2008

infoterror

Member
Apr 17, 2005
1,191
2
38
2008

In 2008, we have an election forthcoming which could determine a difference in our future. If we keep our partisan identities, the you-Democrat me-Republican egofest that prohibits us from ever seeing the actual issues much less finding anything other than a mutually dissatisfying compromise, we will determine nothing. However, when one realizes that the people in politics are not as brick-stupid as they appear, and that there are some natural needs and impulses behind their desires which cannot be compromised, it's possible to look toward a new beginning.

We can take our values, but not the form in which they've lain dormant, and start a new chapter in American politics. Our old allegiances are rotted, because when we have only two "sides" and even they have become so similar as to be irrelevant, the choices are almost purely aesthetic. Democrats don't know how to end the war in Iraq; Republicans had trouble figuring out how to start it. Neither side is going to implement any aggressive pro-environmental policy. Both sides want to naturalize more immigrants. Neither side has said anything about lessening the time spent commuting or dealing with bureaucracy so we can get back to family, friends, and spiritual growth.

In short, they're actors, playing up to the largely ignorant audience which democracy creates by putting zero challenge into getting the vote. You sign up, show 'em you're over 18 and live around the polling place, and you're as equal as anyone else to the vote counters. They tell you what pleasant things can be had for minimal effort, and then rapidly spin the conversation into big ideals like "freedom" and "opportunity" that ultimately have zero effect on you and usually take away a little of both. They will divide you up into token special-interest groups - Christians, gays, video gamers, minorities - and then play you off one another. Their speeches say they want lots of good things for little of our effort; the reality is that they want power, with a lot of our effort, and they don't give a damn at all how things turn out.

The good thing about this sickening process is that like most scams, its enemy is time. Fool me once, the saying goes, shame on you. But fool me again? Shame on me. The subtlest scams take years to be recognized, but like a virus, that recognition spreads as rapidly as it took long for initial notice to be taken. Such is the case in America, where increasingly our voters are realizing:

(a) Our politicians are actors who speak essentially the same message, with zero intent of fixing our actual problems, as the truth of how to fix those problems is politically unpopular.
(b) There is no longer any real agreement about values or future in our country, thus we are doomed to an endless series of compromises that will tie us up in infighting until the Chinese destroy us. There are no answers, any more.

This coming election season - and you've got three (3/tres) years to prepare - think about undoing the situation we're in, instead of trying to carve up power between two sides who really don't have any interest or profit in changing the way things work around here. Thanks to our democracy, you'll be voting against millions of morons, but they tend to back down whenever a clear idea presents itself or, conveniently, try to make it taboo. If the smart people put their weight behind a better idea, they can stand out from the horde and present an actual solution, which even many morons will find hard to resist. The rest of this article details how some of our political parties could change themselves to get ready for the future.

Greens

The problem with environmentalists is that there are two types: ecoterrorists, who understand the problem accurately but have ineffective methods, and ecoliberals, who fail to understand the problem and have ineffective but politically acceptable methods. The former want to blow up SUVs, and the latter think that if we all purchase hybrid cars, use low-power toasters and blow our noses on recyclable muslin somehow it'll all work out just fine. Clearly the former are the more realistic of the group, in terms of action, while the latter are mostly there to hear themselves talk. Yet neither has grasped the duality of the problem.

The crisis of environmentalism is that (1) it must recognize the actual factor of our environmental disaster, instead of pointing to dripping faucets and luxury sedans; and (2) that it must find a solution that incorporates the whole of our socioeconomic system, instead of suggesting extremist revolution or ineffective strategies like unplugging appliances at night, as the ecoterrorists and ecoliberals do, respectively. (1) requires that it face a truth that neither division wants to talk about, and (2) requires that it cease being a political flavor and instead becomes a comprehensive political platform.

Ecoliberals are the biggest impediment here, because they will not want to recognize the truth. These are ineffective people who want to make some token changes, buy organic free trade coffee and otherwise do nothing to address the problem; their solutions are ludicrous, from hunting down drippy faucets to using low-energy bulbs, and if everyone on earth did exactly as they suggest, the overall impact would be negligible. I call these people ecoliberals because they are basically Democrats with an environmentalist flavor, and by occupying the position of "environmentalist," they block out any significant discussion of it. Ecoterrorists are more developed but by their extremist nature are essentially a protest movement that will not gain large numbers among the general population.

What ecoliberals are afraid to face, and even ecoterrorists shirk from discussing, is that to mention the real issue behind our environmental problem is a taboo, because it says that all of us cannot have it all, cannot have it our way, and in fact, some will have to make large sacrifices. What is at stake here is ecocide, or a smashing of the delicate balance of species and weather conditions and nutrients and transfer of energy gleaned from sunlight that is our global ecosystem. Destroy it, and lots of things we come to see as just part of the scenery suddenly will not be there, or will be in such weakened forms as to be useless. Global warming is a smokescreen, in that some degree of it was natural, and that its consequences are far secondary to those of land overuse, depletion of natural populations, and of course pollution. Global warming will change our climate, and we're not sure we can blame industry for it, so let's set that aside - ecocide will destroy life as we know it, and it is a clear end result of all of us going out and having houses and cars and kids who each do the same.

Humanity grows exponentially, even if some populations (Europe, American Europeans) have stabilized their populations at roughly 1.8 children per family, below replacement rate. Overpopulation is our great enemy. It does not make sense to back away from the innovations that modern society offers us, but we cannot give that lifestyle to anyone, nor can we continue to give it to future generations. A few hundred million people living first-world lifestyles will not present a problem, but seven billion, soon to be nine billion, will deplete our land and leave our earth a polluted wreck. Why do we keep breeding recklessly? Our manufacturers and services need new markets, and new labor to work old scams, so any time someone speaks up about overpopulation, a chorus screams about human rights, but what they're really talking about is stock prices, specifically for stock they own.

Greens have to get over this taboo. People respect honesty. Say up front that we have to limit our population, in part by allowing AIDS and H5N1 to do their work, and in part by not giving foreign aid to anyone no matter how cute their starving kids are. Is it inhumane? -- maybe. More inhumane than dooming all of us to death along with our ecosystem? -- definitely not. For that reason it should be supported, yet Greens refuse to mention it, fearing they'll be seen as extremists. Instead they're seen as people ducking the real problem, who in lieu of an actual plan come up with unrealistic "solutions," just like the other groups of politicized liars we're all learning to distrust.

By emphasizing green solutions that complement business, Greens can demonstrate how there will not be a loss of jobs or of lifestyle so long as we take care of the essentials, namely preventing further development, population growth, or unfiltered pollution. Even if the only statement the Green party has is that it will tax businesses 50% with wide deductions for environmental spending, they stand a better chance of election than they do now, because most people see them as both ineffective and poised toward radicalism. In the 2004 election, the Greens committed suicide because they were afraid that John Kerry would not win if the Greens ran a successful candidate. They not only lost that election, but would have done so for a man with zero interest in effective green legislation. Perhaps the ecoliberals have taken over, since the ecoterrorists are already hiding in tents outside SUV dealerships and new suburbs?

Conservatives

A party with even less of a clue is the GOP and its conservative allies. Still in shock from the effect the counterculture had on Baby Boomer voting patterns, the conservatives have relied on finding whole voting blocs they can transform into allies. In 2004, it was the radical evangelist Christians and big business, whereas in 2008 they're planning to seduce minorities and gun owners. This is a mistake as instead they could have the largest section of voters in America.

Most people, even if of fairly liberal views, are generally open to conservative politicians because they recognize the stability of conservatism, and the importance of traditional values. Both are attributes needed for a smoothly functioning society. The average hard-working, sensible person will vote conservative unless driven away from it by conservative parties doing the exact opposite - such as appealing to religious nutcases, Israel, illegal aliens and the like. The GOP and Republicans are about to cut their own throats through a series of ill-advised ventures into trying to capture bizarro voting blocs when they would be best served by simply capturing the biggest bloc of all, which is the sensible average people who make up the middle class and small business owners in America.

Your average person might be a gun owner, but also might not be; they may or may not be Christian, but are too pragmatic to get all wishy-washy about some evangelical mission to save the world by hastening the final apocalypse and thus shortening the time until we're all in the arms of Jesus (note to Europeans: apparently, many Americans including most of our new Hispanic population believe this). The motto of a sensible conservative party would be: do not cater to special interests; provide for traditional values! There is no way to group into a handy package the average hardworking sensible folk out there, because they don't go in for special interests. They go in for stability that gives a nudge to traditional values because this is how people raise their kids if they want their kids to go far. Traditional values like hard work, respecting your culture and elders, heroism and thinking for the long term (chastity, respect for nature, sobriety) are how you live if you want to be successful in any genre.

Conservatives have almost entirely abandoned these people in their pursuit of the special voting blocs. This is a dire mistake, and explains in part why liberals triumph over the beady-eyed nutcases like Bob Dole. Average people want stability, not power hungry and not mystically included toward group suicide. They've waken up having seen George W. run into Washington, slot his cronies into power and then start a series of disastrous long-term wars. They want people who put the citizens first, before spacy issues that are done for symbolic allegiance to voting blocks, but in fact endanger, impede and marginalize the responsible, hard-working people of traditional values among us. The conservatives are no longer a traditional values party. Either they change that, or they will perish, because they will not be able to out-populist the liberals.

Democrats

A trend that would worry the Democrats, were they savvy enough to have a consciousness between elections, is a worldwide slippage of Democratic parties that has been going on for many years. The reason is simple: if you promise better societies through the revolutionary logic of liberalism, you'd better deliver. Clinton was popular in the USA mainly because his civil rights program promised to reduce ethnic tensions. It didn't, and many believe, especially after Hurricane Katrina, that nothing will (they're right). FDR was popular because his liberal programs promised jobs for those destroyed by rampant speculation and the inevitable recession that followed. Liberals who address a real need and have a real plan can be quite successful; however, Democratic parties worldwide have been coasting on the same rhetoric of empowerment, subsidy and pluralism for a long time, and the results are increasingly not impressive. In fact, liberal parties have not only failed to change many of the problems they identify, but have made them worse.

Part of this is the fundamental schizophrenia of Democratic parties. As liberals preaching revolutionary rhetoric dolled up as common sense, they have to either deliver a revolution or dilute their message to fit into the normal transactions of everyday life. Most people fear the revolutions, remembering how in France and in Russia leftist revolt led to a slaughter of, among the privileged, many of the nation's smartest and best people, effectively ending its long-term prospects as a world power. America's revolution was fortunate because, although liberal in appearance, it was in fact conservative, being a land-grab by local landowners who recognized that living as a colony was not only bad for business but would prevent the development of traditional values in their new nation. Ever since that time, the phrase "leftist revolution" (or class war, or race war) conjures up images of intellectuals bending over trenches, waiting for proletarian bullets. Veering away from that extreme, Democrats become milktoast conservatives who believe in pacification while preaching grand ideals, and the increasing visibility of the failure of those grand ideals to either manifest themselves or fix problems has voters wary.

If liberals want to really triumph in 2008, they should grab ahold of one of the best ideas that came out of liberal think tanks: localization. Instead of advocating, like their conservative brethren, that we all join together and do things about the big issues, they should encourage a fragmentation of government so different localities can have different standards and manage themselves. After all, not everyone is going to be a liberal, and liberals either have to dominate those people and reveal themselves as revolutionaries, or compromise with them and raise suggestions that Democrats are Republicans on estrogen. If Democrats were to come to the election promising that communities like Alief, TX would be freed from levels of red tape so it could rule itself, they'd gain the vote of many conservatives.

The grand secret of conservatives, and most successful liberals, is that people are not the same. Please don't turn this into a racial issue - whether or not that applies, it's not what I'm speaking of here. I refer simply to the difference between communities and people within them. If Alief, TX wants to remain a semi-rural community, and put into place its own conservative rules, no harm is really done to those surrounding, and it can become a magnet for people who think the same way. This leaves other communities to do as they will, even if it is radically incompatible with Alief; local communities have to collaborate on a handful of issues and otherwise can be fully independent of one another. Did we really expect that the same rules that apply in Brooklyn, NY would apply in Alief, TX? Of course not. Agree to disagree, and move on.

Liberals have spent too long behind their class-war, racial-equality, women's empowerment type of issue. Such things are, with the exception of a vocal few who almost never have succeeded in anything or even held day jobs recently, entirely inconsequential to most people, even though you can brainwash them into thinking such things are important for their younger years. Most normal, non-neurotic people want a fair shot at a decent working wage and safe places to raise their families. They don't necessarily care if they are universally "empowered" or "equal" so long as they can have a job and a place within a community. Not everyone wants to live in New York or Dallas, and if they have a decent life, they care more about that then political equality or other token symbols that ultimately have little effect on their fortunes. Most of the people in the ghetto are there because they don't have their act together at all - more rules and subsidies won't change that. Change must come from within.

Finally, Democrats should do more than lip service for the environmental issue. Kyoto is great, but wider change is needed. Just as with the greens, Democrats should not be apologetic about this stance so long as they provide for a smooth transition to this state; radical change without a backing plan for keeping people in jobs results in failure every time. More people than ever before are aware of this issue and will support those who have practical means for implementing it, including a foreign policy that for the first time since WWII does not encourage growth in developing nations or anywhere else in the world. Just as Republicans should back down from some of their nutty foreign policy ideas, Democrats must too, if they want want to survive as a political entity.

Nationalists

For the first time in a long time, in 2008 America will most probably have either a Nationalist or extreme Conservative candidate running for office. Why? -- well, while the Democrats and Republicans have been duking it out for many years, out of sight of the figures we maintain on such topics our quality of life has been slipping. Crime may be down, incrementally, but most of us still live in constant fear of our violent cities. Racial antagonism may be tempered, this year, but it's still high with no sign of abaiting or sensible solution offered. Further, traditional values have never earned anyone a vast profit, so there is a constant assault from industry and entertainment on the values by which conservatives live and which they want to teach their kids. This results in more good stable families getting the call that their offspring, being taught that open-mindedness is the path to heaven, tried drugs and lost that battle of roulette or got murdered in a city alley. They're sick of it. They want a 1920s America back, a place that knows its own culture and isn't afraid to tell some people NO so that the rest of us can live according to what traditionalists see as sensible values.

(Nationalists should note: while part of nationalism is the knowledge that each organic nation is a group joined by heritage, culture and language, it is imperative that you not translate this into bigotry, because bigotry removes the onus from yourselves to fix your own nation. The nations I know of at this point have rotted from within, glutted on fiscal luxury and technological opulence and drama of the individual, and that must be fixed, or all the separation in the world cannot save you. I can tell which nationalist groups are going to succeed by how quickly I cannot find racial data, crime stats, etc. on their web sites! Loving your own race doesn't translate into hating others; it translates into separating from them, which precludes a lot of hateful, bigoted, linear, one-dimensional politics.)

Nationalists are also, among the major political persuasions, the only ones to adopt a sensible attitude toward ethnicity, which is that if each ethnicity wants to keep itself healthy it will separate from all others and agitate for autonomy including self-rule. Your standard neo-Nazi is saying nothing different from what your average Rabbi or Nation of Islam bootboy says: we need to rule ourselves so we don't get assimilated. As America invites in people from all over the world, often under the guise of helping them out, those who make up the traditional backbone of America are agitating for the defense of their own way of life, and Nationalists provide the only workable plan, which is separation and self-rule. Is this unpopular? Well, everyone's been taught to call them "racists," but it's not really racism. It's more like... Nationalism. Ethnic-cultural self rule. And in countries of European descent worldwide, it's gaining in popularity, especially with those who now that they're past 30 are forced to consider practical solutions instead of emotionally goodfeeling ones.

Conclusion

We have a chance in this election. The Bush conservatives, or neo-conservatives, have shot their wad. The public is equally sick of mincing liars like John Kerry and his rich man condescension to the poor and minorities. This dissatisfaction isn't unreasonable; in the fifty years since WWII, conservatives have lobbied for more enforcement and war and liberals have lobbied for more internal dissent and class war, and together, they've taken a prosperous nation and turned it into a conflicted, neurotic, pointless existence. The solution to this dilemma is to divide up, rather than try to find a single rule for disparate folks, and let nature judge the outcome of each possible way of approaching the question of survival. Conservatives and liberals cannot be reconciled. However, if each group drifts more closely toward its core principles, we can see where the nation must separate and thus let each group enjoy its own preferred mode of existence. Not only is that the only true form of tolerance we will find, but it's the only possible future for a nation that no longer agrees on even the most basic values.

December 8, 2005

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/2008/
 
Lovely article, as a Non-American it's been quite enlightening. But I can seem some parallels with politics over here. Food for thought, cheers.
 
A very well-thought out essay until you get to your nationalists. It is too short and you rely on very broad ideas such as ethnicity, and culture without defining solutions.

I do think the next European elections could see a National Front type party coming to power, or receiving a sizeable minority. I know if I was French (and white--yes, I am sorry it sounds racist and probably is), I'd be voting for them even if I disagreed with 90% of their stance. For the Europeans it is so simple, because the Arabs are not only ethnically different, but their culture and religion for the most part is so strong, assimilation or acceptance of Liberal Western European values is impossible.

As for America, I think we will reach a tipping point in another ten or fifteen years. Already many Americans are concerned about illegal immigration, and as more and more pile in, more companies hire them, and they put further strain on our social services, health, and social infrastructure, eventually something will happen.
 
That's a really good article, interesting to read too.
I'm not American, so i'm not sure if what you say is all true. But i can understand it all and most of it really is the truth.

Yes a lot of what you say is true over here too. All parties are pretty much the same. None of them will ever risk doing anything that needs to be done (tough on crime, nuclear power, legalising drugs, reforming health services) because they know these things to be too risky. They don't want ot risk loosing votes so they pussyfoot about these topics, or simply throw useless legislation and bills at us so we forget the important things.
This situation will remain until, like Info says, WE do something about it.

I think the US has problems ahead, and i really don't want to guess how they will be solved.
Europe also has problems, but i think we'll solve them differently. With the national front thing, i'm really not sure. I can see some people voting for such a party, mainly those who don't really understand the issue of imigration and only see extreme ways as the solution. The more sensible people will ignore such a party i suspect, unless there are really huge riots, all started by imigrants. Only something really big, that treatened the way of life of european people would cause so many people to vote so extremly.
 
Hey infoterror, I read some parts of your arcticle (sorry, I'm in an exam week and I don't have much free time) and I found it very interesting, especially the nationnalism part. I wanted to know your opinion of Quebec's will to rule itself, not that I'm a separatist, I'm not decided yet. In this regard, the main reason for self-rule is that our people has always been close to assimiliation and that we fought it for hundred of years. Now that we've joined Canada, we've always felt we are too different in terms of values and culture to stay with them (there are also economic reasons but I'm no expert). Anyway... I don't know if you're informed on this matter, but I just want your opinion on this.
 
AsModEe said:
Hey infoterror, I read some parts of your arcticle (sorry, I'm in an exam week and I don't have much free time) and I found it very interesting, especially the nationnalism part. I wanted to know your opinion of Quebec's will to rule itself, not that I'm a separatist, I'm not decided yet. In this regard, the main reason for self-rule is that our people has always been close to assimiliation and that we fought it for hundred of years. Now that we've joined Canada, we've always felt we are too different in terms of values and culture to stay with them (there are also economic reasons but I'm no expert). Anyway... I don't know if you're informed on this matter, but I just want your opinion on this.

I'll give you mine even though you didn't ask: Go back to France.
 
AsModEe said:
you're so fucking ignorant. You really think it has something to do with France?

Your people came from France and you speak French. You are going to find life difficult if you ostracize yourself from Canada and discover that you're surrounded by them. You really want to create a surrounding enemy?

I suggest you go back to your roots, France.
 
no no and no. Shut. the. fuck. up. You're too out of context to even make sense. Don't argue on a matter you know nothing about, got it?

I fucking hate ignorants with a big mouth
 
10293847 said:
Your people came from France and you speak French. You are going to find life difficult if you ostracize yourself from Canada and discover that you're surrounded by them. You really want to create a surrounding enemy?

I suggest you go back to your roots, France.
Gee

You don't think their culture has changed over the years to be radically different from the French one, to the point that what you're suggesting is about as silly as telling an Australian today to go back to England? What, I mean, they came from England and speak English right
 
Interesting article. Well - written.

However, it strikes me that liberalism and conservatism in politics aren't really about progress versus traditional values. Rather, its the mindset of natural equality under a big, warm socialistic government against that of competition in which the best rises to the top, with minimal government regulation. You can't really run a campaign on "traditional values".

America is a capitalist country. As such, occasionally the best idea will rise to the top, but more frequently the best - marketed idead will rise to the top. So both major parties sell their soul for palatable, quickly digestable messages and strike up bargains with powerful "special interests". This prevents any truly revolutionary ideas from surfacing in either party. The greens, libertarians, and other minor powers maintain a more pure message, but they're driven by a single - issue zeal that defeats broad acceptance.

Capitalist democracy is a flawed system because people can't be bothered to take a deep interest in politics for an extended period of time, and instead find an easy message in one of the parties, or ignore politics completely. However, other systems have equal or greater flaws. Stagnation is a natural part of any world power, and eventually the power. Another, more vital, more revolutionary state then rises to take its place, and the cycle begins again.
 
AlphaTemplar said:
Interesting article. Well - written.

However, it strikes me that liberalism and conservatism in politics aren't really about progress versus traditional values. Rather, its the mindset of natural equality under a big, warm socialistic government against that of competition in which the best rises to the top, with minimal government regulation. You can't really run a campaign on "traditional values".

America is a capitalist country. As such, occasionally the best idea will rise to the top, but more frequently the best - marketed idead will rise to the top. So both major parties sell their soul for palatable, quickly digestable messages and strike up bargains with powerful "special interests". This prevents any truly revolutionary ideas from surfacing in either party. The greens, libertarians, and other minor powers maintain a more pure message, but they're driven by a single - issue zeal that defeats broad acceptance.

Capitalist democracy is a flawed system because people can't be bothered to take a deep interest in politics for an extended period of time, and instead find an easy message in one of the parties, or ignore politics completely. However, other systems have equal or greater flaws. Stagnation is a natural part of any world power, and eventually the power. Another, more vital, more revolutionary state then rises to take its place, and the cycle begins again.

Hm, I like your thought process. Essentially I agree with you here.

I'd lilke to correct you on the new conservative position: Its no longer the cream rises to the top: its the shrewdest, most ambitious, best-connected, that rises to the top. If you have one ounce of ethics or value for things other than profit, there is only so far one can go--especially in the business field.
 
I didn't read the whole thing yet, but I feel there are two things that this country needs to do before it can focus on other things.

1. Nuclear Power
2. National Health Care

These are non-exclusive goals that help the overwhelming majority, but not those with the majority of the capital. This is where democracy could potentially work, but probably won't for a few more decades. People don't realize how disasterous the lack of health care is. It would come at a high tax cost at first, but then the prices of goods and services would drop quite a bit once companies no longer have to include their health expenses in the prices of the goods you buy. This also makes our goods more appealing versus imports, esp. autos. Our exports would sell better. Good move all the way around, and needs to be done soon.
 
Okay, I've read the article now. One thing I think infoterror would be quite interested in is the absolute failure of recycling. This is an happy, nice sounding liberal solution, but it really makes things worse. Here is what recycling basically amounts to:

You haven't finished your mashed potatoes, so you decide to recycle them. You put it in a special bin, which was manufactured somewhere and distributed in your community. (This cost money.) The bins from your community are transported in a fuel-consuming, pollution-producing truck, one in addition to your usual garbage truck. They are sent to a facility which processes the mashed potatoes into french fries, lower quality ones than those made across town. This facility creates additional pollution and energy costs. The end result is recycled french fries, which are distributed separately and more expensively.

OR: Throw away your mashed potatoes. The farmer tosses a few more into the back of the truck going to the french fry factory, and the factory spends a bit more energy to process the extra potatoes. The extra transportation costs, energy costs, and wastes of the potato recycling plant are eliminated in exchange for slightly higher energy costs and pollution at the already existing factory.

Potatoes are no different than trees; they just take longer to grow. This is why recycling paper is an asinine idea.

Much of the same thinking applies to recycling other things, the exception being cans. There's a reason bums collect cans and not plastic or paper: there's money in recycling cans, because it is cheaper and less harmful to the environment than mining for aluminum.

A basic understanding of economies of scale explains how unnecessary recycling plastic is. America actually has an abundant amount of landfill space, and the gaseous byproducts of decomposing waste can be used to power homes. A landfill is a surprisingly clean place, and provides jobs and power to neighboring communities. When full, it can be covered up and used for a park, or golf course, or other public space.

The jobs at recycling facilities are basically make-work gov't jobs. We might as well be paying these people to paint fences or water trees. Landfill jobs are necessary regardless of the amount of recycling done, and are more thus more valid.

I think there are even more reasons why recycling is not just ineffective, but harmful. We've been brainwashed into thinking it's a good thing for the most part.
 
Recycling and energy efficiency are to me the small environmental issues; overpopulation is the only real one. Recycling, when it becomes mandatorily applied to all trash, can be beneficial. But it makes even more sense to eliminate the vast inflow of waste in the first place by cutting back on population (KILL THE STUPID) and eliminating garbagey products that break after only a few uses (BAN WAL-MART).
 
AsModEe said:
no no and no. Shut. the. fuck. up. You're too out of context to even make sense. Don't argue on a matter you know nothing about, got it?

I fucking hate ignorants with a big mouth
okay okay so don't go to France if you don't want to but if you gotta choose between going to France and coming to America then as an American I am semi-qualified to be the person to tell you go to France instead of coming here I've never been to France but I've seen first-hand how much America can suck
 
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
I've never been to France but I've seen first-hand how much America can suck

That sentence was right out of Finnegans Wake. Bravo, I think (?)

It's hard to tell if there's an optimal solution, thus even if America sucks, it isn't necessarily as far off the mark as that seems.

We need to nourish some trees of liberty with the blood of... well, many people.