I never said equal. That seems the be the only way conservatives understand things or should I say misunderstand. I said a less skewed income distribution curve. The conservatives have changed the tax system so that work income pays a higher rate of tax than investment income. Sounds like the conservatives have a social goal of making the rich richer by means of a redistribution of income plan by marking the less well off pay a higher rate of tax than the rich!
Deciding between Liberal and Conservative Politics
- Thread starter scubamike
- Start date
I never said equal. That seems the be the only way conservatives understand things or should I say misunderstand. I said a less skewed income distribution curve. The conservatives have changed the tax system so that work income pays a higher rate of tax than investment income. Sounds like the conservatives have a social goal of making the rich richer by means of a redistribution of income plan by marking the less well off pay a higher rate of tax than the rich!
I wonder if BBC purposefully added that picture of some multimillionaires laughing and having a ball...to piss everyone else off. Relating to that topic, I'm for opening oil discovery in Alaska. I think many liberals are against it due to the economy issue, right?
As for wire-tapping in the other topic, I am with it 100%. I don't give a fuck if they're tapping into me and I'm calling 976-HUMP or something like that. Security is my priority. I don't approve these judicial laws they're trying to pass in order to be permitted to wire-tap and eavesdrop. That will just hinder the process and discourage the use of this highly-effective program. This is National Security and is necessary to prevent another attack. Airport security is also a must. I fly alot and I go through the same checkpoints as everyone else. I just don't complain about it and understand its reasons.
I have a foreign-national for a fiancee and am working on a visa to get her approved to come live with me. It is a long, impatient process which deals with months of waiting but I understand why. Background checks are necessary before allowing people into the U.S., thanks to 9/11. The world has changed since that day and so did I. I believe people need to follow the rules and not come here illegally. I'm not completely for a strict Mexican border and to prevent illegals from entering, but I do believe there has to be a system to account for individuals entering and leaving (well I don't know how strict that is but that is what I feel is right).
Please understand that these are my viewpoints that I'm expressing and I am not forcing this down anyone's throat. You have a right to disagree (and I bet many of you will!)
But taxing the richer people more would not help. They would then in turn raise prices (inflation) and it will be like shit rolling downhill.
Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few good. It's the result of monetary policy. Tax Policy has very little to do with inflation. The rich do not control prices. The market does.
Erm, that's a picture of Rice, Bush, Cheney, and Evans.
I'm against it, considering that it's a wildlife reserve (ANWR). We need to focus on alternatives to petroleum now, not damaging the environment even more for temporary and uncertain gain.
I think that Benjamin Franklin summed it up best:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Someone didn't even look at the WashingtonPost article.
"A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation yesterday, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for their cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping..."
Does the law mean anything to you?
Scuba said this:
Scuba...this is very simplistic. It's hard to actually define Libs and Conservatives because, in my opinion, George Bush has grossly twisted Conservatism and it will take years to "return it to its core." For example--Conservatives generally believe in "sound fiscal" policy, no matter the issue, and WOULD NEVER AGREE to follow policies which create budget deficits. It's traditionally the Libs that have the problem balancing the budget. WHen Dick Cheney said in Dubya's first term "Deficits don't matter" every true Conservative's heart sank.
George Bush polarized the Republican Party into 2 groups: Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives. He kissed up to the Social Conservatives and lied to the fiscal conservatives. John McCain is a fiscal conservative who's pretending to be a social conservative.
Scuba, also, Liberals do not want to drill for oil in Alaska because of the risk to the Alaskan environment and the reality that it would take YEARS to see any marginal benefit from the additional oil that could be brought up. Basically, it's too expensive and too deep to get too.
Liberals don't hate guns. I think we hate certain kinds of guns--like automatic weapons and don't like the idea of people buying guns at fly-by-night gun shows or that we feel it's too easy to get a gain today and that there should be limits on how many guns a person can own and limits on the functionality of those guns...basically...Liberals see the need for further limits to gun possession.
A lot of these issues are not merely Liberal issues. I think there are plenty of Conservative Republicans who are interested in Porn and who visit prostitutes. There are plenty of gay Republicans too...they're called "Log Cabin Republicans" and they're Fiscally Conservative Republicans...
Scuba...this is very simplistic. It's hard to actually define Libs and Conservatives because, in my opinion, George Bush has grossly twisted Conservatism and it will take years to "return it to its core." For example--Conservatives generally believe in "sound fiscal" policy, no matter the issue, and WOULD NEVER AGREE to follow policies which create budget deficits. It's traditionally the Libs that have the problem balancing the budget. WHen Dick Cheney said in Dubya's first term "Deficits don't matter" every true Conservative's heart sank.
George Bush polarized the Republican Party into 2 groups: Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives. He kissed up to the Social Conservatives and lied to the fiscal conservatives. John McCain is a fiscal conservative who's pretending to be a social conservative.
Scuba, also, Liberals do not want to drill for oil in Alaska because of the risk to the Alaskan environment and the reality that it would take YEARS to see any marginal benefit from the additional oil that could be brought up. Basically, it's too expensive and too deep to get too.
Liberals don't hate guns. I think we hate certain kinds of guns--like automatic weapons and don't like the idea of people buying guns at fly-by-night gun shows or that we feel it's too easy to get a gain today and that there should be limits on how many guns a person can own and limits on the functionality of those guns...basically...Liberals see the need for further limits to gun possession.
A lot of these issues are not merely Liberal issues. I think there are plenty of Conservative Republicans who are interested in Porn and who visit prostitutes. There are plenty of gay Republicans too...they're called "Log Cabin Republicans" and they're Fiscally Conservative Republicans...
Well then how about the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)
Or Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg refection on the nation's elemental founding principle.
Of course it's simplistic. It's an impromptu comparison on differences of politics. Did you expect a 5-page essay?
And like I said earlier, it's not too common to be a complete liberal or conservative.
There are Gay Republicans, that's true (Mary Cheney).
Porn can be appreciated by both
But what I'm trying to say is no matter how much people are in denial of it, there are certain views which they may lean in a different direction. Usually if they don't admit to that, it is good indication that the person does not think for themself and let's themself be led around like a sheep, such as a person that bases their news ONLY to either Michael Moore OR Bill O'reilly. They need to decide for themselves whether they think the point-of-view expressed is bullshit or not.
I don't agree with Bill O'reilly all the time. I especially do not agree with many hardcore Republicans such as Michael Medved and Ann Coulter because even if their views seem intelligent, sometimes it is a little too extreme.
Facetious
Moderated
I don't much care for the easement of eavesdropping, as what is legal today, might not be so tomorrow.
FWIW - (not much ! lol) - I agree with the following-
As for -
This is somewhat debatable as most of us, myself included, only know what they tell us.
I've heard that crews have been having trouble keeping the oil corked up there. The same for the natural gas which spews freely into the atmosphere.
Who knows (?) I don't have all the answers. lol !
There have also been reports that just the idea or actual physical implementation of projects that would garner the use of America's own fossil fuel supply would make oil prices drop. Who knows (?) Sounds feasible to me. Even a 5 - 8 percentage drop in fuel prices could "help" upstart the economy, I would think.
Ultimately, We have to get away from radioactive, thorium emitting coalukey: and into the infinitely cleaner, anti - green house gas, Clean Nuclear energy programs similar if not identical to France's program.
This would also drop crude prices in the macro energy pie chart.
Less dependence is the key. Not isolationism, mind you, but less dependence on others (nations) who in effect use our shortages (shortcomings) to their advantage (high market prices).
:2 cents: :helpme: :thumbsup:
FWIW - (not much ! lol) - I agree with the following-
tits. said:
As for -
This is somewhat debatable as most of us, myself included, only know what they tell us.
I've heard that crews have been having trouble keeping the oil corked up there. The same for the natural gas which spews freely into the atmosphere.
Who knows (?) I don't have all the answers. lol !
There have also been reports that just the idea or actual physical implementation of projects that would garner the use of America's own fossil fuel supply would make oil prices drop. Who knows (?) Sounds feasible to me. Even a 5 - 8 percentage drop in fuel prices could "help" upstart the economy, I would think.
Ultimately, We have to get away from radioactive, thorium emitting coal
ukey: and into the infinitely cleaner, anti - green house gas, Clean Nuclear energy programs similar if not identical to France's program.This would also drop crude prices in the macro energy pie chart.
Less dependence is the key. Not isolationism, mind you, but less dependence on others (nations) who in effect use our shortages (shortcomings) to their advantage (high market prices).
:2 cents: :helpme: :thumbsup:
I don't much care for the easement of eavesdropping, as what is legal today, might not be so tomorrow.
FWIW - (not much ! lol) - I agree with the following-
As for -
This is somewhat debatable as most of us, myself included, only know what they tell us.
I've heard that crews have been having trouble keeping the oil corked up there. The same for the natural gas which spews freely into the atmosphere.
Who knows (?) I don't have all the answers. lol !
There have also been reports that just the idea or actual physical implementation of projects that would garner the use of America's own fossil fuel supply would make oil prices drop. Who knows (?) Sounds feasible to me. Even a 5 - 8 percentage drop in fuel prices could "help" upstart the economy, I would think.
Ultimately, We have to get away from radioactive, thorium emitting coal
This would also drop crude prices in the macro energy pie chart.
Less dependence is the key. Not isolationism, mind you, but less dependence on others (nations) who in effect use our shortages (shortcomings) to their advantage (high market prices).
:2 cents: :helpme: :thumbsup:
I agree with that...I am not a gas-hog (have a sport motorcycle and an Acura with reasonable MPG) but I'm for researching to find better forms of fuel also.
The only real world solution which America can use today and tomorrow...Clean Diesel. The Euros have been driving around in clean diesel engines (from VW and Mercedes) which are not the belching, stinkoramas of 80's diesels we're used to. Recently, a BMW 5-series with a clean diesel engine got better mileage than a Prius.
I think Bio-Diesel...the stuff Willie Nelson uses in his Touring Bus..might be a promising solution. Really dont know much more about it.
We are years and years away from whatever variety of ethanol that exists--cellulose or cane-based.
I am frustrated with Big Oil and Big Auto in this country...I don't want to leave the future enviro-friendly solution up to them. They have sandbagged and stonewalled new development for years and gotton fat off of gross war mongering oil profits.
Does anyone really think Big Oil has an incentive to "develop" a new fuel to the market? Haha. Yeah, sure they do. And the drug cartels have an incentive to find "friendly drugs" for people....
Facetious
Moderated
In Germany, testing is ongoing with hydrogen fuels in the transit (bus) system.
This "fuel" is most difficult to contain and doesn't transfer well. Testing continues . .
If containment technology improves, this may be a remarkable solution for energy needs within your "better forms of fuel " category.
Although, hydro is only cost effective when produced via nuclear energy.
No free lunch yet ! Someday
Alcohol for fuel is a big bust and is not cost effective whatsoever. In Brasil, it may be, but we're using a food source to produce it, not expendable grasses
Just some fuel thoughts ~
Anybody have any ideas ?
I didn't think of Lincoln when I was mulling my post but I did reflect on the DoI. While those words are stirring they are not the law of the land like the Constitution.
Blink
Someone didn't even look at the WashingtonPost article.
"A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation yesterday, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for their cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping..."
Does the law mean anything to you?
It does to me but I think you might have to find someone to actually challenge the law. The previous versions were all tested by groups or individuals that were found without standing and thrown out by the courts. Nobody can find someone who had their privacy rights violated. I find that interesting and I don't think we have given up anything for the safety it provides. If I found it being abused I would be all for getting rid of it but I can't see where it is being used for anything but what it was intended for.
Someone didn't even look at the WashingtonPost article.
"A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation yesterday, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for their cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping..."
Does the law mean anything to you?
It does to me but I think you might have to find someone to actually challenge the law. The previous versions were all tested by groups or individuals that were found without standing and thrown out by the courts. Nobody can find someone who had their privacy rights violated. I find that interesting and I don't think we have given up anything for the safety it provides. If I found it being abused I would be all for getting rid of it but I can't see where it is being used for anything but what it was intended for.
Last edited:
Facetious
Moderated
"Big Pharmacea" ! :bowdown:
"Big Pharmacea" ! :bowdown:
:nanner: < *Note - It would appear that our nanner friend has run out of fuel
Oh, there he goes . . . . and now he stopped again
LOL! where the nice drugs at?!
