Oh snap, the next big catastrophe for the world is a food shortage!

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Craig234
Oh snap? Hehe?

Are the righties losing their minds even more, hard as that is to believe? Too bad the show title 'Arrested Development' is already taken, because it could be the title of a show about these people.

Why the attack of the right. IT is the Left that has caused all of Americas problems .

It is the left that Attacks anyone or anything that doesn't conform to their Idealism .

It is the left that claims intellectual superiority. LOL I am smarter than you . Just ask me LOL.

IT is the left that is paranoid of the right.

It is the left that uses logic to form thier Idealism . Spock your logical but your also an Idiot . Because you cann't comprehend anything that isn't logical.

It is the left that is distroying family values .

Its is the left that caused the problems in our school systems. This one is really funny because its the left destroying the foundation of their Idealism .

We can look at America and her problems other than economics. Every single problem can be traced back directly to the intellectual superior left .

I have faith which the left lacks . Part of that Faith includes the believe that threw time the left will prepare the way for the Day of Glory . Where my non-existing God according to the left. Will bring his armies to the plains of Armageddon to utterly destroy the left and its leader Satan.

Until this day the Left has nothing to fear from the Right. But make no mistakes about it . In that day we well utterly destroy the left. Or they shall utterly destroy the right . Tho the lefts army will outnumber the Right by a 3to1 margin .

But The left shall fail because their beliefs are based on a universe in chaos. Where as the right believes its an order universe with intellectual designs. It is the left that is in CHAOS!

Well damn, I was hoping for Revolution and the chance to just hang the trai....errr...."Left".

Well, I guess it'll still be good fun watchin God zap them down. Hopefully there will still be enough food that I can buy some popcorn to watch the fireworks with.

I'm stealing your sig. : )

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

I'm stealing your sig. : )

No problem. Let me know if you want the sources to back the figures up with facts.
Seems most people choose to think I just made those figures up.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Pretty much. The First World won't starve, the Third World will.

Maybe they should grow their own food and stop relying on us.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

I'm stealing your sig. : )

No problem. Let me know if you want the sources to back the figures up with facts.
Seems most people choose to think I just made those figures up.

I think most of us are just smart enough to realize that while someone might get killed by an illegal alien every 6 hours, someone is killed by a LEGAL resident every 35 minutes...so maybe getting your panties in a bunch over the illegal aliens in particular is kind of stupid. In fact, we'd see about the same reduction in crime if we deported a random group of people of the same size as the illegal aliens.

I'm just saying, Noobtastic, you might want to put some thought into it before putting some pseudo-impressive sounding statistics in your sig.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

I'm stealing your sig. : )

No problem. Let me know if you want the sources to back the figures up with facts.
Seems most people choose to think I just made those figures up.

I was googling and found a time article but it wouldn't load.

Could you link me your sources?

I'm just saying, Noobtastic, you might want to put some thought into it before putting some pseudo-impressive sounding statistics in your sig

Well it's a factual statistic. No one is debating citizens are being killed by citizens, but it should be alarming when non-citizens are killing citizens while the government does nothing.

If future-illegal aliens were denied the option to cross borders, a significant decrease in crime would emerge.

Also, consider cities with highly dense illegal alien populations possess very high crime (and thus murder) rates.

Also also also, you kinda forgot the other two statistics, both of which are important.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I think most of us are just smart enough to realize that while someone might get killed by an illegal alien every 6 hours, someone is killed by a LEGAL resident every 35 minutes...so maybe getting your panties in a bunch over the illegal aliens in particular is kind of stupid. In fact, we'd see about the same reduction in crime if we deported a random group of people of the same size as the illegal aliens.

I'm just saying, Noobtastic, you might want to put some thought into it before putting some pseudo-impressive sounding statistics in your sig.

If you extrapolate on those stats a little. Given 300 million in the US and 20 million illegals you get
300/20 = 15

So we have 15x the populace for LEGAL
every 35 minutes? about half an hour .5 * 15 = 7.5
So a person every 7.5 hours

Not a huge difference

Edited for tone

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

I'm stealing your sig. : )

No problem. Let me know if you want the sources to back the figures up with facts.
Seems most people choose to think I just made those figures up.

I was googling and found a time article but it wouldn't load.

Could you link me your sources?

I'm just saying, Noobtastic, you might want to put some thought into it before putting some pseudo-impressive sounding statistics in your sig

Well it's a factual statistic. No one is debating citizens are being killed by citizens, but it should be alarming when non-citizens are killing citizens while the government does nothing.

That's ridiculous. So for some reason you think murder by a particular group is more worthy of getting all pissy about than murder in general? Personally, I oppose murder on the idea that it's murder. The details of the person committing it don't seem like they should make a lot of difference.

And even if the details DO matter, the government isn't "doing nothing". They are presumably doing the same thing they do when ANYONE commits a murder, tracking them down and locking them up. Suggesting they go after illegal aliens especially is pretty dumb, it's not going to result in any fewer murders.

If future-illegal aliens were denied the option to cross borders, a significant decrease in crime would emerge.

Also, consider cities with highly dense illegal alien populations possess very high crime (and thus murder) rates.

Well if we nuked Texas, I suspect crime numbers would go down to. In fact, ANYTHING that decreases the total number of people will decrease the total number of crimes...pretty basic math. Fewer people...fewer crimes. There is nothing special about illegal immigrants as a group, they tend to commit crimes at about the national average. Dense, poor cities in general have high crime, even those with few illegal aliens.

Also also also, you kinda forgot the other two statistics, both of which are important.

Well, the border crossing one doesn't really belong with the other two...what do I care about border crossing all by itself unless it causes other problems? As for "sex crimes"...I'm having a little trouble producing decent statistics on that one. Considering the "every 4 minutes" stat produces more "sex crimes" than there were total rapes last year, clearly we're talking about something else. A search for "sex crime statistics" did not yield anything of note about the general population. But given the brainlessness of the first "statistic", I don't see any reason to believe the second one is any more impressive.

Face it, you're signing your posts with the equivalent of a Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: that only looks convincing to the mouth breathing knuckle draggers who wrote it in the first place.

 

[Noobtastic]

That's ridiculous. So for some reason you think murder by a particular group is more worthy of getting all pissy about than murder in general?

No...

The fact that the murder rate could be lessened if illegal immigration became a priority makes me pissy.

What are you arguing?

Personally, I oppose murder on the idea that it's murder. The details of the person committing it don't seem like they should make a lot of difference.

the person is irrelevant, and I don't see why you are including that kind of thinking.

Let's remove illegal alien/Mexican/whatever out of the equation.

Exhibit A: United States legal population

Exhibit B: Illegal Alien population existing within United States legal population

Exhibit C: ~20,000 murders in the United States annually.

Exhibit D: ~5,000 murders committed by illegal aliens in the United States annually.

Axe Exhibit D. and you have 5,000 less murders a year. See how easy that was?

Your beef lies in irrational partisan dependency, not disgust for murder.

And even if the details DO matter, the government isn't "doing nothing". They are presumably doing the same thing they do when ANYONE commits a murder, tracking them down and locking them up.

So...?

Illegal aliens have a higher murder rate than any demographic in the United States. Why suffer so many murders and 30k a year to jail an illegal alien when we could fast track to something so much more efficient.

Suggesting they go after illegal aliens especially is pretty dumb, it's not going to result in any fewer murders.

Uhh...

Well if we nuked Texas, I suspect crime numbers would go down to.

That's unfair.

In fact, ANYTHING that decreases the total number of people will decrease the total number of crimes...pretty basic math.

Yes, but illegal aliens have the HIGHEST murder/crime rates out of ALL demographics in the United States. Eliminating them specifically would decrease the crime and murder rate beyond the ridiculous and stupid equalization of deporting citizens.

Fewer people...fewer crimes. There is nothing special about illegal immigrants as a group, they tend to commit crimes at about the national average.

That is false.

Dense, poor cities in general have high crime, even those with few illegal aliens.

What dense and poor cities have few illegal aliens? What are you arguing?? That illegal aliens are just as contributive as the legal citizen?

Irrational sympathizer...

Well, the border crossing one doesn't really belong with the other two...what do I care about border crossing all by itself unless it causes other problems?

What? I'm sorry, but are you really that incapable of recognizing the connection between a group of people crossing a border and that same group of people causing x issue?

Face it, you're signing your posts with the equivalent of a Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: that only looks convincing to the mouth breathing knuckle draggers who wrote it in the first place.

Blow me.

OP, I apologize for the thread hijack.

If Mr. Rainsford wants to start a new thread, I'll be happy to join.

Please continue with original topic.

 

[Specop 007]

Whoa, guys.....New post about the border. Jeez.

I'll get the stats to you in IM later today

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Whoa, guys.....New post about the border. Jeez.

I'll get the stats to you in IM later today

Fair enough, I'll start a new border post.

But you bring up an inflammatory sig in a thread, it's bound to derail the discussion. If you don't want to discuss it, "Seems most people choose to think I just made those figures up." is probably not the best thing to post.

But none of this is the OP's fault, I apologize for continuing the thread hijack and I'll take further posts on this topic elsewhere.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Unless we lose California?s crops I find it very difficult to care about the topic at hand.

As for the price of food, look at the price of oil. Costs money to ship it, and you use oil to do that.

Something more than oil and transportations costs is pushing up the price of ags right now. Wheat is up ~400% right now year-over-year despite abundant supply. The farmers are breaking out the champagne.

You sure about that? I was just checking prices on Friday. Soybeans had risen 70% during the past year, and corn was obviously up. However, wheat prices where actually down from a year ago.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Unless we lose California?s crops I find it very difficult to care about the topic at hand.

As for the price of food, look at the price of oil. Costs money to ship it, and you use oil to do that.

Something more than oil and transportations costs is pushing up the price of ags right now. Wheat is up ~400% right now year-over-year despite abundant supply. The farmers are breaking out the champagne.

They need to ban hedge funds from the futures market of this type of stuff

 

[Moonbeam]

My big fear is that DrPizza may be eaten.

 

[Craig234]

Again and again, we see the lack of morality in the right's positions, such as Specop's post above, showing what underlies the ideology, the lack of compassion and human values.

The thing is, their ideology is based on evil, on thuggery, on the willingness to use violence for their own benefit, but most republicans don't realize this themselves, because they're constantly told how courageous and noble and principled they are, how they're the group who favors liberty and prosperity and more importantly, who opposes tyranny and other such evils, so they are blinded to the immorality of their own party's policies by the pretty wrappings the propagandists put it in. The very idea that they're a party of evil and thuggery simply boggles their little heads, it doesn't compute for them, no, they see flags waving in the breeze, the greatest greatest group in the world, by gosh.

See the second quote in my sig again, it really has relevance to the point I'm making above, how what they're about is candy coating the policies of ruthless greed for the masses to accept them.

You ask yourself, if what I'm saying were true, what would be so obviously evil as to test my statement, and you take the example of *mass starvation*, and ask, can THAT be candy-coated so as not to be seen as a moral issue, and you see the posts above mocking the topic (Specop) or being an apologist for doing nothing, rationalizing with bogus economics (Jaskalas), and so on.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Unless we lose California?s crops I find it very difficult to care about the topic at hand.

As for the price of food, look at the price of oil. Costs money to ship it, and you use oil to do that.

Something more than oil and transportations costs is pushing up the price of ags right now. Wheat is up ~400% right now year-over-year despite abundant supply. The farmers are breaking out the champagne.

You sure about that? I was just checking prices on Friday. Soybeans had risen 70% during the past year, and corn was obviously up. However, wheat prices where actually down from a year ago.

Vic's a bright guy, but when it comes to agriculture I highly doubt he's ever even met the business end of a hoe.

To answer your question, wheat is up about 100% over the last year.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Unless we lose California?s crops I find it very difficult to care about the topic at hand.

As for the price of food, look at the price of oil. Costs money to ship it, and you use oil to do that.

Something more than oil and transportations costs is pushing up the price of ags right now. Wheat is up ~400% right now year-over-year despite abundant supply. The farmers are breaking out the champagne.

You sure about that? I was just checking prices on Friday. Soybeans had risen 70% during the past year, and corn was obviously up. However, wheat prices where actually down from a year ago.

Vic's a bright guy, but when it comes to agriculture I highly doubt he's ever even met the business end of a hoe.

To answer your question, wheat is up about 100% over the last year.

Ah no... I raise my own vegetable garden every year, and my wife has more plants and flowers -- indoors and outdoors -- than you could imagine. Our house is the damned Amazon.

But no, I had received some bad information just the day before from a source I would otherwise believe to be reliable (a customer with a farming supply business out in the wheat-growing eastern part of the state). Ah well.

My point stands though, in reference to the thread title, that the recent spike in ag prices has nothing to do with a shortage of supply (so people can stop worrying about starving 3rd-worlders in that regard).

OTOH, at only a 100% up year-over-year, you might be right about fuel and other costs behind the increase.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Again and again, we see the lack of morality in the right's positions, such as Specop's post above, showing what underlies the ideology, the lack of compassion and human values.

The thing is, their ideology is based on evil, on thuggery, on the willingness to use violence for their own benefit, but most republicans don't realize this themselves, because they're constantly told how courageous and noble and principled they are, how they're the group who favors liberty and prosperity and more importantly, who opposes tyranny and other such evils, so they are blinded to the immorality of their own party's policies by the pretty wrappings the propagandists put it in. The very idea that they're a party of evil and thuggery simply boggles their little heads, it doesn't compute for them, no, they see flags waving in the breeze, the greatest greatest group in the world, by gosh.

See the second quote in my sig again, it really has relevance to the point I'm making above, how what they're about is candy coating the policies of ruthless greed for the masses to accept them.

You ask yourself, if what I'm saying were true, what would be so obviously evil as to test my statement, and you take the example of *mass starvation*, and ask, can THAT be candy-coated so as not to be seen as a moral issue, and you see the posts above mocking the topic (Specop) or being an apologist for doing nothing, rationalizing with bogus economics (Jaskalas), and so on.

And here we have a perfect example of the flawed logic that we can save the world.
We cant. You assume our position to be one of evil intentions and violence when in fact its this little thing we call "reality".
No matter how big your heart you aint gonna save everyone. End of story. It just isnt going to happen.

Now if you choose to try so be it. But I wont be risking my life to help someone half way around the world, let alone the guy next door. I certainly have no use for someone who wont help themselves. You can see it right here right now in our current society without any shortages. All these welfare programs have given most a sense of entitlement. Why bother with all the troubles of getting a job when you can party, get knocked up, squirt out a few kids and get PAID to do it?? Do you really think thats helping someone? What would help those poor starving African tribes more, sending them a bunch of wheat or sending them a few tractors, a few ag and lend specialists and some seed wheat?

I all ready know your answer though. You think the means justify the end. Our welfare programs have built an entire society with the entitlement mentality. But its ok if people choose the "easy" path of a part time job and government handouts because damnit we meant to do the right thing and thats whats important right?

Thats foolishness on a grand scale. They even went so far as to give it a name. "Democrat".

More to the point, you've given me no reason to help any starving person outside of "Because its the right thing to do". Gonna have to work a bit harder then that. Who says its the right thing to do? You??

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234
Again and again, we see the lack of morality in the right's positions, such as Specop's post above, showing what underlies the ideology, the lack of compassion and human values.

The thing is, their ideology is based on evil, on thuggery, on the willingness to use violence for their own benefit, but most republicans don't realize this themselves, because they're constantly told how courageous and noble and principled they are, how they're the group who favors liberty and prosperity and more importantly, who opposes tyranny and other such evils, so they are blinded to the immorality of their own party's policies by the pretty wrappings the propagandists put it in. The very idea that they're a party of evil and thuggery simply boggles their little heads, it doesn't compute for them, no, they see flags waving in the breeze, the greatest greatest group in the world, by gosh.

See the second quote in my sig again, it really has relevance to the point I'm making above, how what they're about is candy coating the policies of ruthless greed for the masses to accept them.

You ask yourself, if what I'm saying were true, what would be so obviously evil as to test my statement, and you take the example of *mass starvation*, and ask, can THAT be candy-coated so as not to be seen as a moral issue, and you see the posts above mocking the topic (Specop) or being an apologist for doing nothing, rationalizing with bogus economics (Jaskalas), and so on.

And here we have a perfect example of the flawed logic that we can save the world.
We cant. You assume our position to be one of evil intentions and violence when in fact its this little thing we call "reality".
No matter how big your heart you aint gonna save everyone. End of story. It just isnt going to happen.

So the obvious solution is to avoid trying to save anyone? No, you can't right every wrong or solve every problem, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Your attitude seems less based on reality than the liberal viewpoint, you're going to let the overwhelming weight of "saving the world" prevent you from doing anything at all...you're intentionally avoiding solving problems you CAN solve because there are problems you CAN'T solve.

Now if you choose to try so be it. But I wont be risking my life to help someone half way around the world, let alone the guy next door. I certainly have no use for someone who wont help themselves. You can see it right here right now in our current society without any shortages. All these welfare programs have given most a sense of entitlement. Why bother with all the troubles of getting a job when you can party, get knocked up, squirt out a few kids and get PAID to do it?? Do you really think thats helping someone? What would help those poor starving African tribes more, sending them a bunch of wheat or sending them a few tractors, a few ag and lend specialists and some seed wheat?

I all ready know your answer though. You think the means justify the end. Our welfare programs have built an entire society with the entitlement mentality. But its ok if people choose the "easy" path of a part time job and government handouts because damnit we meant to do the right thing and thats whats important right?

Thats foolishness on a grand scale. They even went so far as to give it a name. "Democrat".

More to the point, you've given me no reason to help any starving person outside of "Because its the right thing to do". Gonna have to work a bit harder then that. Who says its the right thing to do? You??

That's crap, and you know it. You think people in third world countries could just as easily grow all their own food, but they'd rather skate along the edge of starvation so the US grudgingly sends them sacks of rice? You think there are people in the inner-city who have the means and opportunity to go to college but decide they'll forgo becoming a mechanical engineer for the easy life of living in the ghetto and getting a $4 check every week from the government?

And don't give me that bullshit about "helping people help themselves". Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of giving people the means to help themselves rather than just helping them...but I don't see conservatives jumping to do THAT either. Be honest, it's not about the best way to make the world work better, it's about the same thing the entire conservative movement has always been about...you. Or, more accurately, "me". Sure, you guys have some GREAT lines about hard work and picking yourselves up by your boot straps and small government and self-sufficiency, but it all seems like nothing so much as an elaborate search for an excuse to just do what's best for Specop 007, and fuck everyone else.

Which I suppose is an alright sentiment, I think it's pretty stupid, but hey, you're entitled to be an anti-social jackass if you want. Only you want it both ways. Self-sufficiency and small government and all that noise is great, until Brad and Lance are doing something that makes you uncomfortable. The idea of letting people live their own lives how they like is all good when it means more money in your pocket, but when guys with dark skin and weird names are the hobgoblins of the week, suddenly the government can't oppress the population fast enough. I personally disagree with the professed conservative rhetoric, people get much farther helping each other...but there's not even anything there behind the rhetoric, it's all a convenient cover for a much more shallow philosophy.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's crap, and you know it. You think people in third world countries could just as easily grow all their own food, but they'd rather skate along the edge of starvation so the US grudgingly sends them sacks of rice? You think there are people in the inner-city who have the means and opportunity to go to college but decide they'll forgo becoming a mechanical engineer for the easy life of living in the ghetto and getting a $4 check every week from the government?

And don't give me that bullshit about "helping people help themselves". Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of giving people the means to help themselves rather than just helping them...but I don't see conservatives jumping to do THAT either. Be honest, it's not about the best way to make the world work better, it's about the same thing the entire conservative movement has always been about...you. Or, more accurately, "me". Sure, you guys have some GREAT lines about hard work and picking yourselves up by your boot straps and small government and self-sufficiency, but it all seems like nothing so much as an elaborate search for an excuse to just do what's best for Specop 007, and fuck everyone else.

Which I suppose is an alright sentiment, I think it's pretty stupid, but hey, you're entitled to be an anti-social jackass if you want. Only you want it both ways. Self-sufficiency and small government and all that noise is great, until Brad and Lance are doing something that makes you uncomfortable. The idea of letting people live their own lives how they like is all good when it means more money in your pocket, but when guys with dark skin and weird names are the hobgoblins of the week, suddenly the government can't oppress the population fast enough. I personally disagree with the professed conservative rhetoric, people get much farther helping each other...but there's not even anything there behind the rhetoric, it's all a convenient cover for a much more shallow philosophy.

No, its true and you know it.
Grants are there, free money, for no other reason then because the color of someones skin is black. The ONLY thing they have to do is pick up a damn pen and fill out some paperwork to get it.
Far more....glamorous?...to stick some drugs and a gun in your pocket and grab that monthly .gov check.

But do you know what I find really interesting? How you try to defend your position of stealing from people by using a moral high ground.

You see, I dont think we should help these people. But I wont stop you if you want to, just dont drag me down with you. Craig however thinks we should help these people and he wants to force everyone else to do what he thinks is right.

Isnt that a bit ironic? Proclaiming all this jazz about making the world better, happier peoole, blah blah blah and then forcing them at gunpoint to do it.

I suppose is you consider personal responsibility to be a shallow philosophy then theres simply nothing I can do to change your mind, and I wont try. I just cant see why anyone would think creating a society of entitlement is a good thing though. Its like a race to the bottom with you guys. Those who work hard should have what they have earned taken away, and those who just waste oxygen should be given a free handout. Truly I ask you, wheres the incentive to succeed?

 

[Madwand1]

A search on The Economist's web site for "agflation" turned up four hits, each of which has a somewhat different perspective on the issues and attributed causes.

Recently, one article claims that this is a good thing in general in that it re-balances the economic disparity between urban and rural areas. While this is interesting, the fact that rising food prices otherwise hit the poorest hardest is not such a good thing.

This article seems to have the most information on it:

http://www.economist.com/displ....cfm?story_id=10250420

It primarily brings up crops for fuel and rising demand for meat matching rising economic prosperity in the world, but it also mentions climate change and its impact on supply.

Another perspective, shown in the graph titled "A real turn-up" is that real food prices have been declining significantly over the past few decades, and the recent rise is something of a correction.

"For decades, prices of cereals and other foods have been in decline, both in the shops and on world markets. The IMF's index of food prices in 2005 was slightly lower than it had been in 1974, which means that in real terms food prices fell during those 30 years by three-quarters"

As this thread has already shown, this topic is a great one for associating with your own political warhorse of choice, and beating it further to death.

 

[piasabird]

We can always stop growing corn for fuel and using land to grow tobacco.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Specop 007



Grants are there, free money, for no other reason then because the color of someones skin is black. The ONLY thing they have to do is pick up a damn pen and fill out some paperwork to get it.

mmmkay....

:roll:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JD50
So are fat people going to have to pay food credits to skinny people?

Ironically, one of the reasons some people are fat is that less fattening food tends to be more expensive, especially if you want meat. Also, sugar-free items are more expensive. Fast food--cheap. Fast healthy food? More expensive.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ironwing
I'm not worried about food shortages. I buy my food at the grocery store and they always have plenty.

Lemme guess, you have plenty of cash, right? What would you do if your job and your wife's job evaporated and you lost your career and found yourself either unable to find a job in your field or (perhaps as result of being unemployed in your field for so long) unemployable in your field? Then what?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Why the attack of the right. IT is the Left that has caused all of Americas problems.

One reason to attack the Right is because of its opposition to legal abortion. Not only that, but they aren't promoting abortion as the solution for poor women who cannot afford to have children.

What does that have to do with the issue of food prices? It's a contributor to the nation's population explosion which means that we end up having less land per capita and a greater demand for food.

Furthermore, it's the Right that opposes contraception and abortion in foreign countries, contributing to overpopulation on a worldwide scale.

The negative consequences that come from having a caveman-like belief in religious mysticism and a belief in a God that doesn't exist can catch up with you eventually.

That having been said, it's not as though the Left or the Democrats are much better on those issues.