I'm growing to love this thread.
Printable View
I'm growing to love this thread.
The idealistic differences in these various forms of government is a moot point in the fact that totalitarianism is the end results. If guided by ideals alone, socialism is the perfect form of government. In the real world human nature outweighs ideals.
We are the most tolerant nation on earth when it comes to religious freedom, racial diversity, and freedom of speech, however this tolerance is being encroached upon by those seemingly innocent mechanisms known as polical correctness and all those "stop the hate" ad campaigns. Unwittingly, idealists are the perfect tool for unchecked government to slowly erode those things we hold dear. All government by nature is evil if left unchecked. This is why our founding fathers stressed the term, "government for and by the people". This is somehow lost on modern society, the "it's all about me" generations. This erosion is working. It's working quite well.
Some countries are in the process of passing laws to stop those that might say something that could be considered an insult by somone else. A minister could be dragged from his church and jailed because he spoke out against homosexuality to his flock. Is this where we are going? Is this what we want to be? If so then you should vote for Gore in the next election and Hillary on down the road. They will protect you from yourself. They will help program you to think good thoughts.
The words "Hitler" and "Nazi" are simply terms used to deliver what some consider the ultimate insult. It's not just used here. It's used all over the world. To call a Jew "Nazi" is calling him/her something they hate the most by someone that's just plain ignorant.
Good post, Leo. I agree with much that you have written, especially your commentary regarding Mao and Pol Pot (I just watched The Killing Fields recently, coincidentally), but the fact remains that Nazi fascism is text book right-wing totalitarianism, which does, I admit, share much with socialism. If political idealogy were plotted on a circle, Nazism and Communism would almost meet. In its extreme nationalism, Nazism emphasizes the subordination of the individual to the interests of the group, just like socialism. However, by definition, right-wingers are those who are opposed to change in the established order and traditions, and who often support the forced establishment of authoritarian regimes, whereas left-wingers are typically revolutionaries who seek to overthrow established traditions through violent rebellion. Nazism, although it is socialistic in many respects, as you have demonstrated, most definately falls under the right-wing definition. In fact, all leftists were thrown out of National Socialist German Worker's Party in 1934.
Forgive my lack of depth, but I'm at work and my boss is milling around my area. Gotta go!
Just an F.Y.I. for those who care.
I have abstained from this discussion for the reason below.
Being sixteen myself, I know many adults will not take my opinion seriously. I also realize why they do that: being a pubescent means lots of changes, and one of those [less obvious] changes is opinion. Since we are so inexperienced in politics, we tend to jump on bandwagons and such of people we admire, for one reason or another. Quite frankly, I think teenagers under eighteen should not get involved in politics. We are kids, and wasting our lives on politics rather than enjoying our youth is quite upsetting in my view. Just let us play our games, hang out with friends, and do whatever we do.
As for those over eighteen, speak your voice as loud as you can.
These are the only words I have for this topic.
You're wise beyond your years, Wolf.
Ignorance is bliss. I would rather not deal with politics. I don't complain and don't vote. Seems better to leave it for the people who know the issues than for me to vote blindly. Anyway, continue with the discussion...it is mildly entertaining.
Jackle
Age has nothing to do with it. I've seen just as many adults make complete asses of themselves that teenagers (probably more).
I am interested in something here.
If "liberals" have all these hidden agendas then what are the agendas of the "conservatives"?
I tend to think that more people are in a gray area with their own ideas than following the plan of some group. Having been labled as a liberal by many and prejuded by many because of it I would like to know the agendas of these conservatives that are apparently the defenders of all that is good and true.
I also wonder where all the meetings for these subversive liberals are at because I've sure as heck missed them.
For the record I think that political correctness is the biggest bunch of bull I have ever heard of and the governemnt should keep its mitts out of my own damn life and choices. Does that make me conservative?
I also think that government should be more involved with building roads, keeping schools running, keeping police protection and fire protection, public transportation, and of course defense then building stadiums that only benifit a handful (especialy when voted down by the people) and giving tax breaks to the rich who I think should be paying their fair share. Does this make me liberal?
I can recall many times hearing and reading about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot in school and beyond. I always just figured Hitler was more prominent because we fought him in a war and won which made for more interesting reading to Americans (a clear case of right and wrong where right won which does not happen a lot). The thought of some hidden conspiricy never even came into it.
Just curious.
Define "fair share"?
Fair share = however much it takes until they aren't rich any more.
The stadium comment was interesting. Wick, what stadium are you talking about?
The stadium I am talking about is Safeco Field. Public money was used to build it, many millions of dollars and cost overuns that were unbelievable. The initiative went up before the voters before construction for public money to go to building it. It was voted down by a very large majority. The state ignored the vote and decided to add more sales taxes to pay for it anyway. It benefits only a few in that it puts millions of dollars into the owners pockets since it is a privately owned stadium. It only brings in revenue for the Seattle area and the rest of the state pays for it. I can think of worse things to spend money on but the fact remains public funding for this private project was voted down and the state government ignored that.
Fair share means that there are far too many loopholes in the system. I don't have the time to drum up exact numbers but if I am paying 40% and more of my income to taxes on top of 10%+ sales tax then I don't see why making a million a year entitles a person to only pay 20%. Tax system needs to have the loopholes ironed out.
I love how people say the rich don't pay their fair share. Why should the tax brackets keep getting increasingly higher to punish people for being successful?
I agree that their are holes in our tax system that need fixed, and penalties - like the marriage tax penalty and the outrageous estate taxes - that need to be abolished.
IMHO - in alot of ways, the flat tax makes a great deal of sense but will NEVER happen.
Disclaimer - Trust me... I am NOT wealthy and the higher tax brackets, unfortunately, do not effect me at this time. :D
I'm glad you weren't talking about the Seahawks stadium, because I was ready to open up a can o' whoopass on you.
With regards to the other stuff, I believe you're being pretty loose (and inaccurate) with your figures.
I also agree with what Hy said. There are things that should be fixed. Punitively attacking the wealthy for no reason other than "they can afford it" is weak.
I firmly believe that people should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their success. Otherwise there will be no reason to strive for excellence.
ROFLMAOQuote:
I'm glad you weren't talking about the Seahawks stadium, because I was ready to open up a can o' whoopass on you.
Ah, yes, taxes... Now you've struck upon one of my hot button topics... First, let's get at least one point out of the way: comsumer-side economics does not work; trickle-down/supply-side economics DOES. FDR, modern hero to liberals and supporters of "big government" everywhere created the world's largest social welfare infrastructure during his administration. Sure, it made the people suffering through the Great Depression feel good, but "government by hugs" simply isn't an effective way to manage a floundering economy. Fact is, that FDR had next to nothing to do with our recovery from the Depression. We owe more to Hirohito and Hitler in that regard than we ever did to FDR. FDR left a legacy of HUGE government deficits and a government roughly 3 times the size it was before his administration. FDR could have probably just loaded B-17's up with 10 dollar bills and dropped them all over metropolitan areas and done more good than Social Security, Federal Welfare, WPP, etc.
The RIGHT way to fix the economy in the 30's would have been to bail out the banking system and protect companies from creditors while they cleaned house (we call that Chapter 11 Bankruptcy these days). If our investment and corporate infrastructures are sound, then people have jobs, productivity stays reasonably high, product demand is perpetuated, and investors benefit from the stability. Trickle-down economics provides protection to and incentives for corporations and wealthy indivudual contributors because they are the entities that keep the economy solid. If, for whatever reason, Microsoft was forced to pay several additional billions in taxes every year, how much would that effect the Seattle area? How many jobs would have to be cut? How much incentive would MS have to innovate, renew, and hire new talent? Could growth occur? The reason our economy works is because people see that it's good to be on top of it all. If no one has a desire to be wealthy, new businesses would not be started, people would not take risks, people would not work as hard, etc. There's got to be incentive, or there is no growth. Furthermore, the wealthy of this nation are the primary contributors to long-term investment. Without investment capital businesses are often powerless to expand, build new plants, take on new employees. Without investment capital banks are unable to make loans to businesses, or even allow people to take out mortgages on homes and personal loans on other items. So, if you're all for everyone living in apartments forever and all business being owned and operated by the federal government, I'd say, hell yeah, flat taxes all the way! The important thing to realize is that tax brackets for the wealthy are MUCH higher than that of the lower income individuals. Fortunately, though, our tax code allows for incentives and ways to protect revenue from taxation because it is then put into locations that allow the private sector to grow and benefit as opposed to financing and ever-expanding government.
Lastly, a mathematical exercise. The US government needs to make up for a shortfall in revenue of $1 billion through personal income tax. The class breakdown of the US is roughly as follows:
Income < $20,000: 10%
Income $20,000 - $80,000: 85%
Income > $100,000: 5%
Since there are roughly 150 million tax-paying Americans, the numbers work out as follows:
Income < $20,000: 15 million
Income $20,000 - $80,000: 127.5 million
Income > $100,000: 7.5 million
So, to make up that shortfall, the individual load for each of the classes would be:
Income < $20,000: $70 per person
Income $20,000 - $80,000: $8 per person
Income > $100,000: $135 per person
The differences are staggering. With a change in personal income tax of less than .1% on the middle class can make up the difference, whereas it takes a MUCH larger increase on the working poor and wealthy to effect the same change. Hence the reason why the middle class of any society will bear most of the brunt of tax revenue.
If it becomes the mission of the federal government, and liberal society at large, to penalize the wealthy for succeeding, our economy will flounder like that of so many socialist and marxist countries throughout the world. Even in its heyday, the Soviet Union had a largely broken economy where you had to wait in lines for things like bread and toilet paper if you were anything but a Politburo member. Sure, capitalism isn't even and it certainly isn't fair, but so long as you're able to dangle the carrot of wealth in front of society at large and allow EVERYONE opportunity for success without penalty, our ecomony will continue to grow and prosper.
My numbers are not skewed, at least not much. I loose 40% to taxes, well maybe only 37%. Our sales tax is in execess of 10% even 12%.
I can not afford property or tax shelters. I make 50 grand a year and still live paycheck to paycheck (50 grand in many places like San Francisco is pocket change since the cost of living is so high). Before this job I made 6 bucks and hour and was living on that. I would see my money be taken away and was bouncing from job to job often working two or more jobs just to make my bills and rent. Many people live on that income and even raise families on it... I worked with them and more people live that way than you might think, since the poverty level is on the rise it will be an even higher percentage.
I never saw the windfall of trickle down.
Flat tax would be nice but impractical. Hylander had the right idea about taxes. I'm not hoping everyone would be at the same level but the tax system realy needs an overhaul.
As for punishing the rich I don't see why I am punished for not being rich. I worked like hell for the scraps I got, network and computer work is nothing compared to working construction sites, wherhouse jobs, and diging holes by pick and shovel for five to seven dollars an hour on 12 to 18 hour days, or being a dishwasher for right at minimum wage, damn lot of good six years of college did me. Then watching all your money go to taxes and when you loose the job due to layoffs or just the fact that it was a temporary job you can get no government assistance at all to help just because I don't know how to work the unemployment system (that and welfare are broken beyond belief). I saw someone ahead of me in line get unemployment after getting fired for selling cocaine on the job but I was denied when all I wanted was help so I did not have to sleep in my car (which I did) till I could get a new job and save up enough for an apartment.
Try to get a job sometime when you are hacking up flesh due to pnumonia that you had for the last 6 months (and lost your job because of it) and not be able to afford going to the doctor or getting medication because you have no insurance or means to get it. Doctors visits cost a lot of money without insurance and if you don't have it or know how to work the welfare system you get no help. Hospitals talk the good talk about taking anyone who needs help but if you got no way to pay they tell you to take a hike, I know this from experience... and I could not get medical coupons because I could not show need aside from the fact that I was not getting better and only worse. Thankfuly I had family that did not want to see me die and payed for hospitalization for me in the end where I got intravenious antibiotics because I was so bad I could not eat or sleep or even get out and look for a job. I realy thought I was going to die and my imune system was permanently damaged.
All this was going on during the first Bush presidency. I saw no success from that president on my personal situation at the time.
And I felt punished for not making a lot of money. I do not believe in social darwinism, I do not believe everyone who makes millions deserve it on a "because I have it" basis. Hard work to get rich is valid, but does not afford them the ability to not have to pay for such things as stadiums, etc...
Trickle down may be good for society as a whole, I am no economic expert to tell but I just never saw the benifit of it. I did see the benefit of working hard for what I have now which is a whole lot better than what I had before. During the bad years I could have used help which I never got due to the broken welfare/unemployment system which I am still unhappy with and I don't want more I just wanted to be there when I needed it the most and it wasn't. It was there for a whole bunch of people that looked to me like they were taking it for a ride. I am not a fan of welfare for sure.
HITLER A CONSERVATIVE?
You probably know more about this than I do, Palooka, but here's where I see it differently. In a European sense, extreme conservatism can come to totalitarianism, because in Europe they have a history of absolute monarchs. If extreme conservatism is a desire to turn back the clock, then in Europe turning back the clock will give you monarchy.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Palooka
the fact remains that Nazi fascism is text book right-wing totalitarianism, which does, I admit, share much with socialism. If political idealogy were plotted on a circle, Nazism and Communism would almost meet. In its extreme nationalism, Nazism emphasizes the subordination of the individual to the interests of the group, just like socialism. However, by definition, right-wingers are those who are opposed to change in the established order and traditions, and who often support the forced establishment of authoritarian regimes, whereas left-wingers are typically revolutionaries who seek to overthrow established traditions through violent rebellion. Nazism, although it is socialistic in many respects, as you have demonstrated, most definately falls under the right-wing definition. In fact, all leftists were thrown out of National Socialist German Worker's Party in 1934.
But the American/English tradition is different. England hasn't had a true absolute monarch since before the Magna Carta, which was a long, long time ago. England had a long tradition of local government, respect for property rights, and a constrained judiciary.
On a broader historical level, the difference is between the continental Roman legal tradition and the separate English legal tradition. Roman law assumed that the state is all-powerfu, while English law assumed that the king is constrained by God and the nobility. Much of the history of English politics is the tension between maintaining the limited monarchy against challenges by those who wanted the Roman view. The American Revolution was fought precisely on those grounds; that's what the Declaration of Independence is all about.
So an extreme American conservative isn't a totalitarian because he has no monarchic or totalitarian tradition to turn the clock back to. Extreme American conservatism might be anarchy, but not despotism.
You're probably right that Hitler was a european conservative, in the sense of wanting to turn the clock back to the days of absolute monarchs. I didn't know that Hitler threw out the liberals from the party in 1934. I need to read something about that.
OTHER TOPICS:
ARE YOU A LIBERAL?
Being a conservative or a liberal doesn't require that you hold every one of a list of views. The question is whether 1) you believe that the government is generally efficient and helpful, meaning that it should be larger in both size and authority, or 2) you believe that the government is generally wasteful and harmful, meaning that it should have fewer dollars and fewer responsibilities. Most of your political views will correlate with that basic answer.
TAXES
The notion that the rich don't pay taxes is nonsense. I'm a lawyer who specializes in tax. I read the same journals and attend the same seminars as the best tax minds in Texas. (I can't afford the national conferences yet.) There are ways to cut taxes around the edges through planning, but it's always a matter of going from an astonishing amount of tax to a merely huge amount of tax. If you read about a wealthy person who doesn't pay much income tax, it's usually a simple matter of investing in things that don't produce taxable income, like tax-free municipals bonds and growth stock.
If you look at the Treasury statistics on who pays how much tax, the top 1% pays about 29% of taxes, and the top 5% pays 50%. That's why it's so silly to complain that tax cuts are 'only for the rich.' The rich are the only people who really pay income tax!
THE POLITICS OF THE YOUNG
I think it's great for teenagers to take an interest in politics, as long as they don't take their opinions too seriously. You don't really understand politics until you've paid several thousand dollars in taxes.
Out of context, but that pretty much sums it up. Nobody likes taxes, howeverQuote:
Originally posted by [AK]Widowmaker
Trickle down may be good for society as a whole, I am no economic expert
suffice it to say that they are extremely complex and downright confusing.
BTW, I show the 2001 federal tax bracket for a single person making 50k at 27.5%
Also, you paid only 15% on monies you earned up to $27,500, and 27.5%
on monies earned from $27,501 to $50,000
This is called marginal tax, and it's completely lost on most folks because
the rate of withdrawal from their paycheck is constant.
RE: Tax shelters - there are ALWAYS shelters. Pre-tax savings are a great way to start.
Donation of items you have no longer have any use for are another.
Abolish income tax and property tax and go to a flat consumption tax. One person, one vote, one tax. And to those who will respond that a sales tax is regressive - tough noogies.
I get bloody tired of financing the stadium every time I rent a car in Seattle... Fargin' "concession" tax... What the hell kind of concession am I getting? Shouldn't I get a pop or a burger or something for paying that tax?Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Widowmaker
The stadium I am talking about is Safeco Field. Public money was used to build it, many millions of dollars and cost overuns that were unbelievable. The initiative went up before the voters before construction for public money to go to building it. It was voted down by a very large majority. The state ignored the vote and decided to add more sales taxes to pay for it anyway. It benefits only a few in that it puts millions of dollars into the owners pockets since it is a privately owned stadium. It only brings in revenue for the Seattle area and the rest of the state pays for it. I can think of worse things to spend money on but the fact remains public funding for this private project was voted down and the state government ignored that.
Fair share means that there are far too many loopholes in the system. I don't have the time to drum up exact numbers but if I am paying 40% and more of my income to taxes on top of 10%+ sales tax then I don't see why making a million a year entitles a person to only pay 20%. Tax system needs to have the loopholes ironed out.
As a user of the stadiums in Seattle, I don't mind in the least paying the rental or hotel taxes. Great stuff, takes some of the burdon from the local populace.
I never use the stadium as I am not a fan of any sport, no interest in them. The stadium income only helps the Seattle region and contrary to popular belief there is much more to the state than Seattle it is just forgotten about.
Yeah, my views on taxes are pretty sophomoric.
I'll have to rethink that.
I would still *like* to see a flat tax. Not just to get everyones fair share out but because it would make tax time much easier on the noggin. I don't think that will ever happen though.
There is a reason I am not and economy expert. Never was good at managing money and I know it. Of course I don't yet have any money to manage but if things work out for me I will. If I had the money then hell yes I would take advantage of tax shelters and cutting down my taxable income but that does not make it right to me.
Unfortunately I have nothing left out of my paycheck to shelter, I don't even have a savings account and my checking account is near 0$ (when not overdrawn) before each paycheck at the moment. I also have nothing at all to donate for shelter, hard to have a donatable item when you don't hardly have any items. Been wearing the same shoes for what 5 years now? Not that I am totaly complaining it is just the way it is and most of my situation is my own fault.
My views and feelings may be selfish but having had nothing before that is just the way I am. Good thing I am not in public office and just concerned about keeping collection agencies away and making sure my power is not cut off, eh? I cast my vote for whatever canidate or initiative I feel would be the best, sometimes the majority agrees, often not.
Actually, it's REALLY a good thing that you live in Washington (with no state income tax.)
I give over 6% to NJ. Sort of puts things in perspective for you, eh?
Sales tax is where Washington makes up for the state income tax acording to our legislating bodies.
Sales taxes can be killer out here.
edit: depending on where you are. State, county and city sales taxes are all seperate so in one county you may pay 8% but in a different county 7% then there are other fees on top of that so in some comunities you will see 10% or higher taxes then there are the taxes based on what type of item you are buying.
Unprepared food has no tax.
Which is reason #1 we will never have a flat tax in the US. How did that saying go? Politics is where lawyers go to die? ;)Quote:
I'm a lawyer who specializes in tax
Actually, the complexity in the income tax mostly comes from the fact that it's a tax on income. Flattening the rates wouldn't change that. The idea of 'income' is a very difficult thing to define when applied to the many ways that people do business. There is plenty of pork in the tax code, and many things are more complicated than they need to be. But even if you flattened the rates and took out the pork, the 9,000 page US Tax Code on my desk wouldn't go down to less than 7,000 pages.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Hylander
"I'm a lawyer who specializes in tax"
Which is reason #1 we will never have a flat tax in the US. How did that saying go? Politics is where lawyers go to die? ;)
I could go into more detail if you want, but the basic problem is this: In law, there's always a tradeoff between clarity and simplicity. If you write a simple, short rule, then you'll have lots of questions about borderline situations. If you write out a long rule that covers lots of borderline situations, then people complain that it's too complicated.
Example:
Simple, unclear rule: Thou shalt not kill.
Complicated, clearer rule: Thou shalt not intentionally kill another person, except 1) in self-defense, 2) in defense of your family or property, 3) in war killing an enemy combatant, 4) if you're an executioner for the government killing on order of a judge.
Or 5) You killed a lawer.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
LOL!Quote:
Or 5) You killed a lawer.
Geez, I thought you guys woulda dropped this chat by now. Well, I didn't really think you would, just a figure of speech...You guys STILL think Saddam poses a threat? Don't make me laugh. One COULD certainly make an arguement that Saddam poses a threat to US INTERESTS, but they're not saying that, they're saying he poses a threat to the US. Why, pray tell, would Saddam bomb the US? Britain has nukes. They have the "Ability" to bomb us. So should we declare war on them? Just cause someone has the ability to do something, doesn't mean they have the desire to. Saddam is not an idealist, he is a dictator. He wants power, not the fall of western civilization. And bombing the US will do nothing. It would be suicide for him. Hell, even bombing Isreal would be suicide for him. I'm not saying there is no reason in the entire universe for a war on Iraq- I'm just waiting for it. And waiting for Rumfield to quit speaking out of his ass(You want war as a last resort? Sure you do....).
Ha ha ha! Not for long!Quote:
You guys STILL think Saddam poses a threat?
"Bombing will commence in five minutes!"
Don't ya just love the smell of jet fuel and burned powder?
But most of all, I like the way Tom Dashabout has made a complete ass of himself. And Gore? Oh yeah! His speech proved his rightful entitlement as "Mr. Ozone".
No! The bench is where they go to die. You know, those maniacs in the black robes?Quote:
Politics is where lawyers go to die?
Example: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
You can say one this about all this Bush administrastion posturing on Iraq, it's pushed the UN into action. For too long they have simply left Iraq alone and not pressed them on the resolutions they agreed to at the end of the gulf war.
It's kind of fun to watch a war politics debate involving someone who was in diapers during the gulf war.
No doubt!Quote:
It's kind of fun to watch a war politics debate involving someone who was in diapers during the gulf war.
Or people who say this economy is "horrible" and were not born in the late 80s or were 10 years old in 1995 and didn't even know what the economy was. When it comes to money, the economy, the stock market, and politics, people sure do have short memories.
Here you go again. Immaturely dismissing someone's opinion based on age.
And just cause YOU didn't know what the econonomy was at the age of 10, Hylander, doesn't mean I didn't. And in case ya missed it, here it is again:
Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Zorro
One point that I can't let lie, however, is the dismissal of someone's opinions due simply to their age. Political awareness does not discriminate based on age, last I checked, so I would suggest that any participant in this kind of debate stay to the facts at hand and not highlight non-related and trivial facts as a diversion (should I insert, "that's a popular tactic, even Hitler used it," here?). It simply doesn't seem to jive with our open door policy, our claim that anyone can speak their mind here, and the other "Knightly" ideals that we stick to around here, ya know?
Come on Aero, sing the Marine Corps Hymn with me......
From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli....
We will fight our country's battles.....
I don't know the Marine Corps Hymn. I'd rather commit suicide then join the Marines. The army forces you to kill innocent people, and that not very high on my list of things I want to do.
Aerothorn, if it weren't for all the men and women in our armed forces who have selflessly shed blood in the name of liberty and freedom in the last 230 years, you wouldn't even have the freedom of speech to make all your asinine statements. You'd probably be tromping around the streets of your home town in a spiffy uniform, complete with a swastika-adorned armband and jack boots, as a member of the Nazi Youth League.
You are one very confused boy. Your arguments are so full of holes that they closely resemble Swiss cheese. For instance, let's examine this little gem:
"Britain has nukes. They have the 'Ability' to bomb us. So should we declare war on them?"
First of all, Tony Blair is not Saddam Hussein. Last I checked, he wasn't gassing his own people and working closely with al-Qaeda to kill Americans and Jews by the thousands. Second, Britain is an ally of ours. While officials from other European countries, like Germany, for instance, are spewing anti-American hate speech and comparing Bush to Hitler (which reminds me of the radical Islamists comparing Jews to Nazis), Tony Blair is strongly supporting the US before the parliament by proving the case that Hussein is an imminent and growing danger to western civilization.
By the way, Turkey seized a shipment of uranium en route to Iraq today. I wonder how long the leftists are going to keep deluding themselves into thinking that harmless little Saddam is not building nukes.
Thank you Palooka, I couldn't have said it better myself.......
Palooka, as my dad said yesterday "The liberals don't exist.". What he means is that the sterotypical liberal, as sterotyped by the right, is nonexistent. The right says most liberals want more government control. That is such bull. Walk up to anybody on the street here in Seattle and ask em if they want more governement control.
But to what you were saying, whether Saddam is building nukes or not, I don't think most liberals or contesting, despite what the right might say. What we are contesting is whether he WILL USE THEM. Did you even read my post?
As for the army, why the sudden attack on me? I never said I didn't hold respect for the people in the armed forces. I just said I'm not into attacking innocents myself. Is there something so very wrong with that? When your in combat, your not shooting, say, Saddam Hussein- your shooting all the poor citizens of Iraq that were drafted. Perhaps a nesscary evil, but one I don't wish to partake in. Quit jumping to conclutions- it only makes you look foolish. I'm starting to get the impression that you sleep with a copy of Ann Colter's books under your pillow.
And you describe me as "One very confused boy". Oh, I see. Because my opinions are different then yours, I am "Confused". That's not a very fair logical statement.
I will request that people stick to THE FACTS in this debate. Much as may enjoy picking on kids, Palooka, I prefer a debate without attacks on other members. Obviously, I'm only even having this debate out of boredom- having political debates online is one of the more pointless things you can do with your life- but I picked up Jagged Alliance 2 Gold Edition the day before yesterday to tide me over till No One Lives Forever 2, and I'm having some tech problems with it so till tech support gets back to me I gotta resort to this.
EDIT: Ah, Tech Support is taking too long. Not that I really blame em- Tech Support reprensent a big black hole in the profibility of a company, and at least Strategy First, as far as I know, is WORKING on my problem, instead of sending me a bunch of automated help forms. Yay. So I'm gonna head out and get Divine Divinity, and may be dropping out of this chat, "For the good of all" as Mentor says.
Seems somehow this thing has turned into an age debate... and I'm not going to say anything about it, although I can vote, I'm basically dating a girl that cannot right now.. so yea :tongue: