MtnGoat

"transportation, public lands, the economy, commerce, and national defense. All these issues require a strong federal government in order to maximize our common welfare. " I could not disagree more. Some elements of transpo and many elements of defense require centralized planning. Lands, the economy, and commerce can take care of themselves with much less oversight. All that is required for an economy and commerce is rule of law, enforcement of contracts and property rights, and fiscal discpline maitaining the currency. Everything else should be left to the market and the consumer, or the states. "This statement is also completely hypocritical. The conservatives crying for smaller government are also the ones slapping Bush on the back for creating the Ridge gets a job Security Department and spending billions of dollars on questionable missile defense systems that may or may not work." That's because you mischaracterize the "smaller govt" line to begin with, and then extend it to areas your opponents never applied it to in the first place. Defense and security is a direct constitutional mandate. Managing education, social affairs, retirement, trying to do so with health care, and a whole basketful of other things, instead of the states or the people, is in direct conflict with the constitution itself. Funny how some amendments are more popular than others, huh?

"Only someone with very low standards of what constitutes an acceptable form of democracy, could think such poor representativity legitimizes policies that are obviously taken against the wishes of the majority." Every single voter has had the opportunity to vote, and they have made their choice with respect to that opportunity. Not voting is a choice to let others decide, and those who did vote made that choice. If allowing people to decide who to vote for, and wether or not to vote in the first place, is somehow "low standards", I direct you to those who made the choices, because it's not my place to explain their decisions. As for "obviously" against the wishes of the majority, what a laugh. All that's obvious here is a very vocal bunch of complainers used to being in power are now out, and using every play they can think of to influence policy anyway. They've been vocal all out of proportion to their actual numbers anyway, for a long time. Take a look at the midterm results and tell me all about what is "obviously" against the wishes of the majority. Voters have given Bush more support and ability to implement his wishes than they have given any recent prez, must be a trick. If you're going to convince me a "majority" wants something anyway, I want to see evidence of it in their personal lives first. I mean choices and action, not demands someone *else*do ,what they don't choose on their own. The secret "majority" is so concerned about oil, SUV's are still flying off the lots, for example.

"Did he use his relative majority to push through policies that were hugely unpopular? no, as you yourself conceeded." No, I conceded I couldn't think of any rollbacks, that's it. He tried to push one hugely unpopular issue through, and went down in flames (thank god): Socialized Health Care. And I might add, did so using tactics Bush has been roundly condemned for concerning energy policy, but which the oh so concerned Dems of the day simply couldn't be bothered about, secret meetings behind closed doors to develop the plan. Where was the outrage heaped on Bush and Cheney, when it was a Dem president and a dem proposal? Totally absent, that's where. Around this time he succeeded in helping Republicans begin gaining power in House and Senate to the current glorious result, beginning with the Dem's loss of the house. This provided the necessary firepower to gridlock Clinton at nearly every turn, for which I am eternally gratefull. Anything which slows the operation of the federal behemoth is a good thing. " All of this points for a balance in the exercise of power especially whenever democracy is not legitimized by an absolute majority." I'm not interested in balancing power to stymie actual change. Bush was elected, and then the midterms handed him total control. He should use it and go for it. When the Dems get total control, they can do the same.

"I am not sure where you learned that having a representative democracy and a republic of states meant that politicians could do whatever they fancied irrespective of the desires of their constituancies." Are they doing what they fancy irrespective of their constituency? Seems to me Bush is doing what his constituency wants, and given the midterm election results, I think it looks like a stay the course vote to me. Whenever Dems are in power they certainly attempt to do what they darned well please, claiming it's good for *all* Americans, in spite of themselves because as we all "know" that supposedly, Dems know what is best for everyone else. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. "I guess next time you wrap yourself in the flag and talk about democracy you better explain what you mean." When was it I was wrapping myself in the flag, exactly? If we have differing versions of democracy, well that's just how politics goes, isn't it.

"But, if the president has any concern for our country, he wouldn't embark on a unilateral (domestically speaking) path." Funny how when Dems assume power, "sharing" the power isn't in the cards, when it's a Rep in charge, suddenly it's all about sharing! "for the interests of the world at large (Kyoto agreement, International Criminal court, NATO, etc.), because that is where we live, in the world. There is no isolation anymore." Which is precisely why not following two of the three points provided is so important. Not allowing interelationships to lead down the road to making bad choices is part and parcel of effective leadership. Not buying into an extremely costly and ineffective proposal such as Kyoto, or an open ended, socialist based court system is very important to keeping the world a place where bad ideas are not snapped up because they are popular.

"can you name major politicy rollbacks taken by say Clinton that went against the majority of public opinion?:" Not offhand, no. I can say that if your standard for legitimacy is an actual majority of possible voters then Clinton can't even meet that, however, for a rollback OR a new policy. In fact, in the first election he had more people vote against him than voted for him, only the votes were split between Perot and Bush. So if you're going to play the non legitimacy game using majorities as a basis, make sure you apply it everywhere.

Using j_b's logic, I can't see that any presidents, or congressional, stances in the last several decades at least, have *ever* been supportable on that basis. If we decide that in order to legitimize elections an actual majority of all possible voters must agree, we can certainly rule out anything Clinton did, anything reagan did, or carter, or ford. I actually like the idea of this though, because sticking to that line of reasoning it means very little, if any, federal action would ever be valid. This is the problem with demanding majority rule in actuality. that "significantly less" than a 50% majority "cannot" confer legitimacy is entirely dependent on your view of the philosophy of govt anyway. I didn't see what can or cannot confer legitimacy in an election written down as a universal constant anywhere. I don't find that a majority confers legitimacy anyway in a great many things.

"Can anybody really believe points 1, 2 and 3 -- and that these are our main reasons for wantint to invade Iraq?" Why wouldn't they be? Who says there is always some secret plot behind any action?

"The cost of the sale are generalized to the public through the USFS and the cost of to public land, yours and mine, is distributed to all of us, not the generator of the problem."" In this we agree, logging costs should not be subsidized, roads and infrastructure built on public lands should be fully funded by those removing the timber. This issue still does not indicate only timber companies benefit, however, only that the benefit is not accurately costed to customers, due to market distortion by subsidy. We both agree the subsidies should be ended.

"While benefits are often reaped by a few (logging mills, etc) the costs are distributed to the public via destruction of habitat, streams, places to hike, etc." *someone* is paying for those logs, and they most certainly find they have personal value, or else they wouldn't pay for them. It's impossible for something being sold in a marketplace, to only have value to the producer, or it wouldn't sell in the first place. Selling something only happens when someone else finds value in what is produced. The benefits of cutting that timber is distributed to each person who decides to trade their labor (money) for the product in question. Looking only at who gets money in a trade is a very popular argument for folks looking to claim only producers benefit, but it ignores the value represented by those who decided to pay for something they'd rather have than the dollar in their pocket.

"you mean to say that a whooping 18% of the potential vote does not constitute a mandate for cutting trees but it is a blank check for war? " Since anyone legally allowed to vote has the opportunity to do so, not voting is *itself* a legitimate choice as much as voting is. Wether or not it is an effective one, that many do not choose to vote is their right.

So where was it said there will be no public comment, exactly?

Sure good to see folks against the state, or employers, using race as a determinant for hiring or anything else..... supporting polices officially using race as a determinant for hiring. Justice apparently is found in punishing not the specific people responsible for acts you don't like, but someone their color is presumably close enough. In short, adding injustice to correct injustice is supposed to work. Nope, it just doubles the amount. Now that's something to work towards. Greg, did you oppress some black man, or "marginalized" person, in order to warrant having your job application ignored, so a position you could compete for on the basis of merit gets used as a "remedy" for someone *elses* actions?

looks like j_b and I do agree on something, neither of us understand the need to complain about something no one makes any of the gripers read in the first place!

you guys crack me up. calling *anyone* selfish when nearly every political thread involves precisely what the posters want other people to do, really takes the cake. Nothing is more selfish than deciding your plans for everyone outweigh their own because you know better than they. That you supposedly may want it for someone "else" does not excuse that it's *you* that's wanting it, sorry! I get plenty of social time, with jokes and all the rest in normal everyday life, what I don't get is the chance to back and forth on interesting issues. If I actually posted on roadtrips and projects, would it really change the view of me given my viewpoints on a largely left wing message board? I have trouble believing it. I simply don't find page after page of freshies, horsecock, and snafflehound jokes all that exciting. Much as some don't like my posts. Thing is, when I don't like it, I don't go the extra mile and insert post after post about how much I hate it, I just figure folks want to have their fun and I don't need to rag on it. Perhaps as spring rolls around we could do a car camp somewhere, knock back some tall ones around a fire, and swap lies in person, that may help a bit.

"I do have a problem with you being a boring fucking tool" Apparently you also have a problem with your mouse usage, it keeps drawing you back to threads you say have been ruined by people you don't like. It seems to be a common problem here.

"stop crying, I am not glued to my machine." Doesn't explain why you posted some responses, but didn't answer my request the first two times I asked, does it now? "I have said it several times before but if you find references in the peer-reviewed litterature refuting that" I know you keep repeating that, what I am asking you for is what *you* consider "acceptable" peer reviewed material. Is peer review material from one of those horrible think tanks acceptable, or does your version of peer review presuppose agreement with your point of view? "1) there has been a 30% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution" There may well be, I have never contended this is a point I disagree with, nor have I presented evidence anyone disputes this. "2) increased CO2 and other human emitted greenhouse gas concentration is causing accelerated global warming, then we can start having a debate." Ok good enough. "I have not dodged anything," You have dodged the discrepancy between the science conclusion and the policy conclusion. You have not commented on the exclusion of and misrepresentation of error in the policy conclusions. You especially dodge my repeated, direct question on what you consider acceptable peer review, no not specific periodicals, but what standards of expertise you expect on the peers. "has been a cut and paste job from a conservative think tank website .... so give me break" You don't deserve one. Constantly falling back on ad hominim arguments, instead of dealing with points raised, doesn't earn any breaks. Repeat "conservative think tank", or "front", or "mouthpiece" a few more times, it may make a difference to some, but it doesn't cut it with me. You admit all sources have bias, then attack one side for bias repeatedly as if this answers the questions. It doesn't.

"What needs to be kept in perspective is what type of attack are we realistically looking at?" We realistically need to look at attacks that have a high probability of success. this means shipping containers and missiles and bioweapons and chemical weapons and whatever else becomes apparent. No one attacks with a method that they think will fail, and telling an opponent there is one method you will not defend against, practically insures they'll consider it. Additionally, depending on deterrence through retaliation when dealing with people to whom suicide is an honor is not exactly a real stable idea IMO. Or depending on deterrence when an opponent may simply not give a shit if they go to heaven or not if they get in a good shot first. Or the interesting moral position that the best defense is to threaten to allow millions of your own to be killed, on purpose and with full intent of allowing it because you refuse to stop an attack in progress, and then follow it up by killing millions more. As we continue to tighten up border inspections on cargoes in the US and even bound for the US, including ship surveillance on the high seas, it necessarily increases the difficulty of moving weapons here. While it is surely still possible, delivery methods which do not involve cross border shipments of cargo and a spread out network of planning and timing becomes more attractive. A missle need not cross any borders or be in a container thats inspected, until it crosses the borders of where it was launched, in a way we freely say we cannot stop!

Ok DFA, I'll see your call.... What I don't get is the assumption that national defense is a single priority issue. That we can't deal with Iraq if we're dealing with Afghanistan, that we must choose between this threat or that threat, or that we have the luxury of doing so. We simultaneously maintain vigilance with respect to everything we've encountered recently *and* more classical ground based warfighting capabilties as well. Wether or not shooting missiles outa the sky fits a recent immediate concern of el presidente, it's still a very weak spot in a national defensive posture. We have *zero*, zip, nada defense against a missile attack, other than allowing a freebie first and then killing more millions to retaliate. This is simply not an acceptable posture to me, and making deterrence instead of interdiction our basic policy, limits our range of responses. If we are hit we not only suffer tremendous damage, but will respond in kind. If we can deflect an attack, the need for immediate response with nuclear means is lessened. Those who wish to harm us will always seek the means to do so as they become available and using means they can expect to get results with. Our current posture insures that a missile attack remains a viable method, difficult yes, but guaranteed to succeed as long as the hardware works.I personally find large scale warfare far less likely than a sneaky one or two missile venture and even that we have no hope of stopping if they fly and they work. That's not an acceptable risk to me. The reason I am not using the same level of effectiveness here as a standard is a simple one. We're not discussing something we can change in a few years after mistakes become apparent. The "mistake" of not having a missile defense if one is needed is immediate and unacceptable to me. If the warming debate tips to the affirmative, we can take action at least equivalent to Kyoto (which even by it's own standards is pretty near meaningless) when it occurs. It's a long, slow process we can evaluate as we go, with ways to adjust and change and evaluate what is needed. We're not discussing millions of deaths in an instant followed by millions more an hour later and then DFA goes whoops, a day ago I knew I was right and now millions are dead. The debate over warming is of course of a larger scale but it also has time for debate and change.

ya notice how he won't answer and provide the tools I need for an effective response using what he claims he will accept as evidence? everybody wants specifics and then doesn't want them, or denies them by ad hominim instead of data. Funny people!

Tactical advantages conferred by a defense during multiple missle attacks do exist. Part and parcel of defensive tactics is denying your attacker certainty of the outcome of an attack, forcing them to commit more resources, and still have a larger degree of uncertainty than if they were certain all of a first strike would arrive on target. Right now, with no defense whatsoever, *any* attacker who can get a missile in the air with sufficient technology to reach it's target and explode is virtually assured the attack will succeed. We have no defense, all thats required for success is proper tech and a clean launch. In a multi attack, sure some will get through, but when you're going for a knockout punch that *must* include all facilities capable of retaliation in order to lower retaliation damage, some isn't enough. Which targets will be hit and which defended successfully? The uncertainty about what will remain undamaged causes problems with planning an attack. Part of defensive strategy is also economics. Part of the reason the Soviets collapsed was their attempt to maintain parity with the US while we charged ahead with an economy fine tuned to produce surplus and innovation while they used an archaic system of top down control that could barely supply enough light bulbs for it's people, let alone maintain parity with a capitalist juggernaut that can churn out goods and make a profit doing it! The reason I mention this is that once in place, defensive missile technology will most likely be cheaper (IMO) than the missiles it destroys on a launch by launch basis. It will certainly be cheaper than letting missiles get through. If defensive systems are not that accurate, then you double or triple them up. Especially in a single launch scenario, where sending 3,4,5 or 10 intercepts to make sure is well worth the cost. As beam weapons become more practical, especially particle weapons not affected by atmospheric humidity (lasers can have problems with this), they'll doubtless be more effective than interceptor style technology. The army recently succeeded in shooting down an artillery shell in flight with a beam weapon, which heralds the end of simple artillery barrages as unstoppable attack methods. Sure, weapons can be delivered in other ways and a missile defense cannot protect against these other methods. But it can defend against missiles, and denying that method of attack or complicating the tactics of same same at the least has value. We have anti tank weapons that don't work against airplanes, and machine guns that don't work against tank.... that missile defense doesn't work against shipping containers is besides the point. It's not supposed to.

are you going to provide me with what you consider peer review of acceptable quality? I do not wish to work finding data only to have you do additional dodging that it's not the peers you like, or the source is a "front", or whatever. And I ask again, for the third time, which IPCC conclusion are you speaking of? The science section or the policy section?

if anyone expects to make sense of the basics surrounding what some are using as jusitification to compel forcing us to drastically alter our lives *and* pay for what they intend to do...they'd be well served to wade through some of the boring shit, here or on their own, free of the annoyances of either myself or j_b!

tell me your standard for peer review, and which section of the IPCC conclusion you are discussing, and I shall do so.

"great, we are glad to know you'd take us to war based on your subjective opinion of what Iraq may do. That comforting for everyone I am sure." Since you'd keep us out of war based on your subjective opinion as well, we're in the same boat now aren't we? I for one have no problem admitting my subjective view of politics is precisely that.