Liberal or Conservative Test

[Weltall]

There's too much to reply to!

First, ABF, since that will be the easiest.

Looking it up would take too long... and I read it in the newspaper a while ago. But we are in the low group percentwise.

Well, how about from now on, if you're thinking of posting something you can't readily prove, don't post it, because then you're just reaching.

Uhh... you are SERIOUSLY saying that we didn't prop up dozens of cruel dictators just because they were anti-communist? Do you remember ANY cold war era history at all? Come ON!

Yes, I am saying that we didn't prop up DOZENS. There were a few, granted. But what I am saying is that much of former Communista made the transition from Communism to Democracy without the need for that. Again, see Eastern Europe and other remnants of the USSR, South Korea, etc.

The rest of the world aren't children.

Most of it is. Much of the world is undeveloped, and ruled by sometimes ancient forms of government, those that are even stable. The world has much to learn from our success.

It did help him, for a few years. It took a while before the war protests got up to full strength... any president who is leading a failing war will be in trouble. For Vietnam it also hurt Nixon for years before he decided to leave...

Well, that's the point I was making. But the Nam war never helped LBJ, as it turned sharply against him once it was discovered that his administration was lying to the public about how successful the war was. But you're right, it didn't get really bad until after the Tet Offensive.

They should be able to realize that anyone shooting down such an absurd and ridiculous tax cut for the top 1% businessmen is doing a great favor for the nation.

They won't care about that when they realize that *gasp* the tax cut includes mostly everyone!

Hate to break it to you, but your Robin Hood mentality is shared by few. Most people don't hate the rich for being rich. A smart person wouldn't, anyway. They would instead use their resources to acquire similar wealth. That's what fuels a capitalistic society. Even regular people wouldn't mind the tax burden on businesses lightened, since starting a small business is a popular thing.

See, in contrast to your views, most people don't want the rich hurt for their benefit. They'd rather become rich themselves.

Yes, without Perot it would have been a LOT closer, sure... just like how without Nader Gore would have won in '00. So? The fact remains that Perot was there... and the economy was the main reason Clinton won it.

And he did nothing to fix it, and with his tax increases actually did more to harm it. He was just lucky that he happened to be President during the Internet Boom, just as it's Bush's own bad luck to accede the presidency at the end of it.

I answered it anyway. Well, except for the "find links to facts" thing.

Yeah, but that was the most important part.

Look, I know that the US is the most powerful nation. That we are vital to the global economy and have more power (militarially or economically) then most of the world together. But exactly as I said, I CARE WHAT THEY THINK. Not necessarially "I think they will greatly hurt us", though if this lasts long they will, just IT IS BAD TO BE HATED BY EVERYONE. I just don't see how you can disagree there...

Of course it's bad to be disliked by everyone else. But if they can't do anything but dislike us, I won't lose sleep over it. Seriously, I only care what other people think if there's a chance that it can affect me. As it stands, they can throw a temper tantrum and they'll get over it.

As Howard Dean said a while back, empires inevitablty fall... we won't have absolute power forever and it'd be a waste for the history books to say "they used force to dominate, ignoring world opinion". Because it's a waste of our potential.

It would also be wrong, because we don't dominate with force. We dominate with our economic prowress, and money can often supercede military might. That we also happen to have the best military in the history of the world is irrelevant, as we never use it to even half of it's true capacity. If we did, it's likely we COULD dominate the world militarily.

And the great empires of the world fell for that reason: They tried to dominate militarily, and overextended themselves. It's safe to say we're not anywhere close to that, nor are we even approaching it.

Well boo hoo I'm SO sad that we have gas prices 4 times lower than Europe.... yet we still need them cheaper...

Well, there's that itty bitty fact that Americans rely on the automobile to an exponentially greater extent than Europeans do whcih results in their astronomical gas prices. But keep in mind that oil doesn't just make automotive gas.

They did. I've read so in multiple places... the world paid for almost all the bill for the last war. And almost none of this war's bill.

Its off this point, but its a very good one on its own...

Oh, and I don't think that oil is is MAIN reason. But it is in the top three. Oh, and why can't oil companies get rich off it while the government has to pay off a huge debt?

Well, as I've never seen that before, I'd like a source for it. Considering that the US funds almost all of the UN military force, I find that incredibly unlikely.

Why can't they get rich? Two reasons. This new source of oil won't start some petroleum-consumption orgy, and if anything will drive prices much lower. The financial gains will be long-term, when we have a large, stable source of oil. It's not so much about getting rich quick, but making sure we don't have an oil crisis down the line. Even if on the off chance this war was for oil, eliminating the chance that middle-eastern nations could inflict an oil shortage on us is definitely worth it.

You know as well as I do that that's a PR side effect of the action...

Oh, I see. So what you're saying is that we wouldn't mind Saddam being in power if he gave his oil fields to us? Even if that was true, does it in any way lessen the effect of it? Are they any less free today because that wasn't the main objective?

Sure he had some weapons... he DID after all have some chem/bio plants that the inspectors found over the years, and those weapons he didn't use in the Iran-Iraq or Gulf Wars... but did he have new weapons? It is clear now that he really didn't. And that lots of the ones he had have been destroyed. And nuclear ones? Don't be absurd. He was nowhere NEAR getting them.

If he had destroyed them, why didn't he prove it? Why refuse the demand of proof? Why kick out inspectors? It doesn't make sense for anyone to RAISE suspicions while all the while doing what is asked of you.

I'll tackle what Nintendarse said later, this has already taken me an hour... though I'd pretty much be echoing what N-Man said, there are a few points I want to touch on later.