Conservatives Are Not Crazy Or Terrorists

You say the terrorist accusation is not valid because liberals agreed with it too. Just because they both did it doesn't mean that one of them didn't do it. Conservative philosophy accepted and legislated the act, regardless of whether 'Liberals' did as well. You say the problem is with taxes. This is far out, it's far more complicated than that. Firstly: what problem? You mean that most people work really hard and still don't have enough money? Well let me tell you, taxes pay for what we need. The reason why we have little money is because one person owns 34.60 and 40 of us own 1/2 a penny. If he owned "10 those 40 could have 0.36p each-which equates to 72x what they currently own under the system the conservatives aim to conserve. Yes there was no typing error, if the 1% earned a full tenth of the wealth, rather than a quarter, then the bottom 40% could be 72 times better off that they are now. I am not saying we should go this far (though I think we should) I am just trying to put in perspective for you where all the money actually is. It's not in the hands of the people who provide everything you need to keep alive, and who are in serious debt. But in the hands of the super rich, who want to maintain the same system the conservatives want to maintain. Your Republican Party is the party of the super rich in the thinly valed guise of something more acceptable. Capitalism, as we know it, is self-destructing and not maintainable on this earth. You say that the environment must take a backseat when 'jobs' or profits are at stake, you think like an economist. You don't appreciate that wealth itself is the environment, the earth provides everything we call commodities and wealth. And this is arguing from a humanistic perspective, for indeed what right have we to destroy other animals habitats anyway? Republicans typically deny global warming, this is because they are in influenced by corporations who's profits can be lost because of environmental legislation. So OUR earth is being destroyed for small amounts of people's profits. And no, we don't NEED these things. We don't need a new mobile phone model created every week, two cars per family when the average car is in use 10% of the time, planned obsolescence in EVERYTHING (the planned self-destruction of commodities to create more profit), the list goes on. Apart from owning all the money, these techniques make us more and more strapped for cash. You speak like a politician: "wanting the citizens of your nation to prosper is not crazy" you say. Like I disagree. You don't believe in global warming? The overwhelming majority of the (mostly independent) scientific community, across the globe, acknowledge global warming as a fact. I think the only scientists who 'disagree' are those funded by corporations. It's clever because if just some scientists pretend to dispute it, the public who are largely ignorant to science will believe that it is not defiantly real. For they don't understand it at all, but they know there is debate about it and so this says that it's not certain. It is certain. Climate might always change, but it's changing more rapidly than it should be. We are cutting down the rainforest at a rate of about 1 football pitch every thirty seconds, and poisoning the streams and oceans-killing the sealife population. Not to mention all the species that have become extinct or endangered by our actions. We are destroying our habitat-this is crazy. For it is stupid, reckless and excessive, all these words are in the definition of crazy. Republicans don't care about the environment and so they could be described as crazy. A lot of your argument is not saying that conservative actions aren't crazy, but rather saying that liberals do it also. This is irrelevant as I think those liberals could be described as crazy as well. This argument isn't concerned with liberals, it's about conservatives. So the summary of my argument is as follows: I am trying to argue that the conservative philosophy and the persute of conservative beliefs could be described as mad (or terrorist like). I am not saying they are completely mad as a whole (though I personally believe they are), I am saying for the sake of this argument, that they COULD be described as mad (or terrorists). -The definition of crazy is not precise, but words include 'stupid' and 'extreme'. I argue it's STUPID to tear down your own habitat, and I would argue that it's EXTREME to endorse a society that can have such economic disparity, that 13% can live in poverty and others be making billions. So they fit the definition of crazy, however loosely you may perceive it. -As for terrorism. The definition is to make terror to achieve political goals. Bombing in the Middle East created terror to achieve a political goal. So it is terrorism. Just because they don't fit the stereotype, doesn't mean they are not still terrorists if they fit the definition. Thank you