The Symposium http://burninggates.com/forum/categories/the-symposium/feed.rss Sat, 19 May 12 04:24:42 -0400 The Symposium en-CA Paper or Plastic? http://burninggates.com/forum/discussion/443/paper-or-plastics Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:17:56 -0400 lavalizard 443@/forum/discussions
The media, who is generally wrong 90% of the time, says paper is better. Because you can just grow more trees and all is happy, while plastic bags get in the ocean and kill sea turtles, and take 1000 years to degrade. A good conclusion if you've never been to the woods before.

But I say paper is much more destructive. I get laughed at for thinking that, but let's analyze a bit...

To make a paper bag, what do first have to do? Kill a tree. That's a 100% chance of something dying if you use a paper bag. But wait! Look closer at that tree. There's a bunch of bird and critter nests in it. Now they're all dead or lost in the open with nowhere to live. Look a bit closer still. What were those birds and critters eating? The seeds of the trees, and the bugs living in them. Now they're starving to death too. Not to mention all the bugs are dead. Don't forget all the ground plants and young trees. Those are mowed down too. Now what do you have? A huge empty field of death, where thousands of lives existed just a few days ago. All that rich soil growing and re-growing for eternity is now dried up in the sun. Still think paper bags are friendly to the environment?

"But plastic uses up oil and makes pollution," they argue. I can argue back again. So the forest is now dead, along with all the cute little animals. There's this big pile of heavy-ass logs. How do they get to the mill to be made into paper? Dozers, cranes, trucks... what do you think is powering all those roaring machines, and what are those black clouds shooting out their smokestacks? I haven't researched sawmills much, but I imagine there's a lot of fuel involved with all those chipping and grinding machines as well. Also many thousands of gallons of water and chemicals are used to soak and bleach the wood pulp. So much for not using oil or polluting...

"But, but... but plastic never goes away!"

And extinct ecosystems never come back. But besides that, have you ever researched landfills? They're designed to be cut off from the land to not pollute it. The garbage in a landfill is basically canned and preserved for all time. All that paper is lasting just as long as the plastic, and paper takes up a lot more space.

"Still though, there's tree farms. No biggie."

Well yeah, but trees take many decades to reach a useful size, and farmed ones will never be anywhere near the size of the 500-1000 year old virgin rainforest trees. No lumber company in their right mind would log the dinky trees on a farm when there's still the hulking towers of wood in the old-growth forests to be had. There is no comparison between an old growth forest and a farm. That's like comparing your grandma's huge old oak tree to one of those spindly decorative trees planted along the sidewalk. Replacing the wild, untamed forests of the ancient world with methodically maintained farm trees is indeed a biggie.

"I recycle paper though. I'm still not a bad guy..."

That helps, but if someone kills you and uses your body as a tool two or three times instead of just one... You're still dead.

"FINE. I'll use plastic, you lizard-faced meanie!" :<

I'm not necessarily saying you should use plastic either though. It's not as bad as paper, but it does it's own share of earthly destruction. Those bags do indeed get everywhere on the wind, clogging rivers, smothering plants and animals, getting eaten by big animals, poisoning the ground as they slowly degrade. And lot of fuel is burned sucking up and hauling all that oil, and I'm sure a lot of nasty polluting chemicals are used to make it into plastic. Plus they're cheap and easy: a bad combination for a destructive thing to have. If you can use them sparingly and recycle and not let any of them get away in the wind though, it's not the end of the world.

But yeah, just quit being a lazy wimp and get some of those canvas bags. A handful of those will save two or three years worth of shopping bags, which is a big help that you can feel good about.

:-)]]>
WAR! What is it good for? ~ http://burninggates.com/forum/discussion/442/war-what-is-it-good-fors- Sun, 04 Apr 2010 06:08:23 -0400 lavalizard 442@/forum/discussions

!BEWARE OF PROFANITY AHEAD!
(hope I'm not too far out of line here... I know the rules say no bad language or offensive material but this view just can't be expressed in a polite way)

http://lavalizard.deviantart.com/art/WAR-What-is-it-Good-For-159486681

So there. Lava's view on war. Am I a nutcase or am I onto something? Feel free to add to the debate. I know there's more good arguments to be made. Infact I have one in mind already so I'll probably draw up another page of this comic thingie tomorrow with another point of view in the mix.

(P.S. You can delete this if it's inappropriate... I get all nervous about sharing this sort of thing cause I don't know how to tell what's cool and what's not... But I'll never learn to understand it if I don't just throw stuff out there and see what happens. My inner monologue unleashed upon the world in it's pure uncensored form for the first time! X-D )]]>
Do You Believe in Aliens? http://burninggates.com/forum/discussion/236/do-you-believe-in-alienss Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:57:49 -0500 AnonTwentyseven 236@/forum/discussions

"Friend":


So I have a question, you don't believe in God but do you believe in Aliens? (It's a serious question)

Do I believe in aliens? That is going to have to be a multi-part question. The first part being, do I believe it's possible for life to exist elsewhere in the Universe? The second part being, do I believe there is intelligent life that is or has visited Earth?


I believe that it's very likely (more likely than not) that there is life somewhere else in the Universe.

The Universe is so incomprehensibly vast and has existed for so many billions of years that I don't think it's likely that Earth of all places is unique in harboring lifeforms.

I just learned this fact today:

"If you brought the Sun down to the size of the . on this screen, and then brought everything else down to scale, our galaxy, the Milky Way, would be the size of the continental USA."

Crazy.


It is believed by intelligent design supporters (Creationists) that life is too complex to have spontaneously emerged from non-life. They believe that since there is no explanation for the origin of life in Darwin's theory of evolution that there is a major, gaping hole in the concept.

They are mistaken though. There is no explanation for the origin of life in evolution because that topic belongs to another field, called abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is specifically the study of how inorganic (non-life) material turned into organic (life).

Abiogenesis scientists have conducted several experiments that have recreated the building blocks of life in a lab setting. The building blocks are various amino acids, which when combined the right way, form the genetic bases of DNA and RNA, which can then build proteins.

From what I've seen, once you have all the blocks together, chemistry and other natural processes will do their thing automatically. It's almost like magic (except a chemist would be able to tell you precisely why what you are seeing is happening).

Many skeptics believe that these experiments are invalid, because the lab controlled environments are 'intelligently designed' to provide the optimal conditions for these things to form. Basically, that the lab setting does not reflect the natural world.

Some of the necessary building blocks require extreme heat in order to be created and sustain themselves. Some require the cold.

But take a look at some relatively recent discoveries:

"Physorg Article":

NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life.
http://www.physorg.com/news176721370.html
Essentially, a comet flying through space, carrying some pyrimidine embedded in its ice, is exposed to star light, which creates a reaction that turns the pyrimidine into the building block.

Is it hard to imagine a comet or meteorite that happens to be carrying some critical building block colliding with the Earth and combining with the building blocks already at the crash site?

Here is a video that explains another recent discovery, how scientists unlocked the method for the creation of two of the four types of building blocks for RNA by natural processes with chemicals that were present on early Earth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3idEEz0GEo


I didn't even mention the most famous abiogenesis experiment yet. Here is the Wikipedia entry if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment


Here is a video that explains the process of abiogenesis as a series of chemical reactions, and then advancing into a simplistic system of natural selection (like evolution):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg#t=02m44s


Based on what we've learned through abiogenesis research, I'm inclined to believe that life has appeared all over the Universe, although for the most part, it has probably only advanced up to the bacterial level.

It may be that humans are the most advanced creatures in the Universe, but not for many reasons other than blind luck. Stars die out, devastating asteroids crash into planets, molten planet cores solidify.

Even on Earth, we've had several close calls. Our atmosphere wasn't always filled with oxygen, which has an inhibiting effect on the chemical reactions necessary for many of the early life systems. A certain kind of bacteria overran the oceans, and pulled the carbon dioxide out of the air. Their exhaust was oxygen, which killed off a wide range of the diversity already developed on the planet. There was also a major impact with Earth by a Mars-sized asteroid that created the moon.

One factor that can't be ignored is species self-destruction. It's believed by some that a civilization that grows advanced enough will eventually build enough internal conflict to go to war with itself and maybe eradicate all its life. Kind of like the expected outcome should there ever be a World War 3 here.

But let's forget about the improbability of advanced civilizations. Let's say that there are alien races that have advanced technologically far beyond us. That they can take space ships to other planets and maybe even to other solar systems.

I don't think it's likely that they would come here, or would even be able to despite their fancy technology.

The Universe is so enormous that the effort and resources it would take to come to Earth to visit primitive creatures like us (in comparison to them) would simply not be worth the trip.

Check out the video on this page to get a feel for what I mean:
http://kottke.org/09/12/the-known-universe

This video is a 3 dimensional view of our universe starting from Earth. You'll notice that it goes exponentially faster as you reach each checkpoint, but at the bottom of the screen, it shows how long it takes for light to travel that distance.

Traveling at the speed of light from the Earth to the moon: 1 second. Earth to the edge of the Solar System: 1 day. To the edge of the Milky Way: 100,000 years. Over 1 million years to reach our neighboring galaxies. This is traveling at the speed of light, remember.

It's likely that by the time an alien race detects life on another planet, the star that planet orbits has already exploded, or at least the life on that planet has been wiped out. And that's not even adding in the time that would be spent on the trip! (It would take a while, since it isn't possible for matter to be accelerated to the speed of light.)

When a telescope peers out onto a star that is 80,000 lightyears away, it is looking 80,000 years in the past. When that video shows you the edge of the Universe, you are seeing a glimpse of what it looked like not long after the Big Bang.


So to wrap up: yes, I believe it's very likely that life exists elsewhere in the Universe. I believe it's possible for there to be extraterrestrial life that exists or has existed that is equivalent or much greater technologically than our own civilization. But no, I do not believe there are aliens that visit Earth (it's possible, but highly improbable).

I based these assumptions on the evidence I've come across on the subject, and thinking about the probability of the scenarios I described.]]>
2010 or 2,010? http://burninggates.com/forum/discussion/224/2010-or-2010s Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:45:07 -0500 lavalizard 224@/forum/discussions
The #1 question in the world right now: How do you pronounce 2010?

I say "twenty-ten", which gets me much scorn from the grammar nazis. But I'd bet anything they never once pronounced 1999 "one-thousand-nine-hundred-ninety-nine". It was always "nineteen-ninety-nine". Or the "eighteen-hundreds". The perfect grammar rule never applied before 2000, so why so picky all of a sudden? To me, it seems more incorrect to break the centuries-old format. :-P

You might say that 2009 had to be pronounced "two-thousand-nine" to be understood. But how do people pronounce 1909? "Nineteen-oh-nine". Do the grammar police care? No. But if you say "twenty-oh-nine", the grammar police descend on you.

...

I have a theory as to how the pronunciation system got corrupted though. From 1100 to 1900, it sounded cool to say like "eleven-hundred" or whatever. But "twenty-hundred" just doesn't sound good. So we said "two-thousand" that year. And it became habit. When 2001 came along, we were used to saying two-thousand and added one to the end, instead of going back to the usual format and saying "twenty-oh-one". Thus the 900-year-old pronunciation style was broken, cause we're too lazy to go back after saying it different for one year:-P

Which is kind of funny, cause "twenty-ten" is infact the lazy way to pronounce it. Silly Americans and their laziness... now we're too lazy to be lazy X-D

What do you guys think, and how do you pronounce it?]]>
Debate Topic Ideas http://burninggates.com/forum/discussion/226/debate-topic-ideas Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:58:48 -0500 AnonTwentyseven 226@/forum/discussions
Anyway, I enjoyed the Symposium debates we held years ago and I would love if that were to happen again.

To help kindle the fires around here, here are some of my views about various topics that I wouldn't mind we discuss:

[list]
[*]I believe drugs should be legalized, marijuana at least.[/*:m]
[*]I believe prostitution should be legalized.[/*:m]
[*]I'm an atheist.[/*:m]
[*]I believe public schools should not teach intelligent design alongside evolution.[/*:m]
[*]I do not agree with the United States' support of Israel.[/*:m]
[*]I don't believe in gay marriage, but only because I don't believe in marriage. I think that marriage as a legal concept should not exist (since it a mostly or entirely a religious one), and should be replaced by civil unions which would be legally permitted for any type of group of people.[/*:m]
[*]I would like to see government measures to limit population growth. For example, defined limits on the number of children a person is allowed to have (like China), or money given to people who elect to be permanently sterilized.[/*:m][/list:u]

Did any of these strike a chord with you? Well don't reply to this thread about it; create a new thread (one for each issue) and tell us your opinion!

Reply to this thread if you want to propose more debate topics but don't necessarily want to start threads about them without knowing if there's any interest.]]>
Health Care Reform, Unconstitutional? http://burninggates.com/forum/discussion/230/health-care-reform-unconstitutionals Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:14:47 -0500 AnonTwentyseven 230@/forum/discussions
Here is a copy of the original email on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp

And here is my email in response:


---------------------------


This guy does a good job quoting the sections of the Constitution that we will be supposedly losing due to this health care bill, but did you notice the lack of quoting from the actual bill that would back up his claims? They aren't there because he's full of shit.

Let's think about all the consequences that Connelly is making. I'll make a list:
[list]
[*]Health care will be rationed, especially for senior citizens.[/*:m]
[*]Free health care for illegal immigrants.[/*:m]
[*]Doctors would be forced to perform abortions and tax payers would be forced to pay for them.[/*:m]
[*]Private health insurance companies will be forced out of business.[/*:m]
[*]Health care over all will be strictly controlled.[/*:m]
[*]The Obama administration would be supplied with overwhelming power over the other two branches of government, even though Congress doesn't wield the power to give the Obama administration so much.[/*:m]
[*]Your health care information will be exposed to the Obama administration, which will disable all of your Constitutionally-granted rights to privacy somehow.[/*:m]
[*]Those who choose not to pay for health insurance will be fined (in direct violation with the Fifth Amendment, thereby nullifying it).[/*:m]
[*]The health care bill is designed to violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in order to limit the rights of the people and their states.[/*:m][/list:u]

Now I'll break down each of these:


Health care will be rationed, especially for senior citizens.

Way to bring back a false issue from the stimulus bill. This is an intentionally weakly disguised way of saying "death panel" like Sarah Palin:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... th-panels/

Here is an article from Snopes (which is generally the first place you should go to check the validity of a chain mail) that goes into detail about the supposed health care rationing and senior discrimination: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/seniordeath.asp


Free health care for illegal immigrants.

I think it is immoral to deny treatment to a person that needs it. Shutting people out and allowing them to die is unacceptable, in my opinion. If we can afford the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to kill people halfway around the world, we can afford the tens to hundreds of billions to save people here instead.

Despite that, the health care reform bill does not cover illegal immigrants. This means no subsidy support or ability to take advantage of the public option. Obama said this himself: "the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," which prompted Joe Wilson to blurt out, "You lie!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foOioaQf-c8 (starts 1:21 in)


Doctors would be forced to perform abortions and tax payers would be forced to pay for them.

What's the problem here? Why shouldn't abortions be covered under tax provided healthcare? Because some people don't agree with it due to religious or moral reasons? What do you say to the tax payers that don't agree with supporting our wars due to religious or moral reasons? They aren't exactly allowed to opt out of paying the chunk of taxes that would be dedicated to our war efforts.

Under this healthcare bill, Connelly speculates that doctors would be forced to perform abortions. Ridiculous if you ask me, but I'll humor it. I see it like this: a Soldier may be fighting a war that they do not agree with, but it's still their duty to serve to the best of their abilities, or they may face military prison or some other punishment. Similarly, a doctor may be forced to perform an abortion and they don't agree with the practice, but if they don't they will be fired. For both of these people, it's their job to provide services specific to their practices. If a person doesn't want to risk being forced to fight and die in an unjust war, they should not become a Warfighter. If a doctor doesn't want to risk being forced to perform abortions, they should not become a gynecologist or similar specialist.

Another point, I don't like that this so-called lawyer used the word 'probably':

"Michael Connelly":


and probably forced participations in abortions by members of the medical profession.

Being an attorney, he should be able to read past the legalese and definitely tell us whether the bill mandates doctor participation or not. How can he be as certain about his crazier claims from this bill and not this minor one? Because it's completely baseless conjecture.

In the end of the Joe Wilson YouTube video linked above, Obama states clearly: "under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place."


Private health insurance companies will be forced out of business.

This one doesn't sound too crazy at first read. The thought is since a government-offered health insurance alternative would be offered side-by-side with the private industry's offerings, the private insurance companies wouldn't be able to provide comparable quality/service at equal price points against the government, since they operate on profit margins and the government does not. The government's capability to drive their prices lower than sustainable rates would lose private insurance companies their customers and drive them out of business.

Here's why that theory doesn't hold up. The government is providing subsidies to people in order to help them pay their insurance fees:

"OpenCongress":


"Here’s the specifics on how this would work. First off, for people who don’t get insurance through their job and aren’t eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, the government would subsidize, on a sliding scale, the cost of buying insurance. The subsidies will be most generous for people with annual incomes around the new cut-off for Medicaid – $14,400 – and will be entirely phased out for people making $43,320 or more."

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... -Increases

Even with the public option available, private insurance will be more affordable to those it can't reach today. If anything, private insurance companies' customer bases will grow.

In the case of government vs. private sector competition, consider the US Postal Service. It is a successful organization that provides a need to the country, and despite that, there are companies like FedEx and UPS that are both doing exceptionally well.
http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/selfsufficient.html

Here is a document that outlines some common myths about the public option. Consider that this document was created by an organization that is critical of the public option because they would prefer a single-payer system:
http://www.pnhp.org/change/Public_Optio ... _Facts.pdf

I would imagine the difference between the public option provided by the government and the private insurance options would be similar to the decision I had to make between an EPO and PPO plan. I chose the PPO plan even though it was more expensive because I wanted the greater coverage.


Health care over all will be strictly controlled.

This may be the case in relation to accountability for healthcare provided through the public option, but why would there be any change under private health insurance companies? Hospitals and doctors' facilities will still be privately run, for-profit operations. If you don't want this control, use a private health insurance company.


The Obama administration would be supplied with overwhelming power over the other two branches of government, even though Congress doesn't wield the power to give the Obama administration so much.

Here's where Connelly goes insane.

Seriously, think about this for a moment. Why would the "far left" members of Congress want to destabilize their power in a way that is not in their favor? Why would they load up the executive branch with control when we are undoubtably going to have another conservative president in the future? Obama only gets up to eight years and then he's out. Does any conservative honestly think that Obama and his pals can turn our country into a Soviet dictatorship before a powerless Democratic majority Congress has to face another Bush or Reagan-inspired president? This is fear-mongering to the extreme, and it's as shameful as it is embarrassing (both for Connelly and those he duped by it).

I love this line from Connelly:

"Michael Connelly":


I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate the Internet and automobile safety standards. The Constitution was written in the end of the 1700s, how could the concept of health care as we know it today have been understood by the Founding Fathers? Amendments (granted in Article V of the Constitution) were made possible for this very reason.


Your health care information will be exposed to the Obama administration, which will disable all of your Constitutionally-granted rights to privacy somehow.

Here's what I understand about this privacy issue. Your eligibility for subsidies and the private option are both dependent on your salary. To determine your salary, the IRS will turn over your tax records to a government agency that makes the choice. So one government agency will be given information about you from another government agency. How is this an invasion of privacy greater than us giving the information to the IRS in the first place?


Those who choose not to pay for health insurance will be fined (in direct violation with the Fifth Amendment, thereby nullifying it).

There is indeed a fine for not paying for health insurance. As unfair as that seems, look at it this way. There are tens of millions of Americans who are currently uninsured because they are unable to afford it. Between subsidies for the poor, removing the concept of denying coverage based on prior conditions, and limiting health insurance companies' allowed profits, there will be a significantly reduced amount of families that are bankrupted because of outstanding medical expenses.

Having everyone pay into the system allows the government to actually afford to make it happen. This is not designed to be a tax that will bankrupt the middle class. In fact, there is a surtax for households that earn greater than $350,000 (which most of us do, of course):

"OpenCongress":


In general, the bill would impose a tax at the rates of 1 percent, 1.5 percent, and 5.4 percent on the income of high-income individuals. Specifically, for joint filers, the 1 percent rate would apply to the amount of a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income that is between $350,000 and half a million. The 1.5 percent rate would apply to the portion of modified adjusted gross income between half a million and one million. And the 5.4 percent rate would apply to all modified adjusted gross income above one million...

Over ten years, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this provision would raise $543 billion over 10 years. Generally, this new surtax would target many of the same people that benefited most from the Bush tax cuts.

An important and overlooked detail in the bill regarding this new tax on the rich is that it gives the Office of Management and Budget the ability to double the 1 percent and 1.5 percent rates in 2013 if their estimates show that it is not producing the expected revenues.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... -Increases

Constitutionally, it looks to me like Connelly may have a case for his concern on forcing a fine on people who decide not to pay for insurance, and we may see court battles about it in the future.

From a document by the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University titled, "Constitutionality of Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance":

"Constitutionality of Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance":


Congress's Authority to Tax and Spend for the General Welfare: Congress also has the authority to legislate a health insurance mandate under its Constitutional authority to tax and spend. There are no plausible Tenth Amendment and states' rights issues arising from Congress's taxing and spending power. However, Congress' taxation power cannot be used in a way that burdens a fundamental right recognized in the Constitution's Bill of Rights and judicial interpretations by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, no fundamental rights challenge exists.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillins ... ndates.pdf

That document goes on to say that challenges to the bill based on the Fifth Amendment would not likely be successful. Read Section II ("Individual Rights"), Part B ("Fifth Amendment") for an in-depth look at why the government might be able to mitigate claims of unconstitutionality.


The health care bill is designed to violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in order to limit the rights of the people and their states.

As mentioned in the O’Neill Institute document, Section II, Part B, it is disputable that mandating the health insurance payments or the tax fine are rights conflicts, therefore his Ninth Amendment argument is empty.

As for the Tenth Amendment, here's a quote from one of Connelly's commenters on his website that Connelly himself agreed with:

"Kristofer Carlson":


The Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board of Education were both violations of the 10th amendment. Portions of OSHA were violations of the 10th amendment. The imposition of the Bill of Rights onto the states is itself a violation of the 10th amendment.

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entri ... care-bills

This reminds me of some cases I've heard of Ron Paul, who is a die-hard Libertarian and probably one of the most honest politicians in the House of Representatives. He is Libertarian to a fault. He simply refuses to vote for any bill that could increase taxes or stand on the Federal government's side in an issue that would pit it against the state.

In 2008, he was the only Congressman to vote against a ban of lead and other toxic chemicals from ending up in children's toys because it was unconstitutional (citing the Tenth Amendment). He argued that should be an issue that consumers vote on with their spending power through product boycotts, or that it should be handled by legislation only as high as the state level.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/07/31 ... -toys-ban/

It's funny how all of these positive things (Civil Rights Act - mostly for ending discrimination, Brown v. BoE - end of school segregation, OSHA - building code safety standards, Bill of Rights) were fought on the grounds of unconstitutionality due to Federal and state conflicts. I wonder what kind of country we would be living in today if those short-sighted, ignorant, bigoted politicians were successful in preventing these very beneficial decisions from being passed (to clarify, I'm not lumping Ron Paul in with that lot).


So that's everything.

Here's my opinion on the entire article. Michael Connelly is preying on the ignorance of his fellow Republicans by using all the hot key phrases (like health care rationing, supporting illegal immigrants, tax-sponsored/forced abortions) and fear mongering (socialist Obama is turning all power to the executive branch, Constitution will be destroyed) in order to expand awareness of himself, and ultimately, turn more people into purchasers of his books, especially his new one. Here is its summary:

"Michael Connelly":


Amayehli is a story of America set in the not so distant future. It is a story of the American people who suddenly find themselves having to fight for the fundamental freedoms that they have always cherished and often taken for granted. It is a story of treachery, espionage, treason, tragic loss, and tremendous valor by the diverse people who are proud to call themselves Americans. Ultimately, it is a story of people who risk everything for liberty.

Wow. If that isn't a story intentionally crafted to give conservatives a collective hard-on, I don't know what is.

Like I was saying, this guy was probably hoping that by creating that message, people (who wouldn't do any research for themselves) would be frightened by it, and it would be spread virally across the Internet. Obviously, it has because it landed in my inbox, and you received it from list of over a dozen people, and the sender probably could say the same, and on and on. Eventually, this message would become so popular that he would find himself in an interview on Fox News (since no real news station would be fooled by his tripe) and he would have an opportunity to pimp his new conservative circle-jerk trash-novel to the entire country on national television.

I think that makes this man scum. The unfortunate truth about the vast majority of the conservative base is that they are ill-informed and yet very passionate about their distorted views of the political scene (Fox News will do that to you). They are easy to manipulate and almost willing to become a force to be controlled by those who will tap into their gullibility.

Michael Connelly knew that, and has proven that with this message when it went viral. John McCain and Sarah Palin proved that when they turned their campaign supporters from a mostly sensible group into an uncontrollable, angry mob that ultimately destroyed their campaign's image and its credibility. Glenn Beck proved it when he rallied tens of thousands of frenzied, emotional, and uninformed conservatives to the front lawn of the Capitol to rally against the Obama administration in the 9/12 Tea Party protest.

I think the real issue this time around is that the conservatives have hardened their hearts to a change that would potentially save the lives of thousands of people, at a relatively small burden to them. I hate the attitude that so many conservatives have about helping the needy.

Here's a great quote I came across once and thought was entirely appropriate, considering how often you'll find conservatives quickly identifying that their religious values led them to their political views:

"KingBeetle":


There was once a nation that suffered through brutal socialism - forced equality, redistribution of wealth, salary caps, forced charity, and income tax.

This nation was led by a ruler who enforced the laws on threat of death. This ruler demanded that each person pay a 20% income tax annually. 10% was devoted to the poor and immigrants (this nation had virtually no immigration restrictions) and the other 10% went to government workers and infrastructure.

The richest members of society had restraints placed on their ability to generate wealth - an extra portion of their potential profits (above an established cap) was devoted for the poor and immigrants (on top of the 10%).

Labor laws were also strict. Weekends were enforced. Anyone caught working (or forcing others to work) on the day off was severely punished. And every seven years, workers and owners would take an extended vacation, living off of state reserves and private savings.

Most shockingly, the land and wealth of the nation was nationalized once each generation (about 50 years)- debts were forgiven, land and resources were redistributed, and each family restarted with a share of the wealth regardless of how successful or unsuccessful they or their forefathers had been.

So where was this socialist hellhole and who was it's tyrannical leader?

The nation was called Israel and the leader was named Yahweh. You can read all about it in Deuteronomy.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... d_through/


Some must watch videos:

Interviews with Tea Party protestors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

McCain forced to defend Obama against his own fearful and angered supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt3s6bZWQeY

Interviews with Sarah Palin supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

Documentary - Right America Feeling Wronged (~45 minutes long):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 944146040#]]>