One of them would be the Borg...
The Borg (sounds Swedish) didn't see themselves as evil or believe that their mission was unjust. They wanted to add other civilizations to their own, making both sides better. The Borg did not have the problems most civilizations have such as crime, starvation, jealousy, etc. Who wouldn't want that?

Another good example is the Emperor...
The Emperor wanted to bring order to a chaotic galaxy. Sometimes, the only way is with an iron fist.

The Reapers is one more...
Reapers were changed against their will. What they became was not their fault.

Any position can change depending on the perspective. People... or cyborgs... don't see themselves as evil They are doing what they think is best, twisted as it may be.

I think you are missing the point. Global Warming is the reason we have not been seeing as many hurricanes.

If it rains, it's global warming. If it doesn't rain, it's severe global warming.

There is practically nothing in common between Korea and Japan on one hand, and Iraq on the other hand.
Yeah! We have troops in Korea and Japan. We have none in Iraq. One of these three countries is having problems. Guess which one.

Let's do another analogy:
You buy a crappy house. There are guys paid to keep up the place, but they are doing a crappy job so you fire them. You put a lot of your own money, blood, sweat and tears into fixing the house up. Sure, it's not the greatest house, but it's a whole lot better than it was. However, it will require maintenance to keep it that way until everything is in working order. But, you have to move because the contract at your job is up.

The guy that bought the house hated what you did to it so he does none of the required maintenance. So without him doing maintenance, and the without the guys who used to do the job doing it, the house falls into disrepair. So what does this new owner do? He blamed YOU for firing the guys who used to maintain the place.

But here's the thing I find really disgusting
When Saddam was in power and filling mass graves with the bodies of women and children, you didn't care. Don't know why you didn't care, but you just didn't. Guess you don't like brown people or something. Maybe you thought those mothers with toddlers should have fought back against the guys putting bullets into the backs of their heads. Fortunately, someone did care and put a stop to that shit. Then the next guy took over America.
Now, we have guys running through the country, cutting the heads off of women, and children, and, again, you don't care. You think it's more important to blame Bush than it is to actually fix the problem that wasn't a problem when Obama took office. Frankly, I think you are happy to see the atrocities over there because it gives you an excuse to hate Bush even more. Even though you know that Obama is the one responsible for pulling our troops out, you won't let yourself believe it because you love hating Bush more than you care about lives of brown infants.

Iraq was not in "free fall" when Obama took office. It was doing fine. Think it's not "maintainable"? Tell that to N. Korea and Japan, where we still have troops from the 1940s and 50s.

The guy who takes over the rudder cannot be blamed when the plane crashes into the ground.
Actually, it's more like the pilot got up to use the restroom and the co-pilot crashed the plane. Your response? Blame the pilot.

The clusterfuck that is Iraq is solely the fault of Bush and his team of gung-ho democracy cowboys
Like I said in another post:
When Bush took office, living in Iraq was a 3 on a 1-10 scale. When Bush left office, it was a 7.
Now, after six years of Obama, that ranking has gone from a 7 to a 1. And you're blaming Bush for not keeping it a 3?

Better yet, think of it this way.
When Bush took office, living in Iraq was a 3 on a 1-10 scale. When Bush left office, it was a 7.
Now, after six years of Obama, that ranking has gone from a 7 to a 1. And you're blaming Bush for not keeping it a 3?

Bush made Iraq a better place than it was when he took office. Obama made Iraq worse. That's the bottom line. You can't blame Bush for Obama being too incompetent to maintain the status quo Bush left.

Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years; six years with a Democrat president, six with a Republican. The highest unemployment seen during this entire 12 years was 6.3%, and it lasted only one month.
If Republicans were the problem, we shouldn't we have seen a problem before 14 years had passed?

Since 2009, for five years, we have not seen the unemployment rate drop below 5.9%.

Unemployment rates:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries...

Deficit numbers:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/... (First Spreadsheet)

95% of recovery goes to top 1%:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...

Death toll in Afghanistan:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.o...

Who knew my ass was sited all over the Internet!

But I would really like to hear one person such as yourself explain, by the numbers, how this is not a time of relative peace and prosperity?

Well, the last time Republicans were in charge was Jan 2007. At that time, the unemployment rate was 4.6% and falling, and the deficit was $161 billion. Since a year after the Democrats have taken Congress, neither the unemployment rate nor the deficit has been this low.

As for now, 95% of the "recovery" has gone to the top 1% and the labor participation rate is at the lowest point since the '60s.

As for "peace", we've lost more soldiers in Afghanistan in six years under Obama than we lost in eight years of Bush. Iraq is on fire with women and children being sold into slavery or have their heads cut off and placed on stakes like the men. ISIS, a group that makes Al Qaeda look like alter boys, has taken over much of Iraq and is even making money from the oil sales. In Africa, school girls are being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves or wives, as if there is a difference.

Are these the numbers you were looking for?

Exactly! Tax consumption, not wealth!

As OP stated, and I already repeated, a 20% tax on a $20,000/yr income...
See, that's where your mistake lies. When 75% of your income is spent on tax free items, you're not paying 20% of your income in taxes. ...is a much larger chunk of income than a 20% tax hit on a $200,000 income.
So? Class envy much?
$3.50 a gallon fuel is much more of a burden on a person making $20,000/yr than a person making $200,000/yr. Should we charge poor people less for gas? For that matter every dime a rich person spends is going to be less of a burden to the rich than the poor, and we are doing nothing about it? Did you know that rich people can afford to have other people cook their food? I've heard they can keep their houses at 55 degrees in Florida year round, and it's no burden at all. That's not fair at all! Why should eating be more of a burden on the poor than the rich?

gas is taxed.
repairs are taxed
registration is taxed.

Why wouldn't the sale of a car be taxed?

How about clothing? Need clothes to live, right?
Nope. If it makes you feel better, you could make school kids clothing tax free, or only make new clothing taxable. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy second hand.

Now Paris Hilton can buy 400 pairs of shoe tax-free!
So? Why do you care what Paris Hilton does? See, that's the problem. You are so damn worried that a rich person might save $80 on a pair of shoes that you want EVERYONE else to go through hell so a rich bitch won't save a buck.

Watch out for that slippery slope you're on.
Odd. Nearly everyone of the 50 states has programs like this and they don't have a problem. Were you referring to the "slippery slope" fallacy?

Rich people spend less of their money and save more of it than poor people, simply because there's more left over after paying for the necessities.
All money is spent eventually. Also, what do you think the bank does with the money people "save"? Banks loan that money to someone else and charge them a higher interest rate than they are paying the savings account. That is how banks make money. So the person who takes the loan will spend it, meaning it will be taxed. When the savings account is cashed out, that too will be spent, plus all the interest earned.

So, in this case, the same money is taxed multiple times. Also, all the money is taxed at the same rate. Currently, loan income is not taxed as income. But under a sales tax, the when the person taking the loan buys new office furniture, it will be taxed.

So, it would be even more regressive than the current system.
Currently, interest income and capital gains are charged a lower rate the standard income. This is how wealthy people pay such a ridiculously low tax rate (Warren Buffet pays less than his secretary). This would not longer be an issue with a sales tax.

Finally, all money is spent eventually. It doesn't matter if it was saved or invested at one point. Even if the person who earned it dies, eventually, all money is spent, even if by his heirs.

someone who makes $200,000 a year does not spend it all in a way that would be subject to a sales tax.
All money is spent eventually. Even if you die and leave it to someone else, it will get spent by them. When it is spent, it is taxed.

Savings / Investing is not subject to a sales tax.
Nope, but it will be spent eventually. All money is spent eventually. As a bonus, the capital gains/interest earned will be taxed at the same rate as the rest of the money. Currently, capital gains and interest income has a much lower rate. This is how Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary. This problem would be fixed.

Mortgage payments are not subject to a sales tax, etc.
Why not? Is buying a house not a sale, subject to a sales tax? If you wanted to tweak it, you could put a limit on how much a home is taxed. For example, allow one home to be tax free or only tax on every dollar over a certain amount.

Most states do this. Back when I was a checker at a grocery store about 30 years ago, we had to learn what food is taxed and what food is not. For example:
"Juice" products, those that contain nothing but fruit or vegetable juice, are tax free.
Products labeled "drink" or "punch" are taxable.
All non-processed food was non-taxable.
Anything you cook at home was non-taxable. This includes frozen meals such as TV Dinners or frozen pizza.
Canned goods were non-taxed.
Potato chips, candy, and other "junk" food is taxable, (I think).
Anything served cooked and ready to eat, such as a hamburger or bucket of chicken is taxable.

Not that we worry about it much as it is all handled by the computer anyway.