Uh-oh

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[B]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.

Again, it's a sign of immense hubris to think we are capable of ruining the entire world (which is what you state). I know I've said it at least twice now... we as a society probably caused far more pollution in the Coal age, where factories burned coal, houses burned coal, everyone burned coal, and coal smoke and dust would coat entire city blocks. Nothing like that happens anymore, because we use less polluting sources of fuel? When hydrogen fuel cells become affordable for use in cars, petroleum use will die out slowly. And I'm excited about the prospect of Hydrocell technology, partially because technologies of all sort interest me, and partially because it would not only make ecofreaks happy, but because it would make car maintenence much cheaper and effective. I think, in order to cut down pollution, should strive harder to find a better way of doing things, but taking steps backward just isn't it. Less regulations and more research. What Hydrocell technology would do for the environment is far more profound than these frivolous restrictions set on car manufacturers and refineries.

and on to Weltall's post.

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...

Except when the idealism itself is nothing but regurgitated failed ideas. Zealous idealism is not healthy, especially when the idealists keep trying to fix problems that cannot, or should not be fixed.

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.

Okay, I'll explain why I'm right. Homosexuality cannot be genetic or hereditary, unless its a genetic mutation (and I'm sure you'd love that explanation), because hereditary traits are passed down from parents to children. Most homosexuals do not have children of their own doing, thus, that idea is ruled out. I've never seen a single convincing argument that homosexuality is something you're 'born with'. It's both a product of a person's upbringing and environment, and of their own choice. Anyone right now, you, me, DJ, anyone, we could choose to be gay right now. We could go out and find a man to have sex with. Then, we are homosexuals. It's a choice. It's a choice that's as obvious as choosing to be heterosexual. It's called sexual PREFERENCE for a reason. On the other hand, I cannot one day decide to be black. THAT is something you're born with. I can't wake up one day and decide to be latino or asian. I can't just decide one day, I want to be a woman (even though you can imitate the appearance of a woman, a transsexual male is still a male). People who think Homosexuality is something you're stuck with are flat out wrong, and are trying to absolve themselves of responsibilty for a choice. You cannot be born gay any more than you can be a born murderer or a born accountant or a born movie star. You are born with a simple set of brain patterns and instincts. Everything else in life is something you gain through experience and learning. Homosexuality is the result of choices. And I dare you to prove otherwise.

Now, on that note, I am tolerant of gays. I don't give a damn who someone wants to screw, that's their business and theirs alone. But damn me if you think for a minute that I would want them to have special legal rights because they want to have sex with men. Absolute crap.

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.

Actually, the reason why is, at least with colleges, that Asian kids tend to perform really well scholastically, even poor Asian kids. Therefore, they aren't getting punished because they're white, they're getting punished because they work harder. Asians aren't necessarily smarter than blacks or hispanics, but the parents of Asian people I know are very, very hardcore about education. I think that's an outstanding quality that all parents should have. Coincidentally, because they work harder in school, they end up making more money in the workforce.

Not to say all blacks and latinos are lazy, but affirmative action essentially rewards them for being so, if they choose. Why would a black kid strive harder to achieve a higher SAT score when his skin color is all he needs for college admission? Thus, scores for black children, in all rungs of the education ladder, are lower than pretty much every other race. And yet affirmative action is supposed to be FAIR to them? It sets them up for failure!

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.
The rich get taxed the most! Not only do they pay disproportionate income taxes, but every time you buy something, you're paying taxes. Rich people buy more, therefore, they're paying more taxes. I think the rich DO deserve a tax cut, if only to level out the unfairness of having a higher tax for being rich.

[quote]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.

What a bunch of crap. That's not fair at all. It's fair to the poor, and I know to you it seems that those who aren't poor aren't people, but if it were fair to everyone, everyone would be paying the exact same amount of tax per dollar, regardless of how many dollars you have. Rich people would still pay more bottom line, but it would be in equal proportion to everyone else. To think anything else is fair is ridiculous. Fair to some maybe, not others.

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.

Okay, let me give you a little lesson in healthcare. See, if you are poor enough, you get free healthcare. My dad has told me all sorts of stories, having worked in an innercity hospital for almost 20 years. Do you know who pays for healthcare for the poor?

Answer: Anyone who actually pays for healthcare.

I recently had a major surgery. The my first bill, which was only for the hospital stay (meaning it did not include the surgeon's bill) was over $40,000! They charged $7,000 for SUPPLIES. My painkillers, percocet pills and Tylenol, were $12 PER PILL. Fresh linens alone were three friggin grand. All this for a three day stint. Of course, I would not go for a forty-thousand dollar surgery that I had to pay for out of pocket unless my life was at stake, I pay medical insurance and they covered it completely. It's the insurance companies who pay for the entire operation, and these outrageous costs. And how do they recoup their money?

Answer: They charge me higher premiums.

Now, do you know why they charged three thousand for linen and twelve bucks for a single Tylenol? The answer is, they need to recoup the losses spent on non-insured patients. They bring a homeless man who drinks himself into a coma into the ER, and we pay for it. They bring in a lowlife who has blown his brain on heroin, and we pay for it. It's not just the rich who foot the bill, it's people who are far from rich, like me. We have to foot the bill for these degenerate leeches of society who can get free healthcare no matter what (and it's well known that the free healthcare is very often abused at cost to us).

No one should have free healthcare unless they're physically unable to work. Even a poor person is capable of getting a job at K-Mart and getting onto their health coverage (I work at Walmart). They are perfectly capable of paying their own premiums, but why bother? When you can get it for free, what incentive is there to EARN it? To WORK for it?

And I'm totally against state healthcare. I don't mind surgeons making tons of money, because they have skills that very few have. They work long and hard to get where they are, and they hold lives in their hands. My surgeon stands to make about fifteen thousand dollars for the four hours he spent in my stomach, but I don't mind my premium money being paid to him. He held my life in his capable hands for four hours, and his work has had a great effect on me personally. But when you get "free" healthcare, payed for by taxes, you face the problems Canada faces: Doctors do not get paid as much. Therefore, there is less incentive to go into medical school and strive hard to become a doctor. Thus, you have less doctors. Eventually, the need for doctors becomes greater than the number of doctors available. Since doctor's income comes from taxes, they can never expect to make much more money. Therefore, to get more doctors, you lower the standards necessary to become a doctor. And you know where that leads.

As outlined, our healthcare system has problems (mostly caused by liberals), but it beats the hell out of state-sponsored healthcare.

And isn't democracy supposed to govern for the PEOPLE in general, not just for the rich? Oh... not according to you.

Almost anyone who is poor can do something about it. That's the great thing about Capitalism. If you want something bad enough, there's always a way to get it. Unless you're lazy. I'm nowhere near rich, but that is definitely one of my goals in life, and even though I have no connections to wealth, there is an avenue of opportunity that will lead to wealth, and all I need to do is be very diligent and work hard. I want no handouts.

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.

No. Everyone should pay the same percentage. It's fair. You claim you don't hate the rich, yet you want them punished for being rich. Why? What am I missing here? Why do you want the rich punished for being rich? And don't say you don't, saying rich people should pay a higher percentage in tax because they can is nothing short of penalizing them because they're rich.

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.

Net income is up in percentages. People in general have more money. And Reaganomics, based on when this trend started, is the obvious cause. I already outlined it before but you seem to have ignored it.

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...

Yes they will. Oil burns much cleaner than coal. Nuclear plants burn much cleaner than power plants that run on oil. Did we change from coal to oil to nuclear energy because we were forced to? No. We did it because each successive power source was more effective and cheaper. That they are cleaner was just bonus. When a cheaper alternative to gas-burning cars comes along, a cheaper alternative that works just as well, people will embrace it. THEN the industry will change. Stupid regulations are not needed.

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.

They were to disarm. Instead, they made more weapons. They resist and hide things, obviously because they have something to hide. The evidence is clear.

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.

Inspections unfortunately do little. We cannot check everywhere. Defectors from Iraq told of how they were able to move these things around, and how those who have knowledge of the weapons are commited to silence. Why? If there were nothing to hide, and Saddam was cooperating, you would think he'd open up and help out, for the good of his country. He does not do this. He says "Fuck you" to the UN, and has for twelve years. It's time to do something about him.

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...

This whole thing about Bush having a personal vendetta against Saddam is crap. If that were the reason for this war, he could easily have arranged for his assassination. That of course would still leave his government. If this were a personal vendetta that would not bother him. The goal is to get his government out. And even then, paying your way into the oil, if that's the goal, mind, is much easier to do, AND it wouldn't draw the scrutiny. Therefore, oil can be ruled out.

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?

On a basic level, yes. They are certainly not run the same way, but the ideals are similar. Communists are more hardcore about the liberal class hatred, but it's still there in socialist states.

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...

I have a feeling once Castro dies, it will be lifted. It's really him we have the problem with. He's no threat anymore, but he was a huge threat at one time, 1962. While I really don't think we should be sanctioning his country anymore, he's done nothing to improve relations with us.

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...

I think even if it came down to war with Korea, nuclear weapons would not be used. Granted, PRNK's leadership isn't that stable, but they're not of the suidcidal fundamentalist Islamic culture either. You truly cannot trust an Islamic madman with nukes and other WMDs not to use them. So what if we fire ten back for every one he fires at us? He gets to die for Great Allah.

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... :)

Um... I answered Jellybean's post... and DLN hasn't said anything you or him haven't said. Before you get on my case, start reading my posts a little closer.