A Modest Proposal for all you NSers(that are american)...

doing some research i see. lol.

i would hardely call our "republican" governor a great conservative.

for fucks sake, Al fucking frankin is probably going to be our senator. but hey we do have Michelle Bachman in the house of reps so +10 street cred for that;)

basically there is Hennipen county, and the iron range, i am not remembering the term correctly, but it was to the effect that they are yellow dog democrats. they would vote for a yellow dog if he had a D next to his name!

also to attest to our "blueness" we hav redonkulasly high taxes, and build statduims for professonal sports teams. woo! we are also currently running a HUGE budget deficit which the governor is being stiff armed into keeping in place by washington.
 
hahah you are severly misinformed about US demographics. The entire mid atlantic is populated. Ohio for instance.
 
"The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel Prize-winning U.N. scientific network) forecast that oceans may rise up to 23 inches (0.59 meters)

this century, from heat expansion and melting land ice, if the world

does little to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

gases blamed for atmospheric warming."

Climate change isn't about the direct impact right now. The insane fluctuations in temperatures both cool and hot are a direct result of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Sure you can sit there and say its just the earth's climate running its course but that's false because the carbon parts per million was relatively stable for most of the earths existence. "The agency said atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide reached nearly 385

parts per million last year, up from 280 in 1850 and an increase of 2.6

parts per million from 2006, chiefly from the burning of fossil fuels." The consequences of numbers over 500 and 600 are considered to be so exponentially bad its almost impossible to determine the rate at which our climate will begin to self destruct itself.

So are you gonna try and tell me that the elevated levels of CO2 isn't from humans now? Okay, go ahead George Bush. There is a long list of data against that as well....

 
right. but what if we arrest someone who WANT a terrorist. whoops our bad, we fucked up..... sorry we killed the wrong dude.
 
The japense who fought in WWII were barbarians. Just ask the chinese, or any marine who fought against them in the pacific. Marines would come across their comrades bodies with the limbs hacked off and their testicles cut off and stuffed in their mouths. ha, and the Germans in WWI weren't exactly innocent.
 
YOUR MISSING THE FUCKING POINT

SO WE SHOULD HAVE IMPRISONED THE JAPANESE AMERICANS HERE, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE JAPANESE.

OH AND IM SURE THE GERMAN TEACHERS THEY FIRED WERE REALLY HELPING THE GERMANS WIN THE WAR, GOD FORBID SOMEONE HERE SHOULD SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE.

jesus fucking christ, so if i think your a terrorist i can arrest you, fuck a trial, fuck anything. ill just torture your ass and then kill you.

while were at it, why dont we round up every muslim in the country and imprison them. after all they might be terrorists.
 
why are vikings celebrated as being badasses when in actuality they were invaders, rapists, murderers, and thieves (not moral actions)?

what moral ground are you attempting take here besides calling everyone who disagrees with you a 5 year old?

obama is heavily considering increasing the US troop count in Afghanistan. is that not an invasion? or is it attacking a problem there so it doesn't come here? how is that different from any other "fight fire with fire" mentality that we've ever had? is that "still a very wrong thing to do"? will his choice be protested the same way as if bush made the decision to go into afghanistan? or when bush had us go into iraq? or all of the world police actions we did under clinton? or our fucking with south american or southeast asian politics?

 
i think you are. you seem to be saying we should take the moral ground and do nothing? ever?

do your morals allow us to ever fight back when attacked?
 
why do celebrate so many people in history who were horrible people? (i still dont understand why we celebrate columbus....)

it has nothing to do with the fact that i disagree with you that im calling people 5 year olds. its this whole, 2 wrongs make a right thing thats really immature.

is it an invasion? yes. but at least the taliban are the ones who attacked us. and they were in afghanistan. iraq had nothing to do with it, so no we shouldnt be there. and no, we shouldnt have fucked with south american or asian politics. whats your point?

none of those have to do with the fact that you seem to be under the impression that anyone we suspect as a terrorist doesnt have any rights. regardless of whether they actually have legal rights or not, its the fucking right thing to do.
 
Im not going to argue this with you, because no matter what, we are so opposite ideologically that it doesn't matter. What the heck would you do to placate an entire section of the country(west coast) who were afraid of a very real japanese threat. The japanese weren't exactly tortured or put to hard labor in these camps, and they certainly weren't beaten or killed. Roosevelt, a democrat, felt the need for it, and I agree with him. Also, the reality of spies was just that: a reality. Ever heard of the Black Tom Explosion or the Kingsland Explosion during WWI? Two successful German attacks carried out by spies that resulted in the bombing of two factories in NJ. Also, look at accounts of UBOAT maneuvers in the Atlantic during WWII and you will see that these crews were being supplied with information from both German spies in Canada and Maine. The same goes for Japanese submarine crews off the coast of california.
 
wo wo wo you've got the whole lincoln and emancipation thing the wrong way. It did NOT free slaves in the border states, but did in the definitive south. It was basically a strategic move. Yeah Lincoln didn't really care about freeing slaves, he just wanted to keep the nation together.
 
Ah shit, sorry man, thanks for the correction. I meant to point out that he declared all slaves in rebellious states free. he kept slavery in border states in order to keep them on the union side. Got mixed up.
 
Really? that's great because I would love to hear those theories.

I really wish I did not have to believe global warming either, it probably really fucks with your business and political ideologies as well too huh?. Unfortunately, your probably just gonna hide behind the wall of ignorance where all the conservatives love to gather and discuss why we should keep pouring money into fossil fuels. That did a lot for us.
 
no i dont. did you read what i wrote? at all? i said that i like the ideals of the third geneva convention. the problem is our current situation deals with countries that did not sign it and people who do not fall under the "obvious soldier" description. thus we have no legal obligation to them under the third geneva convention, and just a moral one. the debate is what is our moral obligation to them.

so the big question then becomes what is your moral breaking point? yours seems to be much higher than mine, but am wondering what yours is.

would you shoot one person who was about to press a button and kill a million people?

would you shoot one person who was about to press a button and kill a hundred people?

would you shoot one person who was about to press a button and kill ten people?

would you shoot one person who was about to press a button and kill one person?

would you shoot two people who were about to kill one person?

would you shoot three people who were about to kill one person who was about to kill a thousand people?
 
again. first of all, being torn from your home and forced to pack your shit into two suitcases isnt torture? not to mention coming home to a house that was vandalized and destroyed.

but your still missing the point. i dont care how real a threat is, its our responsibility as the united states, a country that is SUPPOSED to set an example, and generally take the moral high ground, to give human beings some basic rights..

by the way i dont give two shits whether roosevelt was a democrat, but way to slide that in there.
 
sorry if i misunderstood your point. as for my moral breaking point, im gonna be honest, i dont know. but its not so much would i kill the person if they were about to kill god knows how many or how few people. the point is would i kill them if i wasnt 100% sure they were going to kill that person, or people.
 
Nope. You are severely misinformed. Yes, that area is populated, but with a generally low density. It is a proven statistic that nearly every major city in the US is a liberal area except a few in texas/florida/arizona. High density population correlates strongly with liberal areas.
population-density.png

 
Hmmmm...
Sounds like you're in need of a science lesson. This is specifically for you and the thread creator.
The total energy of the Sun that reaches the earth hits the outermost part of the atmosphere and produces about 1,370 watts per sq. meter.
This amount is fairly constant but will vary according to the amount of sunspots.
The atmosphere filters, absorbs, and reflects the incoming solar radiation.
The earth reflects about 30% of all the solar energy back into space, two thirds of that from clouds.
Therefore the amount reflected depends on the cloud cover, dust in the atmosphere, and snow and vegetation on the surface.
A global average of 240 watts per sq. meter of solar radiation reaches the surface of the earth. The radiation that does reach the surface is absorbed by rocks, soil, water
It is emitted as long wavelength radiation that matches the frequency of carbon dioxide and water which is readily absorbed.
This produces increased kinetic energy of the molecules of gases which increases the temperature
These molecules re emit energy of their own adding to the heat and in turn increasing the temperature of the surface.
*The more carbon dioxide present, the more energy that will be bounced back to the surface for heating resulting in the greenhouse effect.
This is a little bit deceiving in that it is not trapped as the energy is converted.
The greenhouse traps the heat and doesn't let it leave by convection
Carbon dioxide is not involved in the trapping the heat but in a dynamic process of absorption and readmission of energy to the surface - the more carbon dioxide the more heat will be produced.
*It was estimated by the Energy Information administration that in 2006, 86% of the worlds primary energy production came from burning fossil fuels.
*Fossil fuels emit Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere upon combustion.
*According to the U.S department of energy, the burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb half of that amount.


*Saying your relatives work for the weather service doesn't make you credible.
I would like both of you to thoroughly explain how the release of Carbon Dioxide isn't a crucial variable within the process of heating our planet and demonstrate this with an intellectual and practical method encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. Any sources used must be provided, and credible.

 
I have to talk about the terrorists first. The 5th and the 14th amendments are great BUT THEY DON'T APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. It is only for US citizens, besides, this was taken directly from the 5th amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;"

We are not sacrificing the foundations of the constitution. We are following it. Why do you liberals want to give rights to terrorists anyways. These are the people that helped destroy the twin towers and killed thousands of people and the people that want to attack again.

To civil rights issues:

A lot has changed. 1968 conservative does not equal 2008 conservative. Arguing they are the same is fucking stupid. I understand the enormity of what blacks had to face. They still faced it with discrimination in many other ways. Liberal thinking DID do something, and it was great. I am thankful for it. Liberal thinking and liberals have changed from then to now. The liberals have gotten increasingly left over the years too.

Want to know what happened to "give me your tired, your poor...?"

The Immigration Act of 1924, limiting the number of immigrants. If people from Mexico want to come here, that's great and I welcome them, but they need to do it legally, like most did going through Ellis Island back in the day. Once they become citizens, they deserve the rights in the constitution. But if they are here illegally....THEY DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A DRIVERS LICENSE (WHICH ISNT A RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH). Amnesty was tried in 1986 but didnt work.
 
EXCEPT WE ARENT EVEN MAKING SURE THEY ARE TERRORISTS BEFORE WE TORTURE THEM

YOU IGNORANT MORONIC FUCK
 
All conservatives are all sheltered racist, white surpremist, HICKS who've never seen the world.

put that in your blunt and smoke it!!!!
 
hold up here. I dont want terrorists tortured. I just dont want them to have trials. They can have military tribunals. These aren't new. We've been using them since the revolutionary war, at least the war of 1812. Regular trials expose witnesses and impede us from catching terrorists. Military tribunals are just a trial with military officers and judges. They get a mostly fair trial. Having trials in a court will be detrimental to the security of our nation. But hey, liberals insist on giving rights to people who aren't citizens of our country, so what the hell, why not.

 
no to japanese improsonment and stupid dealings with german teachers.

You get a trail cause you are a US citizen. military tribunals deal with those without citizenship. It's not like an automatic death either. evidence is presented in a trail(just not in the courts), and a verdict is reached. Witnesses aren't exposed.
 
I understand your excerpt from the 5th, but I believe you are wrong in the way you apply it. You forget that many of the people in Guantanamo are not guilty of any capital crime, but were taken on account of sometimes baseless SUSPICION, which is neither constitution, nor a capital crime. And yes, the US needs to win this war by means of good for more than just simple victory.

As for Civil Rights, i wasn't calling them the same, I was simply pointing out how recent the timeline occured. How, even with all the campaigns from liberals, it took up until just 30 years ago for them to achieve full rights. It's not so much when it happened, but the parties' ideals involved. but really. Just thirty years!
 
Wow...
I'm amazed that you are a junior in college and still cannot understand a basic elementary level scientific concept. What are you studying?
Did you even read my other post? Or is a paragraph of hard information a little bit too much for you to comprehend?
I'm still waiting to hear a logical explanation from you and Delphi. I honestly can't wait to see what kind of bullshit you guys can come up with.
I have to admit though, your, "I got a 3.75 gpa fuck off" and Delphi's "My relatives work for the weather service" arguments have certainly made you guys look quite intelligent so far..
And to put an end to your childish, "you must be a child" insults, I am 21 and a College Junior.
Idiot.
 
personally, i hate all this close-minded behaviour of a few in this thread, but in a western world, where everyone can say whatever he wants (as long as hes not RANKING GENOCIDES, unbelievable), we have to accept opposing opinions.

A DISCUSSION IS NOT NECCESSARILY AN INSTRUMENT TO CHANGE OTHERS OPINIONS. i always thought too that i am always totally right and i just have enlighten all the others. but thats not true and its not correct. since i am not perfect, how can i think that all others have to think like i do?

VOLTAIRE, my friends:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

 
Dude, I read it. I've known that shit for years. I just believe most of the CO2 emissions are natural. There are many other sources you aren't taking into account, like coal fires that continue to burn underground and have been for some time. (research this. It's actually kind of interesting. There are small towns in PA that are completely abandoned and taken off maps because of coal fires under them). The sun has a lot to do with the earth's temperature as well. If I find time to, Ill try to find some info that I have forgotten on that.

But, besides my argument on global warming, I would bet I have similar views on trying to limit CO2 emissions. I believe in conserving the environment, but I think more people should focus on energy conservation in regards to buildings than cars. Buildings(residential, commercial, and industrial) consume 71% of energy, while transportation is only 29%. I'm studying architecture, so I'm trying to do my part in this as well, especially in sustainable architecture. Also, I will make a thread on this as well, you won't believe how much design of our neighborhoods and suburbs has contributed to CO2 emissions and pollution.

Yes, a 3.75 gpa at Georgia Tech makes me look intelligent. thanks.
 
....I thought it was obvious... doesn't everyone have to read Swift's essay at some point in their academic career?
 
i dont know dude your post contains multiple capitalization errors. you also seem to have a problem with contractions.

/sarcasm.

 
Well, you should start with the: Divided States of America.

Come on, the rednecks make sure america is strong and the hippies make sure the rednecks dont go out of control and destroy the reputation of the states.
 
Dear Red States:

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and

we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware,

that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota,

Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the entire Northeast. It may even

include Florida and Ohio - we are seriously considering it. We believe this split will be

beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new

country. Since we're dropping the middle states we're calling it United

America, or simply the

U.A.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We

get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of

Liberty. You get Dollywood. You can take Ted Nugent. We're keeping

Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel. You get WorldCom. We get Intel and

Microsoft. You get Ole' Miss. We get Harvard and 85 percent of

America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get

two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their

fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian

Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of

single moms, and the highest concentration of pregnant unwed teenagers.

Please be aware that the U.A. will be pro-choice and anti-war, and

we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you

need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're

apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they

don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets

coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs

turn up, really we do, but we're not willing to spend our resources in

Bush's Quagmire. We'd rather spend it on taking care of sick people,

and educating our children.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent

of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and

lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of

America's quality wines, 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the

high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living

redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools

plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other

hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and

their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes,

nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99

percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all

televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the

University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was

actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred

unless we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44

percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was

involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy Redies believe you are

people with higher morals then we Bluies.

Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Peace out,

Blue States
 
I could've sworn I heard you say you were immigrating to some other country...get a move on that, the US is itching to get rid of you already.
 
ah shit I'm in minnesota, what am i supposed to do, jump ship to Iowa

seriously though, about 75% of your post was about territory, not political debate/satire

Why would you get microsoft? the definition of a big monopolistic corporation, thats ours. 2/3's of tax revenue, so are you saying the highly educated and wealthy people are democrats? I'm fine with taking unwed pregnant teens, but since I'm unwilling to help them financially, they'll probably turn blue and then you its not either of our's choice who gets them.

Also a 3.75 at CalTech junior year does grant you some qualifications, anyone else willing to spout their qualifications are free to do so.

btw i definately don't support splitting the nation, and i do think all this debate is good for the U.S., the more discussion about these topics, the better informed we are, although I can't say all the posts from either side are fully informative, the better citizens we are.
 
Splitting is not exactly the best option, seeing as though our nation is founded upon one side of the isle checking the other side. Our nation cant exist without the other. I might not agree with the conservatives, but I know that I need them; Wal-Mart and Microsoft get me through my days (LIkewise, corporate America relies on the left as well).

It's a balance, y'all, as much as you might not like it.

So lets go ski some pow.
 
you must have no understanding of business or economics. we have "poor business ethics", then can you explain to me why most liberals are un-employed and love leaching of the system. %90 percent of business owners are conservatives, and stop the hippy bullshit with your "treatment of employees",
and on your second radicilist point, most gays are liberals, and the other ethnic groups you pointed out are liberals
we, or atleast i have no problem with lower class, or middle class america, those who strive to work hard and pursue the american dream i have high levels of respect for. but when you have some illegal immigrant that is recieving free healthcare and food stamps, that is payed for by higher class.
"Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder": Michael Savage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top