Uh-oh

[A Black Falcon]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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?

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...

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.

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...

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... :)