Uh-oh

[Weltall]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.