🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi everyone.  Stan recently responded to my post, and I had so much
fun responding to it, I figured I'd share it with you.

BTW, Stan doesn't seem to know the difference between a socialism and
a democracy; I tried to explain it to him, but I'm not sure if I got
through to him...

Anyway, here it is:


> >  The following is my latest plan.  It doesn't really contain many
> >original ideas, 
> 
> You're right there, comrade.

What?  Comrade?  Are you suggesting that I, a republican, am a commie?
That's kind of silly.

> >but it does (I believe) combine a number of ideas in
> >a rather unique way.  
>    ^^^^^^
> Is your plan "one of a kind" or not?

Can you read???  The _ideas_ aren't unique, but the particular
combination _is_ (as far as I know)
 
> >The details of this plan have not yet been
> >completely researched, but preliminary research seems encouraging....
> 
> ...as it usually does to those who've embraced socialism without fully
> appreciating the ramifications.

Number 1, I'm a republican, not a socialist/communist.  Number 2, I'm
still researching it (if you want, I'll add your name to my mailing
list for further updates).  Number 3, I'm fully opposed to socialism;
it didn't work in Russia, Spain, etc..., and I don't believe it can
work anywhere else.  This plan isn't socialism; it's just changing the
existing buisness of fueling the nations transportation system.

> ca.environment being one to which I can NOT post a follow-up. Typical.

Well, included my address so you could respond, and if you want I'll
mail you a list of ALL the groups I posted it to, so you can try to
find one you CAN respond on; just ask, and you'll recieve.  Wining to
me that you can't post to a group doesn't make me feel sorry for you.

> Thereby explaining why we have a "stable" commodity market and farmers
> going out of business. The basis of small business success is a free market. 

Exactly; subsidising [sp] and restricting farmers isn't condusive to a
free market; but then, since I'm a communist, that would mean I'm
opposed to my whole plan...

> ...Serious ramblings against oil companies cut for brevity...

Fine

> As does any concern with the resources to ensure the success of it's
> business...it's called COMPETITION.

Your right, it IS called competition.  So they compete with something
else, something that's not "bad" environmentally.

> I find it hard to believe that there isn't enough work in this country for 
> EVERY ONE of those Gubmint employees. Get them out working on housing,
> roads, mass transit systems, rebuilding the infra-structure that the nation
> needs to survive...and do it through the private sector so INVESTMENT means
> something.

Ok, I'll agree to that...

> >POINT: Experiments being conducted in California indicate that (with
> >       almost no modification to it's engine) your car will run almost as
> >       well on pure ethanol (grain alcohol) which would have a
> >       significant impact on the environment, since ethanol burns so
> >       much more cleanly.  Some estimates (if a plan similar to this
> >       one is followed) have the price at the pump being about
> >       $0.60/gallon, with _very_ slight reduction of your car's fuel
> >       efficiency (miles/gallon).  By the way, the engine modifications
> >       would cost you less than $50 (no parts to buy, just some labor,
> >       and not much of that either).
> 
> If this is true, why haven't the oil companies latched onto the idea, foisted
> it on us at twice the price? Obviously, you weren't around in the 70's gas
> crunch when guys who did valve jobs made a killing fixing engines which
> were not designed to run on alcohol. Ethanol is readily available, and if 
> anyone is intent on running a car this way, they can, now, today.

Because of something that costs American business millions of $ each
year (or so I'm told by an ecconomics teacher...); the stereo typical
American business won't invest in something unless a profit will be
turned with in a year or two.

> >1. Get the "big boys" (instead of spending money on discouraging R&D)
> >   to spent that same money investing in it.  Long term, they can
> >   corner the market, since they have the money needed for investing.
> 
> TRANSLATION: Force investors in successful businesses to turn over their
> earnings to the socialists who can redistribute the wealth in the best
> interest of humanity as THEY see it.

No.  The oil companies are still going to profit (long term, more than
they do NOW), but so will the rest of us.

> >2. Shut down the Alaskan pipeline.  Any workers who want to continue
> >   working for the oil companies can relocate to the new plants (more
> >   on that soon).  Those that want to stay in Alaska can work to clean
> >   up the mess the oil companies will end up leaving behind; they can
> >   join the fishing fleet; whatever.
> 
> TRANSLATION: We, a vocal minority and keepers of the New World Order, 
> will shut down a primary source of revenue in a developing state & tell you
> where to work.

If the majority of those in Alaska want something, and we (as a
nation) give it to them, that's called democracy; check out that word
in you're dictionary if you've never heard it before...

> >3. Have the oil companies also build ethanol fuel production plants,
> >   and start buying corn from the farmers to make it.
> 
> TRANSLATION: Control the means of production.

No.  Encourage (if you prefer, control) WHAT is being produced, not
the means.

> >4. Have the federal government (instead of spending money to keep corn
> >   prices artificially high) spent that money on buying any corn left
> >   over (after the oil companies buy most of it for ethanol
> >   production) which it could then give (or sell) to countries like
> >   Ethiopia, the Sudan, Russia, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia...
> >   where ever the UN relief convoys happen to be this week.
> 
> TRANSLATION: Forego sovereignty and distribute the fruits of our labor
> to those who haven't yet figured out how to do it for themselves.

No yet again.  If A has a lot of something, and B has a lot of
something else, and they trade with each other (the stuff up there in
"( )" means we swap food for money), thats called trade.  And they
don't have to trade if they don't want too, so where does sovereignty
come into it?

BTW, it's not that the nations in Africa don't know how; it's that the
desert is a very dificult location to grow stuff in.  As for Russia,
well, we've already discussed the WONDERS of communism/socialism, do I
really need address them again?

> >5. Modify some of our oil tankers into cargo ships (jobs for people at
> >   places like the Philadelphia Navel Shipyard), to transport corn to
> >   other parts of the world.  The rest of the tankers could be used to
> >   export ethanol to other countries.
> 
> Uh...excuse me...they already are cargo ships. Their cargo is OIL!

Do you typically buy, say bread, in a gallon jug?  No.  The tanker's
need to be converted to "normal" cargo ships.  And if you're just
bashing me on semantics, well then go f--k yourself.

> >The long term results of this plan:
> >1. Help at solving the problems of world hunger
> 
> Which could just as easily be done by reasonable trade tarrifs.

I'll aggree to that also.

> >2. Helping the US farmer
> 
> Who is being destroyed by price supports to consortia of foreign investors.

So by adding a massive domestic investor, we'll be further straining
that, right?  Or perhaps the removal of quotas and artificial prices
will hurt free trade.

> >3. Preventing our military from getting US troops killed over oil
> 
> If not oil, it will be corn. Don't you get it?

So we're going to send our troops overseas to fight for the corn we
grow here; interesting...

> >4. Helping the US taxpayer
> 
> Want to help me? Get the welfare slugs out of my pocket!

Fine, I'll add that to the plan.  I'm in favor of destroying welfare.

> >5. Saving the planet, in a few ways:
> >  a. Less pollution from cars/trucks
> 
> Demand and use mass transit, telecommute...take personal action.

I already do use mass transit, along with a number of other things.
Unlike the stereotypical environmentalist, I'm not a hypocrite.

> >  b. Less oil spills (none from US tankers)
> 
> Check your numbers. The amount of oil spilled, even including the Valdez,
> is miniscule when compared to the amount in transit. Yes, there should be
> precautions taken, but the simple fact of the matter is the only way to
> prevent spills is to stop using oil.

?????  Isn't that the whole point of my plan?  To stop using oil?

> >  c. Preserving the Alaskan wilderness
> 
> The Alaskans were doing that very nicely until the environmentalist
> wackos showed up, thank you.

This one makes so much sense.  My response has to be:




> >6. Less money into the pockets of oil-rich, power-hungry countries
> >   like Iraq to spend on weapons (reduced nuclear proliferation).
> 
> The people of Iraq et alia must decide on their government. Who the hell
> are you to say they can't pour their wealth into the offensive weapons
> hole? They'll find out soon enough that Imperialism by the sword is a
> losing battle, just as did Napolean, Hitler, The Soviet Union...need I
> continue?

I hope they do.  In the mean time, you're saying you would have let
Hitler remain in power if given the chance to remove him before WWII
occured?

> >7. Long term, even the oil companies profit
> 
> >From selling corn instead of oil. And what do propose when Big Oil
> becomes Big Corn?

Not much.  Corn isn't bad for the environment (when proper care is
used to maintain soil integrity), so why shoud I care if they're
making money?

> >In order to get all this done, it will take (I suspect) an act of
> >Congress; therefore, I ask (if you think this is a good idea) that you
> >send a copy of this plan to: your local congressman, your senators,
> >and (most importantly) the editorial section of your local newspaper,
> >in order to "spread the word" so that we, as a nation, can pressure
> >Congress into pressuring the oil companies into adopting this plan.
> 
> No need. Congress is already well along the path of socialization. 

Once again you've confused socialiam with democracy.  It's a matter of
what's "best" for the group as a whole vs. what the majority of the
group wants.  You see, while we don't live in a pure democracy,
democratic ideals were very important to the founding fathers.

> >As I said, as of yet, I haven't completed my research,... 
> 
> This is obvious. What needs to be done is to study this plan in more detail 
> and recognize it for what it is; another naive proclamation of the 
> superiority of socialism. Then write your Representatives and tell them if 
> they don't stop heading this way, YOU'LL FIRE THEIR ASS in the next election.

Once again, I still don't see where socialism comes into it.
Democracy doesn't = socialism, and vice versa.

> You need to pay more attention in history class.

I need to pay more attention?  Someone who doesn't know the difference
between socialism and democracy, and you think _I_ need to pay more
attention?  That takes a lot of balls.

Anyway, thanks for responding; this was fun.  Please feal free to
write me again.







Well, I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I did.  Ans Stan, please
_PLEASE_ write me again.  My class ended today, so I'll have lots of
free time to respond in the next couple of weeks.