Obama Read Your Constitution & Quit Showing Your Ignorance About Supreme Court

[redgreen5]

stopping pre-emptive foreign wars - conservatives oppose;

indigenous uprisings against military dictators or oppressive regimes - Iran, The Philippines, the West Bank, South Africa, etc. - conservatives oppose;

Can't have it both ways. Need to pick one or the other.

Excuse me? The situations are not the same thing; I don't know how in the world you managed to work that into what I said.

1.  In the first case, the USA is invading a country to protect American interests, usually business interests, and reinforce America's proxy / puppet regimes in these places -- and then justifying it to the American public on the basis of "pre-emptive warfare".  Conservatives oppose stopping such wars (i.e., they favor going ahead with them);  they think such wars are a good thing and should continue;

2. In the second situation, we're talking about indigenous uprisings of citizens against such regimes - conservatives think such uprisings are bad, and assistance should be given to those governments to shut down the uprisings quickly before democratic ideals spread;

3. Finally, I said nothing about invading to support these indigenous uprisings. There are other ways to support besides committing American military resources.

holding police and the justice system accountable - conservatives oppose;

Kind of like dropping charges of voter intimidation against the Black Panthers and holding "terrorists" without bail for a couple years only to have charges dropped? And, let's not forget providing weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Oh yeah....that was the current Justice Department.

I said nothing about what this administration has, or hasn't, done. I am contrasting conservative vs. progressive.  If you look at groups in society that are calling for accountability of police and the justice system, those groups agitating for such oversight are overwhelmingly NOT conservative in their political orientation.

As for the particulars of your claims -
Black Panthers - quid pro quo for not prosecuting conservative groups engaged in voter suppression;
terrorists - be specific;
drug cartels in Mexico - look up Operation Wide Receiver, and also note that nobody was ever charged, indicted or fired

Science
heliocentrism - conservatives opposed;
evolution and descent with modification - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;

You really don't understand the history of science and the university system, do you?

I understand both. My statement above stands.

pollution controls - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;

To some extents, you are right. However, CO2 is not a "pollutant".

Anything in extreme amounts can be a pollutant.  Even salt, a naturally occurring compound, is a pollutant if it gets into field crops because it kills the crops and renders the soil non-arable.

global warming - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;

Anthropomorphic global warming....see the difference?

1. Conservatives spent years denying global warming AT ALL - from any source, man-made or otherwise;
2. Conservatives still deny anthropomorphic global warming - which again, is ridiculous, since the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence from multiple lines of inquiry support AGW

 

[redgreen5]

Even going back to the time of the Magna Carta, conservatives have stood for one principle:  concentrating power and influence in the hands of the few, the elite, and vigorously trying to preserve that arrangement.  That is what it *means* to be conservative:  to conserve the present system and arrangement and resist changing it at all costs. Power is never to be surrendered, and since wealth is power, conservativism tends to monopoly and to such practices as generational accumulation and transfer of wealth (something even our Founding Fathers abhorred, because they saw how it bred the class system in Europe). Yet today, what do we find?  Conservatives trying to restrict political power to themselves, using their corporations to influence government, and changing the laws to create even more accumulation of wealth, for generational transfer.  History repeats itself.

Wow...Stalin and Mao were conservatives? 

1. Stalin and Mao broke up the corporations, got rid of foreign controls and concessions made to other countries, distributed land to peasants, etc. They were the opposite of the description above, at least at the start. Moreover, they were statists, in the extreme. 

2. The reality is that the Russian and Chinese systems of government have not changed all that much in hundreds of years. Russia has been a highly centralized country, with power and extreme wealth at the top in the hands of a very tiny minority.  And, at the other end, some heartbreaking poverty at the bottom, with a large peasant class.  Russia has remained that way regardless of governmental system. It was like that, during its capitalist phase (prior to the October Revolution), it remained that way after the Revolution when it was the USSR (except for a very brief period at the start); and since the breakup of the USSR, Russia has returned to that same model. 

3. China has been a paternalistic, hierarchical society based on Confucian values for thousands of years.  It was like that before the Communists took power; it remained that way under Communism, and is like that today.

4. In reality, the particular kind of governmental system for these two countries has almost been irrelevant. It's window dressing; they have acted pretty much the same, regardless of their form of government.  It's like a man who changes his shirt three or four times.  It doesn't change who he really is, as a human being; only the outward appearance is changing.

5. Finally - what Stalin and Mao did is somewhat irrelevant to the point I'm making. My description of conservatism above is still valid, its desires and social goals are correct, and the response of the Founding Fathers to the idea of trans-generational wealth transfer is accurate.

From a historical perspective, conservatives have been on the wrong side of almost every issue...
So:  in what way is the conservative model anything to respect or emulate?

And "liberals" think "equality" means "same" and that women should have the right to murder their children. Those are pretty heinous positions to take.

1. No, they do not think that.
2. There are conservative societies that practice abortion. Even today, this is used by very conservative societies in South Asia as a way of sex selection.  Your lack of geographic and historical scope is showing.

Idea! How about we recognize that both liberals and conservatives have good points and bad points and stop with the "us" vs. "them" mentality where everything "we" do has to be good and everything "they" do has to be bad.

Because I honestly cannot think of a single good idea that has come from conservative thought. 

Capitalism did not come from conservative thought; it was the product of liberal thinking (to which the existing system of royal crown monopolies and guilds was the conservatism of the day).  Ideas such as the free flow of capital and talent were totally contrary to the dominant paradigm of the 1700s;

The Scientific Method did not come from conservative thought; it was opposed by conservatives as being anti-Church and disrespectful of the learning from antiquity (Ptolemy, Aristotle, etc.).

Even our own representative democracy did not come from conservatism; on the contrary, it was considered a highly dangerous idea, spawned in the Enlightenment period and fueled by people such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.  It wasn't until more than a century had passed, before conservatives finally started warming up to the idea of universal suffrage for everyone - women and blacks included.

What scientific, social, or economic improvements have ever come from conservative thinking?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You should either re-read your history books or stop blatantly spinning what the Constitution actually says.

The Constitution, in laying out the census and basis for taxation, only counted blacks as 3/5 of a person.


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

If you don't know this material, maybe you shouldn't comment on it.[/quote]

First, it wasn't "blacks". It was slaves. Free blacks would have been counted fully. And...

"only counted" ≠ "only being"

...there is a fundamental difference there. The Southern States were wrong in this, but the Northern States were also wrong in that they didn't want to count slaves at all. (Are your more progressive states implying that slaves weren't really people*?)

* The answer is "of course not", but I'm just showing I could use your same reasoning to make absurd statements as well.

[quote author=redgreen5]

The idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens is pretty outlandish as well.

Who owns corporations?

I own a car. Does a car have the same rights as I do?
Don't dodge the point next time.[/quote]

Are you legally limited in what you can do with that car any more than any other citizen?

Compare...are owners of corporations more legally limited with what they can do with their resources than others?

[quote author=redgreen5]

I don't have time to do down every issue (and some you are right on). But I figured I'd take a stab at a few of them...

[quote author=redgreen5]equal pay for equal work - conservatives opposed;

So liberals were opposed to private property rights?[/quote]

This is a recounting of which side of the issue that conservatives found themselves arguing. Do you disagree that conservatives opposed equal pay for equal work?  I can provide you with citations if you need them.

How is this a private property rights issue?
And at what point does equal treatment before the law come into play in your book?[/quote]

Allow me to provide my own citation:

 

[rsc2a]

stopping pre-emptive foreign wars - conservatives oppose;

indigenous uprisings against military dictators or oppressive regimes - Iran, The Philippines, the West Bank, South Africa, etc. - conservatives oppose;

Can't have it both ways. Need to pick one or the other.

Excuse me? The situations are not the same thing; I don't know how in the world you managed to work that into what I said.

1.  In the first case, the USA is invading a country to protect American interests, usually business interests, and reinforce America's proxy / puppet regimes in these places -- and then justifying it to the American public on the basis of "pre-emptive warfare".  Conservatives oppose stopping such wars (i.e., they favor going ahead with them);  they think such wars are a good thing and should continue;

Broad brush much?

[quote author=redgreen5]2. In the second situation, we're talking about indigenous uprisings of citizens against such regimes - conservatives think such uprisings are bad, and assistance should be given to those governments to shut down the uprisings quickly before democratic ideals spread;

3. Finally, I said nothing about invading to support these indigenous uprisings. There are other ways to support besides committing American military resources.[/quote]

You are using "conservative" to mean two different things here. It's intellectually dishonest. American "conservatives" have strongly favored supporting non-American uprisings often to protect American interests AND spread democratic ideals.

[quote author=redgreen5]

holding police and the justice system accountable - conservatives oppose;

Kind of like dropping charges of voter intimidation against the Black Panthers and holding "terrorists" without bail for a couple years only to have charges dropped? And, let's not forget providing weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Oh yeah....that was the current Justice Department.

I said nothing about what this administration has, or hasn't, done. I am contrasting conservative vs. progressive.  If you look at groups in society that are calling for accountability of police and the justice system, those groups agitating for such oversight are overwhelmingly NOT conservative in their political orientation.

As for the particulars of your claims -
Black Panthers - quid pro quo for not prosecuting conservative groups engaged in voter suppression;
terrorists - be specific;
drug cartels in Mexico - look up Operation Wide Receiver, and also note that nobody was ever charged, indicted or fired[/quote]

Those statements don't work together.
Until you start talking about enforcing immigration laws and "one person, one vote" laws, right?
Examples?
Hutaree
Wrong (wiki)...

At the time, under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made. After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver in September 2009 and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers. Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms. As of November, charges against one defendant had been dropped; five of them had pled guilty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Two of them remained fugitives.



[quote author=redgreen5]

Science
heliocentrism - conservatives opposed;
evolution and descent with modification - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;

You really don't understand the history of science and the university system, do you?

I understand both. My statement above stands.[/quote]

Clearly not.


[quote author=redgreen5]

pollution controls - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;

To some extents, you are right. However, CO2 is not a "pollutant".

Anything in extreme amounts can be a pollutant.  Even salt, a naturally occurring compound, is a pollutant if it gets into field crops because it kills the crops and renders the soil non-arable.[/quote]

Tautology.

[quote author=redgreen5]

global warming - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;

Anthropomorphic global warming....see the difference?

1. Conservatives spent years denying global warming AT ALL - from any source, man-made or otherwise;
2. Conservatives still deny anthropomorphic global warming - which again, is ridiculous, since the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence from multiple lines of inquiry support AGW[/quote]

Funny....30 years ago, we are all gonna die from the coming ice age.

 

[rsc2a]

Even going back to the time of the Magna Carta, conservatives have stood for one principle:  concentrating power and influence in the hands of the few, the elite, and vigorously trying to preserve that arrangement.  That is what it *means* to be conservative:  to conserve the present system and arrangement and resist changing it at all costs. Power is never to be surrendered, and since wealth is power, conservativism tends to monopoly and to such practices as generational accumulation and transfer of wealth (something even our Founding Fathers abhorred, because they saw how it bred the class system in Europe). Yet today, what do we find?  Conservatives trying to restrict political power to themselves, using their corporations to influence government, and changing the laws to create even more accumulation of wealth, for generational transfer.  History repeats itself.

Wow...Stalin and Mao were conservatives? 

1. Stalin and Mao broke up the corporations, got rid of foreign controls and concessions made to other countries, distributed land to peasants, etc. They were the opposite of the description above, at least at the start. Moreover, they were statists, in the extreme. 

2. The reality is that the Russian and Chinese systems of government have not changed all that much in hundreds of years. Russia has been a highly centralized country, with power and extreme wealth at the top in the hands of a very tiny minority.  And, at the other end, some heartbreaking poverty at the bottom, with a large peasant class.  Russia has remained that way regardless of governmental system. It was like that, during its capitalist phase (prior to the October Revolution), it remained that way after the Revolution when it was the USSR (except for a very brief period at the start); and since the breakup of the USSR, Russia has returned to that same model. 

3. China has been a paternalistic, hierarchical society based on Confucian values for thousands of years.  It was like that before the Communists took power; it remained that way under Communism, and is like that today.

4. In reality, the particular kind of governmental system for these two countries has almost been irrelevant. It's window dressing; they have acted pretty much the same, regardless of their form of government.  It's like a man who changes his shirt three or four times.  It doesn't change who he really is, as a human being; only the outward appearance is changing.

5. Finally - what Stalin and Mao did is somewhat irrelevant to the point I'm making. My description of conservatism above is still valid, its desires and social goals are correct, and the response of the Founding Fathers to the idea of trans-generational wealth transfer is accurate.

This entire statement is just one massive contradiction.


[quote author=redgreen5]

From a historical perspective, conservatives have been on the wrong side of almost every issue...
So:  in what way is the conservative model anything to respect or emulate?

And "liberals" think "equality" means "same" and that women should have the right to murder their children. Those are pretty heinous positions to take.

1. No, they do not think that.[/quote]

Would you like me to provide quotes?

[quote author=redgreen5]2. There are conservative societies that practice abortion. Even today, this is used by very conservative societies in South Asia as a way of sex selection.  Your lack of geographic and historical scope is showing.[/quote]

Remember where I said you kept using alternate definitions for the same word as you need to....you're doing it again.

[quote author=redgreen5]

Idea! How about we recognize that both liberals and conservatives have good points and bad points and stop with the "us" vs. "them" mentality where everything "we" do has to be good and everything "they" do has to be bad.

Because I honestly cannot think of a single good idea that has come from conservative thought. 

Capitalism did not come from conservative thought; it was the product of liberal thinking (to which the existing system of royal crown monopolies and guilds was the conservatism of the day).  Ideas such as the free flow of capital and talent were totally contrary to the dominant paradigm of the 1700s;

The Scientific Method did not come from conservative thought; it was opposed by conservatives as being anti-Church and disrespectful of the learning from antiquity (Ptolemy, Aristotle, etc.).

Even our own representative democracy did not come from conservatism; on the contrary, it was considered a highly dangerous idea, spawned in the Enlightenment period and fueled by people such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.  It wasn't until more than a century had passed, before conservatives finally started warming up to the idea of universal suffrage for everyone - women and blacks included.

What scientific, social, or economic improvements have ever come from conservative thinking?
[/quote]

Those pesky alternate definitions keep popping up.

In particular regarding this point, you can't just look at how far down the road you'll get, but you have to avoid the ditches on both sides. Progressives (to use one of your fuzzy definitions) get you down the road. Conservatives (to again use one of your fuzzy definitions) keep you out of the ditches.

In fact, you should read the quote of mine that you included in your point.

 

[Bou]

Even going back to the time of the Magna Carta, conservatives have stood for one principle:  concentrating power and influence in the hands of the few, the elite, and vigorously trying to preserve that arrangement.  That is what it *means* to be conservative:  to conserve the present system and arrangement and resist changing it at all costs. Power is never to be surrendered, and since wealth is power, conservativism tends to monopoly and to such practices as generational accumulation and transfer of wealth (something even our Founding Fathers abhorred, because they saw how it bred the class system in Europe). Yet today, what do we find?  Conservatives trying to restrict political power to themselves, using their corporations to influence government, and changing the laws to create even more accumulation of wealth, for generational transfer.  History repeats itself.

One of the reasons I'm not an originalist (apart from the inability of originalist justices to be consistent) is because the classic liberal ideology that produced the Constitution stemmed from a desire to keep government and religious institutions from becoming too powerful. 

Were the founders alive today, they also would fear other institutions from becoming too powerful, namely big corporations, which they could not have envisioned at the time.

I was talking to my conlaw prof (who's a beast and clerked in the 90s for Justice Stevens) about Citizens United and it was an interesting discussion.  He's working on some stuff about how the First and Second Amendments have changed from their original understandings.  Specifically, we talked about how the First Amendment was originally a check on government power, but Citizen's United actually used the First Amendment to effectively do the opposite: enlarge government power to serve corporate interests. 

Truthfully, I'm sympathetic both towards the Tea Party and OWS.  Both have legitimate qualms, but view the culprits differently.  I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[redgreen5]

rsc2a

First, it wasn't "blacks". It was slaves. Free blacks would have been counted fully.

There were no other slaves except blacks.  To be crystal clear: very early on, an attempt was made to enslave the indigenous native americans. However, that didn't work so well; the native americans had the 'home court advantage' and kept escaping into a wilderness that they knew far better than the whites knew. By the time of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, however, the slaves were almost entirely black.  The specific wording of the Constitution excluded Indians from the count anyhow.  So by default, the three-fifths rule applied to blacks only.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that this is not the case, then by all means bring it forward.  And please note that I'm talking about actual slaves here, not indentured servants or apprentices.

There were also precious few of these so-called "free blacks" at the time.  They did not enjoy the same liberties as the rest of society merely because they were not slaves; free black != white citizen. And of course, each state was free to pass laws restricting the free blacks in their lives and livelihood, as well as their voting rights and even marriage rights.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to quibble here; my point stands.

And...

"only counted" ≠ "only being"

1. It does for the purposes of the census. 

2. And as far as federally recognized legal rights go, blacks didn't exist at all.  So my original statement "the part about blacks only being "three-fifths persons"..." was actually too generous.  The only way they counted at all was for the census; and even for that, they were discounted by 40%.

...there is a fundamental difference there. The Southern States were wrong in this, but the Northern States were also wrong in that they didn't want to count slaves at all. (Are your more progressive states implying that slaves weren't really people*?)

* The answer is "of course not", but I'm just showing I could use your same reasoning to make absurd statements as well.

You aren't using *my* reasoning at all.  I'm not arguing North vs. South.
I'm arguing that conservative thought would have *kept* the slaves as "three fifths persons".

Are you legally limited in what you can do with that car any more than any other citizen?

Compare...are owners of corporations more legally limited with what they can do with their resources than others?

You broke your own analogy.  Let me fix it for you.

I am no more limited in what I can do with my car, than any other citizen can do with his/her own car.

Likewise, the owner of a corporation is no more limited in what he can do his corporation, than any other citizen can do with his/her own corporation.

Different kinds of property have different rights associated with them.  That ought to be obvious.  Hope that straightens it out.

BUT:
None of that answers the question, or responds to my point.  A corporation is property: so how did it magically obtain legal rights as a separate legal and political entity?

Allow me to provide my own citation:

Notice here that your citation implies that:

(a) people who work 1 hour and
(b) people who work 8 hours

should both receive equal pay at the end of the work day.  By that argument, someone who puts in a 40 hour work week should make the same as someone who works 1 hour all week.
ORLY?

If you're going to hold to that position consistently, then fine. Otherwise, you might want to go back and re-think your citation, and find the discontinuity in it.  Let me know if you can't find it, or would like a hint.

Private property laws for one.

You mean like poor blacks being swindled out of their land, to make room for a resort for rich whites?
You mean like native americans losing their land, revenues from grazing rights, mineral extraction, etc. because conservative ranchers and businessmen didn't want to pay?
Where have conservatives supported private property laws for minorities? Everything I've seen indicates that they oppose such laws.

Also many conservatives think the government has no business in marriage, period.

Very, very few conservatives think this. Those that do, are more accurately described as libertarian than as conservative.

No...there really isn't. Planned Parenthood (for one) owns a couple members of Congress.

Tragically wrong.  Apparently you missed the part where I said there was a difference in scale.
Would you like to compare the amount of PAC money that business contributes to Congress, vs. the amount that Planned Parenthood contributes?
Or do you really think that Planned Parenthood "owning a couple of members" is the same as the business lobby owning hundreds of members?

Hmm?

Odd...I thought it was conservatives saying that there should be a surcharge on Chinese goods because of the lower environmental standards (albeit they have different reasoning).

1. Feel free to provide the citation. 

2. And "different reasoning" does matter.  Since we're discussing political philosophy here, intent is a key element.  If the conservatives were doing this merely to protect their bottom line and their profits - and only using the environmental angle as a way to push their issue - then it does not count as rebuttal for your position. It actually counts as evidence for mine.

Ok...in the other thread, you are talking about how one sector cannot drive the economy. Now you are arguing that one sector is driving the economy....you can't have it both ways.

You're not reading carefully enough.  I am comparing:

(a) the reality of consumption driving 70% of the activity in the US economy with
(b) the business sector of banking being too large and creating systemic risk

This is not "having it both ways". It is comparing two different things.

Also, look at the major factors in the collapse of many banks (there were two): greed and government regulations requiring risky behavior from banks.

Greed? Yes. 
Government regulation requiring risky behavior?  Utter and absolute nonsense.

Your first point is pretty much irrelevant. Without the Commerce Clause, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't have happened.

Feel free to expand on this.

Furthermore, many conservatives are strongly opposed to it. And it was the liberal side of the spectrum who signed the bill into law.

Wrong for several reasons:

1. It was signed into law by Bush, and could not have passed with merely Democrats in favor.

2. I am not arguing GOP vs. Democrats anyhow.  I am arguing conservative vs. progressive. The current Democratic party is a center-right party.  The GOP is a right party.  There is no (credible) center left or left party in the USA.

 

[redgreen5]

Broad brush much?

If you would like to point out the error, feel free to do so.  You could start by pointing to conservative groups or noted conservative individuals that have opposed (or did oppose) these military actions in Iran, Iraq, Central America, the Philippines, etc.  That would add some credibility to your case.  Of course, a single example does not disprove the general rule.  So I hope you have more than just a handful.

You are using "conservative" to mean two different things here. It's intellectually dishonest.

I most certainly am not doing that.
Again:  you could start by pointing out conservative groups that have supported indigenous rebellions against US-sponsored dictators or strongmen. 

American "conservatives" have strongly favored supporting non-American uprisings often to protect American interests AND spread democratic ideals.

Nice claim. Kind of empty, though.
Find me some examples where US conservative groups supported indigenous uprisings in:

* the Philippines
* South Africa
* West Bank
* Saudi Arabia
* Chile
* El Salvador
* etc.

Examples?

Examples of conservative voter suppression?
http://michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/03/07/wisconsin-judge-blocks-gop-voter-suppression-scheme/
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13205
http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154842/voter_suppression_101%3A_how_conservatives_are_conspiring_to_disenfranchise_millions_of_americans
http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154842/voter_suppression_101%3A_how_conservatives_are_conspiring_to_disenfranchise_millions_of_americans

Hutaree

What is your complaint here?  That it took two years for the DOJ to free them? 
How long does the DOJ normally take in such cases? 

Do you have any evidence that this delay was politically motivated as opposed to - for example - incompetence of the justice system? Or that the length of the delay was unusual or extraordinary in cases like this? 

Or that the amount of caution was unwarranted? You do realize that right-wing violence has spiked since Obama became president, right?

What about the backpack bomber in Spokane, WA?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/18/us-bomb-parade-idUSTRE70H7TV20110118

Or the right-winger opens fire on a Unitarian Church in Tennessee because "I'd like to encourage other like-minded people to do what I've done," Adkisson wrote. "If life ain't worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. Do something for your country. Go kill liberals."

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/Jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/

Don't get me wrong; I don't like the DOJ.  But as Hanlon's razor says, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."  I would amend that to include ineptitude as well.

Wrong (wiki)...

You are absolutely correct.  I goofed; my bad.

Clearly not.

Clearly my statement *does* stand.  If you feel that the history of science and/or the university system is a factor here, then by all means, demonstrate your claim. But don't expect me to just accept such a vague handwave as some kind of rebuttal.

Tautology.

No, it isn't.  Perhaps you should review the definition of tautology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology

Your original claim was that CO2 is not a pollutant.  My response is that depending upon the concentrations involved, it CAN be a pollutant.

Funny....30 years ago, we are all gonna die from the coming ice age.

Uh, no.  You shouldn't believe urban legends.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

 

[redgreen5]

This entire statement is just one massive contradiction.

No, it's actually a pretty clear breakdown of the realities in the situation in these countries.

If you have any evidence to the contrary - either historical, economic, political -- or if you know of anyone respected in these fields of study who disagrees, then by all means, post your evidence and/or post a citation from such a person.  We'll have a look at it.

If you've lost the desire - or the free time - to discuss this, then that's fine.

But hand-waving it away by saying "it's a contradiction" is kind of lame.

And "liberals" think "equality" means "same" and that women should have the right to murder their children. Those are pretty heinous positions to take.

1. No, they do not think that.

Would you like me to provide quotes?

Yes.

2. There are conservative societies that practice abortion. Even today, this is used by very conservative societies in South Asia as a way of sex selection.  Your lack of geographic and historical scope is showing.

Remember where I said you kept using alternate definitions for the same word as you need to....you're doing it again.

And again: I most certainly am not doing anything like that.  You just don't like the fact that conservative also includes these kinds of negative elements.  Apparently you think that "conservative" only applies to politics and economics.  IT also has a social aspect as well.  Would you like me to provide quotes describing these societies as "conservative"?  (Hint: I can easily find dozens without breaking a sweat).

Those pesky alternate definitions keep popping up.

Except that no such alternative definitions are being employed. You simply didn't realize that conservative meant all these things above.  And of course, since you cannot offer any rebuttal, your complaint is kind of hollow anyhow.