Tendo City

The final boss of all anti-videogame politicians is running for president...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/856649.asp




May God have mercy on the gaming industry if he's elected.

Quote:Lieberman has also been a determined foe of one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal and high-profile pool of donors: Hollywood movie and television studios and their producers.
In his rhetoric Lieberman has struck a tone of stern condemnation of much of America’s popular culture, from rap music to violent video games.
He sponsored legislation to pressure the television industry to adopt rules for rating violent and lewd content.

Noooo, not my violent and/or lewd content!!

I know, I know. It's my favorite kind of content too. Well, one of my favorite contents.

I don't want him to win the primary... but not because of the anti-games thing (thats part of it but not much). Its because he's too religous and conservative for my tastes...

Dang conservitive democrats! Anyway, I do believe that since the media is about the only thing he even HAS opinions on, that's how I should judge him as a leader. Thus, I don't want him to win based on the only thing he's given me something to decide my opinion on, his stance on media. I do believe ANYONE who thinks the media has that much control over people really spends too much time with the media themselves. I mean seriously, plenty of people just watch TV every now and then, not EVERYTHING that's on, and go weeks at a time just hanging at the mall or something.

I'm happy as hell he's running. He doesn't stand a chance. Bush'll tear him a new asshole. This is the next best thing to having Gore attempt another futile run!

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I don't want him to win the primary... but not because of the anti-games thing (thats part of it but not much). Its because he's too religous and conservative for my tastes...

At least he's not more conservative than Bush, Bush seems fairly religiouse to me

I hope he's elected.

That you you yanks can jam all your fucking "Australia gets sencored games" bullshit up your fat little redneck asses...

:o

Bush is more religious and conservative than Lieberman? Sure. Definitely. But that's hardly a compliment... Bush is so awful that saying one of the Democrats is better on almost anything than him is pretty much stating the obvious...
Compared to the other DEMOCRATIC candidates, though, he ranks pretty low...
Remember, there's Lieberman, Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, and a few other less important candidates (including Al Sharpton). Right now, John Kerry is probably my favorite... he's pretty liberal and has a real chance to win (unlike someone like Howard Dean... being Governor of Vermont doesn't get you much press coverage...).

I don't know much about the other canidets, I only know about Liberman becaue he ran for vice-president in 2000

Even if he's elected, he's not King of America PH. He can't force all games to have certain content on us, what with the constitution and all. All he can do is actually make some more controlling laws to prevent anyone under 18 from getting high rating games. The whole thing where all games legally HAVE to have certain content won't happen here, just over in Australia, with the prime minister sunbathing naked next to the pig farm. "Hey Andy!"

Besides that, every desicion he makes must be approved by Congress, so he can't control everything directly, although I don't think there are many gamers with congressional seats besides me...

I know in Canada the Prime Minister actually has more power over the government than the US President has over the US one
The Prime Minister is usually a member of Parliment in the governing party, Members must vote along party lines in the House of Commons unless the PM decides to allow a free vote
THe Prime mInister apoints the Governor General
The appointed senete hasn't rejected a bill passed by the house of commons in over 50 years
Prime Minister appoints the Supreme Court Justices

I'm not sure about Australia but their Prime Minister probably has almost the same powers since both Canada and Australia have governments based ont eh British Parlimentry system

Nooo
I just found out that the only true liberal canidate for the Canadian Liberal Party leadership isn't running anymore, now we're probably going to have stupid Paul Martin for Prime Minister
oh well at least we don't have Bush for a president

Ah well, it doesn't matter who runs against Bush really, none of them stand a chance. Liberalism is now right were it belongs: On college campuses, in silly protest marches, in Hollywood, and in the minority of every American branch of government.

i'm torn on this whole goddamned issue. on the one hand, i hate conservative attitudes, religion doesn't hold any weight with me, conservatives are just not my thing.

on the other hand i hate extreme liberals...they just bother me. and i hate the democrats trying to take my money.

Oh yeah, Weltall? I wouldn't be so sure... it looks like some people have FINALLY realized that Bush is not doing the things that should be done to help fix the many economic problems in this country...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/1...index.html
Lowest approval rating since 9/11. Sure, iits still a ridiculously high 58%, but still, its moving in the right direction... if the economy stays where it is (which, given the policies of the administration, it will unless some hugely shocking thing happens, which it won't), it looks like people might finally begin to see the light and notice that Republicans haven't fixed anything after all, and vote for the opposition... hey, that's what happened to the first Bush!

Like I'm going to believe a poll from the Clinton News Network.

The reason the economy is the way it is was because the big boom we had a couple of years ago, which for some reason Clinton gets so much credit for, was all based on an empty dotcom system that just didn't work. That is hardly Bush's fault that the whole economic paradigm of the late 90s was a complete farce. How are you supposed to 'recover' from that short of recreating it? It's nonsense. The receding economy is a direct result of that, and there's really little that can be done. And everything Bush tries is shot down by the liberals anyway.

And, Clinton beat Bush because he was charismatic, he lied through his teeth and made everyone believe him. None of the current Democratic candidates have his charm.

So you don't believe polls unless they agree with your opinions? I sure wish I could do that, but it would make no sense at all... this is a definitely accurate poll from the people who do all the polls of this kind (Gallup) so somehow I doubt it is wrong.
No, it isn't all Bush's fault that the economy is bad. It did start going downhill just before he got in office. However, he has done almost nothing to actually help it... while it isn't his fault, his actions have made it worse. I'm sure if Gore had won (well, been allowed by the supreme court to win the race he did win), it wouldn't be as bad... but we'll never know that.
Also, it is true that none of the Democrats have Clinton's charm or talent for public speaking, which will make it harder... but I sure hope that the disilluionment with this Republican administration and all the awful stuff they are already doing (cutting taxes more now? Anwar oil drilling? Trying to get rid of affirmative action, anything that helps abortion or family planning stuff, destroying the environmental protections set up over the past decades (well, they are trying to), trying really hard to go to war with Iraq so we can get acces to its huge oil reserves (if it was REALLY over terrorism, Bush would make a MUCH bigger deal over North Korea-- a nation that has actually been PROVEN to both support terrorism, export weapons, and have a active nuclear weapons program... but North Korea is being ignored and let off the hook, while Iraq gets hammered... yeah, its over terrorism. Riiiight.) etc, etc... why people vote for these people is something I just can't understand...

You're right about the Iraq/North Korea situation.

Quote:cutting taxes more now? Anwar oil drilling? Trying to get rid of affirmative action, anything that helps abortion or family planning stuff, destroying the environmental protections set up over the past decades (well, they are trying to

Save for the abortion issue, I'm in full agreement with all the policies above. Lower taxes is always good, more oil is always good, affirmative action = legal racist discrimination, and there are few environmental protections enabled right now that make any difference other than to cost everyone more money.

I'm even in agreement with the abortion issue, which is something I personally don't get why people can't see the harm in. I mean, if you say that it's something each person should get to choose the right and wrong of themselves, then what's to stop the next step, saying parents should be able to choose themselves if it's fine to kill their born kids?

However, this whole argument ended pretty badly before, so I won't start it up again by continuing.

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
I'm even in agreement with the abortion issue, which is something I personally don't get why people can't see the harm in. I mean, if you say that it's something each person should get to choose the right and wrong of themselves, then what's to stop the next step, saying parents should be able to choose themselves if it's fine to kill their born kids?

However, this whole argument ended pretty badly before, so I won't start it up again by continuing.

Let me rectify by saying that I am in partial agreement, I am in favor of abortion in cases of rape, or when the mother's life is threatened, but I don't support people using abortion just because they don't want to raise a kid: You do the horizontal mambo, you take what comes with it.

That I agree with.

I don't know if I really want to get into this because these are issues which really can end pretty badly... they have more realworld meaning than videogames... Plus, no one here seems to be on my side and its tough to be the only one defending your side of the argument. Why is everyone here who cares about politics seem to be conservative? :(

As you can guess I pretty much completely disagree with just about everything the three of you said. I don't know if going in depth is worth the time, though, because it'll just lead to more long arguments and no change in the world of anyone changing their minds. Oh well.

Still... how can you seriously say that environmental protection doesn't do any good? That's such a stupid (and classic for rightwingers) position that its impossible to argue... if you insist it you can, but it doesn't mean that it has any relation to what is going on with the environment in the real world...

Of course, Bush is doing his best (and given this political climate, making progress in) getting rid of as much of it as he can to help his corporate buddies. Its really terrible and will onlyl lead to more clearcut oldgrowth forests, irreversable damage to the ecosystem, etc, but there's nothing that can be done... the stupid people who allowed conservatives to control the whole government by, for some bizarre reason, thinking that which party is in power doesn't matter are really to blame. As we're seeing it clearly does...

Affirmative action? I was really hoping that after the whole Trent Lott thing, Bush would grow part of a brain and at least PRETEND to make attempts to not alienate the entire black vote. However, he then goes and attacks affirmative action and nominates super right wing judges. Great. Way to show that your party is exactly where we all know it is: for the rich white men only... Er, rich white Republican men...

That stupid tax cut proposal sure helps prove that one, if anyone needed any convincing because they haven't been reading the papers or watching the news for several years. Hmm, lets see... a dividends tax cut which will help super rich people and major corporations only. Getting rid of the estate tax, which will help super rich people only. And more like that. Gee, I wonder who he is catering his programs to... I wonder...

As for oil drilling in Anwar, its a less major issue but still is major because it represents something -- more government destruction of national parks and forests, just like all the logging that the administration is now increasing in other oldgrowth national forests. Good for corporate profits, bad for the ecology of the region, planet, etc... and for the future of wild spaces and national parks and places for freedom from clearcutting and building that national parks and stuff are supposed to be...

Iraq. I just don't see how ANYONE can think that Bush honestly has created this war (I'll face it... with Bush in charge, we never had a chance of NOT having a war in Iraq, 9/11 or no... it just gave him a 'better' reason...) over "terrorism". If it truly was, he'd be going after TERRORISTS. He's not... real terrorists elsewhere are ignored while he focuses all his energies on a nation that not only doesn't have nuclear weapons (or proof of a currently operational nuclear weapons program), but isn't even funding terrorists (except for Palestine, but all the Arab countries, including many US "Allies", are doing that so that's not a decent reason unless we go to war with, say, Saudi Arabia too...). Yeah, its over terrorism. Sure. And it has NOTHING to do with Bush wanting to make up for daddy's mistake of leaving Sadaam alive, or to give the big oil campaign donors access to one of the world's biggest oil fields. SUUURE. At least Germany, France, Russia, China, and 70% of the American public (I'd give a link to the poll, but don't remember where. I know its accurate... 30% of the people support us going to war by ourself. Its around 70 or 80% with UN support, though.) agree and say that war really isn't the right thing to start considering until diplomacy has been worked through and the UN authorizes another declaration against Iraq... which, if indications are right, France, Russia, and/or China well might block. So Bush is forced to go to war with only Tony Blair (not the British people... they are even more against our own war than Americans...) backing him up. Of course, given this IS Bush, I'm sure he'll go in anyway... I wish he had a brain and would follow legal channels like almost every other major world leader does, but no luck.

As for abortion, that is a VERY important right that I (and any self-respecting sane liberal) should be very scared about being destroyed by this administration... but this argument, as I've seen in political arguments in the recent past around here, devolve real fast into two shouting camps... and all of you (three, at least) are on the one which I can't possibly disagree with more. I think that trying to restrict abortion is really a truly awful position and that stupid stuff about unborn fetuses being the same as living humans is just dumb.

Tom Tomorrow is hilarious... and has got the Bush and Iraq situation down perfectly.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I don't know if I really want to get into this because these are issues which really can end pretty badly... they have more realworld meaning than videogames... Plus, no one here seems to be on my side and its tough to be the only one defending your side of the argument. Why is everyone here who cares about politics seem to be conservative? :(

Because Conservatism... yunno... makes sense. Liberalism is one of those things that looks good in theory and tends to end with failure in practice. Like Communism and socialism. Liberalism is a defunct system given real birth by FDR and nurtured by Hippies. The good ideals of liberalism are always marred by the race/class envy they blame Conservatives for.

Quote:As you can guess I pretty much completely disagree with just about everything the three of you said. I don't know if going in depth is worth the time, though, because it'll just lead to more long arguments and no change in the world of anyone changing their minds. Oh well.

Still... how can you seriously say that environmental protection doesn't do any good? That's such a stupid (and classic for rightwingers) position that its impossible to argue... if you insist it you can, but it doesn't mean that it has any relation to what is going on with the environment in the real world...

Of course, Bush is doing his best (and given this political climate, making progress in) getting rid of as much of it as he can to help his corporate buddies. Its really terrible and will onlyl lead to more clearcut oldgrowth forests, irreversable damage to the ecosystem, etc, but there's nothing that can be done... the stupid people who allowed conservatives to control the whole government by, for some bizarre reason, thinking that which party is in power doesn't matter are really to blame. As we're seeing it clearly does...

The typical leftwinger position is that we're on the verge of destroying the world, despite much evidence to the contrary. While enviro-nuts piss and moan about global warming being our fault, a single normal-sized volcanic eruption causes more damage to the ozone layer than humans have in our entire industrialized history... and yet even though Volcanic eruptions have been happening a few billion years, we still have an ozone layer completely intact. And despite the fact that we've been able to take scientifically accurate global temperature readings for all of a half-century, enviro-nuts seem convinced that this period of global warming couldn't possibly be natural... even though evidence shows climate shifts of even greater magnitude have occured sequentially for billions of years. Nature does far more damage to this planet than we do, and the Earth always recovers. We're not, short of total nuclear holocaust, even remotely capable of destroying the entire world due to pollution.

Quote:Affirmative action? I was really hoping that after the whole Trent Lott thing, Bush would grow part of a brain and at least PRETEND to make attempts to not alienate the entire black vote. However, he then goes and attacks affirmative action and nominates super right wing judges. Great. Way to show that your party is exactly where we all know it is: for the rich white men only... Er, rich white Republican men...

Let me answer that by quoting Martin Luther King Jr. from his famous "I have a dream" speech, my favorite line, in fact:

Quote:I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Wow, look at that. Dr. King, the most famous civil-rights activist in American history, was opposed to affirmative action. Not only is affirmative action simply reverse-discrimination aimed at Asians and Whites, it's insulting to those it claims to help. It insinuates that black people, hispanic people, and other minorities (except Asians, AA does not help them at all) are not smart enough to be successful on their own. It's a goddamn shame when the color of your skin is a more important factor to you getting a job or college admission than is your skills, training and work history. I agree fully with Dr. King, every person who applies for college or a job should be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I am a white male. If I applied for a job, and a black man got the job instead of me, I would be happier if that black man was chosen over me because he was more qualified for the job than I am, not just because he's black and I'm not. Can you honestly say that's fair? Is it fair even to an unqualified black person to give him a job he can't handle and will lose in six months because while he didn't have the proper training and skills for the job, he still got it by virtue of his skin color?

Affirmative action, liberals say, is the best way to right the wrongs of segregation. So what you, and your ilk are saying is that discrimination is okay as revenge? That's what AA is. And it's harmful and damaging to minorities, because it creates, or rather adds to the vicitimization culture black people in particular suffer from. It's a stupid, worthless, and utterly insulting practice that I will cheer for it's death until the day it happens.

Quote:That stupid tax cut proposal sure helps prove that one, if anyone needed any convincing because they haven't been reading the papers or watching the news for several years. Hmm, lets see... a dividends tax cut which will help super rich people and major corporations only. Getting rid of the estate tax, which will help super rich people only. And more like that. Gee, I wonder who he is catering his programs to... I wonder...

Typical liberal class-warfare bullshit. The richest 1% of America pay almost 20% of all taxes the federal government collects, far more disproportionate to income than the other 99%! Poor people, those who get all sorts of free breaks like welfare, disability and social security DO NOT PAY TAXES, AT ALL, ON THAT INCOME. The poorest people pay the LEAST taxes to begin with! In fact, they're the recipients of almost all the tax money that goes out to social welfare programs! For God's sake, don't be so dense! And when the rich get tax cuts, that enables prices on commercial goods and services to decrease, and jobs and wages to increase, which ultimately benefits everyone, especially the poor.

Quote:As for oil drilling in Anwar, its a less major issue but still is major because it represents something -- more government destruction of national parks and forests, just like all the logging that the administration is now increasing in other oldgrowth national forests. Good for corporate profits, bad for the ecology of the region, planet, etc... and for the future of wild spaces and national parks and places for freedom from clearcutting and building that national parks and stuff are supposed to be...

Don't lower gas prices benefit the poorest people best? Oh, I forgot: wild animals are more important than people. Sorry.

Quote:Iraq. I just don't see how ANYONE can think that Bush honestly has created this war (I'll face it... with Bush in charge, we never had a chance of NOT having a war in Iraq, 9/11 or no... it just gave him a 'better' reason...) over "terrorism". If it truly was, he'd be going after TERRORISTS. He's not... real terrorists elsewhere are ignored while he focuses all his energies on a nation that not only doesn't have nuclear weapons (or proof of a currently operational nuclear weapons program), but isn't even funding terrorists (except for Palestine, but all the Arab countries, including many US "Allies", are doing that so that's not a decent reason unless we go to war with, say, Saudi Arabia too...). Yeah, its over terrorism. Sure. And it has NOTHING to do with Bush wanting to make up for daddy's mistake of leaving Sadaam alive, or to give the big oil campaign donors access to one of the world's biggest oil fields. SUUURE. At least Germany, France, Russia, China, and 70% of the American public (I'd give a link to the poll, but don't remember where. I know its accurate... 30% of the people support us going to war by ourself. Its around 70 or 80% with UN support, though.) agree and say that war really isn't the right thing to start considering until diplomacy has been worked through and the UN authorizes another declaration against Iraq... which, if indications are right, France, Russia, and/or China well might block. So Bush is forced to go to war with only Tony Blair (not the British people... they are even more against our own war than Americans...) backing him up. Of course, given this IS Bush, I'm sure he'll go in anyway... I wish he had a brain and would follow legal channels like almost every other major world leader does, but no luck.

Bottom line: Iraq broke UN resolutions repeatedly. Therefore war is fully justified. And that the UN seems to be perfectly complacent with it's own statutes being violated is proof that the entire organization is useless. The fact that historically the UN has almost never been effective notwithstanding, the US and Great Britain are the only UN Members who give a damn about enforcing it's rules and regulations, and we comprise just about the UN's entire military force. We are the only useful members in the organization. The rest of them are pitiful, decadently-socialist pantywaste nations who are socially bankrupt, economically invisible and militarily nonexistent, and who want to continue the policy of appeasement that did France and Britain a great deal of good when they did the same to Nazi Germany. If the UN won't do their job, someone has to.

Of course, your average American liberal hates America and almost everything it stands for, so it's no wonder they're opposed to the war. A recent liberal anti-war demonstration featured a mosque leader chanting the Islamic Murder slogan Allahu Akbar, and called America the root of all evil and the real terrorists of the world, while a group of brain-dead liberals cheered emphatically. That should make any sane person disgusted, but liberals are incapable of shame.

Quote:As for abortion, that is a VERY important right that I (and any self-respecting sane liberal) should be very scared about being destroyed by this administration... but this argument, as I've seen in political arguments in the recent past around here, devolve real fast into two shouting camps... and all of you (three, at least) are on the one which I can't possibly disagree with more. I think that trying to restrict abortion is really a truly awful position and that stupid stuff about unborn fetuses being the same as living humans is just dumb.

Meaning that you support people being able to make bad decisions and erase the consequences. Did you know that abortion rates are decreasing every year? Now that 3D ultrasounds are possible, mothers-to-be see not a clump of lifeless cells but a forming human being in their womb... and more and more they're deciding not to abort children. That makes me very happy, especially since it required no law or statute.

Let me ask you this: What is your position on partial-birth abortions? Is it okay to kill a child that is aware and very capable of feeling pain?

Conservatism is the stuff that when later generations look back on, they think 'look how backward those people were!' Like us when we look at the Catholic Church's Rennaisance persecution of people who said the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Quote: The typical leftwinger position is that we're on the verge of destroying the world, despite much evidence to the contrary. While enviro-nuts piss and moan about global warming being our fault, a single normal-sized volcanic eruption causes more damage to the ozone layer than humans have in our entire industrialized history... and yet even though Volcanic eruptions have been happening a few billion years, we still have an ozone layer completely intact. And despite the fact that we've been able to take scientifically accurate global temperature readings for all of a half-century, enviro-nuts seem convinced that this period of global warming couldn't possibly be natural... even though evidence shows climate shifts of even greater magnitude have occured sequentially for billions of years. Nature does far more damage to this planet than we do, and the Earth always recovers. We're not, short of total nuclear holocaust, even remotely capable of destroying the entire world due to pollution.

Um, that just isn't true. Pollution is helping to cause global warming. Global Warming IS ocurring. That is a scientific fact that no one (not even President Bush, who was forced to admit it) can deny. Over the last century the earth has warmed up... more than just nature explains.

And of course that ignores the whole issue of pollution and the great damage it is doing to the earth. Here's an example. Here in the Northeast, we have a pollution problem. Maine, actually, has some high air pollution in places... much of the state was forced to have to have gasoline additives (MTBE I believe) to try to lessen pollution. Of course, its not OUR problem... like the whole Northeast, it is the result of pollution blowing to us from Midwest coal power plants and the like. They have the pollution generation and smokestacks... but they are very tall, so WE have the problem. Great. Oh, and did I mention that Bush wants to WEAKEN the regulations on those plants? Thankfully, 8 or 9 Northeast states (all the way down to Maryland) have sued the federal government to try to stop that awful removal of even more legislation... I just hope they win.

Quote:Wow, look at that. Dr. King, the most famous civil-rights activist in American history, was opposed to affirmative action.

Do you HONESTLY think Martin Luther King Jr. would have been against Affirmative Action? I sure doubt it because that just wouldn't make sense, given how almost EVERY black leader (including the ones in the administration now, like Colin Powell) support it...

Once the races are equal in opportunities and in the eyes of the people choosing people, affirmative action won't be needed. But like anti-discrimination legislation (you can't fire people becasue of age, gender, religion, etc) it is needed to make up for that unfairness. Without affirmative action, many of those people wouldn't get in, many because they just didn't have the same opportunities as white people get... it really is needed to make up for the inherent unfairness of the system as it is.

Quote: The richest 1% of America pay almost 20% of all taxes the federal government collects, far more disproportionate to income than the other 99%!

And you know what? They have and make so much money that they SHOULD be paying at LEAST that much and probably more... because they are rich they should be paying more! Of course conservatives disagree... but any "reasons" why are bizarre. Perfect example here.

Quote: And when the rich get tax cuts, that enables prices on commercial goods and services to decrease, and jobs and wages to increase, which ultimately benefits everyone, especially the poor.

Um. Yeah. Right. That works just as well as 'trickle-down economics' did for Regan -- NOT AT ALL! The fact is, wealth doesn't trickle down. The conservative economists may wish or think it does, but it doesn't... I think that the Reagan administration and its incredibly big increase in the debt (didn't it go from very low to over a trillion?) proved that...

Oh, and poor people make less so they shouldn't pay much if at all. Tax should be fair, so the more you make the more you pay... and it is, mostly. Well, unless conservatives get their way and gut it...

Quote:Don't lower gas prices benefit the poorest people best? Oh, I forgot: wild animals are more important than people. Sorry.

Honestly? I wouldn't mind if gas prices went up two, three, or 4 times... you know, so it would be as expensive as it is in Europe (where prices are in general 3 to 4 times higher at the low end...). Maybe THAT would get fewer people to buy those awful SUVs and make car companies to make more energy efficient and hybrid cars faster...

Quote: Bottom line: Iraq broke UN resolutions repeatedly. Therefore war is fully justified. And that the UN seems to be perfectly complacent with it's own statutes being violated is proof that the entire organization is useless. The fact that historically the UN has almost never been effective notwithstanding, the US and Great Britain are the only UN Members who give a damn about enforcing it's rules and regulations, and we comprise just about the UN's entire military force. We are the only useful members in the organization. The rest of them are pitiful, decadently-socialist pantywaste nations who are socially bankrupt, economically invisible and militarily nonexistent, and who want to continue the policy of appeasement that did France and Britain a great deal of good when they did the same to Nazi Germany. If the UN won't do their job, someone has to.

Yes, Iraq isn't really cooperating. Still, that doesn't make a war justified... in this case almost nothing would short of actually finding nuclear material or something... The war was created by Bush, egged on by Bush, and now is about to be started by Bush. If not for his obsession with Iraq, I bet that it would be minor issue now... but Bush has to make up for his father and get more oil, so he created the whole issue out of nothing when a convenient excuse -- "terrorism" -- came along. It doesn't really fit, but given that its just an excuse, it shouldn't...

Oh, and the UN has been effective before. And just because most of the world is opposed to war in Iraq (unless only the US and UK governments count in the world, that is) doesn't mean they are weak... it means they are sensible governments that listen to the people and do what the people want. Note that France, Germany, and the whole Middle East (Turkey for example) are opposed to war... mostly because the people in those nations are. The English are mostly opposed too, but that government is going to war anyway... in the US there are more for war, but still as I said not near a majority without UN support. A good government would listen to what the people want... Bush never has so he sure won't start now.

Quote:Of course, your average American liberal hates America and almost everything it stands for, so it's no wonder they're opposed to the war. A recent liberal anti-war demonstration featured a mosque leader chanting the Islamic Murder slogan Allahu Akbar, and called America the root of all evil and the real terrorists of the world, while a group of brain-dead liberals cheered emphatically. That should make any sane person disgusted, but liberals are incapable of shame.

Oh come ON. Liberals don't hate America any more than Conservatives do... just what this administration stands for on almost every issue.
Yeah, there was recently a antiwar demonstration in Washington. It attracted 200,000 or 300,000 people, while the one in San Francisco that day attracted over 50,000. And most of them probably wouldn't agree with statements like that... though there is some truth to that quote. Its not really true, though. There are many nations more evil than the US... though with our power, Bush is able to accomplish a LOT more bad stuff than most of those people. We aren't truly evil, though.

Quote:Meaning that you support people being able to make bad decisions and erase the consequences. Did you know that abortion rates are decreasing every year? Now that 3D ultrasounds are possible, mothers-to-be see not a clump of lifeless cells but a forming human being in their womb... and more and more they're deciding not to abort children. That makes me very happy, especially since it required no law or statute.

Let me ask you this: What is your position on partial-birth abortions? Is it okay to kill a child that is aware and very capable of feeling pain?

Abortion is really important... it always happened legal or no so legalizing it makes it much safer. Plus, it really is a very important right.

Before someone is born they are NOT A PERSON. Conservatives want it to be made so that unborn fetuses are declared children, but they aren't people until they are born...

And partial-birth abortions? I think they will be made illegal in congress because it has the support. It is unfortunate, because it gives the anti-abortion lobby a toehold in its fight to destroy abortion... this is first, but whats next that they will do? It really is a slippery slope... and a bad one...

Oh... one more thing I've mentioned before. North Korea. If Bush was TRULY fighting "Terrorism" he'd be making FAR more of an effort to stop North Korea... or to find Bin Laden, for that matter. But he isn't and is clearly hoping that the Korea issue can go away until he finishes with his little private vendetta against Iraq satisfactorially. Great.

First, a very cynical comment by me regarding conservation. Isn't it very egotistical for us humans to assume we and we alone in the animal kingdom have the ability to destroy the world? Those giant flesh eating ants in africa seem like they could do it too...

Second, my REAL opinion on conservation. I actually think we should be concerned about nature at least enough to not burn the whole frickin' planet down. Do I think our current pollution is bad enough to do that? In actuality, no I don't. There is a cycle of life specifically for absorbing the stuff we toss out of factories (which as has been pointed out, is tossed out by nature anyway on a larger scale). It involves rain and red tides. Tiny critters (wow, I sure sound like an ignorant red neck here, but hear me out) eat this stuff and eventually multiply massivly until the water color changes. After this, other life forms come along and eat them up, multiplying themselves. The only major concern is that we may be causing more red tide than the ocean can can eat up. Oh yeah, and "save the whales", except in Japan, because I figure the whales need to LEARN to avoid us.

Oh, it seems the inspectors found some hidden missle places. That comic I found funny, because it does indeed point out the stupidity of the public (sorry, again with my cynicism), but the difference between "the moon" and a fellow with secret missle bases is that the moon has no mind of it's own or anything like that, and is run by predictable laws of nature. Science alone prooves that it's orbit is far too stable to ever crash into Earth. In fact, considering it's HUGE distance from the Earth, it's likely to actually be flung away when the orbit decays (really, the distance is NOT like this capital O and lower case o here (O o) but rather much farther, like these letters (O o), with only it's size convincing many people it's like, RIGHT outside the atmosphere). However, on the other hand we have a person who is pretty much known to be a control freak who WILL attack when he thinks it's needed to keep his power. Finding hidden missle bases is enough to proove that (I will admit, finding some nice proof is something I actually wanted to have done before war started, even though I also thought he deserved to be overthrown anyway).

As for abortion, that's a hair trigger issue with pretty much everyone. I'll basically point out the two logical flaws I find with thinking the right and wrong of it should be left to the individual. First off, when should it no longer be a right left to the individual? As in, when should a parent no longer get to choose when to kill off this undeveloped human? Humans are not fully developed into clear thinking adults until their teen years, and not fully developed physically until about 20 years of age. When a fetus is born into baby stage (why not go ahead and agree with your classification? Doesn't hurt me), it's still not near complete. The only difference is that instead of depending on nourishment from the womb, it depends on nourishment from other food sources. Mentally, it's still not nearly fully developed. Half the human brain is just framework for data during the first year of birth. The other half is purely instinctual. Higher thinking and such are not capable. In many ways, some might say they are not cognitive humans. So, why can't someone have the right to decide for themselves if killing their own born babies of up to 5 years of age is right or wrong? Why should the courts get involved in this moral choice? They are undeveloped after all.

As for the other flaw, this is it. I see a flaw in anyone using the argument "that moral decision should be left to them" without a decent argument as to WHY it should be left to them. The whole idea of laws is that there ARE some moral decisions that should NOT be left to the individual. The general consensus is that the individual choices of morality should be available in the "hurts no one" scenario. I think that the idea that abortion hurts no one is pretty much untrue. Before pointing out they aren't humans, remember you can say the same thing about born babies since they aren't fully developed either, and in fact have very little cognicience for a while.

Oh, and here's a tricky subject. What about rape and life threatening pregnancy? Rape I'll have to be pretty much a jerk about and say "there's still adoption". I know it sounds cruel to say that a woman should carry around a part of the evil person who raped her for 9 months, but she doesn't HAVE to think of it like that you know. That evil person is seperate from the life form gestating inside her, and to think of it as linked is something that could bleed into other opinions. She may think of herself as a part of him, somehow linked by that terrible action, when in fact she is not at all. She could put this link to other people during certain situations. It's a harmful way of thinking really, for her mainly but also for others. Should she think that this undeveloped fetus of a human is a part of that man, then what if for some reason she still has it, and even raises it? I think you can see how that kind of mindset could really hurt that relationship. As for life threatening issues, this is like something you see on "a very special episode" of ER or Star Trek or something, where the doctor has to choose who will live or who will die. It's just as tricky a subject as deciding if this person in VERY bad shape should have everything done even though the prospects are low, or if they should give up the ghost and their organs given to this other person who would die without that organ. Very tricky, and perhaps this should be dealt with on a per situation basis just like those situations.

I find This Modern World very funny because I'm both liberal and cynical (or, rather, realist... because, lets face it... the public as a whole really IS that dumb...) about the public, and those are the audiences he aims for... :)

I think you're analyzing the moon thing a liiitle bit too much... given it was a joke and all... :)

Yes, the world can recover from what we've done to it... it we leave it alone for a long time. Of course, we can't do that. We will keep destroying forests, polluting the air and water, killing off species after species, etc. until we actually HAVE done nearly irrevokable damage to the ecosystem... as it is some places are in big trouble...

And it sure won't help that many conservatives want to do away with the few environmental laws we do have that keep, for example, rivers from bubbling with foam and burning because of so much pollution in them.

Is Iraq cooperating? Not really... but Sadaam wouldn't do that. He hates us too much... the problem is we don't really know what he's hiding. So far, it sure doesn't look like much... I see no proof that Iraq so much as HAS a nuclear or chemical weapons program, and see no proof coming soon! If Bush wants ANYONE to believe him he'll have to start by giving GOOD, SOLID PROOF. I think that won't happen... after all, this is Bush here and he doesn't need proof. And if he had it I doubt he'd want to tell us, the public, about it...

Abortion... it is a touchy subject like this... and I know there's really not much I can say. You won't change your (awful, IMO) views. I mean, 'when does it become ok to not kill'? Um, when they are born and become a child? Duh? Dislike abortion all you want... it really becomes a problem once people try to ban it. Disliking something is one thing, but banning it is going too far in many cases... and antiabortion people seem to want to do anything in their power to destroy this important right.

I might say more on this later... we'll see.

I have to say you didn't address my points on abortion, but rather just said the two things I attacked again without doing anything to argue against what I actually said. Why is it that in the womb makes it not human, but born makes it human? If it's development, I already pointed out that out of the womb is still not fully developed, and in fact most higher brain functions that make one human aren't developed for a few years after birth. Then you stated that it should be right to choose, another thing I addressed by stating that there are many things that both you and I agree should NOT be left to the individual, like theft. You should attack my logic behind my attacks on your points, instead of just stating the points again.

I was stating that yesterday, all over hte news, the people doing inspections from the UN actually DID find proof that there are illegal missle silos in Iraq.

Also, my point is that nature isn't "recovering from the damage", it's FEEDING off it. All the pollution we put into the atmosphere is fully absorbed. It does end up doing some damaging things before it's absorbed, like acid rain, but in the end, it all goes out to sea and is eaten. Pollution is a problem, but not as bad as many like to think.

The environment? From everything I've seen, conservatives just will never accept that it in as bad a state as it is... or that trying to save wild places and our air and water is a very good idea. So I won't bother... except to say that I find it very important to do that and think we desperately need stronger environmental legislation, not like Bush here who is doing his best to gut everything we've got protecting what's left of the environment...

Some things should be regulated. Others should not. Here's an example... free speech. Do I agree in any way with Neo-Nazis like the ones who had that rally recently in Lewiston? Of course not! But do I think for a second that their right to free speech should be limited? No! They have the same right to express opinions I do... and I wouldn't want that to change. Of course, many other nations don't have a Bill of Rights, but we do.

The government should regulate some things, but not others... and abortion is one that should not be regulated. Most things that don't hurt anyone (note: 'anyone' includes yourself. I'm quite definitely against legalized drugs.), in most casts, probably shouldn't be. Theft? Of course... or murder or something (I'm against the death penalty, though. And happy we don't have it in Maine...it should be that way in all the states...). But not abortion or stuff... as for things like euthinasia (like Kevorkian I think), I'm not sure what I think...

I, and any abortion supporter, makes the distinction between when a person is a person when they are born... I'd say it makes sense. People like you say its some other time or something... those aren't really reconciliable positions...

Oh, and I didn't argue a lot because this really is not an issue you can really argue. The same as in any abortion argument I've seen in reality -- the two sides say their opinions. There
is no debate and really can't be... there is no grounds to debate when the differences are so vast and unbreachable... the activists in both sides hate the very idea of supporting the other one so that isn't something that leads to discussion. It makes attacking your ... 'logic'... kind of hard.

Like organized religion, actually. Stuff like abortion, religion, politics (when you greatly disagree) probably aren't things that friendly people should discuss if they don't want to start arguing a lot... gay rights is probably another one, for people who don't like that idea.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[B]Conservatism is the stuff that when later generations look back on, they think 'look how backward those people were!' Like us when we look at the Catholic Church's Rennaisance persecution of people who said the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Wait, what seperates that from the liberal persecution of whites and Asians for their skin color? What seperates that from the Earth Liberation Front, a murderous bunch of eco-scumbags who destroy and attempt to kill just to save an Earth that doesn't need saving? What seperates that from attacking the rich just because they're rich?

Quote:Um, that just isn't true. Pollution is helping to cause global warming. Global Warming IS ocurring. That is a scientific fact that no one (not even President Bush, who was forced to admit it) can deny. Over the last century the earth has warmed up... more than just nature explains.

Oh come off it. Global warming might indeed be occurring. Guess what? It's likely occurred THOUSANDS of times in the past aeons! Certainly global warming ended the Ice Age! It's cyclic. It happens. It's pure hubris to think there's anything we can do to accellerate or halt it. It will happen and it will end. Human interference is basically ignored in the whole process. Those who blame global warming on humans have about fifty years of rather poor evidence, while my position is backed up by millions of years of proof.

FYI, Earth Day, founded in the 70's, was founded on the fear that a global COOLING was beginning! The next Ice Age was upon us! As then, it's all crap.

Quote:And of course that ignores the whole issue of pollution and the great damage it is doing to the earth. Here's an example. Here in the Northeast, we have a pollution problem. Maine, actually, has some high air pollution in places... much of the state was forced to have to have gasoline additives (MTBE I believe) to try to lessen pollution. Of course, its not OUR problem... like the whole Northeast, it is the result of pollution blowing to us from Midwest coal power plants and the like. They have the pollution generation and smokestacks... but they are very tall, so WE have the problem. Great. Oh, and did I mention that Bush wants to WEAKEN the regulations on those plants? Thankfully, 8 or 9 Northeast states (all the way down to Maryland) have sued the federal government to try to stop that awful removal of even more legislation... I just hope they win.

Err.. okay?

Quote:Do you HONESTLY think Martin Luther King Jr. would have been against Affirmative Action? I sure doubt it because that just wouldn't make sense, given how almost EVERY black leader (including the ones in the administration now, like Colin Powell) support it...

Obviously I do. His words, that I directly quoted, were solid proof of his stance. Character should have priority over skin color. Black 'leaders' of today echo King's statements but they totally lack the message of equality King preached. Black leaders like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan don't want equality, they want black supremacy, thus, they want Affirmative action to be a permanent fixture. I'm glad Bush has the balls to challenge it. It's wrong, and unfair to EVERYONE, as I explained before.

Quote:Once the races are equal in opportunities and in the eyes of the people choosing people, affirmative action won't be needed. But like anti-discrimination legislation (you can't fire people becasue of age, gender, religion, etc) it is needed to make up for that unfairness. Without affirmative action, many of those people wouldn't get in, many because they just didn't have the same opportunities as white people get... it really is needed to make up for the inherent unfairness of the system as it is.

Again, read what I wrote earlier. Many of the people who benefit from AA SHOULD NOT. There is a very illegal quota system that derives from Affirmative Action (which is what the whole mess in Michigan is about), and often colleges and workplaces take on minorities who are vastly unqualified because affirmative action demands these quotas be filled. Because these people are unqualified, they do a poor job and are either fired or kept on and bringing down the quality of the job they wrongly hold. If I get a 1600 on my SAT, why should that count for less than my skin color? Why does merely having black skin count TWICE as much as a PERFECT SAT score for college admissions? That isn't fairness, it's bullshit. Racist bullshit. Above all else, Affirmative action is state-sponsored racism against whites and asians. It's Jim Crow in reverse. There is no place for affirmative action in a society that despises racism. It just doesn't make sense. Skin color should have absolutely no bearing on job applications or college admissions. That should be completely colorblind. Why don't you AA supporters WANT equality?

Quote:And you know what? They have and make so much money that they SHOULD be paying at LEAST that much and probably more... because they are rich they should be paying more! Of course conservatives disagree... but any "reasons" why are bizarre. Perfect example here.

No, my friend. America is capitalist, not communist or socialist. They already pay far more per dollar earned than anyone else. You shouldn't be penalized because you're successful in life. That's just stupid.

Quote:Um. Yeah. Right. That works just as well as 'trickle-down economics' did for Regan -- NOT AT ALL! The fact is, wealth doesn't trickle down. The conservative economists may wish or think it does, but it doesn't... I think that the Reagan administration and its incredibly big increase in the debt (didn't it go from very low to over a trillion?) proved that...

Actually, what I stated was exactly trickledown economics. Wealth does trickle down. It's plainly obvious. As corporations become larger and healthier, they provide more jobs. More jobs = More money for the common people who hold them. When you have multiple large healthy corporations in the same field, competition ensues. Competition = lower prices. Lower prices = less money spent by those who don't have as much to spend. Trickledown is not only plausible but obvious. The same happens in reverse: When corporations are making less money, they raise prices and downsize employees.

The increase in national debt under the Reagan administration was largely due to defense spending. It had nothing at all to do with trickle down economics.

Quote:Oh, and poor people make less so they shouldn't pay much if at all. Tax should be fair, so the more you make the more you pay... and it is, mostly. Well, unless conservatives get their way and gut it...[quote]

Okay, what if we adopted a flat 20% tax on all income levels? Someone who makes $20,000/year pays $4,000 in taxes. Someone who makes $100,000/year pays $20,000 in taxes.
Someone who makes $5,000,000/year pays $250,000 in taxes.

That's fair. Everyone paying the exact same percentage of their earnings in taxes. The rich are still paying most of the taxes, but it's in the same percentage as everyone else. Of course, being a liberal you are obviously of the opinion that the rich should be punished for being rich and should pay an unfairly higher percentage. That IS exactly what you said.

Making rich people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes is NOT fair. The poorest people pay the LEAST percentage already, especially when you consider how much tax money they RECIEVE!

[quote]Honestly? I wouldn't mind if gas prices went up two, three, or 4 times... you know, so it would be as expensive as it is in Europe (where prices are in general 3 to 4 times higher at the low end...). Maybe THAT would get fewer people to buy those awful SUVs and make car companies to make more energy efficient and hybrid cars faster...

What do you care what other people buy? It's their money. They're paying more for the extra gas. What part of this bothers you?

Compare your average car of today with a car from the seventies. Today's cars are many times more energy efficient, and many times less polluting. Is that due to liberal laws? Hell no. It's due to the compact Japanese cars hitting the American market and being a huge success, forcing the manufacturers to abandon the smokers of the 70s and emulate the efficient cars the Japanese produced. CAPITALISM, that evil idea, brought this about :)

Quote:Yes, Iraq isn't really cooperating. Still, that doesn't make a war justified... in this case almost nothing would short of actually finding nuclear material or something... The war was created by Bush, egged on by Bush, and now is about to be started by Bush. If not for his obsession with Iraq, I bet that it would be minor issue now... but Bush has to make up for his father and get more oil, so he created the whole issue out of nothing when a convenient excuse -- "terrorism" -- came along. It doesn't really fit, but given that its just an excuse, it shouldn't...

Oh, and the UN has been effective before. And just because most of the world is opposed to war in Iraq (unless only the US and UK governments count in the world, that is) doesn't mean they are weak... it means they are sensible governments that listen to the people and do what the people want. Note that France, Germany, and the whole Middle East (Turkey for example) are opposed to war... mostly because the people in those nations are. The English are mostly opposed too, but that government is going to war anyway... in the US there are more for war, but still as I said not near a majority without UN support. A good government would listen to what the people want... Bush never has so he sure won't start now.

Iraq broke UN resolutions for TWELVE YEARS. He continues to break them. UN inspector Hans Blix verified in great detail that most of our reasons for war were totally validated. Now we will see whether the UN will enforce it's own laws, or if it will follow the spineless cowards of Europe who wish to ignore reality. The US and Britain will do what needs to be done regardless of whether the UN has balls or not. If the UN does not support military action against Iraq, it will be all the proof anyone needs to show that the entire structure was just another great idea that failed in application.

Quote:Oh come ON. Liberals don't hate America any more than Conservatives do... just what this administration stands for on almost every issue.
Yeah, there was recently a antiwar demonstration in Washington. It attracted 200,000 or 300,000 people, while the one in San Francisco that day attracted over 50,000. And most of them probably wouldn't agree with statements like that... though there is some truth to that quote. Its not really true, though. There are many nations more evil than the US... though with our power, Bush is able to accomplish a LOT more bad stuff than most of those people. We aren't truly evil, though.

I bring to mind the liberals who called Nam vets "baby killers" and treated them like shit, even though most of them never wanted to go to Nam. The hippies didn't care, they were still American soldiers, the soldiers of the evil empire, and thus were worthy of scorn, regardless of whether their military service was volountary. I bring to mind Jimmy Carter and various liberal Hollywood stars who get friendly with our enemies and badmouth America. Liberals embrace the ideology of communists and socialists, exactly the opposite of what America is. Liberals hate the rich, they hate the white male, and they hate Christians, which is why liberal legislation is always trying to harm all of the above in various ways in the name of equality and fairness.

Quote:Abortion is really important... it always happened legal or no so legalizing it makes it much safer. Plus, it really is a very important right.

Before someone is born they are NOT A PERSON. Conservatives want it to be made so that unborn fetuses are declared children, but they aren't people until they are born...

And partial-birth abortions? I think they will be made illegal in congress because it has the support. It is unfortunate, because it gives the anti-abortion lobby a toehold in its fight to destroy abortion... this is first, but whats next that they will do? It really is a slippery slope... and a bad one...

So you think a woman should destroy her fetus for whatever reason she wants? YOU may not think it's a person, but what is a person? As DJ stated, humans don't become 'people' for YEARS. However, fetuses are living. Late-stage especially, they are even AWARE. They can move! They are living beings regardless of whether they are conscious! Yet, because they're not breathing air, they're not life?

Anyway, I was hoping to hear a solid stance on partial-birth abortions from you, instead you dance around the issue. There are MANY people, like myself to some extent, that do not want a total ban on abortion, but DO for partial-birth abortions. Partial-birth abortions are just disgusting, gouging a hole in a baby's head and sucking it's brains through a vacuum, how lovely. If, by the third trimester, you can't make up your friggin mind on whether you want to raise a kid or not, YOU need your brains sucked out with a vacuum, not the innocent life you carry because you screw around without thinking first.

Quote:Oh... one more thing I've mentioned before. North Korea. If Bush was TRULY fighting "Terrorism" he'd be making FAR more of an effort to stop North Korea... or to find Bin Laden, for that matter. But he isn't and is clearly hoping that the Korea issue can go away until he finishes with his little private vendetta against Iraq satisfactorially. Great.

First off, the Korea issue is the direct result of failed Carter and Clinton appeasement policies. Second, the Koreans do not really pose a threat to us. They do not yet have the capabilites to use weapons on us, nor are they nearly as likely to as Iraq is, and Bush knows it. North Korea would be obliterated if they tried backing up their threats. Thus, there is no reason to hurry and get them now. There will be time for that after Iraq is dealt with. The reason we need to get Iraq first is, unlike with Korea, we don't know how far Saddam is with his ambitions to get WMDs. We know how capable NK is, and we know they are not capable of attacking us yet.

And Bin Laden is dead. If Bin Laden were alive, I'm certain he would be going to greater lengths to make that obvious. What better way to ridicule America than by proving you're alive? Yet, the tapes that have come lately are mostly prior to Tora Bora, and those that aren't are only voice recordings... which means it could be anyone (many have been determined to be fakes). I believe Bin Laden died in December 2001 in Tora Bora. Even if he himself isn't dead, we've disrupted Al Qaeda badly enough that they haven't been nearly able to duplicate 9-11. They still exist, but their leadership structure has been ruined by us.

Quote:Disliking something is one thing, but banning it is going too far in many cases... and antiabortion people seem to want to do anything in their power to destroy this important right.

Okay, given this statement, I'm going to open a whole new can of worms and apply your words to it:

The Second Amendment.

If the right to destroy human life is important, certainly the right to own a gun, for non-criminal purposes, is equally important, yes? And Anti-gun people seem to want to do anything in their power to destroy this important right.

I'll respond to the big post of yours later... not enough time to right now.

Quote:The Second Amendment.

If the right to destroy human life is important, certainly the right to own a gun, for non-criminal purposes, is equally important, yes? And Anti-gun people seem to want to do anything in their power to destroy this important right.

As I said, it really is a case-by-case basis on that... on the gun issue, I wish we could do something to restrict gun sales, but know that in this nation that won't happen... we will never get gun laws that are as good as, say, England's. Or many other Western nations, many/most of which don't let people have guns. But here, its too much in the culture of parts of the country... :( I really wish they'd do SOMETHING, though.

The Canadian Constitution (AKA Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) ensures that people can't argue that programs such as affermatice action are unconstitutional

Quote:Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

SOme types of Affermative action are necasary. American Colledges are known for aiding the children of Alumni into getting into their schools, but the parents of many minorities were unable to get into colledge in the past because of racist policies of the American Government and the Colledges. This summer I was reading an application form for Harvard and it asks if the aplicants parents whent to University or College and if so where, know someone like myself can say that both my mother and father have degrees from well known Canadian universities, but what about someone from the southern US who's parents were denied University educations based on their race?

Free Speech is important, as long as it does not promote hate or violence towards a certain group.

I find it funny that many anti-abortion activists have never been in the position of someone who needs to get an abortion, yet they press so hard to ban it. Why does the media always talk to these people who have never been in that position, and find out why they think abortion is evil, but they never talk to those who actually had the abortion done, to find out why they did it. I think that women should have the right to choose.

I agree with higher taxes for the rich in order to improve the living conditions of those who are disadvanteged. Perhaps if they recive aid they will be able to improve their lives and one day they will be able to start contributing taxes that can be put into the same programs. Perhaps providing their children with educationl opportunites that they would not have any other way will help them succed in life and taxes from their incomes can be put towards these same programs.

I don't understand why people are always opposed to tax increases when they expect the government to provide the same quality of services as they have in the past or provide new services. Does it not make sense that if consumers costshave been rising as they then costs for the government would also be rising.

Socialists are not always the poor, many rich people have supported socialist causes and organized socialist revolutions. Lenin was a lawyer, he had the potential to earn a small fortune, but he belived in not only bettering his life but in bettering the Life of the Russian people as a whole. Che was a doctor, once again he could have earned a small fortune as a doctor, but he choose to work to better the lives of other people. Many of those who graduated from European Universities in the late 19th and early 20th century became socialists, and people who went to university in those days were usually from the upper class, but once again they belived in bettering the conditions of all people. Socialism is only considered evil in the United States because those who had money and feared loosing it because of socialism campaigned against it and brain washed the American public into beliving that it was evil. The United States entered wars soley because one said was communist, it did not matter that the other side was a capitalist dictatorship, it would be fine as long as the commies didn't gain control. The US encouraged military coups of contrys that democraticly elected socialist governments, replacing an elected government with a military dictatorship. If Socialism is so evil then why have euorpean countries fequently elected socialist parties to form their governments, the labour party is currently in control in the United Kingdom, the German Chancellor is socialist and so is his government. Until the last election in France they had a conservatice president but the parliment was socialist. In Russia the communist party is still the 2nd largest party in the country, and it is gaining popularity amoung young Russians. In Canada several of the provinces have Socialist governments, and many more have had them in the past. In a large portion of the provinces where they don't form a government the NDP are the official oposition and in most of the remaining provinces they are a noticible political party. Federally Canada has not yet elected the NDP as a government, but they have been a major party in federal politics since the 30's when they were known as the CCF. Recent polls have shown that the NDP are still the 3rd most popular party on a nation wide basis, and the latest poll actually showed that the NDP had more support than the current official oposition. While the NDP hasn't been elected to form the federal government their have been socialist Prime Ministers from other parties. Infact Pierre Trudeau was banned from entry into the United States because the US had him labled as a communist, strangly this classification magicly disapeared when he became the federal justice minister and later Prime Minister of the US's biggest trading partner.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
As I said, it really is a case-by-case basis on that... on the gun issue, I wish we could do something to restrict gun sales, but know that in this nation that won't happen... we will never get gun laws that are as good as, say, England's. Or many other Western nations, many/most of which don't let people have guns. But here, its too much in the culture of parts of the country... :( I really wish they'd do SOMETHING, though.

In Canada now you can't even buy amuntion for a gun without presenting a registration document for the type of gun you are buying amunition for. Failure to register a fire-arm can also result in a prision term of up to one year

Quote:Anyway, I was hoping to hear a solid stance on partial-birth abortions from you, instead you dance around the issue. There are MANY people, like myself to some extent, that do not want a total ban on abortion, but DO for partial-birth abortions. Partial-birth abortions are just disgusting, gouging a hole in a baby's head and sucking it's brains through a vacuum, how lovely. If, by the third trimester, you can't make up your friggin mind on whether you want to raise a kid or not, YOU need your brains sucked out with a vacuum, not the innocent life you carry because you screw around without thinking first.

Why should the method matter for a living creature that's barely aware? While that method may seem "monstrous", who's to say how much this semi-conscious fetus is suffering? I'm all for finding a better method, but this one sure sounds less painful than a woman bearing a child and leaving it in a dumpster, or drowning it in the backyard. The only reason you don't like the idea of this is because you have a weak stomach, which isn't the issue.

On a matter like this, its the principal that counts. Why should a child be brought into this world as a mistake, without the sufficient love and tender care of 2, loving parents/guardians? I forget the exact statistic, but somewhere in psychology, I heard that the two most common elements in criminals was 1) S/he wasn't held by his/her mother; 2) S/he didn't have a father figure. If you ask me, since we can stop this before a human is formed from the developing cells, we should take advantage of it. Therein rises the whole tedious argument of "what is a human?" blah blah blah...

Quote:Did you know that abortion rates are decreasing every year? Now that 3D ultrasounds are possible, mothers-to-be see not a clump of lifeless cells but a forming human being in their womb... and more and more they're deciding not to abort children.

Interesting observation, and I'd also like to believe so... but how do you know that the one correlates with the other for a fact? Do you think it also could do with the groups or rabid anti-abortion protesters putting the pregnant mother through even a worst time than she's already having? Or how about the multiple cases of the murders of doctors running abortion clinics (not as rampant a problem I'm assuming, but present nonetheless)?

Quote:Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
Why should the method matter for a living creature that's barely aware? While that method may seem "monstrous", who's to say how much this semi-conscious fetus is suffering? I'm all for finding a better method, but this one sure sounds less painful than a woman bearing a child and leaving it in a dumpster, or drowning it in the backyard. The only reason you don't like the idea of this is because you have a weak stomach, which isn't the issue.

On a matter like this, its the principal that counts. Why should a child be brought into this world as a mistake, without the sufficient love and tender care of 2, loving parents/guardians? I forget the exact statistic, but somewhere in psychology, I heard that the two most common elements in criminals was 1) S/he wasn't held by his/her mother; 2) S/he didn't have a father figure. If you ask me, since we can stop this before a human is formed from the developing cells, we should take advantage of it. Therein rises the whole tedious argument of "what is a human?" blah blah blah...

Well honestly, I don't like the idea of "This child may not have a good life... so let's kill him now before he suffers." There are more people willing to adopt children than there are children to adopt. Why kill a baby when there are people that want to take care of them?

The reason PBA sickens me is that by the third trimester fetuses have a formed nervous system. Therefore, they can feel pain. If you're going to abort a kid, do it early on. If it takes you six or seven months to figure out you don't want a child, you should definitely put it up for adoption.

Quote:Interesting observation, and I'd also like to believe so... but how do you know that the one correlates with the other for a fact? Do you think it also could do with the groups or rabid anti-abortion protesters putting the pregnant mother through even a worst time than she's already having? Or how about the multiple cases of the murders of doctors running abortion clinics (not as rampant a problem I'm assuming, but present nonetheless)?

It's not JUST the ultrasounds, but a greater awareness of consequences, and, I hope, a greater sense of morality. But when you see a forming human in your womb, you really have to lack heart to dispose of it on a whim.

Finally people who agree with me on things... :)

Intresting article on how Bush isn't a conservtivitive.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7163

Quote:Wait, what seperates that from the liberal persecution of whites and Asians for their skin color? What seperates that from the Earth Liberation Front, a murderous bunch of eco-scumbags who destroy and attempt to kill just to save an Earth that doesn't need saving? What seperates that from attacking the rich just because they're rich?

\

Most of that just isn't true... but I never said liberals were always right. Its just that over time what we now see as liberal ideas (I say it that way because over time the ideas of what is liberal and what is convervative have changed quite a lot) have proven to be more realistic and be more of the things that we follow today...

The gay rights issue is a perfect one where I'm sure that in the future people against it will, sometime in the future, look as dumb as the Catholic Church's persecution of astronomers in the Renaissance does now.

Quote:Oh come off it. Global warming might indeed be occurring. Guess what? It's likely occurred THOUSANDS of times in the past aeons! Certainly global warming ended the Ice Age! It's cyclic. It happens. It's pure hubris to think there's anything we can do to accellerate or halt it. It will happen and it will end. Human interference is basically ignored in the whole process. Those who blame global warming on humans have about fifty years of rather poor evidence, while my position is backed up by millions of years of proof.

Until recently, conservatives refused to admit global warming existed... its good to see that finally the proof is too obvious and they finally (such as Bush last year) are forced to admit it is happening. Of course, you've then got to follow it up with either 'but its not that bad' or 'but we can't do anything about it anyway', both false but believed strongly (or at least by business intrests, and they, along with the superrich conservatives, control this government). I am not going to say much more here because I know you'll just dismiss anything out of hand as not true... even though it is pretty clear that the earth is heating up much quicker than ever before, and that it CANNOT be explained soley by natural means. That may be a part of it... but we are helping it along in a big way.

Quote:Obviously I do. His words, that I directly quoted, were solid proof of his stance. Character should have priority over skin color. Black 'leaders' of today echo King's statements but they totally lack the message of equality King preached. Black leaders like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan don't want equality, they want black supremacy, thus, they want Affirmative action to be a permanent fixture. I'm glad Bush has the balls to challenge it. It's wrong, and unfair to EVERYONE, as I explained before.

If a system with no affirmative action were TRULY fair, I'd be all for abolishing it... but as DLN said, it isn't. Without it, there are other biases that help to push qualified candidates out of contention... it is badly needed to try to attempt and make things more fair for minorities that wouldn't have anywhere near as many opportunities without it because of many issues that keep them from getting the same chances as most white people have... DLN already said something like this, though.

Quote:No, my friend. America is capitalist, not communist or socialist. They already pay far more per dollar earned than anyone else. You shouldn't be penalized because you're successful in life. That's just stupid.

Capitalism has proven to be the most successful economic system of the modern age, most definitely... and communism has proved to completely fail when implemented on real human beings. But socialism? That works well too... just look at Sweden or Canada... but I'm not so sure it would work on a nation as big as us... I've heard it only works on smaller nations. So yes, capitalism is best... but its far from perfect and has many flaws... one of them is how the rich get so powerful and can get themselves out of paying anywhere NEAR as much taxes as people who make a lot less pay in a socialist system... and that isn't a good thing. The richer you are, the more you pay in. It makes the federal government work... if you cut taxes on people who don't need tax cuts, you help nothing except their bank accounts.

And as the Reagan era showed, having richer rich people sure doesn't make much of any money trickle down to the poorer people... anyone denying that is deluding themselves...

Quote:Compare your average car of today with a car from the seventies. Today's cars are many times more energy efficient, and many times less polluting. Is that due to liberal laws? Hell no. It's due to the compact Japanese cars hitting the American market and being a huge success, forcing the manufacturers to abandon the smokers of the 70s and emulate the efficient cars the Japanese produced. CAPITALISM, that evil idea, brought this about.

I'd put at least as much of the reason for that on our dramatically better pollution laws... because once you look at almost any industry, they will virtually never increase environmental protection, even if it has been shown to save money in the long run, unless they get direct and immediate economic benefits... and that doesn't happen much. So better laws are needed ... which is, of course, why Bush is trying his best to get rid of what we've got.

Quote: Iraq broke UN resolutions for TWELVE YEARS. He continues to break them. UN inspector Hans Blix verified in great detail that most of our reasons for war were totally validated. Now we will see whether the UN will enforce it's own laws, or if it will follow the spineless cowards of Europe who wish to ignore reality. The US and Britain will do what needs to be done regardless of whether the UN has balls or not. If the UN does not support military action against Iraq, it will be all the proof anyone needs to show that the entire structure was just another great idea that failed in application.

If the UN does nothing, it'll be proving that the world community as a whole has a collective spine and can stand up to blatant and pretty much pointless American warmongering from the president's office.

If we had anyone else in office (of either party) I doubt the idea of attacking Iraq would have even been raised... unless, of course, they too were owned by oil barons.

Quote:I bring to mind the liberals who called Nam vets "baby killers" and treated them like shit, even though most of them never wanted to go to Nam. The hippies didn't care, they were still American soldiers, the soldiers of the evil empire, and thus were worthy of scorn, regardless of whether their military service was volountary. I bring to mind Jimmy Carter and various liberal Hollywood stars who get friendly with our enemies and badmouth America. Liberals embrace the ideology of communists and socialists, exactly the opposite of what America is. Liberals hate the rich, they hate the white male, and they hate Christians, which is why liberal legislation is always trying to harm all of the above in various ways in the name of equality and fairness.

First, the way you constantly lump socialists up with communists greatly insults and misrepresents the socialists... socialism is a decent economic policy for many nations which many western nations follow and has llittle in common with communism, which in practice is essentially dictatorship.

Also, you seem to believe that Cuba is a threat of some kind... um, are you kidding me? Cuba isn't a threat to anyone, and I wish that the stupid embargo had been dropped years ago... its not doing us much good, and is only hurting the Cuban people. Oh, and note that we trade with China, who ACTUALLY has a really bad government.

Quote:First off, the Korea issue is the direct result of failed Carter and Clinton appeasement policies. Second, the Koreans do not really pose a threat to us. They do not yet have the capabilites to use weapons on us, nor are they nearly as likely to as Iraq is, and Bush knows it. North Korea would be obliterated if they tried backing up their threats. Thus, there is no reason to hurry and get them now. There will be time for that after Iraq is dealt with. The reason we need to get Iraq first is, unlike with Korea, we don't know how far Saddam is with his ambitions to get WMDs. We know how capable NK is, and we know they are not capable of attacking us yet.

Yeah right. If you believe that you've been actually believing the official government lies about the issue... or more, I don't know. Iraq has no nuclear weapons. That we know about as close to a fact as anything. Chemical and biological? Probably some.. but not nuclear, not in any usable form. And they won't for many years. North Korea already HAS nukes, and is currently making more. We know this. They also have lots of missiles capable of hitting South Korea, Japan, and even all the way over to Hawaii and Alaska for the longest-range ones. Iraq has a few dozen Scuds which could hit Israel and kill some people, but not nearly as many as North Korea would.

Also, its got a leadership that has been shown to act in bizarre and not really sane ways... even worse than Sadaam in most ways I can see. They clearly think that in the end there will be war between us... I REALLY hope not because that would have the potential (and probably would) absolutely devastate east Asia, but but they think that and don't act normally. Iraq? They are at least as belligerent, but make more sense... neither nation is friendly to us. Both are threats... its just that I see no possible way that Iraq is a greater one in any possible explanation of the scenario...

Unless, that is, you consider the real facts that Bush wants war, as I've said before... then it all makes sense. (along with the fact that we can't really have a war with North Korea and Bush really wants one somewhere).

Oh... as for abortion, I can't think of much more to say...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Most of that just isn't true... but I never said liberals were always right. Its just that over time what we now see as liberal ideas (I say it that way because over time the ideas of what is liberal and what is convervative have changed quite a lot) have proven to be more realistic and be more of the things that we follow today...

The gay rights issue is a perfect one where I'm sure that in the future people against it will, sometime in the future, look as dumb as the Catholic Church's persecution of astronomers in the Renaissance does now.

Which of the given examples is not true?

Liberalism is rarely realism. It's much more often Idealism. It's change, and what bothers the conservatives is often the changes are either unnecessary or not worth the consequences that result. Liberal thinking gave birth to Republicanism and Democracy, but also Communism, Socialism and Totalitarianism. It works sometimes, but other times it's a failure. Conservatism has it's faults too, but it's a necessary balance. Some things do not need changing.

As for Gay Rights? Should not exist. Gay men and women are gay by their own choice, and you should not be granted extra rights because you choose to be gay. I do not believe for a minute homosexuality is genetic or hereditary (in fact, the very nature of homosexuality pretty much discredits that), and no credible scientific proof to the contrary exists. Therefore, it is a choice, and you deserve no special rights just because you choose to be different. If I choose to paint my body red, shave my hair, and walk around naked, I deserve no special rights either. It's a choice. Like all choices, it carries consequences.

Quote:Until recently, conservatives refused to admit global warming existed... its good to see that finally the proof is too obvious and they finally (such as Bush last year) are forced to admit it is happening. Of course, you've then got to follow it up with either 'but its not that bad' or 'but we can't do anything about it anyway', both false but believed strongly (or at least by business intrests, and they, along with the superrich conservatives, control this government). I am not going to say much more here because I know you'll just dismiss anything out of hand as not true... even though it is pretty clear that the earth is heating up much quicker than ever before, and that it CANNOT be explained soley by natural means. That may be a part of it... but we are helping it along in a big way.

Where is the proof of all this? The world is warming quicker than ever? How the hell do we know? Have we been taking temperature measurements for the last six billion years to know this? As I said, if a volcano can do exponentially more to cause global warming than humanity is capable of in a hundred years, what difference can we make to the contrary? There is nothing we can do to stop global warming. It will happen. And after time, it will cease, as it has all through the history of the world. The notion that humans can control the weather is not only arrogant, it's laughable. It's a liberal scare-tactic to placate the environmentalist wackos and sway votes. Remember that cartoon you posted about the public being easily swayed? The liberals try as hard as anyone to do the same thing, and this is one of their favorite tactics.

The world is warming and yet we're in the middle of one of the coldest winters in years :(

Quote:If a system with no affirmative action were TRULY fair, I'd be all for abolishing it... but as DLN said, it isn't. Without it, there are other biases that help to push qualified candidates out of contention... it is badly needed to try to attempt and make things more fair for minorities that wouldn't have anywhere near as many opportunities without it because of many issues that keep them from getting the same chances as most white people have... DLN already said something like this, though.

Everyone has biases. They will never die. It's human nature to have biases. But society has progressed far enough that most deep biases are held in check by most people.

Regardless of that, it's simply not right to have a racist policy officially mandated by our own government, no matter how you sugarcoat it. Racism is wrong, both ways. The system by itself will never be totally fair, but that's no excuse to really make it unfair.

Again, Asians are a minority in this country, a smaller minority than Blacks or Hispanics, and yet Asians do not benefit from Affirmative Action. Why is that right?

Quote:Capitalism has proven to be the most successful economic system of the modern age, most definitely... and communism has proved to completely fail when implemented on real human beings. But socialism? That works well too... just look at Sweden or Canada... but I'm not so sure it would work on a nation as big as us... I've heard it only works on smaller nations. So yes, capitalism is best... but its far from perfect and has many flaws... one of them is how the rich get so powerful and can get themselves out of paying anywhere NEAR as much taxes as people who make a lot less pay in a socialist system... and that isn't a good thing. The richer you are, the more you pay in. It makes the federal government work... if you cut taxes on people who don't need tax cuts, you help nothing except their bank accounts.

You must have completely ignored everything I said earlier on this topic. Even on an equal flat tax per dollar you pay more when you earn more. The richer would pay more taxes than the poor on an equal percentage tax... yet you seem dead against that. You want the rich to pay a higher percentage of their earnings, essentially, you're punishing the rich for being rich. You obviously have a dislike for the rich. The poor contribute the least to taxes, and yet benefit the most. Poor people in America live like kings compared to anyone in the uncivilized world. Even poor people eat, have a roof over their heads, have a TV, and usually a car. Poor people get government grants for school, sometimes welfare aid in all of it's forms, lots of tax breaks The poorest people in America recieve more in taxes than they give. Contrary to what you think, the largest percentage of taxes comes from the middle class, for the middle class pays more than the poor, less than the rich, but makes up the largest, by far, percentage of the population.

Seriously, would it make you happy if you weren't taxed if you made below a certain amount of income? Poor people contribute so little to taxes it would make little difference if they payed none at all. But the problem is, the tax increase to cover that would not only hit the rich, because the rich are such a small percentage of the population, it hits the middle class, those who pay the largest majority of the taxes. In some cases, that extra tax would be enough to knock them below the poverty line and classify them as poor. Therefore, the poor benefit little, but everyone else suffers. Not a great idea.

Quote:And as the Reagan era showed, having richer rich people sure doesn't make much of any money trickle down to the poorer people... anyone denying that is deluding themselves...

The very basis of economics states otherwise. Almost all of America's millionaires and billionaries are business heads. Their worth is measured by the worth of their companies. If their companies lose money, they can't provide services, or can but at higher prices. Then, the normal people who pay for those services are hurt, and if jobs are cut, it's the normal people who lose them. However, when these companies gain wealth, they are able to expand (which means more jobs), and both the increase in productivity and the competition ensure that prices are lower, which benefits the normal person. That is trickle-down economics. Tell me exactly what about that doesn't work.

Since 1980, net income for just about everyone, adjusted for inflation, has risen, at the same rate as inflation. Twenty years after Reaganomics, people in general have more money than ever, in every class. Even poor people can afford basic luxuries. Middle class families now tend to own multiple cars, multiple televisions, decent housing, more than enough food to adequately feed their families, with plenty left over for fun and recreation. How common was this scene before the 1980s?

Quote:I'd put at least as much of the reason for that on our dramatically better pollution laws... because once you look at almost any industry, they will virtually never increase environmental protection, even if it has been shown to save money in the long run, unless they get direct and immediate economic benefits... and that doesn't happen much. So better laws are needed ... which is, of course, why Bush is trying his best to get rid of what we've got.

If there is no benefit, there's no reason to have the laws. Often times the environmental benefits aren't enough to justify the increased costs. But whatever.

Quote:If the UN does nothing, it'll be proving that the world community as a whole has a collective spine and can stand up to blatant and pretty much pointless American warmongering from the president's office.

What? Hold on a second. The UN imposed these penalties on Iraq. These penalties carry stipulations, stipulations that Iraq has not complied with, has thumbed his nose at, for over a decade. The UN is unwilling to enforce it's own rules. That means the UN is ineffective and should be disbanded. If it cannot do what it is supposed to do, there's no reason we should suffer it's existence.

Quote:If we had anyone else in office (of either party) I doubt the idea of attacking Iraq would have even been raised... unless, of course, they too were owned by oil barons.

You know, this oil thing is getting really tired. Seriously. It'd be easier to buy our way into the oil if that was the true objective.

Quote:First, the way you constantly lump socialists up with communists greatly insults and misrepresents the socialists... socialism is a decent economic policy for many nations which many western nations follow and has llittle in common with communism, which in practice is essentially dictatorship.

Communism and socialism, as pure ideology are very similar. Socialism is perfect for nations that are weak economically, but socialism supresses the free market (as opposed to Communism eliminating it completely), which leads to stagnation, which you find a lot of in socialist countries. Socialism already has a bad enough name already... National Socialism :)

In any case, I think both socialism and communism are pretty worthless, though most socialist nations could not really compete in a true capitalist environment. So perhaps it's better for them.

Quote:Also, you seem to believe that Cuba is a threat of some kind... um, are you kidding me? Cuba isn't a threat to anyone, and I wish that the stupid embargo had been dropped years ago... its not doing us much good, and is only hurting the Cuban people. Oh, and note that we trade with China, who ACTUALLY has a really bad government.

Cuba is hardly a threat, but Castro's government is still an enemy of ours. I'm not all that happy about trade with China, either.

Quote:Yeah right. If you believe that you've been actually believing the official government lies about the issue... or more, I don't know. Iraq has no nuclear weapons. That we know about as close to a fact as anything. Chemical and biological? Probably some.. but not nuclear, not in any usable form. And they won't for many years. North Korea already HAS nukes, and is currently making more. We know this. They also have lots of missiles capable of hitting South Korea, Japan, and even all the way over to Hawaii and Alaska for the longest-range ones. Iraq has a few dozen Scuds which could hit Israel and kill some people, but not nearly as many as North Korea would.

But North Korea has a vice: China. China will not allow Korea to do anything stupid. Iraq has no such vice. Though I believe we should take care of Korea after Iraq, we're already set for Iraq, so we ought to finish them first. Remember also that Iraq is a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism, and is populated by various terror networks. Iraq could easily slip them some of their WMD and erase their fingerprints from them. Korea cannot do that. Iraq is the more obvious threat right now.

Quote:Also, its got a leadership that has been shown to act in bizarre and not really sane ways... even worse than Sadaam in most ways I can see. They clearly think that in the end there will be war between us... I REALLY hope not because that would have the potential (and probably would) absolutely devastate east Asia, but but they think that and don't act normally. Iraq? They are at least as belligerent, but make more sense... neither nation is friendly to us. Both are threats... its just that I see no possible way that Iraq is a greater one in any possible explanation of the scenario...

Korea is doing this for one reason: Concessions. They want handouts from us. It's a rather pitiful blackmail attempt. I don't think they have any intention of using a nuke on us anytime soon.

Quote:Unless, that is, you consider the real facts that Bush wants war, as I've said before... then it all makes sense. (along with the fact that we can't really have a war with North Korea and Bush really wants one somewhere).

So boycott gas if that imaginary objective bothers you so much. Don't forget to rely only on wood fires for heat.

Quote:Oh... as for abortion, I can't think of much more to say...

Not much more to be said.

This sure is fun though... this is my favorite thread in like forever :)

Quote:Where is the proof of all this? The world is warming quicker than ever? How the hell do we know? Have we been taking temperature measurements for the last six billion years to know this? As I said, if a volcano can do exponentially more to cause global warming than humanity is capable of in a hundred years, what difference can we make to the contrary? There is nothing we can do to stop global warming. It will happen. And after time, it will cease, as it has all through the history of the world. The notion that humans can control the weather is not only arrogant, it's laughable.

You're both right and wrong. I work at an atmospheric research center and have talked to a few scientists here about that. Yes it is true that volcanic arruptions and other natural occurences do cause global warming. However, the pollution from our cars and our factories speed up this natural process. We cannot stop global warming, but we can stop accelerating and altering the natural process.

I don't see why people who are rich should be EXPECTED to pay more. There's the argument that they should only take as they need and give what they can to help everyone, or they are being greedy, but sheesh that hardly seems fair. Are we supposed to tell them "yeah, we know you earned all that money, but you know, you need to share" like they are in kindergarten or something? If someone earns all that money themselves, it's THEIR property to do with as they wish. Being rich should not be looked upon as evil here. Why is that so? I mean, what if they decided to dedicate that money to a research project or something instead? They could help us other ways, OR they could just buy a bunch of stuff for themselves. I don't see the problem. I mean, the very act of buying all that stuff supports the economy should they decide to become a spendthrift. Really, what did they do so wrong aside from being rich? You may think that money could go to better schools and blah blah blah, but that's not YOUR money to decide what to do with! Put YOUR money to that cause, by DONATION in fact. If you really think the rich should be doing that, get rich yourself! Seriously, people should put the blame on themselves when they grow up to not be a billionair.

Oh, and Sacred, again you failed to acknowledge my argument. My point is that if you say that pre-born humans aren't human, than why not those who are born? Just tell me why you think killing born babies up to 2 years of age should still be wrong. That's what I'm asking. If you think before birth is fine, then why do you still think killing them after birth up until the point where humans actually get cognitience should still be wrong? Logic dictates that it should also be allowed. Oh, and I shouldn't have to point out adoption being an option if the mother can't care for the child herself.

I don't see how. When a single eruption spews billions upon billions of tons of sulfuric ash into the atmosphere, how can a few million tons produced every year by us can factor in any but the slightest way?

It may not make a huge difference, but it does make a difference. Even the slightest change can cause massive damage.

It's kinda like that one episode of the Simpsons where Homer went back in time and stepped on something and completely changed the future. Kinda.

Quote:You're both right and wrong. I work at an atmospheric research center and have talked to a few scientists here about that. Yes it is true that volcanic arruptions and other natural occurences do cause global warming. However, the pollution from our cars and our factories speed up this natural process. We cannot stop global warming, but we can stop accelerating and altering the natural process.

Yes. We can't stop what has been done already, but we could try to slow down the damage and give nature time to recuperate by cutting pollution... its really the only way to try to save the ecosystem of the earth before we do too much damage and it can't recover. Not that this administration cares about that in the slightest.

and on to Weltall's post.

Quote:Liberalism is rarely realism. It's much more often Idealism. It's change, and what bothers the conservatives is often the changes are either unnecessary or not worth the consequences that result. Liberal thinking gave birth to Republicanism and Democracy, but also Communism, Socialism and Totalitarianism. It works sometimes, but other times it's a failure. Conservatism has it's faults too, but it's a necessary balance. Some things do not need changing.

Idealism isn't always right, but in the long run its far more correct than trying to stay the same and using old, failing ideas for longer than they should be...

Quote:As for Gay Rights? Should not exist. Gay men and women are gay by their own choice, and you should not be granted extra rights because you choose to be gay. I do not believe for a minute homosexuality is genetic or hereditary (in fact, the very nature of homosexuality pretty much discredits that), and no credible scientific proof to the contrary exists. Therefore, it is a choice, and you deserve no special rights just because you choose to be different. If I choose to paint my body red, shave my hair, and walk around naked, I deserve no special rights either. It's a choice. Like all choices, it carries consequences.

Umm... if you honestly think that its a choice, I won't bother saying anything more because you clearly won't listen given how you believe something as bizarre and completely wrong as that.

Quote:Again, Asians are a minority in this country, a smaller minority than Blacks or Hispanics, and yet Asians do not benefit from Affirmative Action. Why is that right?

I don't know why... my only guess would be that they, in general, are higher on the socioeconomic ladder than groups that benefit, but I don't know.

Quote:You must have completely ignored everything I said earlier on this topic. Even on an equal flat tax per dollar you pay more when you earn more. The richer would pay more taxes than the poor on an equal percentage tax... yet you seem dead against that. You want the rich to pay a higher percentage of their earnings, essentially, you're punishing the rich for being rich. You obviously have a dislike for the rich.

You mention that in a flat tax the rich pay more than lower classes... well of course. They make more. However, you ignore the fact that, at the tax levels of a flat tax, in the real world the rich get a HUGE tax cut... and other groups get a LOT less. Just like Bush's tax cut he wants, but even more dramatic. That would be very bad... the government gets a lot more money from the rich than the poor and other bottom-level classes so it would both help the rich a lot and not help other people nearly as much... and hurt the government a lot. The rich are naturally for the flat tax... it helps them more than anyone else by quite a significant margin.

Why is cutting taxes when we desperately need all the taxes we can get (like now in this recession) a good idea? Well, specific things to help the economy, maybe... but a huge taxcut for the rich? Don't be ridiculous... that helps nothing!

Also, wanting to tax rich people more because they make more isn't hating rich people.. its just trying to fairly tax everyone based both on what they CAN pay and what they SHOULD pay. And rich people should pay more because they have more.

Quote:The poor contribute the least to taxes, and yet benefit the most. Poor people in America live like kings compared to anyone in the uncivilized world. Even poor people eat, have a roof over their heads, have a TV, and usually a car. Poor people get government grants for school, sometimes welfare aid in all of it's forms, lots of tax breaks The poorest people in America recieve more in taxes than they give. Contrary to what you think, the largest percentage of taxes comes from the middle class, for the middle class pays more than the poor, less than the rich, but makes up the largest, by far, percentage of the population.

Seriously, would it make you happy if you weren't taxed if you made below a certain amount of income? Poor people contribute so little to taxes it would make little difference if they payed none at all. But the problem is, the tax increase to cover that would not only hit the rich, because the rich are such a small percentage of the population, it hits the middle class, those who pay the largest majority of the taxes. In some cases, that extra tax would be enough to knock them below the poverty line and classify them as poor. Therefore, the poor benefit little, but everyone else suffers. Not a great idea.

The first part first. Yes, the poor here are in better shape than many people in third world nations... but compared to poor in FIRST world nations, we sure look pretty bad... like how tens of millions of poor people have no healthcare while in other nations they get it for free (with higher taxes to pay for it, but they are worth it to get more services). For the superrich is the quality of healthcare in those nations as good as ours? Maybe not... but for the other 95% of the population, and especially those with no healthcare, its better.

And isn't democracy supposed to govern for the PEOPLE in general, not just for the rich? Oh... not according to you.

Oh... and as for the second part, I didn't say that... though it is already true that low enough you pay nearly nothing. That's how it should be... everyone who can should pay something, but as your income increases, so should the proportion of it you pay... and the rich shouldn't get all kinds of taxcuts just for them like the Republicans keep trying (and sometimes succeeding) to give them.

Quote:The very basis of economics states otherwise. Almost all of America's millionaires and billionaries are business heads. Their worth is measured by the worth of their companies. If their companies lose money, they can't provide services, or can but at higher prices. Then, the normal people who pay for those services are hurt, and if jobs are cut, it's the normal people who lose them. However, when these companies gain wealth, they are able to expand (which means more jobs), and both the increase in productivity and the competition ensure that prices are lower, which benefits the normal person. That is trickle-down economics. Tell me exactly what about that doesn't work.

Since 1980, net income for just about everyone, adjusted for inflation, has risen, at the same rate as inflation. Twenty years after Reaganomics, people in general have more money than ever, in every class. Even poor people can afford basic luxuries. Middle class families now tend to own multiple cars, multiple televisions, decent housing, more than enough food to adequately feed their families, with plenty left over for fun and recreation. How common was this scene before the 1980s?

Trickle-down economic rely on rich people spending and that money actually helping people lower down... I know you'll never believe me, but the real world just doesn't work in that way. Rich people may spend, but it makes very little impact on the non-rich... Reaganomics just left us with a massive debt caused by massive spending and hoping that wealth would trickle-down to try to help... and it didn't. Big surprise.

Net income is up? I'd expect that as time passed... inflation and all... maybe even after inflation is considered. But attributing it to trickle-down Reaganomics is absurd.

Quote:If there is no benefit, there's no reason to have the laws. Often times the environmental benefits aren't enough to justify the increased costs. But whatever.

I'd expect a pro-industry person to say that -- that without economic benefit no change should be made. It doesn't work that way when you try to protect this planet (or specific ecosystems in it, many of which are SEVERELY threatened) from being irrevocably damaged... the problem is that no industry will just ... change ... without there being a law telling them to. They won't just take the economic losses like that...

Quote:What? Hold on a second. The UN imposed these penalties on Iraq. These penalties carry stipulations, stipulations that Iraq has not complied with, has thumbed his nose at, for over a decade. The UN is unwilling to enforce it's own rules. That means the UN is ineffective and should be disbanded. If it cannot do what it is supposed to do, there's no reason we should suffer it's existence.

Iraq hasn't really complied, no... but they haven't broken the UN rules so conclusively that we need to attack them to 'fix' things. If they had, both the international community and the motoring agencies would agree that something must be done militarially. They do not.

More inspections? Yes, definitely. They do help make sure nothing is going on. But this rush to a war that really has very little proof behind it? Absolutely not... I'm not COMPLETELY against war, but I wouldn't support any war unless there is both a GOOD reason to do so and the full support of the international community... and we have neither here.

Quote:You know, this oil thing is getting really tired. Seriously. It'd be easier to buy our way into the oil if that was the true objective.

I'm sure if Bush could, he would, like we did back in the '80s, but since he really really hates Sadaam, he must figure it'd be easier if he just invades...

Quote:Communism and socialism, as pure ideology are very similar. Socialism is perfect for nations that are weak economically, but socialism supresses the free market (as opposed to Communism eliminating it completely), which leads to stagnation, which you find a lot of in socialist countries. Socialism already has a bad enough name already... National Socialism

In any case, I think both socialism and communism are pretty worthless, though most socialist nations could not really compete in a true capitalist environment. So perhaps it's better for them.

While in theory there are some similarities, in the real world there are very few. Or do you honestly think that North Korea and Cuba have similar governments to Canada and Sweden?

Quote:Cuba is hardly a threat, but Castro's government is still an enemy of ours. I'm not all that happy about trade with China, either.

We don't block trade from China, of course, because they have a lot of stuff to sell us... too much for our government (of either party) to be able to stand up for its ideals. Cuba is small, isolated, and a nation our government has hated for quite a while now... its easy to keep listening to the Florida Cuban exiles and keep it blocked off. I hope that that blockade can be lifted soon... we don't have blockads that strong on other nations with that level of relatively mild dislike for us...

Quote:But North Korea has a vice: China. China will not allow Korea to do anything stupid. Iraq has no such vice. Though I believe we should take care of Korea after Iraq, we're already set for Iraq, so we ought to finish them first. Remember also that Iraq is a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism, and is populated by various terror networks. Iraq could easily slip them some of their WMD and erase their fingerprints from them. Korea cannot do that. Iraq is the more obvious threat right now.

Quote:Korea is doing this for one reason: Concessions. They want handouts from us. It's a rather pitiful blackmail attempt. I don't think they have any intention of using a nuke on us anytime soon.

Yes, it is probably true that they won't attack. And that China is there to try to help contain them if they so desire. And that they want concessions... but their leadersip isn't really sane, and in the right place I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to attack if they were in Sadaam's position and saw no way to avoid a war... and by that point they would have nuclear weapons no question so we wouldn't want one. Its a very tricky situation and I don't see an easy way out of it...

Quote: Not much more to be said.

Not really... not when we disagree like we do and can't think of anything new to say...

But that's what other people are for, like Sacred Jellybean and DLN's posts. I notice you haven't tried to reply to their posts... :)

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
Oh, and Sacred, again you failed to acknowledge my argument. My point is that if you say that pre-born humans aren't human, than why not those who are born? Just tell me why you think killing born babies up to 2 years of age should still be wrong. That's what I'm asking. If you think before birth is fine, then why do you still think killing them after birth up until the point where humans actually get cognitience should still be wrong? Logic dictates that it should also be allowed. Oh, and I shouldn't have to point out adoption being an option if the mother can't care for the child herself.

I think that as long as it is inside the mother it is almost like it's just another body part, and if she chooses to have it removed then it's her choice. I don't consider it to be living until it takes it's first breath.


As for Global warming reports my several groups including the Canadian government estimate that restrictions such as those in the Kyoto accord being imposed can actually make the economy better later down the road.
Also some companies such as British Petroleum have shown that they can reduce emisions without loosing money.

I have to say that breathing sure is a pretty, um, what's that word when it's just a random choice and not really scientifically decided? That's what I'm looking for here. Besides, that would mean I'm not alive, being an anaerobic life form and all.

Edit: Oh yeah! I was going to say it's very arbitrary! That's the word, arbitrary! That's a-r-b....and the trary sound in there...

Quote:I don't consider it to be living until it takes it's first breath.

Why is that? Before a baby takes it's first breath, it forms a working nervous system, circulatory system, consumes food, is capable of movement and responds to stimuli, all very important aspects of human life. Yet it's not a human being until it breathes air? That's like saying ice isn't water until it melts.

In other words, although you did finally attack my main point, you did so with an arbitrary statement of when life begins. In a debate, you want to stay away from the arbitrary as much as possible.

I'd hardly call it arbitrary... though a lot of things in life are arbitrary. Any cutoff for anything is arbitrary... but the way it works is that its not a human until its born and breathes for itsself. Unborn fetuses aren't humans... early on of course human fetuses look almost the same as any other animal's... later that is of course different, but still its not a child until its born. Before that its not... it hasn't lived on its own or breathed...

Also, abortions that late (ie late on when the fetus is more like a human) aren't very common at all. Almost all abortions are earlier when the fetus is a lot less like a human... but, as I said, if (or when) late-term abortions get banned, it'll get the antiabortion people a victory and make them fight even harder to get rid of the rest of this important right... if the Supreme Court gets one more Conservative, I'll even start getting VERY scared for Roe vs. Wade... not good at all.

Anyway, it really isn't right for people to tell others that they can't do abortions when in many cases they clearly need them... people should NOT be forced to have children if they don't want them. Adoption isn't exactly an easy way to do it either... no, abortion is a important thing to have and trying to stop it is really a very bad thing... its taking away someones choice... not a good thing.

Oh... as for the fact that aboriton numbers are declining. Maybe part of it is other reasons (more people having children, more birth control, whatever), but I'm sure a big part of it is the fact that there aren't many abortion clinics and the ones that there are are constantly threatened and attacked by antiabortion terrorists... they harass women going there, at the very least, and I know several abortion doctors have been murdered. In that climate, fewer places offer them and I'm sure more people are scared away. That just isn't right.