you wannabe-smart-a..! Democracy and republic are two words for the same thing, democracy is derived from greek and means "rule of the people", republic is from latin (res publica) and means official matter, which meant nothing else then democracy. Your whole discussion about liberterians and liberals is ridiculous, you haven`t any clue about Europe, I bet you have never been there,if you had, you would know that there is no socialism in Europe. So, please, don`t try to lecture other people, if you don`t understand what you are talking about!
You guys might want to read, or re-read, some of the Written documents upon which our country (I'm talking about the U.S.A. here) was founded. The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights are the three I'd start with.
Uh...Gary, I mentioned nothing of the words: republic, liberal, or democracy. I just suggested a read, or re-read of some of the original documents written by the country's founders. Again, I'm talking about the country known as the U.S.A.
Hey Waylander, what is the healthcare system in Europe? Our founding fathers where very clear that they didn't like democracy. This is what you get from generations of government schools. So sad. The difference between a deomcracy and a free republic is, geez get ready. In a free republic, you are governed by the rule of law. In a democracy, you are governed by the rule of the majority. If you cannot figure out the difference, I am sorry. You are wrong Waylander on what democracy means, Middle French "democratie," from Late Latin "democratia," from Greek "dçmokratia," from dçmos + -kratia -cracy. Defination: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
Republic: French "république," from Middle French "republique," from Latin "respublica." Defination: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
You're an intelligent person that has had their mind washed by a college professor. It's very easy to tell the type. You must be a teacher."
To Ronald K. Furlong:
First, I'm not a teacher. Second, I was in the U.S. Army for nine years, and one of my jobs was the occupation of Iraq in 2003 and 2004. I spent 15 months in the Middle East with an infantry battalion of the First Armor Division.
Third, how dare you insult teachers! They make very little pay teaching Americans to learn where society comes from and to use their brains to think. You wouldn't know what liberalism is, because you don't care. You don't know what neo-conservatism is, and you don't care. You don't know LOTS of things, for you don't care. That's the only reason I can think of for you to make such an asinine statement as this: "You're an intelligent person that has had their mind washed by a college professor."
First, your sentence isn't even grammatically correct; you've mixed your persons. "You" and "they" are respectively singular and plural. Have you been "corrupted" by a college professor, you idiot? Or, maybe you don't care.
There seems to be an awful lot of things you people don't care about, including simple human value from which you have distastefully disassociated yourself.
What are you prepared to do with society OTHER THAN milk it for every dime and promote such things?
Maybe you're not even aware that there is such a thing as intelligence. You surely don't deserve to be a specimen representing people, as most people think education has some value, even in the business world; but, not you.
Daniel Walker said, "Arthur you really have no clue on what this country was founded on. It was NOT democracy, and the US isn't a democracy...or not supposed to be. It's a free republic."
Yes, it was founded as a republic, but it was also founded in liberalism: both.
The U.S. is and was intended as a democracy, and I doubt some of you know what that word means. The liberalism the U.S. was founded upon gave it its democratic values. For instance, the Declaration of Independence says this: "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people." These three things are liberally democratic. A democracy is REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.
Did you go to college? My U.S. Government teacher--a course required by my institution for any degree--teaches that our government dominantly comes from the Greek-classical interpretation of the republic and the liberalism of John Locke, among others.
Conservatism is nowhere mentioned in the enlightenment cause for U.S. government's initiation. Actually, conservatism was resistant to the idea. Conservatism had nothing to say against Adolf Hitler in 1933 when he assassinated and banned officials of the Weimar Republic so he could take power.
Hitler's greatness by his ability to speak is similar to Ronald Reagan's. The National Workers' Party that Hitler took over is like the neo-conservative element in the U.S. taking over the Republican Party over the last 40 years. They run on the same platforms involving "empty platitudes." They both run media-propaganda wars. And, they also used the word "nationalist" with the same meaning implied by today's negative connotation of that word: the expansion of the realm using war powers. None of these things are inherently democratic according to Western culture today.
But, you're forgetting that Hitler took power by his popularity supporting the overthrowing of the Weimar Republic, which is about the same as George W. Bush's supporters for war in Iraq, the same as the foreign policy of the Republican Party over the last 40 years, and the same of neo-conservative views toward liberalism. Germany was a peaceful country before they came to power, and the Weimar philosophy is truly the rightful state of the German people, until they became persuaded by the likes of extreme right-wingers with mouth pieces: Adolf Hitler and others.
In fact, the only reason anyone seeks to criticize my behavior in defending Al Gore's film, anything contributing to enlightenment, or the founding principles of American Government is solely based in their inherently neo-conservative values, regardless of anyone's political contribution. And, to have my teachers blamed for this is not just absurd, but megalomania, especially for people believing in a republic, a belief which was earned by neo-classicist enlightenment philosophy, classicist meaning Greek, a bunch of pre-Christian-era homosexuals who created the contemporary schooling system. People's bickering over an interpretation of American values stems from their will to accept ignorance as a substitute.
The truth is neo-conservatives don't care about America or its principles so long as they can show up to voting booths on election day to make sure that "no one liberal," despite their lacking knowledge on the word or America, "enters office."
A lot of you are too obstinate to look up the definition of the word "democracy" to see where it says "representative government." You'd rather sit at your computer and torture me to death with nonsense.
Daniel Walker said, "There where many U.N. resolutions that authorized any permanent member of the security counsel to remove Saddam."
This has nothing to do with anything. This is just some piece of trivia to sell you an argument with me. What the U.N. may have said, or not said, has nothing to do with the corruption of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. I want you back on the subject! Saddam is just a neo-conservative's Tyrant of the Month. And, it's not like the lot of you had any care for what Saddam, after his capture, had to say about George W. Bush, as you are not interested in what he had to say because of your own corruption. Civil liberties: what an irony in your mention of these two words.
Daniel Walker said, "Those where inacted during the Clinton years."
The word is "enacted," not "inacted."
Daniel Walker said, "Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters,but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded 'safety net' to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles."
No, not "strict regulation of business," ANY REGULATION OF BUSINESS. But, I'll let this one pass for now.
Did you copy that here?
Regardless, those things sound better every time you say them. Maybe you should adopt liberal values provided by Western democracy, since they are why America is so great. When you go to vote, concern yourself with issues and not with stances, characterizations, and pretenses. To paraphrase George Carlin, the neo-conservatives are hard on street crime, just as long as that street isn't Wall Street.
Bush always supports the criminal activity happening right under him, through him, and because of him. He and his cronies always cite the power of executive privilege so that they don't have to answer for their criminal behaviors or explain why they committed them. So, where's American representation when the President of the United States won't answer to the other two branches of the U.S. government? The Constitution not only supports communication between the branches, it depends on it! It grants the right to question the Commander in Chief and his branch, so where is our Constitution? Literally, what constitutes America now? Why doesn't this neo-conservative president confide in the other parts of government? Or, is he just going to continue as a renegade fascist?
Daniel Walker said, "Libertarians on the other hand support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."
Although I may sound a little off-the-subject, I'll come back to this as I wouldn't want a neo-conservative to feel I've avoided it, I feel that liberty is taken for granted by liberalism. When someone has intruded upon liberty, there has always been a need to investigate. Liberals, if there are any, would have antennae so sensitive, none of this corruption would go by, as they could go anywhere so long as they obeyed the law--law representing the people. But, my point is, they wouldn't be restricted by the insolence of this narrow-minded neo-conservative Administration, but except for how good neo-conservatives really are at creating fallacies. But, once a person has recognition of a fallacy, it crystallizes in a person, and they immediately convert, because such a crystallization is a disillusionment of the fake optimism the neo-conservatives use for their platitudes, which is generally why they ineptly blame Hollywood and film art. One doesn't have to be a smart guy; one just has to be smart enough to use his eyes, figuratively I mean.
What I'm telling you now is essentially the reason America ever revolted against England: the colonists felt enslaved; but, the enlightenment happened all over the world, and it was an enlightenment of knowledge, science, politics, and Roman Catholicism that brought a self-awareness. An enlightenment also occurred, panning the entire Western world in the 1960s.
Did you know the world, after the Roman period, literally forgot Persian and Greek knowledge for several hundred years? They forgot architectural design, engineering, and philosophy! That's insane: the whole human race forgot how to build structures.
What would our world, today, be like if we didn't have electricity? How about public water systems? How about the Internet?
You say, "Why should we enlighten our culture with neo-classicism?" Well, I'm telling you why.
Neo-classicism was a founding principle of the U.S. revolution, which is why "good-ol' T." Jefferson modeled his new home with columns in ode to classical architecture.
You ask, "Why should we support art?" Because, art is part of architecture, engineering, and philosophy. It coincides with intelligence, culture, and everything we want our world to be today!
You talk about "community," but I've been putting my money where my mouth is. And, so have you, despite people's reluctance to make an admission in its defense! That is the value of college and college professors: to help present people with an understanding of their culture for which a loss of that knowledge would change our world entirely, back to Neanderthal cave men fighting over scraps.
I'm surprised at the lot of you here.
It's just like these greedy types to neglect their own futures, at the expense of everyone else's I add.
Daniel Walker said, "Libertarians on the other hand support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."
If this is so, then I, too, am a libertarian. But, not the same kind as today's trend of libertarian. I agree with many of these ideas, but the method for achieving them should be much different than your stereo-typical neo-conservative. Notice, I don't feel bad stereo-typing something that deserves to be stereo-typed! I said it before, and I'll say it again: I am a democrat, a liberal, a conservative, and a republican; and, I'm a libertarian. But, I'm not a neo-conservative! Because, I'm not against liberalism. Hell, I'm even a socialist and a Marxist, even though I'm not entirely sure what that means. But, that's okay: I've had plenty of neo-conservatives tell me what I am and what these words mean, even when they have absolutely no credibility and never account for anything in literal terms. Anyway, I can study socialism and Marxism. There is no study of neo-conservatism, unless one wishes the aide of the likes of Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Blog Spot, and his own vanity; they can teach greed, intolerance, and ignorance. It's almost a commercial for the liberalism they threaten.
Aside from our particular differences, at least I'd say you have something interesting in these sentences, even when I disagree with them completely, especially since your wording for "libertarianism" looks like a description for neo-conservatism. But, I won't go into this now.
Daniel Walker said, "You know nothing about the history of the US because if you did you would know that our founding fathers wanted a very small restricted federal government."
I'm going to skip the part where you said I "know nothing" to say enlightenment attributions and U.S. founders did believe in a small government, but I think they meant how intrusive into people's personal lives the government gets. They meant that government should relegate itself to matters of social importance to the republic; they meant "small government" in literary terms. And, even if they didn't, that doesn't mean a small government would achieve the solutions their enlightenment required!
Anyway, I think you're completely wrong to insinuate "small government" is what Jefferson, Franklin, and Thomas Paine were talking about. You're simplifying them into an incorrect meaning. They stated no such thing. The "small restricted federal government," or "restricted federation," is probably accurate otherwise. But, "restricted" how? They felt that people could govern themselves with representation! Saying they wanted "small government" doesn't give any ammunition to today's bigots. And, this sounds like just another neo-conservative point-of-view masquerading in sheep's clothes. A liberal government may require addressing today's lackadaisical U.S. social, economic, and environmental programs, but that doesn't mean anyone's changing the meaning of the democracy a liberal enlightenment created. The neo-conservatives are guilty of the worst kinds of derelictions.
Why not assume that "big government" derives from the over-blown budget in defense programs? The U.S. probably spends more money on defense programs than all the other countries combined. Maybe you think we should build another Berlin wall around U.S. borders. So, I don't want to hear your "big-budget democrats and liberals" rhetoric: it's a distortion of the facts. This kind of cheap rhetoric is designed to hoodwink scholastic progress. Close to two-thirds of the U.S. budget is consumed by Executive Branch defense alone, but all that money hadn't prevented four commercial jets from dropping into key U.S. locations by relatives of the U.S. President: the two towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
And, U.S. Defense still hasn't resolved the matter, because of the Bush Administration. Instead it's involved itself in plenty of peripherals. Thanks to neo-conservatives, Americans and its military look like retards right now, especially after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
You don't act like a libertarian. You've been sitting on here spouting the same neo-conservative garbage of the Fox Noise Channel. If you think I believe you're a "libertarian," well I doubt you should. But, like the neo-conservatives, you've a foothold in the fiction of Optimism. It's not that I would discount it, but your rhetoric is built the same, and yes, I do discount it. For instance, every time anyone states how neo-conservatives are wrong, the neo-conservatives always come up with alternate "truths," and so I honestly believe you're just laying another fallacious trap as only a neo-conservative could think up. You've done nothing more than blame "democrats and liberals" for your fare with the fury of an attack and a revenge. Why else would you hunt down "democrats and liberals," and "Bill Clinton," in the midst of such neo-conservative corruption? You're just out to blame democrats, and I've heard this before. You're sitting there in your seat pegging me as "some liberal," like I've got horns on my head. So, you've freshened your rhetoric with a little sidebar studying. Well, good for you, chief.
Why are you so jealous over liberalism?
Boy, the neo-conservative plan must be in pretty bad shape.
I respect you for protecting our country. I'm a little surprised at the attitude and opinions you have. Sorry about the grammatically incorrect sentence. Calling somebody an idiot should not be included in a discussion between people.
It's funny about your statement "What are you prepared to do with society OTHER THAN milk it for every dime and promote such things?" You have me pegged so wrong. I'm for lowering taxes. I'm against most programs that give things away to people that have learned to milk the program. The biggest thing wrong with this government is that people think the government should give them things. The government should be made smaller. I'll vote against almost anything that would require the government to open another program. The government should stay out of people's lives.
Your point about teachers being underpaid shows how wrong you can be about things. Professors are very well paid and teachers make anywhere from $30,000 on up with a vacation of at least 3 months.
I hope my sentences are grammatically correct and I hope all my words are spelled right. If not, sorry.
More Government, Higher Prices Carbon dioxide emissions are the direct result of energy use. Energy use drives economic activity, and economic activity drives energy use. Therefore, even experts who accept detectable anthropogenic warming as reality leave no doubt that, regardless of any foreseeable technological developments, suppressing CO2 emissions will restrict growth, destroy jobs, and diminish human welfare ("Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability:Energy for a Greenhouse Planet" Hoffert)
Indeed, the countries that have significantly reduced their carbon emissions are, with only one exception, from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They did it the old fashioned way: economic collapse. The one exception involves the "one-off" political decision by the UK to dash to gas, a decision predating and unrelated to Kyoto.
Continued economic, technological, and population growth mean that energy use will increase. Some experts tell us to expect world energy demand to triple by 2050. There is no way to satisfy this sort of demand while simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions as much as the alarmists demand.
Guess what? Global warming policies would increase our costs and reduce our freedoms, simply leaving us poorer to still deal with the uncertain weather that has always been there.
We have a very simple choice. As a world, we could continue our march to improve the quality of life for all our fellow men, necessarily by providing electricity, heating, cooling, clean water, and transportation to the poorest people in the world. Or, we could follow Al Gore, stunt Third World development, and give up our own modern conveniences (including not just automobility and labor-saving devices but energy-intensive, modern medicine), in the impossible pursuit of "stabilizing the climate."
Writing in Science magazine in 2002, more than a dozen experts (many of them adherents of Manmade global warming theory), detailed how stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions without seriously damaging the economy is impossible at this time or in the foreseeable future.
Ronald K. Furlong said, "I respect you for protecting our country. I'm a little surprised at the attitude and opinions you have. Sorry about the grammatically incorrect sentence. Calling somebody an idiot should not be included in a discussion between people."
Alright, I withdraw the name-calling, but anyone telling me something like "you've been corrupted by college professors" IS AN IDIOT. If you don't want to be an idiot, I suggest you stop saying things like this.
Aristotle, one of those "bunch of 'pre-Christian-era' Greek homosexuals," gave our humanity its contemporary system of education. His professor, Plato, is the writer of "The Republic," which is more a group of texts on knowledge than on republicanism of the classic type, but my point is a bunch of Greek homosexuals not only came up with our contemporary system of education and became the human race's first professors, but they also gave humanity its first knowledge of what the word "republican" means. Anyone who spouts off a neo-conservative perspective on behalf of a Republican Party can at least support the causes for the origins of their republicanism! I'm talking about scholastic study. I see your Freudian release as an irony, of course.
As I just told Daniel Walker here, people don't seem concerned with the problems neo-conservatism has caused the U.S., because they're all worried about "democrats and liberals" and "Bill Clinton." Can't you see this as an obvious partisan technique of propaganda?
Admittedly, my support for my governmental institution and my country might be propaganda, but there are two connotations to the word "propaganda," one of them negative, the other is just a general description; and, when I'm talking about neo-conservative propaganda, I'm talking about a partisan-based support to the expansion of the realm using military powers and a disregard for low-wage employment of non-U.S. natives and immigrants--something Hitler did in Europe.
Ronald K. Furlong said, "I respect you for protecting our country. I'm a little surprised at the attitude and opinions you have."
Well, not everyone who enlisted in the U.S. Army decided to go to college. Most of the soldiers have no secondary education. Only the commissioned officer soldiers mostly have degrees; but, this is a group making up about, I'm guessing, one-tenth of the soldiers in the U.S. Army. Some of the enlisted soldiers have some secondary schooling, and even less have an associates' degree or some other. The army stops counting promotion points once an enlisted guy obtains the credits of a two-year degree, meaning degrees are only used by the army by the one-tenth making up its officer corps, a fact which perfectly explains why anyone would be surprised at what I'm telling you now!
Most soldiers had no professor. This is a good explanation for the soldiers who support the Bush Administration, or for their support for any other neo-conservative who takes a public office, I think.
Anyway, many soldiers want nothing to do with the Iraq war, as many of them think it was wrong! It's just like the differences in any other place in the U.S. Some want to support Bush, some think he's put them into a bad circumstance to suit his vanity, and some have no idea what to believe; some don't even care.
I never agreed with the Bush Administration's policies; I felt they were ignorant and subversive. But during my army tenure, what I could not stand was any assumption by my fellow soldiers that I had to agree with this Iraq war "because I'm in the army." Such a verbal assumption was a form of coercive behavior: it's meant to badger others into agreeing with their political motives, the ones that screwed up everything, as though an acceptance of their favored politicians meant an approval of the fellows who felt that way. I approved of my fellows, but not of what they said.
Ronald K. Furlong said, "Your point about teachers being underpaid shows how wrong you can be about things. Professors are very well paid and teachers make anywhere from $30,000 on up with a vacation of at least 3 months."
I've been attending school for two years now, and I still have communications with some of them. One of them taught during my first semester, meaning I've known him for two years, by e mail. I'm saying, yes, they do get paid, but it isn't that much money for people with masters' degrees, or even people with just a bachelors'.
Someone in my family makes over $40,000-a-year in a salaried job working in a field in which his degree is in something else. Another family member of mine makes about $60,000. A friend of mine in computer programming makes over $90,000. Someone else in my family makes about the same. Someone else makes $40-$50,000. The fields my family and friends work in are things like accounting at Bank of New York, computer programming (he used to Lead Program for Madden NFL, the PS2 videogame), web design for an advertisement firm, mad scientist at Lockheed (actually he's an engineer), writing computer scripts for a bank, human resources for companies, being a boss at a phone company for 20-30 years; and, these are just people close to me. All of these guys and girls make more than a college teacher, if not two or three times as much.
A college teacher? Shoot! You must be joking. That's not even accounting for their paid vacations, and for their fringe benefits; like for instance, complete dental coverage. I've never even heard of complete dental coverage! Are you smokin' crack? Everyone knows teachers make a lot less for their training.
But, many people, despite this, want to teach anyway. If they do it, it's because they enjoy knowing something your stereo-typical neo-conservatives don't. If you want to know what that is, then my answer is, "Wouldn't you like to know?" Teachers don't sell out so easily, because they're paid to be smart, rather than greedy. If any of you think you're going to sit on here and tell me some crap about teachers making great wages or "college professors suck," well then you suck. You're afraid of scholarly criticism, because it'd be right!
What you say about being against modern social programs and for government reduction is to reduce the essential meanings of a democracy. The U.S. lacks in these areas comparatively to Europe and Canada, but all you can say is "we don't want to examine them" and "we don't like them." How uselessly trivial can you people be? "Paris Hilton," that's how.
Since you insist on the name calling, you are an ignorant a**h***.
You are so wrong about professors that teach about government, laws, society and subjects like that. Most of them are people that teach their own beliefs instead of facts. They enjoy being looked upon as heros by college kids that are just beginning their adult lives. You are the exact type of person I'm talking about. You are stupid. You are book smart but dumb when it comes to real life. Too bad your companions in Iraq didn't find you with some friendly fire.
Arthur, I think your occupation should be professional student because your mind is so warped by listening to people that think very highly of themselves and their opinions. You have no thoughts of your own, you repeat what the almighty left tells you.
So, Artie, I can be as nasty as you are. You're stupid and have no thoughts of your own. Stay in your room masturbating to your textbooks on politics and stay out of the real world. We don't have time to deal with fools.
I said I thought your name calling was wrong but you continued it. I just wanted you to realize that anybody can do it. It takes no brains to insult people as you and I have proven.
Trying to compare the first professors with the current professors is like comparing the Wright Bros plane to the current jets. Things are not the same. The current professors that teach liberal arts, government, and these types of classes usually have an agenda. If you give college age kids your opinions, as their professor, they accept it as fact. They look up to their teachers and professors. The problem is the professors don't give them all the facts. I'll compare it to something that happen today in the news. I imagine you're not a big fan of Fox News but here's what I read on their web site this morning. John Edwards says the other Democratics running for the party's nomination are wrong for taking money from News Corp because of the owner Murdoch's leanings toward the right. Then they reported that Edwards book "Home: The Blueprint of Our Lives" was published by HarperCollins, which is owned by Murdoch. He received something like $800,000 plus a $300,000 expense account for doing the book tour. I'm sure he's not going to give this money back. Then I went to the news websites for ABC, NBC and CBS. They had the story about Edwards saying that the other Democrats shouldn't being taking money from News Corp but they didn't report about Edwards taking money from Murdoch for his book. Now, ABC, NBC and CBS did not lie BUT they didn't tell the whole story and that is wrong. Now, I would imagine the story will come out because Fox News is the most popular but this morning the only one that had the complete story was Fox. This is what professors do, they don't tell the kids the whole story. It's just like Moore's movies. Does his movie "Sicko" tell the story about people that can afford it and live in a country that has health coverage for all the people, come to America when they really get sick. Of course not. Moore has an agenda. He doesn't lie but he doesn't tell the whole story. Our country isn't perfect but people constantly bringing it down does piss me off. The professors should teach kids facts, ALL the facts and I don't think they do this. I think our kids are smart enough to make up their own minds on which way to go IF they are given all the facts. Amos Bronson Alcott, a teacher from the 1800's, opened a school in Boston that was closed 5 years later because he admitted a black student to the school and most of the other kids parents objected to this. I won't go into details of his life but he was basically a socialist, so I'm sure he and I wouldn't get along, but he said something that always surprised me. His quote was "The true leader defends his pupils against his own personal influence." I agree with that and that is what today's professors don't do. They want to influence their pupils with their own views.
Arthur, my friend, I'm done with our discussion but I'll give you the last word. Even with our differences, I do appreciate you serving our country in the military and I appreciate our country because if lets us have a discussion like this. Many countries wouldn't let this happen.
Ronald K. Furlong said, "You have me pegged so wrong. I'm for lowering taxes. I'm against most programs that give things away to people that have learned to milk the program. The biggest thing wrong with this government is that people think the government should give them things. The government should be made smaller. I'll vote against almost anything that would require the government to open another program. The government should stay out of people's lives."
Of course you're for lowering taxes, as you've always ignored anyone who told you the American government is supposed to do something for its citizens. The American government exists to protect its citizens not with just guns, tanks, and bombs, but with social programs. The only reason you want to lower taxes is to drop social protection in ways that aren't nearly as profitable as guns, tanks, and bombs. Everyone in history knows war is a red herring in any society; even the Nazis said so. Just look for some famous Nazi quotations.
Well, red herrings are the idea: to upset a business industry thriving for the working class under peaceful conditions, by adding propaganda for war so that new companies can move into a "fast track." You're all about making a bunch of money for a service the population may not even need. But, if you control the media, you control U.S. war powers, and a U.S. war power can make a company a ton of money under new conditions of war (i.e. Halliburton, K.B.R.).
If you think Halliburton has nothing to say, well just turn on the Fox Noise Channel and take a listen.
You're against education, because upsetting things is very profitable. But, you refuse to learn why education is right, as not listening is inherent of neo-conservatism. Not listening means ignoring people, and to ignore is to be ignorant. And, since you've blamed an education system, then you're substituting intelligence with the ignorance of blind optimism.
You don't care about representing Americans. You don't even know there is an America. All you know are the corporate activities you're supposed to swallow, which is exactly why you want to drop the social securities and the taxes to pay for them. Didn't you ever hear of "The New Deal?"
"Milk the program?" I'm against that, too. But, what you don't say when you sound so cool for "being against something" is that you want to end every social program Americans have. Answer me, isn't it true?
I want a straight answer from you. You want to end all social programs; don't you? I want a list of every program you think America should keep, just so I can see how short it is. Go on; do it!
I love how you come in here and act like people owe you something. "I want a straight answer from you. & Answer me, isn't it true?" Ha, you just have all the answers. Typical, have you not been paying attention? No matter what government does, it cannot protect its citz from themselves. Until FDR this country was going ok, then the socal welfare programs began, and since then, it has been nothing but a downhill slide. All you are about is anti-war, and you are merly a pawn for the "neo-conservative" pushing group. Thats all you say and repeat and you sound like a jackass. You don't hear conservatives talking about "neo-libs," why? Even though the democratic party is now beholden to the michal moores and moveon.org types, you don't hear things like that being said.....why? Because when you say things like that it shows how much of an idot you are. I hate conservatives and libs both. They both lie, and cheat. Yet somehow you've missed that and labeled me a neo-conservative. You really don't know jack. You think you do, but you have no idea. You are prolly one of those nutcases that can go on for days about "chemtrails" and other BS like that. You are so enthralled with nazi's, calling people nazi's, telling people they are against education (when Ronald has nothing to the nature of that at all), acting like Fox News is the only crappy news network but you praise the Clinton News Network. It truly is amazing. You are nothing more than a bed-wetting left wing extreme liberal. GO back to moveon.org for you to whine about your problems. No one here cares. This forum is about global warming, not your political viewpoints. Yet because of your low IQ, you missed that as well. I'm so tired of reading your BS, just shut the hell up. I'm sure your alphabet news channels and moveon.org have missed you. Go vote for your master the Hildabeast and get on with your games elsewhere. I'm tired of trying to have an intellectual conversation with you, you keep spewing the same garbage out of your mouth. I too am done with you like Ronald, theres no point. You have been brain washed. Good-day mate.
Mr. Chan, I can just imagine your world...every light in the house on, driving a four wheel gas guzzling truck, adding tons of trash into the land fill annually. I agree with the others, the facts that support global warming are too compelling to ignore. Who are YOU to dispute the scientific evidence supplied by those trained in the field? And why gamble on whether or not every facet of this issue is 100%accurate? Every ecosystem is affected by a change within it, so why wouldn't population growth and the industrial changes we have made over the past hundred years affect our ecosystem, Earth? Take a flight to Mars, Mr. Chan if you can't join the rest of us in turning things around.
You are a sad, angry person Mr. Mainstream. But I suppose you have a higher education than the scientists on this planet?? Why not have an open mind to the facts and just try to make this world a cleaner, better place in which to live for us and the generations to come? If you are wrong the consequences are deadly....if I am wrong all that we have done is clean things up and saved some money for ourselves. How is that a bad thing? And as far as your Al Gore comments go...what does he have to gain personally from this DVD and the thousands of presentations he has given around the world? He is not running for office. He does not profit financially. Unlike you, he is trying to make a difference for everyone in this world, whether liberal or conservative. Why should YOU care one way or the other? Just enjoy your glutenous life and let us do what we feel is right. Your violent comments are disturbing.
Additionally, the Europeans and the Gores do not simply want to persuade us all to voluntarily sacrifice our families' quality of life for this crusade. They want to use government - from the local to the global level - and lawyers to restrict our freedoms and raise our cost of living, with obvious and significant human consequences.
These costs - in freedom, quality of life, and wealth (and thus health) - are almost universally ignored by the prophets of global warming and by the media. Gore has said this is intentional - that discussion of the costs of his plan of action ought to wait. By refusing to address these costs themselves, the alarmists enable their claim that the only reason anyone would deny their claims of scientific certainty and calls to action is because these skeptics are in the pay of Big Business standing to profit from catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, it goes unnoted that these same alarmists are in fact widely supported by those industries standing to profit from the demanded "solution."
In truth, and despite the short-term profits envisioned by the greens' enablersm we all stand to lose big from their policies, which are simultaneously impotent (at "stabilizing the climate") and destructive (of wealth and quality of life).