Uh-oh

[Weltall]

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.

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 :(

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)