in Doctrine and Covenants section 89.
-a-train
-
I think it is entirely possible that Russia could break into smaller units and I would welcome the idea. Perhaps a new union of sorts or even a confederacy could be established. Whatever the outcome, I hope the best for the people there.
-a-train
-
OK, then why don't we tell everyone in the country to forget about college and work for the government. This way, everyone can have $45,000 in benefits and wages from the fantastic government!Yes it could create jobs but you can't beat government employment. Too many benefits from the Drs who don't have to pay malpractice insurance and get two $50,000 bonuses a year to the civilian contractor janitors that earn $12-$14 an hour when the local rate is minimum wage. There was a study done that showed what a service member really makes when including ,housing, medical, space A flights, gym membership, food allowance etc. and IIRC it was around $45,000. Not bad for uneducated kid straight out of high school.I don't think the civilian sector can match this no matter how many jobs are created our how much extra income one has due to not paying income taxes.
While it could help some it could also hurt others.
Your tax dollars support my families livelihood. My family (my wife particularly) supports your livelihood in return.
Oh wait, whose left to pay the bill? Uhhhhh....
Our government is bankrupt and is BORROWING the money to afford the military benefits we give to our troops. When that runs out, say goodbye to all those benefits. We cannot borrow forever. We killed the goose that lays the golden eggs but we keep telling everyone that she is simply on vacation and will be back soon so please lend us a hand and we will give you some golden eggs when she returns. Once everyone realizes she is dead, the gig will be up for us just as it was for the Soviets. That day is rapidly advancing.
There is only one way to increase the standard of living for any person, family, village, city, country, nation, or planet: increase production. How can we afford to give everyone enough to eat? Enough clothing to wear? Enough housing? By producing these things. I can give you a dollar and you can give it to a friend who can give it to another and another and another. But this will never produce any new wealth.
While our security is essential and we need to support troops who can provide it, our foreign policy has been the number one threat to our national security. We are at war because of our own meddling in international affairs. We keep killing enemies and setting up allies who then become the new enemies. All of this extravagant spending on military adventurism will prove our undoing just as it did the Soviets.
We need to get back to production. Bring those troops home and put them to work producing rather than destroying. Then, we will have an increase in production and a rise in the standard of living.
-a-train
-
Unfortunately, unemployment of labor is going to go much higher. The bailouts will do far more harm than good. The stimulus plans will help to wipe out our purchasing power. The only good news is that Americans will be working for such low international prices that our labor will at last be wage competitive with China and we can expect our exports to increase. This however will be very difficult and painful because of our under-capitalization.Those statements of fact did not come from obama; he is quoteing what every econimist and historian knows to be true; this is the worst since the great depression and lets hope it doesnt get worse than the great depesssion before its over; and in regards to yer statement on "R,V vehicles; thats great. really great the rich are still rich; what about the rest of us?:)
What should we as individuals and families be doing about all this? Food storage, savings, education, spiritual, mental, and physical nourishment, the same things the prophets have counseled us from the beginning.
-a-train
-
State Socialism is a system wherein the state takes ownership and control of the means of production. In such a system, the state owns the land, the capital, and the resources utilized in production. The state decides what to produce, how much to produce, how to distribute it, and at what prices if any to do so.
Fascist governments allowed private ownership of the means of production. Private entities were allowed to own the land, the capital, and sometimes the natural resources involved in production. The owner may even have had the ability to choose what he/she produces. However, much of the system was based on government created monopolies. Owners were also responsible for the maintainence of the capital and land. But the state imposed heavy restrictions on production techniques and quantities, distribution, prices, and supply arrangements.
The United States is really moving into fascism more than it is moving into socialism.
Fascism and Socialism are attractive because they promise full employment. They even promise that if full employment cannot be achieved, the unemployed will be taken care of. No socialist or fascist nation has ever achieved full employment. In fact, they have been mired with misdirection of labor. There ARE countries where unemployment does not exist. These are the poorest undeveloped nations on earth. There, people work 12 hour days just to eat. They have plenty of employment opportunities. Employment is not relevant. Production is the issue. Free-market capitalism increases production and raises the standard of living. Our departure from it has lowered the standard of living in the United States.
The trouble with both fascist and socialist systems is the politicization of the economy. A business doesn't profit from pleasing consumers anymore, it does so by getting the better benefits from government legislation.
A paradoxical example is the auto industry. Obama's campaign included a commitment to put 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. I don't know if he realized that Toyota already has a factory under construction in Blue Springs, Mississippi aimed at cranking out 750,000 plug-in Prius vehicles for the U.S. market by 2015. Toyota was greatly induced to do this by the flight to such vehicles by American consumers because of rising gas prices. Toyota was not doing this with government funds or assistance.
Today, because of economic problems caused by our money monopoly (the FED), Toyota has put this project (already under construction) on hold indefinitely. Meanwhile our Congress is using tax dollars to support GM, which has no plug-in hybrid at all. They only have the Volt which is just about back to the drawing board at this point due to cost-prohibitive issues.
The reason for this paradox is politics. The market has been telling us for years now that GM is not feasible. But, the politically connected don't need market feasibility to survive, just government assistance. Today GM needs another 16 billion tax dollars just to make it to the end of the month.
On monopolies: when deregulation of telephone services hit my area, my business's phone bill dropped 65%. It did so because we switched to a new service provider in the market. We saw no difference whatsoever in the service we were provided. After some time, Bell dropped their prices so low that we switched back. Today we have the lowest phone prices we have ever had, especially when we account for inflation.
Take a look at the mobile phone industry. That highly competitive industry offers services not available whatsoever a decade ago and at a price much lower than a decade ago. When I got my first mobile phone in 1999, I paid just over $100 a month and had a basic phone. Today I pay just $14 a month more for two phones; my wife and I each have phones with so many capabilities I don't even care to use them all.
Think about why GM is in so much trouble: competition. Imagine that our government simply did not allow Toyota to compete with GM at all. We would not even have the Prius. We would not have the Camry (the most American made vehicle you can buy).
I find it hilarious that often the people screaming 'antitrust!' the loudest also PROMOTE government monopolies. What is their real problem? Pride. They don't want any Americans to be rich. In their view, everyone should be just as poor. They don't understand that real free-market capitalism is the only reason they have a fridge, a dish-washer, a cell-phone, a computer, a car, or virtually any of the luxuries they have today.
Can you name some of the innovations which have changed our lives and the world which came from a socialist bureaucracy? What great inventions from the Soviet Union do you have the privilege of enhancing your life with today? How about fascist Italy? Perhaps we can at least drink some Tang and thank the Space Race for it with every delicious taste.
The freedom that free-market capitalists push for is the freedom to buy, to own, to create, to innovate, to produce, to sell, and to capitalize whatever the individual sees fit to. Under this system, all transactions are based on mutually agreed upon terms. Nobody is forced, every individual can 'just say no'.
A state socialist or fascist system tramples that freedom. Individuals are not allowed to 'just say no'. They are compelled by the threat of loss of property or even prison. They are compelled to buy certain things. They are compelled to buy them at specified prices and/or in specified quantities. They are prevented from free production. They are compelled to centrally planned production.
Keep America free. Let our grandchildren and great-grandchildren be free from fascism and socialism. Let them also take advantage of innovations our generation is capable of producing, just as we received so much from our grandparents and great-grandparents.
-a-train
-
This is because the US is not that wealthy any more. The numbers have been strongly overstated. The largest portion of Americans today have no savings at all.define socialist country? American's describe the UK as socialist because we have social welfare programme, NHS etc For me some social programmes are just sensible, when I see the state of the US I find it difficult, that the worlds wealthiest country has such poverty even in small towns.
The movement during the Reagan/Thatcher era was not so much a move toward capitalism, but one toward monetarism. We are now seeing the side effects of monetarism. As much as I am a fan of Milton Friedman, his monetarist theory was simply wrong. The Austrians have that issue right.Our country has become more captalist as a result brilliant students think twice about university, we do not always get the very best in the positions we need them, students who used to leave with 0 debt are now leaving in 10s of thousands of pounds worth of debt which I can't help but wonder has it contributed to a culture that thinks debt is OK
-Charley
-a-train
-
There is just one little detail you've forgotten to mention here. Where does all the money go that does NOT go to government after all this de-bureaucratization? There are only two places it can go: savings or consumption. Either way, jobs are created. The difference is that the standard of living rises because transfers of wealth are on the basis of the creation of new wealth, not merely the transfer thereof. Thus every person in the economy is positively effected. Health care, income security, education, VA benefits, nutrition, housing, environment, and job training are all enhanced.military, Health care, Debt interest, income security,education, VA benefits, Nutrition, housing, environment and job training.
So here's what we do. Lower taxes and reduce the size of the military, this puts more people out of work into the Civilian sector where jobs are already scarce.Vet gets sick, and can't work, can't get better because tax cuts affected VA benefits, applies for medicare but this system is limited now as well, tries to feed family but WIC is gone and free school lunches as well. Can't afford a place to live because he unemployed or under employed and housing programs have been cut also. Decides he needs to go to school the becomes better educated but now the FASFA is gone and he can't afford it. Becomes a "mountain man" to feed his family but without tax dollars helping the environments all the wild fish and game is unhealthy due to pollution.
Yes our government waste tax dollars, but it also goes to help alot of people. The base we are station at becomes the 4th largest city in OH Between 6 am and 5pm Monday- Friday because of the amount of employees that work here. No taxes no base, no base no government employees, no government employees no one to shop at the local businesses.
-a-train
-
The problem with the U.S. economy has nothing to do with its being capitalist. In fact, our trouble has everything to do with NOT being capitalist. You see, in order to be capitalist you must have capital. The United States has been decapitalizing for a long time.I have to get this off my chest. Everybody agrees that the economy of the USA is in a mess and that it has affected the entire world. I understand that some very stupid things were done. I do not agree that the money just disappeared into thin air. But that is not the point I want to make with this post.
This is my point. The USA is the world’s largest and most successful capitalist country and our economy is in a horrible mess. According to president Obama it is the worse it has been since the great depression. This is despite the fact that it is a capitalist economy. So we are going to have to borrow some money – lots of money. But with the world economy in shambles where do we go to get money – who has the cash to purchase our debt? Would you believe China? The world’s largest socialist country is the most economical stable country to be able to buy our debt.
If socialism is so rotten – how come China is in the best position during these hard times to purchase our debt - with CASH?
The Traveler
The money monopoly (the FED) sets artificially low interest rates which causes massive misallocations of resources and labor (bubbles). How does it do that? By setting interest rates so low, savers look to other sources to invest their savings. (There is little point in putting money in a savings account earning .015% when inflation is 5%). Savers look for appreciating assets. Nonsensical trends (bubbles) appear.
Business managers, basing future earnings forecasts on historical data open new locations, invest in new production facilities, hire new employees. When bubbles finally burst, the changes in demand can cause these new business investments to become worthless. Capital investments are liquidated and employees are laid off.
The most recent fiasco was the housing bubble. Rather than save money and capitalize, Americans counted their home equity as their savings. This artificial savings was not available as capital for the purpose of production, this is where the real trouble comes in. Decapitalization lowers production capabilities and thus the standard of living also.
China on the other hand has a tremendous savings rate. The Chinese save and invest (you know, that old-fashioned stuff our grandparents used to do). The have not been induced to borrow in mass by astoundingly low interests rates. They use their savings to capitalize production. This raises the standard of living and produces long-term growth.
The reality? A socialist country (China) is not saving a capitalist country (USA). Rather, a country with capital is lending to one that is very short on capital.
-a-train
-
Now you are thinking like a central planner.I think it is kind of a double edged sword. If income tax is gone and we just tax new stuff less people would consume new stuff. Could be good for the environment but bad for the employees in retail sector.
-a-train
-
The fair tax is just another federal bureaucracy just as bad as the rest. What does Uncle Sam need all this money for? Unjust and unconstitutional wars, programs which deprive Americans of their rights and their privacy while claiming to protect them, economic meddling which results only in major economic problems, the aggrandizement of politically connected cronies, the giving of aid to foreign countries in the name of what they call 'diplomacy', the intervention in foreign internal affairs which brings about hostility and actually undermines our national security, the building and maintainence of 700 bases and a world police force complete with unconstitutional prison camps, sheesh, what else can they possibly think of?In a perfect world that would be the answer. Each state have a version of the "Fair Tax" to run each individual state in the manor that that state wishes to be.
We still have the Government headquartered in DC (which now is using the new congress to get statehood for this city and now may be able to circumvent the Constitution to get it) that needs funds to run interstate relations and protect our borders.
The Fair Tax can be used for that also.
Don't let anyone fool you about this tax.
The overall price will not increase by the amount of the tax as opponents say.
Once it is set in motion all embedded taxes will be eliminated.
This will reduce the price of the products almost to the amount that what ever the Fair Tax may be calculated to be will amount to.
Support the Fair Tax;-)
We need to rein in the spending and get back to the constitution before we wind up in total collapse like the Soviet Union, a possibility that could likely already be underway.
I'll admit that the fair tax is a much more just tax than much of what we have in place, but it would solve nothing if our government continues its runaway spending spree which if brought to an end would make such a fair tax unnecessary anyway.
-a-train
-
Its disgusting. They think that the poorest Americans should pay the largest percent of their personal income in taxes to fund programs which mainly benefit only the politically connected.Every citizen has a right and responsibility to participate in government - and that includes paying taxes. Many think that some citizens should not be considered equal to others in the eyes of the government.
The Traveler
-a-train
-
I'd like to return to the original constitutional system of government wherein there is no direct federal tax at all whether progressive, flat, or otherwise. Return the power to the states!
While social security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme on its way to bust, the income tax is nothing but invasion of privacy, and the seemingly innumerable taxes we pay every time we buy something whether it is added at the time of sale or included in the price, it is the inflation tax that is the worst. It is a regressive consumption tax. It is deplorable. It is the number one reason for lower standards of living in the United States. END THE FED! We need sound money.
-a-train
-
I think the fear of a brandished weapon is many times the most effective aspect of it. A lot of people tend to go on vacation as soon as they see the business end of a firearm. Shotguns certainly are intimidating. I think a household would do well to own at least one handgun, one shotgun, and one rifle. This gives the family the capability to effectively defend themselves from any range. The versitility of the AR-15 sure makes it attractive. It is the duty of every man to defend his family against not only criminals in black masks, but criminals in big domed houses.
-a-train
-
Conservation of resources is not ruinous to economic growth, it is in fact essential for economic growth.Agreed; provided that such steps are not economically ruinous or a façade to facilitate social engineering.
-a-train
-
Also, the leading greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR!Speaking of emissions - how come nobody's complaining about the excess methane being released into the atmosphere from the intestinal bacteria of our massive cow population?
-a-train
Prolonging the pain?
in Current Events
Posted
It's true. The New Deal did far more harm than good. What is worse is those who claim WWII brought prosperity after the depression. The only thing that ever brings production is capitalization. Save and invest. That is the only true answer.
-a-train