I remembered much nastier, teethier images from the River Monsters show, but google does not have them readily available.

"You are forget that you are ignored, Kemp?  I am waiting for your apology and for you to cease with your McCarthyistic accusations and slander."

You frequently concede that you cannot even defend your positions, let alone well. That's your business.

You didn't understand the point I was making. You juvenilely accuse me of insulting you because the point was over your head. I even explained the point to you more simply but you choose to troll rather than respond to my simple point.

I've explained myself and given you a multitude of chances to reply to my simple questions of elaboration on vague claims you've repeatedly made but never explained. That you are unable or unwilling to explain ridiculously vague statements you've never substantiated into more than simplistic, generalized bullshit is your problem. That you can't understand my simple points and claim offense because I used certain words is just stupid. I'm sorry that you find the words "greed" and "jealousy" inherently offensive, regardless of the context in which they are used. But that's your problem.

"I mean, for those who are confused as to what CONSERVATIVE means, to CONSERVE the status quo - you are either being willfully selfish, self-serving, egocentric, irresponsible, or woefully blind."

This is inconsistent with the fact that capitalist nations' poor are among the wealthiest people on the planet earth, despite this system which you attack as horribly faulty. You demonize the system which has blessed all members of society--rich and poor alike--without mention of its obvious multitude of finer points. How can you claim to discriminate between its inherent virtues and room for improvement when you don't even acknowledge its virtues?

"There's no way around it.  TAX the @#% out of the rich; economic crisis solved."

Please explain. A 99% tax rate on the rich wouldn't balance anyone's budget (even pretending they wouldn't change their behavior).

Even if governments stole all of the belongings of their populations' rich, the upcoming economic crises wouldn't be assuaged.

They simply don't have that much money in comparison to the deficits and debts of governments. There aren't enough rich and, as much as they have, they just don't have _that_ much money nor wealth. Absolutely nobody crunching the numbers, libertarian nor communist, comes anywhere remotely near backing up your ridiculous claim. It's false. Factually, indisputably false.

How can you not know this (it's been stated and referenced here repeatedly), post anyway, have have strong opinions on matters you know nothing about? How can you formulate opinions on matters when lacking knowledge and understanding of basic facts like this? You might as well blame old ladies and toddlers for possessing wealth which could be redistributed to the poor. And call them bad names. Because what you're posing is just bizarre, ignorant, and false.

"This, however, is not the current philosophy of the tax systems out there, designed as they are to tax perpetually, with no vision to establishing a tax-less society."

Well obviously until we manage to steal self-replicating robot technology from the rich, who've kept it secret ever since they got it from aliens thousands of years ago, it'll be hard to realize this vision. But I totally agree it should be the goal!

"All the article above is yet another technofix - not a solution at all,  It's merely just another argument for how to keep the rich's currently tax-sheltered wealth from being taxed."

You obviously misspoke. Could you link the article you're talking about? It's clearly not the one linked above.

"A paradigm shift is necessary, a shift from exploitative, inefficient capitalism, to mutually beneficial, equitable, sustainable CAPITALISM.  Yes, there is such a thing."

Care to describe it?

I think they're honestly so stupid and indoctrinated they believe that its owed to them and that it's physically possible. Wannabe communist leaders have told them that it is while herding them like sheep for decades. We're not far behind them.

I just saw an EPA TV ad which named "carbon" as a cause for asthma in children.

Seriously? Are we so dumb that this gross inaccuracy doesn't offend us? Are we so apathetic that we keep electing the idiots who appointed the bureaucracy responsible for this ad year after year?

This is why I lean heavily Libertarian. That idiots this incompetent and dishonest have control over the funding for national TV ads, let alone regulation of our environment, disgusts me. Maybe if they had far less power we could focus on them actually regulating our impact on the environment, not wasting money on political action campaigns centered on taxation and wealth redistribution.

Until the New Black Panthers are as ostracized as the KKK, I'm going to take it as evidence that many blacks in the USA are racists.

It's too late. : ( Those [suckers] are spreading.

Ugly, scary looking things. They get pretty big too.

River Monsters (TV show on Animal Planet) has convinced me to never go into the water again.

We must also be careful about nonsensical, politically-motivated exaggerations of scarcity. If someone tells us we'll run out of oil in 10-20 years, for instance: they're full of shit.

I give to you your alternative to Obama in 2012! Obama-lite!

Would you like Obama or almost-Obama? Those are your options.

Do you have sources for your claims of violence/theft? I have a friend I wish to mock but require substantiation.

"if you think the pork is actually helpful and depriving citizens of it is really harmful, you're arguing Paul is wrong."

They're being forced to pay for the pork either way. Supposedly he votes against those bills--something desirable which more lawmakers should do. But to deprive his constituents of federal funds, whereas they pay into them and nobody else in the country is deprived of them, is to do harm to them. I'm not debating that he'd make a better case and have a stronger position if he refused any part in the pork, but it sounds as if you think he's worse than most republocrats when the main difference is he votes and argues against the pork. Even if you think he should hurt his constituents to make a point and he's a hypocrite for not doing so, he's still voting against the pork and republocrats are still passing it.

"if you're arguing that voting against something that you hope passes so your people get goodies, is seriously better than voting for somethign you hope passes so your people get goodies, you are confused."

Voting against pork is better than voting for pork. Period.

You don't have any basis to claim that he "hopes" they pass. He votes and speaks out against them. It sounds like you're jealous that this libertarian-esque guy is more fiscally responsible than the vast majority of other Republicans.