Uh-oh

[A Black Falcon]

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...