[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 2 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

Yes, because clearly giving the middle class a better life and a better standard of living is awful.

If you cared in the slightest, you'd realize how conservatives care only about big corporations, money, and stealing privileges and money from the middle-class.

But hey, if that's your idea of a "great" America, then sure.

Huh. That's funny, because last time I checked that described the democrats to a T (save for big corporations, to an extent). The only reason why people don't see them as that is because what they say and what they do are two different things.

Obama wanted to basically standardize wages so that no matter what job you had, you got payed relatively the same as the next guy. A guy working at McDonalds got payed as much as an Orthodontist, and vise versa.

That undermines the American way so much it's not even funny. Why work at a more difficult job and get payed the same amount as someone who practically sat on their *** all day? That's what most Americans would think, anyway.

I want to still live in a country where you have to work to be sucessful, so that by the time you are, you feel satisfied with what you've accomplished. When I look back on my life, the things I worked the hardest to achive/get, are the things that I've been the most proud of, or the most satisfied with.

Of course, it's equally possible that America could cease to be what it is if McCain gets in office, but that's only if he decides to go to war with a whole bunch of nations who hate us, and builds up so much debt that we couldn't possibly pay it back in any reasonable amnount of time.

[Golden Legacy]

I don't know where in your deluded backward mind you are stating that Obama/democrats = communists.

Toasty, it conveniently slipped your mind I'm sure - misconstruing information and presenting false information as fact is called LYING.

[Drizzy Drake]

OBAMA FOR FUCKING PREDIDENT NIGGA!!!

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 2 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

I don't know where in your deluded backward mind you are stating that Obama/democrats = communists.

Toasty, it conveniently slipped your mind I'm sure - misconstruing information and presenting false information as fact is called LYING.

If I'm lying, then you're brainwashed.

At least half (heck, let's go for broke and say ALL) the Democrats in office might as well be Soviets. And that thing I said about Obama wanting to equalize wages? Last time I checked that was true.

After all, if everyone got the same amount of money, wouldn't it be "fair"?

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 2 2008, 11:11 PM, said:

If I'm lying, then you're brainwashed.

At least half (heck, let's go for broke and say ALL) the Democrats in office might as well be Soviets. And that thing I said about Obama wanting to equalize wages? Last time I checked that was true.

After all, if everyone got the same amount of money, wouldn't it be "fair"?

I've never seen anyone sink so low. I've never seen anyone believe so ardently in something that's a complete fabrication. Either you know you're flat-out lying and you just don't want to admit it, or sinking your brain into the biased single-minded media you listen to has caused you to be purely ignorant.

Not even the most hardcore conservatives are dumb enough to label an opponent as something he's not, just to find something to criticize. This seems to be an issue with you alone.

Now, I'll humour you and ask, give me a source or link that shows Obama is a "communist". And mind you, not Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, or another backward conservative source.


P.S. I could just as easily say, "at least half (heck, let's go for broke and say ALL) the Republicans in office might as well be fascists". Because hey, last time I checked, they are right-wing neoconservative murderers who would sell the lives of their people to achieve their desires, right?

[Toasty]

Most of them probably are. At the least, they carelessly waste money and lack any guts or backbone.

List the bills that Democrats have voted for and against, and list the bills republicans have voted for and against.

I think that's a fair way to decide who's what.


Anyway, for the most part the dems what the government to have more power. They want o make it larger, and give it more control over the people. The right to bear arms has already been tossed to the curb in New Orleans. I don;t know which side of the isle supported it the most, but that's a taste of communism in itself. A country run by a group of people rather than the people themselves. That's what we inch closer to each time we vote another Democrat in office.

Though I guess I could also give you that most of the polliticians in officce right now, regardless of alliegence, strive for more power and fatter wallets.

And GL, it doesn't matter how many sources of news you have if you just look at the ones who's opinion you dislike for incriminating things about that party. Basically, no matter how many sources you have, your opinion on the matter will be biased for the sheer fact that you have an opinion to begin with. If you took your information from my sources only, and I yours, neither of our opinions would change, because we'd stlill only look at the information from our own point of view.

[Lightning Star]

He's got a point. We all have our opinions, so what we say is naturally going to be biased because of said opinions.

But at the same time, I have to disagree with your previous post, Toasty. It seems to me that Obama has started taking a more republican approach to some issues, which gives me a little comfort, knowing that he'll most likely be elected president. (I honestly don't think McCain has a chance...)

For me, politics all boils down to religion. I want to know that my President relies on a higher power than himself. A man cannot see what the future has in store for him. He cannot always know for sure that his decisions will always be for the best. And the people cannot know that either. But the God I believe in and the God that McCain believes in knows what's best for the country, and so I will vote for the man who places his trust in the same God I do-- one that is all knowing, so he will make the right decisions, and all powerful, so he can move mountains if need be.

So I suppose I can hear all the media blabble and people can throw political rhetoric in my face, trying to push me one way or the other, but my decision stands. I guess this is just my personal opinion I felt compelled to post here. Rip it apart, tear it to shreds, but like I said, my opinion still stands. I love my country, I believe what we're doing is for the best, and know that I only have the country's best intentions at heart. I think if we all take that most politicians are only doing what is best for the country into consideration, the political world wouldn't be so vicious and it would encourage bipartisan productivity.

But aha! I'm rambling on! I'll shut up now. :(

[Laharl]

*facepalm*

"god told me so" is NOT a valid reason to start a war. yet it has been used for centuries, as long as religion exists mankind will never be unified. you cant blame you're own bad decisions on a divine being that may or may not exist

[Toasty]

As far as I know, no one has.

Besides, in the end, Iraq will be one of the most prosperous countries in the world. And when that happens, Laharl, you'll have all the proof you need that god exists (suah an outcome is predicted in the bible). :(

People will continue to fight with or without religion as an excuse. I know from experience that if I can't use one excuse, I'll find another. That's going to hapen. The only thing that will change should religion be taken out of the workd for good, is that morals will fly out the window with it (for the most part. There's still a very small number of people who will be able to develop morals without a religion leading them). Religion developed morals. No matter which way you look at it, the world would be worse off without them.

Anyway, most of the democrats whom I know of in office just want a bigger, more powerful government. That kind of thing can only lead to a country where the people are controlled by the government, and not vise versa. So for now, I stand on my claim that most democrats in office might as well go start their own communist society.

[Laharl]

there is speculation that Mr. Bush claimed God told him to go to Iraq

source

People are more than capable of determining what is right and wrong without the help of religion. Even you've covered your tracks somewhat i still get a sense of "atheists have no morals" from that comment. Simply put religion is the most effective way to control huge quantities of people ever developed

[Toasty]

It's not that athiests have no morals. There's some pretty wise, deep-thinking ones out there who know very well the difference of right from wrong.

However, those morals you follow were introduced by religion. No matter how many generations of your family are athiests, somewhere along the line one of them learned of the morals introduced by chrstianity, Jewdaism, Islam, or whatever.

Simply put, if religion hadn't introduced them and spread them, we wouldn't have morals. And I don't know about any other Christians I know of, but as far as I know, I'm neither brainwashed or controlled by my relgion other than the morals by which it abides. The same morals by which you yourself abide (for the most part at least). My church doesn't tell it's members what to do, it tells them to ask god. And from your oint of view, that's the same as asking yourself since there isn't any god.

[Laharl]

well, the enemies of Christianity are always depicted as non Christian, entirely as a result of the elitist nature of Christianity, the number of people who believe is proof religion is a form of control. the Ku Klax Klan are Christians but no one seems to mind.

if yo're looking for more evidence of using God as an excuse for war, crusades anyone?

[Toasty]

Like I said, if they didn't have that excuse they'd find some other reason. Even ifthey didn't attack the middle east, they would've attacked someone at some point.

Religion isn't the source of all wars and conflict.

As for the KKK, they were extremeists. I don't know anyone at my church who's an extremeist Christian. Avid maybe, but not extreme.

The extreists seem to always be the ones who start wars, etc., because the ones who actually read their bibles (at least as far as the big three go), they realise that their god doesn't want us to go to war with eachother. However, in the Christian bible, it states that we are allowed to defend ourselves and enforce the laws put forth by our society.

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Jul 3 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

Religion isn't the source of all wars and conflict.

true, but it is the most common reason

It's the fundamentalist christians we really need to be worried about

[Caael]

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 02:10 AM, said:

OBAMA FOR ****ING PREDIDENT NIGGA!!!

How ironic.

[Eugine]

Icy, I agree =)

In my opinion, the belief in God has made America unique and great. Look at other developed countries - they are fighting to remove God from everywhere. America is doing it, but the people are more resistant to change.

But Icy, I don't think your vote should be based on that alone.

And Laharl, the world will never be unified. People who think the world has a chance of being unified are being naive. Remember, we're basically living in a world meant to sin. I don't want to sound like Toasty, but I'm sure we will be seeing another war in our lifetime.

[Saturos S.]

MODERN AMERICA SUCKS.

Seriously, your dollar's weak as hell, most of the world hates your guts, you borrow tons of money from other countries, you ignore the fricking UN and give me 5 seconds and I'll triple the list. Instead of thanking god for where you are today, you should ask yourself where that god of yours is.

Seriously, people who talk like Eugine and Icy make me lose faith in humanity. "God" gave you the power of thought. So use it for crying out loud.

[Laharl]

you've said it excellently SS *applauds*

[Legolastom]

I agree with everything said by Laharl, and SS.

[Caael]

What Tom said. Five words.

[Drizzy Drake]

Fuck America. There, I said it. Got a problem?

[Caael]

Icy, on Jul 3 2008, 06:47 AM, said:

He's got a point. We all have our opinions, so what we say is naturally going to be biased because of said opinions.

But at the same time, I have to disagree with your previous post, Toasty. It seems to me that Obama has started taking a more republican approach to some issues, which gives me a little comfort, knowing that he'll most likely be elected president. (I honestly don't think McCain has a chance...)

For me, politics all boils down to religion. I want to know that my President relies on a higher power than himself. A man cannot see what the future has in store for him. He cannot always know for sure that his decisions will always be for the best. And the people cannot know that either. But the God I believe in and the God that McCain believes in knows what's best for the country, and so I will vote for the man who places his trust in the same God I do-- one that is all knowing, so he will make the right decisions, and all powerful, so he can move mountains if need be.

So I suppose I can hear all the media blabble and people can throw political rhetoric in my face, trying to push me one way or the other, but my decision stands. I guess this is just my personal opinion I felt compelled to post here. Rip it apart, tear it to shreds, but like I said, my opinion still stands. I love my country, I believe what we're doing is for the best, and know that I only have the country's best intentions at heart. I think if we all take that most politicians are only doing what is best for the country into consideration, the political world wouldn't be so vicious and it would encourage bipartisan productivity.

But aha! I'm rambling on! I'll shut up now. :P

AHAHAHAHAHAHA THATS THE BEST LAUGH I'VE HAD IN AGES LMFAO

[Drizzy Drake]

Wait, so she's a feminist, and a religious freak? And wait, Icy, since you believe in God, shouldn't you not be bi/gay? Just wondering.

[Nyktos]

Toasty, on Jul 3 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

Anyway, for the most part the dems what the government to have more power. They want o make it larger, and give it more control over the people. The right to bear arms has already been tossed to the curb in New Orleans. I don;t know which side of the isle supported it the most, but that's a taste of communism in itself. A country run by a group of people rather than the people themselves. That's what we inch closer to each time we vote another Democrat in office.

Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Get it through your head. Communism can be democracy just as easily as it can be a dictatorship.

Also, the Democrats are one of the furthest-right "Liberal Parties" around, and yet I don't see most of the democratic world turning into Communism. Look at Canada, half of our Conservative politicians wouldn't even qualify as Republicans, and we're certainly not Communist.

I do, however, realize that being a Republican, the word "Communist" just means "anything I don't like" to you.

[Drizzy Drake]

America sucks.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 3 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

And GL, it doesn't matter how many sources of news you have if you just look at the ones who's opinion you dislike for incriminating things about that party. Basically, no matter how many sources you have, your opinion on the matter will be biased for the sheer fact that you have an opinion to begin with. If you took your information from my sources only, and I yours, neither of our opinions would change, because we'd stlill only look at the information from our own point of view.

A fair point, but that doesn't change the fact that what you're claiming is outright wrong. Obviously Obama is more to the left than you are, and you being a devout conservative probably seems that he's even far more to the left than you want to believe.

Nyktos explained it quite well.

Nyktos, on Jul 3 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Get it through your head. Communism can be democracy just as easily as it can be a dictatorship.

Also, the Democrats are one of the furthest-right "Liberal Parties" around, and yet I don't see most of the democratic world turning into Communism. Look at Canada, half of our Conservative politicians wouldn't even qualify as Republicans, and we're certainly not Communist.

I do, however, realize that being a Republican, the word "Communist" just means "anything I don't like" to you.

Very well said.

On another note, both Obama and McCain are very moderate for their parties. That's why McCain has received much discontent from evangelicals and hardcore conservatives, but has received much higher independent support than usual for the Republican side.

Icy, on Jul 3 2008, 01:47 AM, said:

For me, politics all boils down to religion. <snip>

Suffice it to say I disagree with this.
Religion and politics do not and should not ever mix.

Saturos Striker, on Jul 3 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

MODERN AMERICA SUCKS.

Seriously, your dollar's weak as hell, most of the world hates your guts, you borrow tons of money from other countries, you ignore the fricking UN and give me 5 seconds and I'll triple the list. Instead of thanking god for where you are today, you should ask yourself where that god of yours is.

Seriously, people who talk like Eugine and Icy make me lose faith in humanity. "God" gave you the power of thought. So use it for crying out loud.

No one disagrees with that notion SS. You should know me, I'm an avid critic.

[Caael]

Icy has the most misinformed opinion on politics i've ever seen.

If you pick god over other aspects of politics, you really are naiive.

[Drizzy Drake]

I tend to not read alot of Icy's rants.

[Golden Legacy]

That's going too far, both of you. Disagree with her but don't be a @#$% about it.

[Drizzy Drake]

How was I being a bitch about it? I was just saying, that when she goes into rants, she tends to be single viewed about it, and they are always fucking dumb.

[Caael]

And what did I say about it? Apart from laughing at the sheer stupidity ( okay I see waht you're getting at :P)

[Toasty]

Saturos Striker, on Jul 3 2008, 07:34 AM, said:

MODERN AMERICA SUCKS.

Seriously, your dollar's weak as hell, most of the world hates your guts, you borrow tons of money from other countries, you ignore the fricking UN and give me 5 seconds and I'll triple the list. Instead of thanking god for where you are today, you should ask yourself where that god of yours is.

Seriously, people who talk like Eugine and Icy make me lose faith in humanity. "God" gave you the power of thought. So use it for crying out loud.

An yet we're still te world superpower, and people still risk their lives to get in here (illegal immigrants, though I wish they'd just stop).

Our colleges are among the best in the world. Many people from a whole bunch of differen countries flock to the United States so they can learn from our colleges.

Our dollar is weak because the government made it that way (for the most part. In reality, it'd still probably be less than a euro, but not nearly as much). Our government made it that way so we could get out of debt easier. We still owe 1trilion some odd dollars, but those dollars are now worth half as much as they were when we borrowed them.

The UN is full of nutjobs for the most part. They have no spine, and they basically sit around doing nothing. If it was up to them, we never would have gone to the middle east just to get Osama Bin Laden, let alone invade Iraq. I wouldn't pay much attention to them either if I was president, because if it was up to them, America would be a third world country.

And if it wasn't for "God" (or at the least, the founding father's faith in him), we wouldn't even have an America today. Anyone who lives in America should be thankful they don't live in a Communist society (though it looks like that's starting to change), or a third world country.

Nyktos, on Jul 3 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Communism isn't a form of government. Get it through your head. Communism can be democracy just as easily as it can be a dictatorship.

Also, the Democrats are one of the furthest-right "Liberal Parties" around, and yet I don't see most of the democratic world turning into Communism. Look at Canada, half of our Conservative politicians wouldn't even qualify as Republicans, and we're certainly not Communist.

I do, however, realize that being a Republican, the word "Communist" just means "anything I don't like" to you.

A Communist Democracy is practically an oximoron. In a communistic society, the GOVERNMENT has the power. In a democracy, the PEOPLE have the power.

I'm talking about the Liberals in America. You can be in the same party (or even in a similar mindset) as someone and still have different views, you know. It's not in the least unheard of.

Take a look at the bills the American democrats have voted for. Almost all of them give the government more power. Such a thing undermines what the founding father's themselves, wanted.

They left england because they weren't truely free there. The government had power over the citiczens. They started the clonies in hopes of being free from the British government. They fought the British army and Navy in hopes of being free.

What they wanted was a small government only powerful enough to keep the peace, and protect the country in times of war. Not powerful enough to oppress the people, or take away their rights. The bill of rights was made so that the government knew very well what it could and couldn't do to the people, which in effect was supposed to give the people power over the government.



I never said the Democrats WERE commies. I said they might as well be since the bills they vote for, in essence, inch us closer and closer to a country run by the government.

And GL, you being a devout Liberal probably see Conservatives as a bunch of tyrants bent on world domination.

I could also say that you being a devout Liberal are blind to what the democrats are doing.

You don't seem like a person who want's to have the government making all the decisions for you, nor do you seem incapable of making your own decisions. If the dems had thei way, the government would be making the decisions for the people and not vise versa. THAT IS COMMUNISM.

[Drizzy Drake]

No, don't back down dude. Me and you said absolutely nothing wrong.

You posted your fucking opinion on what she has to say, and GL gets all up in arms. Like what the fuck. You said she was naive and misinformed. :P. No Caael, don't be so mean. Like fuck Riad.

[Toasty]

If she's misinformed and one sided, then you're both asses for calling her that. (not to mention hypocrites)

I believe that's what he meant, save for the parentheses.

[Drizzy Drake]

So we are asses for telling the truth? Wow, I've never heard that one before. Hey, Toasty you have 4504 posts. Sorry, didn't mean to be rude.

[Golden Legacy]

Okay, I interpreted it too harshly. Jeez.

Toasty, you keep forgetting that your dear conservative Republicans got us the $1 trillion debt. You keep forgetting that our standing as a "superpower" has waned considerably because of a failed (and pathetic) foreign policy.

You keep talking of ideology, of Democrats and their political theory, yet you fail to notice that the Republicans have failed practically, in every way possible.

[Drizzy Drake]

Apology accepted. And I'm curious, how much money has been spent on the war since 2001? What is it, 600 billion? That's more than some countries are worth.

[inthenameofDT]

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

Apology accepted. And I'm curious, how much money has been spent on the war since 2001? What is it, 600 billion? That's more than some countries are worth.

uh try something like that every year.

the US is a superpower, that's for sure. but we've got nothing to prove from this war. as soon as our troops come home i'll be happy. McCain wants to keep them over, so he's automatically not getting my vote. there's too much here we need to correct and spend money on that has ended up paying for the war. i support my troops, but i dont support this cause.

[Drizzy Drake]

See, only in fucking America. What a fucking waste.

[Toasty]

Republicans, GL, not true conservatives.

The 1Trillion dollars is mostly from the war. Like I've said before, pulling out right now will successfully undermine everything we've been trying to do, AND put that one trillion dollars to waste. I want to support it and get it over with so it ends quickly without repurcussions.

Though it'll officially soil any reputation Conservatives have, so I suppose that'd be a plus for you.

And Skidz, it's not what you meant, it's how you said it.

[inthenameofDT]

im just curious but what exactly are we trying to do over there? i thought our reason was to catch Osama Bin Laden. bush needed to finish daddy's business.

[Drizzy Drake]

They say it's to find Osama, but they have a different agenda, I'm sure of it.

[Toasty]

We're trying to give the Iraqi people a democracy. That's why we're in Iraq right now.

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

How was I being a ***** about it? I was just saying, that when she goes into rants, she tends to be single viewed about it, and they are always ****ing dumb.

Caael, on Jul 3 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

And what did I say about it? Apart from laughing at the sheer stupidity ( okay I see waht you're getting at :P )

Those two are what made it uncalled for. You can call her one-sided, that;s fair enough, but you don't have to turn around and call her dumb or stupid because her views are different then yours. Especially since neither one of you follow pollitics as much as her.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 3 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

Republicans, GL, not true conservatives.

The 1Trillion dollars is mostly from the war. Like I've said before, pulling out right now will successfully undermine everything we've been trying to do, AND put that one trillion dollars to waste. I want to support it and get it over with so it ends quickly without repurcussions.

Though it'll officially soil any reputation Conservatives have, so I suppose that'd be a plus for you.

And Skidz, it's not what you meant, it's how you said it.

Quit giving me this "true conservative" junk. The Republicans in power are practically radical conservatives, "true conservative" exemplified to a greater degree.

And I find it amusing that you try and justify the trillion dollar debt, but you would jump at any sign of a liberal having that debt and claim that their politics are weak.

And there's no need to soil any reputation conservatives have, Bush has done that enough. :P


EDIT: And what Toasty said about Icy.
EDIT2: I second what DT posted.

[Drizzy Drake]

I said that AFTER GL got mad. And it's not because her views are different then mine, it's jsut how one track they can be.

[Nyktos]

Toasty, on Jul 3 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

An yet we're still te world superpower, and people still risk their lives to get in here (illegal immigrants, though I wish they'd just stop).

Illegals come to America because it has a higher standard of living than Mexico, simple as that. It has nothing to do with loving America. If the country south of them also had a better standard of living, you'd see just as many going south.

Quote

Our colleges are among the best in the world. Many people from a whole bunch of differen countries flock to the United States so they can learn from our colleges.

That's true of lots of countries. Plus, the government has nothing to do with that.

Quote

Our dollar is weak because the government made it that way (for the most part. In reality, it'd still probably be less than a euro, but not nearly as much). Our government made it that way so we could get out of debt easier. We still owe 1trilion some odd dollars, but those dollars are now worth half as much as they were when we borrowed them.

Of course, the fact that you actually owe that much doesn't say ANYTHING....

Quote

The UN is full of nutjobs for the most part. They have no spine, and they basically sit around doing nothing. If it was up to them, we never would have gone to the middle east just to get Osama Bin Laden, let alone invade Iraq. I wouldn't pay much attention to them either if I was president, because if it was up to them, America would be a third world country.

The UN is useless, sure, but if you're going to be a member of it, you should do what it says. If America wants to leave the UN, that's its business, but if stays in, it shouldn't be ignoring everything it says.

Quote

And if it wasn't for "God" (or at the least, the founding father's faith in him), we wouldn't even have an America today. Anyone who lives in America should be thankful they don't live in a Communist society (though it looks like that's starting to change), or a third world country.

Since you just ignored everyone else here, I'll just ignore you.

Quote

A Communist Democracy is practically an oximoron. In a communistic society, the GOVERNMENT has the power. In a democracy, the PEOPLE have the power.

COMMUNISM IS NOT A ****ING FORM OF GOVERNMENT. It is an economic system, an alternative to capitalism. Yes, it requires the government to have the power over the economy, and that's IT. There are many schools of Communism, for example Trotskyism, that are in favour of democracy.

Quote

I'm talking about the Liberals in America. You can be in the same party (or even in a similar mindset) as someone and still have different views, you know. It's not in the least unheard of.

Well duh. My point is that the Democrats are not in the slightest bit Communist. You're comparing a

Quote

Take a look at the bills the American democrats have voted for. Almost all of them give the government more power. Such a thing undermines what the founding father's themselves, wanted.

This is something that always annoys me. Who cares what people who lived hundreds of years ago wanted? They aren't alive now, you can't measure people's beliefs today against theirs.

Quote

They left england because they weren't truely free there. The government had power over the citiczens. They started the clonies in hopes of being free from the British government. They fought the British army and Navy in hopes of being free.

Wrong. They started the colonies because they wanted money, the same reason that Americans do anything. They fought the British army because taxes were too high. It had nothing to do with "freedom".

Quote

What they wanted was a small government only powerful enough to keep the peace, and protect the country in times of war. Not powerful enough to oppress the people, or take away their rights. The bill of rights was made so that the government knew very well what it could and couldn't do to the people, which in effect was supposed to give the people power over the government.

And Canada's founding fathers wanted the opposite. Your point? As I said before, the beliefs of people who lived hundreds of years ago don't have any bearing on politics today.

Quote

I never said the Democrats WERE commies. I said they might as well be since the bills they vote for, in essence, inch us closer and closer to a country run by the government.

All countries are run by the government, that's what governments are for. The Democrats can only do all those horrible nasty liberal things if they get voted in. Or, in other words, they can only do them if the people want them too.

I'll skip the parts referring to GL specifically, however:

Quote

You don't seem like a person who want's to have the government making all the decisions for you, nor do you seem incapable of making your own decisions. If the dems had thei way, the government would be making the decisions for the people and not vise versa. THAT IS COMMUNISM.

NO, THAT IS NOT COMMUNISM. COMMUNISM IS AN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY THAT HOLDS THE VIEW THAT IF A CENTRAL AUTHORITY REGULATES COMMERCE, THINGS BECOME MORE FAIR. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. How many times do I have to repeat myself before it sinks in?

Edit: Okay, I missed that there was another page. Most of my point still stand.

[Eugine]

What is with all the America hate lol?

[inthenameofDT]

i dont follow politics much myself, but i know that the cold war ended roughly 20 years ago (early 90s? i dont know), and that we need to let countries live how they want to live. our imperialistic days are gone... by almost a whole century now. sure it's good to help out once in a while but come on now.

it's having a number of other affects too. (feel free to polish off anything i say)

oil has gone way up, which made gas more expensive, so people started making that Ethanol crap, which while the gas itself is cheaper, buying the car to use the gas will take a huge chunk out of your wallet, and by the time you save the price you paid on the car from the slightly lower gas price, you wont really have saved anything because of inflation. anyway, the E85 is increasing the price for farmers to feed their animals, which give us meat and dairy, which result in the price of THOSE rising as well.

sound right? go ahead and correct me if im wrong.

[Golden Legacy]

Nyktos, I am so glad you started to post here. You've said everything I wanted to say and so much better, and you're definitely well-informed. Keep it up.

inthenameofDT (just DT from now on, I'll call you): no one is denying that ethanol is inefficient right now. It shouldn't be used as a primary alternative fuel.

[Drizzy Drake]

"The UN is full of nutjobs for the most part. They have no spine, and they basically sit around doing nothing. If it was up to them, we never would have gone to the middle east just to get Osama Bin Laden, let alone invade Iraq."

Too lazy to actually quote. Toasty, thousands of people have lot their lives, in search of ONE man's. Even if they find him, the war wont end. Money, time, and lives are being wasted over this pointless war, and the only reason it started in the first place was because of greed.

EDIT-And who the fuck goes 1 Trillion $ into debt? That's jsut a dumb fucking move.

[Eugine]

I agree with Toasty and Icy btw =)
Maybe for once I'll be on the opposite side of an argument with GL xP.

[inthenameofDT]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 3 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

inthenameofDT (just DT from now on, I'll call you): no one is denying that ethanol is inefficient right now. It shouldn't be used as a primary alternative fuel.

that's fine.

and to be honest, im not totally sure what i was getting at.

[Drizzy Drake]

But Toasty is so wrong. (jk, don't everybody freak out.) Although I do find the religion aspect to be far fetched. Religion, NOWADAYS, has nothing to do with government in America.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Jul 3 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

And yet we're still the world superpower, and people still risk their lives to get in here (illegal immigrants, though I wish they'd just stop).

Our colleges are among the best in the world. Many people from a whole bunch of differen countries flock to the United States so they can learn from our colleges.

Our dollar is weak because the government made it that way (for the most part. In reality, it'd still probably be less than a euro, but not nearly as much). Our government made it that way so we could get out of debt easier. We still owe 1trilion some odd dollars, but those dollars are now worth half as much as they were when we borrowed them.

The UN is full of nutjobs for the most part. They have no spine, and they basically sit around doing nothing. If it was up to them, we never would have gone to the middle east just to get Osama Bin Laden, let alone invade Iraq. I wouldn't pay much attention to them either if I was president, because if it was up to them, America would be a third world country.

And if it wasn't for "God" (or at the least, the founding father's faith in him), we wouldn't even have an America today. Anyone who lives in America should be thankful they don't live in a Communist society (though it looks like that's starting to change), or a third world country.



A Communist Democracy is practically an oximoron. In a communistic society, the GOVERNMENT has the power. In a democracy, the PEOPLE have the power.

I'm talking about the Liberals in America. You can be in the same party (or even in a similar mindset) as someone and still have different views, you know. It's not in the least unheard of.

Take a look at the bills the American democrats have voted for. Almost all of them give the government more power. Such a thing undermines what the founding father's themselves, wanted.

They left england because they weren't truely free there. The government had power over the citiczens. They started the clonies in hopes of being free from the British government. They fought the British army and Navy in hopes of being free.

What they wanted was a small government only powerful enough to keep the peace, and protect the country in times of war. Not powerful enough to oppress the people, or take away their rights. The bill of rights was made so that the government knew very well what it could and couldn't do to the people, which in effect was supposed to give the people power over the government.

America is A superpower, not THE superpower.

The war in Iraq was a total failure, IF there was any truth in the story of Bush, it would still have been the worst persecution ever. If he came to any court with those arguments, the judge and opposition would just point and laugh. As far as Osama Bin Laden goes, I havn't seen much success there despite the 'direct' attacks performed by the NATO. Their should be a war on terrorism, but it has to be more of a world effort to achieve something.

And about communism, I hope that that's not what your schoolbook tells you. Otherwise it's major indoctrination. And above all, democracy isn't that good either, it's just the best choice out of bad things.

O, and they left England in hopes of riches in another country, not freedom issues.

[inthenameofDT]

but, if we're one trillion in debt (at least), and that money is worth half (it's not THAT bad yet...), then we would owe twice that just to pay it off. every dollar that is spent on the war is costing taxpayers more and more before we're debt free, or mostly. the war is destroying this country. imagine investing that money into one of america's biggest markets, the automobile. maybe Honda wouldn't be the only car company with a + percentage, maybe our cars would be back in the top 3 where they belong.

im proud to drive an american car.

[Golden Legacy]

If it's a person's personal belief, then I have no problem with it. It's when a person in office starts using religion to dictate their authority over the nation that it becomes an issue.

Eugine, it was going to happen one day. :P

And Skidz, what's worse is that 1.5 trillion debt, a third of it is owned by China, which we all know is rising and becoming a worthy contender on the global scale, economically and otherwise.

EDIT: DT, you always seem to post when I do! heh.
That's exactly it. No one in their right minds tries to fund a war without getting additional input in. Usually, that's raising taxes (a policy which conservatives are soundly against), but how else are you going to get that money? Look where it's gotten us with a combination of tax cuts for the wealthy (not the middle-class) AND the most expensive war in history.

[inthenameofDT]

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

But Toasty is so wrong. (jk, don't everybody freak out.) Although I do find the religion aspect to be far fetched. Religion, NOWADAYS, has nothing to do with government in America.

that whole religion thing could bring in a whole nother debate that im not even gonna start.

[Eugine]

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

Too lazy to actually quote. Toasty, thousands of people have lot their lives, in search of ONE man's. Even if they find him, the war wont end. Money, time, and lives are being wasted over this pointless war, and the only reason it started in the first place was because of greed.

The war was not started on greed, but on a bad foreign policy view and intelligence. Like I said before the CIA, the UK government and many intelligence agencies all had the same evidence, wrongly of course, stating that Saddam was indeed developing WMDs. The President, many republicans and democrats saw the same briefings, and all believed Saddam posed a threat. This wasn't a decision the republicans made by themselves, it was a collective decision. Remember John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the war.

They believed Saddam had WMDs because he purposely led them on to wrong evidence. I do admit Mr. Bush did not really analyse the situation, and imo wanted a reason to invade Iraq, so this to an extent clouded his decision making process?

Anyway, capturing Osama will be a significant blow to terrorism since it'll send a shockwave of fear to them, and also it may destabilise their organisation since they will not have a head figure.

The war in essence was not pointless. It was managed terribly though. Very. I honestly think Bush made the right decision, but made terrible planning. I do believe if there were a different strategy used at the beginning Iraq would have not been in such a mess. With the surge, we shall see if this war is winnable (I currently do not believe it can be won using military force, but through politics).

[inthenameofDT]

i agree with everything you said, Eugine, except for that last sentence. i dont think it will be won by either side.

we were attacked by Osama and his terrorist homies, we responded the way we should've, by attacking. though it was poorly executed, so bush said, hey lets go next door and see what saddam's cookin for dinner. oh look, a noose!

that's the children's book version of what you said.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 11:19 PM, said:

The war in essence was not pointless. It was managed terribly though. Very. I honestly think Bush made the right decision, but made terrible planning. I do believe if there were a different strategy used at the beginning Iraq would have not been in such a mess. With the surge, we shall see if this war is winnable (I currently do not believe it can be won using military force, but through politics).

Isn't that what you want your president to do? Manage things well? In the trias politica, the president's the executive power. Anyone who reads a newspaper in the West could think that there should be a retaliation against terrorism. But the how...

[inthenameofDT]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 3 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

And Skidz, what's worse is that 1.5 trillion debt, a third of it is owned by China, which we all know is rising and becoming a worthy contender on the global scale, economically and otherwise.

been meaning to post this. is China traded on the New York Stock Exchange? buy two shares of CHINAAAAAA get some free lead paint? great time to invest. :P :angry:

[Eugine]

Saturos Striker, on Jul 3 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

Isn't that what you want your president to do? Manage things well? In the trias politica, the president's the executive power. Anyone who reads a newspaper in the West could think that there should be a retaliation against terrorism. But the how...

George Bush had little foreign policy experience in 2003 unfortunately. Everything relating to the Iraq war was managed by Donald Rumsfeld. The President ultimately takes the final blame, but in essence Mr. Bush was simply taking advise from someone he considered more adversed in war than him - His Secretary of Defense.

[Drizzy Drake]

Why did America borrow so much from just China?

[inthenameofDT]

we didn't borrow anything. they gave us the money and we're giving them all our best jobs! it was a fair tradeoff really

[Eugine]

I have no idea honestly. I'll like to know myself. Why couldn't they just borrow it from their central bank?

Edit: DT, the US government is borrowing money from China to fund the war.

[Drizzy Drake]

*facepalm*

[Saturos S.]

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

Why did America borrow so much from just China?

To keep their economy on life support.

And isn't the secretary of defense electable as well?

[inthenameofDT]

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

I have no idea honestly. I'll like to know myself. Why couldn't they just borrow it from their central bank?

Edit: DT, the US government is borrowing money from China to fund the war.

like i meant it

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

*facepalm*

again.

[Drizzy Drake]

Yes, again.

[Eugine]

The US only borrows money to fund the war IIRC.

Anyway, no the Secretary of Defense is appointed by the President. Look at Donald Rumsfeld experience. It is magnificent. I honestly think he had more say in the war than George Bush. Unfortunately, the Iraq War will be George Bush's blunder, not his.

[Golden Legacy]

SS, the entire cabinet is chosen by the president himself. Whether he chooses to reveal his choices before the general election or once he is inaugurated can vary, but it's basically a "package" deal, so to speak.

Which makes little sense, in my opinion.

Eugine, then why are jobs being shipped overseas to China? It's bad enough that we've borrowed hundreds of billions to support a war based on failed intelligence, but millions of jobs have been lost overseas. The US' assets are slowly being taken over by China.

[inthenameofDT]

i was wondering... what happened to having war generals serve as president? what happened to presidents like Grant and Jackson and Washington.

and then it hit me. I dont want John McCain in office.

[Drizzy Drake]

The Americans were dumb enough to allow Bush to serve a second term, so sorry to say, but you guys deserve every bad thing that happened to you. Those of you who voted for Bush that is.

[inthenameofDT]

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

The Americans were dumb enough to allow Bush to serve a second term, so sorry to say, but you guys deserve every bad thing that happened to you. Those of you who voted for Bush that is.

this will be the first election i can vote at. you know what sucks though? the fact that the Democrat and Republican parties are monopolizing the government. and Why? because they have money. they spend millions on their campaigns, and tell people crap like "I am for Chance!"

..........what kind of change? you always forget to mention that or follow through with it!

the government needs to make a law saying that your own government can't be a monopoly of itself. it's already unopposed! however a law like that, passed by the ones it would hurt, wont ever happen.

[Eugine]

GL, did you look at Obama's economic policies? It'll ruin the US economy imo. Anyway -

I honestly don't know exactly why jobs are being shipped overseas. I do not believe it is caused by the US government though, but rather by greedy businesses who gain more profit by shipping jobs overseas.

Do you know what Obama proposes? He wants to increase the capital gains tax in the USA, which will push companies to ship jobs overseas even more o.o
What's the point paying higher taxes in USA you can pay even lower (especially compared to now) in China?

[inthenameofDT]

i dont know what obama will do, but yes i agree with your reasoning on why jobs are going overseas. independant businesses just trying to save money. there's nothing the government can do about it either, and to try and take control would be communist, which is what we're doing the opposite of in Iraq and what we preached against during the cold war.

so what the hell

[Drizzy Drake]

Hahahaha, America is screwed.

[inthenameofDT]

yeah i just came up with that same conclusion.

[Eugine]

To an extent. I do not believe Obama, nor McCain are able to properly face the challenges America will face under their presidency. Obama imo is the lesser of the two evils lmao.

I honestly thought Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, both republicans were the best candidates, but America chose differently.

[Drizzy Drake]

America always chooses wrong, haven't you learnt that by now?

[Eugine]

hahaha. I even thought Hillary was the better democrat than Obama.

[inthenameofDT]

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

America always chooses wrong, haven't you learnt that by now?

wherdidjewlurnhow2spel?

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

To an extent. I do not believe Obama, nor McCain are able to properly face the challenges America will face under their presidency. Obama imo is the lesser of the two evils lmao.

I honestly thought Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, both republicans were the best candidates, but America chose differently.

i dont like that "lesser of two evils" policy. they're both evil! go green party!

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

hahaha. I even thought Hillary was the better democrat than Obama.

i thought i heard someone call her hitler once. i laughed.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 11:51 PM, said:

GL, did you look at Obama's economic policies? It'll ruin the US economy imo. Anyway -

I honestly don't know exactly why jobs are being shipped overseas. I do not believe it is caused by the US government though, but rather by greedy businesses who gain more profit by shipping jobs overseas.

Do you know what Obama proposes? He wants to increase the capital gains tax in the USA, which will push companies to ship jobs overseas even more o.o
What's the point paying higher taxes in USA you can pay even lower (especially compared to now) in China?

See, Eugine, this is much better then the "I'll vote for McCain because that's what god wants" bullcrap you gave a few pages ago. Now I can sleep again.

But seriously, the US economy will never be what it used to. I think it's more what to do with the time you've got left. Meaning, get to work on your social security. Make sure people have some security, that things will level out.

[Eugine]

Well, the belief in God seperates America from the rest, and I believe this is a characteristic that should never die.

"In God We Trust" should never die, since the belief in God, despite what religion you are empowers.
Do you know how powerful man becomes when he believes God is at his side?

[inthenameofDT]

you know what really ticks me off? the logic that people are using when they say they'll vote for someone JUST BECAUSE of their party. a guy i know, when asked who he was voting for, he said "whoever wins the democratic nomination"ok that makes sense, because all democrats are the same, and all republicans are too! uh no. it's becoming more and more a loose term (perhaps) with these candidates. none of them agree with each other on much.

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 06:06 PM, said:

Well, the belief in God seperates America from the rest, and I believe this is a characteristic that will never die."In God We Trust" should never die, since the belief in God, no matter what religion you are empowers.Do you know how more powerful man becomes when he believes God is at his side?

this is that religious debate thing i mentioned a while back. this country was founded by Christians, and we allow freedom of religion. that's great, practice whatever you want, i have no problem with that. what i have a problem with is when the people with these other beliefs come into our country and say to remove "in God we trust" and the "one nation, under God" part of the pledge.

[Drizzy Drake]

Qhat if you are a devout aethiest? Must you say those parts? Just like a devout christian would not say "on nation, under Satan."

[inthenameofDT]

nobody is forcing them to say it. but it better never be removed. it's not as if it's a metaphor saying "one nation under whatever you believe in." these men specifically wrote it for the Christian God.

[Nyktos]

It's America, of course you have to say them.

[Drizzy Drake]

BUt I mean would you feel insulted if a devout aethiest said something like "one nation, on earth" or something to that effect, since he really didn't believe in God, and that this is his nation?

[inthenameofDT]

Nyktos, on Jul 3 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

It's America, of course you have to say them.

i take that back i fully agree. i guess what i meant to say is that nobody is forcing them to believe it, thus the freedom of religion.

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 06:15 PM, said:

BUt I mean would you feel insulted if a devout aethiest said something like "one nation, on earth" or something to that effect, since he really didn't believe in God, and that this is his nation?

that's where this debate starts to go a little too far.

[Nyktos]

It's going too far if someone wants to express their beliefs? I thought America was all about "freedom".

[Drizzy Drake]

inthenameofDT, on Jul 3 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

tthat's where this debate starts to go a little too far.

How so does it take it too far?

Nyktos, on Jul 3 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

It's going too far if someone wants to express their beliefs? I thought America was all about "freedom".

Exactly.

[inthenameofDT]

no not at all you misunderstood me. isn't there a rule saying no religious debate or something or am i still just n00bing around.

[Nyktos]

Religious debate is allowed as long as it doesn't turn into flaming. However, this isn't really the topic for it.

But I fail to see how I "misunderstand" you. You want non-Christians to be forced to say what is essentially a prayer to the Christian God, yes? In what way is that not forcing beliefs?

[Eugine]

One reason why I love Obama -
I think he inspires. I agree with more of his policies (except his economic policy, I think it is terrible) than John McCain, but Obama imo from the little I know of JFK is the JFK of this generation.

I have this feeling of wanting to do something better for myself, and for the people around after listening to Obama talk. I think America needs a President who inspires to believe again since most are losing faith in their country.

[inthenameofDT]

Nyktos, on Jul 3 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

Religious debate is allowed as long as it doesn't turn into flaming. However, this isn't really the topic for it.

But I fail to see how I "misunderstand" you. You want non-Christians to be forced to say what is essentially a prayer to the Christian God, yes? In what way is that not forcing beliefs?

you misunderstood the fact that i was talking about this board. i'd have no problem at all taking this into another thread.

we have freedom of speech here as well as freedom of religion. people can say whatever they want just as long as the US doesn't start making new copies of the pledge and money that are more "multi-denominational and/or atheist friendly" it needs to remain the way it was created. it would almost be treason to those who founded this country.

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

I think America needs a President who inspires to believe again since most are losing faith in their country.

sounds a bit like FDR too at the end of the depression

[Nyktos]

You do realize that the pledge of allegiance wasn't invented until the late 19th Century, long after the country was founded, right?

[inthenameofDT]

no i guess i hadn't realized that. im no history major but maybe that's something i should've picked up on.

[Drizzy Drake]

Well it would be going against ones beliefs to say basically "God's nation." What if it originally was "one nation, under Satan," would you expect a devout catholic to say that? I want an honest answer?

[Eugine]

That would never happen, so no need to answer.

[inthenameofDT]

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

Well it would be going against ones beliefs to say basically "God's nation." What if it originally was "one nation, under Satan," would you expect a devout catholic to say that? I want an honest answer?

a catholic? all joking aside, no. i wouldn't expect someone to make a pledge to something they dont believe in.

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

That would never happen, so no need to answer.

eh hypothetical discussions are fun.

[Nyktos]

Exactly, so why should atheists have to take the pledge of allegiance as it is now?

[Drizzy Drake]

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

That would never happen, so no need to answer.

Well it proved my point didn't it?

inthenameofDT, on Jul 3 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

a catholic? all joking aside, no. i wouldn't expect someone to make a pledge to something they dont believe in.

Well it's the same as a devout aethiest saying one nation, under God.

[Toasty]

Alrigh, first off, I don't care how much we're in debt whether it was cause by a liberal or a conservative. If it was spent on a cause I support, then I don't think it was wasted. But since the chances of a liberal spending money on something I support are slim, of course I would blame the debt on them and criticize them for it. Just like most of you are doing right now.

Religion actually has a LOT to do with pollitics. Denying that is admitting to being naive. However, religion isn't the ONLY factor, therefore it wouldn't be wise to base you decision on that alone.

Though it'd also be unwise to leave it out entirely. A person's religious beliefs, for the most part, reflect pretty well of what their character is and who they are. It also influences their decisions.

As for the "One Nation Under God", NO ONE is forced to say it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. I have never seen anyone forced to say it at school ever.
However, I've haerd many reports of kid's bibles (christian bibles) being taken away at school, or being sent to detention for drawing/saying something related to christianity. Thankfully, most of those cases were taken to court, and the kids won in most (if not all) of those cases.

Our country was founded on Christianity. If you aren't a christian, no one's forcing you to be one. Just quit trying to take things like "One Nation Under God" out of the pledge of alleigence, because the majority of Americans want it in (and that's actually a fact, btw). If you don't want to say the pledge, then don't say it.

[inthenameofDT]

listen all i said in all of this is that it shouldn't change, or go away. i dont know how to reason with that question.

[Drizzy Drake]

I'm not saying take it out, I'm just saying if you're an aethiest, you shouldn't need to say God. And now that my and Nyktos got through to ITNODT, the arguement is over.

[Eugine]

It should change when the majority of Americans want it to change though.

[inthenameofDT]

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

It should change when the majority of Americans want it to change though.

but that's not the case

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

I'm not saying take it out, I'm just saying if you're an aethiest, you shouldn't need to say God. And now that my and Nyktos got through to ITNODT, the arguement is over.

and i wasn't saying they need to say it. so now that we've both stated how we feel about what the other wasn't really even talking about, it's over. :P

[Drizzy Drake]

And I never argued for it to change. That's a whole 'nother topic alltogether. I disagree on changing it.

[inthenameofDT]

fair enough, good talk, i look forward to the next one.

[Drizzy Drake]

Yay. Non flaming arguements. I always wondered what those were like.

[Eugine]

Alright, any other topic to talk about? o.o

Can we talk about how John McCain will basically destroy 15 years of women progress? (Well, that's what CNN says xP)

[inthenameofDT]

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

Alright, any other topic to talk about? o.o

Can we talk about how John McCain will basically destroy 15 years of women progress? (Well, that's what CNN says xP)

Megaman 9 has a female robot (for the first time ever), will he destroy that too?

splash woman

Dipset, on Jul 3 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

Yay. Non flaming arguements. I always wondered what those were like.

now you know, cheesepuff.

[Drizzy Drake]

I bet McCain loves GTA4, with all the hookers and stuff.

Oh, wait, that's New York's former governor. Not the blind black dude.

[Toasty]

Eugine, on Jul 3 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

It should change when the majority of Americans want it to change though.

For now, the majority of Americans want it to saty the way it is. And so it is.

[Drizzy Drake]

Yeah nigga.

[Eugine]

Toasty, on Jul 3 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

For now, the majority of Americans want it to saty the way it is. And so it is.

I just think since the US is a democracy, politicians should follow the will of the people. Most Americans want to see the Iraq War ended, and I believe it should be ended because of this. The US media is mainly liberal though, so maybe US citizens are misguided?

I do think John McCain can convince people before November on why staying is important though.

[Drizzy Drake]

Obama for president.

[inthenameofDT]

go me

[Drizzy Drake]

Go me....111.

[Toasty]

I stand b my statemnts about the Iraq war. I don't want to be over there any longer than we have to, but I believe pulling out too soon will bring some serious repurcussions.

[Eugine]

Well, honestly I think it's best for the commanders in Iraq to make that decision (whether to go or stay), and not the American people or the President to an extent.

[Ironsight]

The generals handling Iraq already fucked up using Hummers as convoy vehicles.

[Eugine]

Ah well. Anyone competent handling this war then?

[inthenameofDT]

nobody competent handling this war.

[Golden Legacy]

Colin Powell would have done a fine, or at least better, job of it.

[Toasty]

I can't remember if I like him or not.

:(

They're making some fancy new vehicle to replace the Humvee in Iraq. It's designed to withstand roadside bombs a lot better (more armor on the belly shaped to direct the explosion outwards from the vehicle). Can't rememebr what it's called though.

[Golden Legacy]

He's not endorsing McCain and he's hinted at endorsing Obama.
You hate him now, I'm sure. :(

[Toasty]

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7495/torchesip0.png

[Drizzy Drake]

:(.

[Saturos S.]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1jRj-pWbWJo

Teehee, protests during a Bush speech on freedom of speech and the person who speaks freely gets arrested. Irony strikes again.

[Eugine]

Nothing to do with the election SS.

Also, SS, the protestor was running towards the President so the secret service escorted her out. Come on now, stop making a non-issue an issue. There are enough bad stuff to criticise Mr. Bush for, so using this is just silly -__-

[inthenameofDT]

Mr. Bush was hiding in a tree house after Katrina hit and a talking white dog found him.

[Lightning Star]

And they say I make generalized, ignorant comments...

Honestly, I told you everything was MY OPINION.

I'm kinda sick of this whole "I'M GUNNA CALL UR COUNTREE STUUPID BUT U CANT SAY NETHING CUZ U BE STUUPID 2"

Agree to Disagree or GTFO. ^^

[Golden Legacy]

I'm glad you brought up Katrina DT. The administration and FEMA handled that one remarkably well. [/sarcasm]

[Drizzy Drake]

Hehehe, Icy's PMSing again.


(Don't ban me :unsure: )

[Eugine]

Let us have a poll xP.

Who do you think will win?
Who do you want to win?

Obama/McCain. The others candidates can't win, so no need to include them?

[Golden Legacy]

... wow, I always knew there was something missing here.

EDIT: done!

[inthenameofDT]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 4 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

I'm glad you brought up Katrina DT. The administration and FEMA handled that one remarkably well. [/sarcasm]

that goes for everything that happened during the bush administration.

Eugine, on Jul 4 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

Obama/McCain. The others candidates can't win, so no need to include them?

ok THAT is something i dont like to see people say. Not voting for the green parties because they have no chance. While it may be entirely true, if i find a candidate that is not republican or democratic, that i really like, they will have my full support and receive my vote. Voting is a responsibility of American citizens (and dont get me started on people that complain about our elected people that didn't vote, and still complain.) Even if the chance is slim, the voting is what's most important for our voice. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and vote for the two monopolizing parties just because the person I may like has no shot.

EDIT: i wasn't aiming that at you, Eugine, you didn't actually say lets not include them. It would certainly be fair to include whoever you are supporting in that poll.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 4 2008, 05:30 PM, said:

I'm glad you brought up Katrina DT. The administration and FEMA handled that one remarkably well. [/sarcasm]

I don't think that the horrible evacuation by the mayor of new orleans, and late action by the governor of Louisiana had a lot to do with that.[/sarcasm]

[inthenameofDT]

why would the governor of louisiana be worried about some flood in new orleans?[/sarcasm]

[Gio]

I can't even think of smart reply for that so this will have to suffice

boogity boo.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Jul 5 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

I don't think that the horrible evacuation by the mayor of new orleans, and late action by the governor of Louisiana had a lot to do with that.[/sarcasm]

That had to do with it, yes. I can't find an article yet, but the Bush administration knew about Katrina well ahead of time.

And that's not even mentioning how long it took for federal emergency aid to reach the area, and how much longer it's taken to reach the victims. Many people affected by Katrina STILL have not received relief three years since the event.

In the meanwhile:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/print/...splaymode/1098/

A telling quote:

Around New Orleans, three levees had overtopped or were broken. The city was doomed. There was no way the water could be stopped. But, incredibly, the seriousness of the situation did not really register, not only in Washington, but at the state emergency command post upriver in Baton Rouge. In a squat, drab cinder-block building in the state capital, full of TV monitors and maps, various state and federal officials tried to make sense of what had happened. "Nobody was saying it wasn't a catastrophe," Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu told NEWSWEEK. "We were saying, 'Thank you, God,' because the experts were telling the governor it could have been even worse."

Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a motherly but steely figure known by the nickname Queen Bee, knew that she needed help. But she wasn't quite sure what. At about 8 p.m., she spoke to Bush. "Mr. President," she said, "we need your help. We need everything you've got."

Bush, the governor later recalled, was reassuring. But the conversation was all a little vague. Blanco did not specifically ask for a massive intervention by the active-duty military. "She wouldn't know the 82nd Airborne from the Harlem Boys' Choir," said an official in the governor's office, who did not wish to be identified talking about his boss's conversations with the president. There are a number of steps Bush could have taken, short of a full-scale federal takeover, like ordering the military to take over the pitiful and (by now) largely broken emergency communications system throughout the region. But the president, who was in San Diego preparing to give a speech the next day on the war in Iraq, went to bed.

[inthenameofDT]

..........................

it's stupidity like that i dont care for.

and as bad as i feel about that whole thing, and the poor care that was taken afterwards, who builds a city below sea level? you're just asking for that sort of thing to happen.

[Toasty]

The one thing I hate about the media, and people in general, is how they blame the president for absolutely everything. They pay no mind to congress at all, who's responsible for at least half (if not more) of what happens.

Not saying Bush is perfect, I'm just saying people blame him for far too many things. Frankly, I think he's just given up on trying to defend himself. With all the criticism he gets, I honestly wouldn't blame him.

Anyway, my point is that I know te whole Katrina thing was (and has) been handled very poorly. But it's the government's fault, and not just one part of it or person in it..

inthenameofDT, on Jul 4 2008, 08:17 PM, said:

ok THAT is something i dont like to see people say. Not voting for the green parties because they have no chance. While it may be entirely true, if i find a candidate that is not republican or democratic, that i really like, they will have my full support and receive my vote. Voting is a responsibility of American citizens (and dont get me started on people that complain about our elected people that didn't vote, and still complain.) Even if the chance is slim, the voting is what's most important for our voice. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and vote for the two monopolizing parties just because the person I may like has no shot.

That's what I wish people would do. If people did that, the Republicans might actually have a decent guy on the ticket.

[inthenameofDT]

i'll go one step further and say both parties might actually get someone decent.

[Blue]

You know, theres a high possibility that if Obama wins, he'll be assassinated right?

[inthenameofDT]

same would've gone for hillary. they're both minorities, but i would bet that obama's is less liked than women/women's rights.

im not saying that to be offensive at all.

[Toasty]

I'd say it's a safe assumption. There's probably more people who're racist against black people and willing to kill, than people who're racist against white people and willing to kill.

Plus, he's got a lot of hype. The more hype someone has, the more people are excited. Also, though, the more people are angered.

I wonder if that's something he's thought about at all. Though I suppose if anyone had that much of a beef with him, they probably would've already tried to kill him. I mean, he's going to have a lot more security around him on the inauguration day, should he be voted in.

[Eugine]

Obama was the first Presidential Candidate to have secret service in the primary due to death threats. If not, I think he got it the earliest.
The only exception was Hillary Clinton since she was first lady.

[Legolastom]

Icy, on Jul 4 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

And they say I make generalized, ignorant comments...

Honestly, I told you everything was MY OPINION.

I'm kinda sick of this whole "I'M GUNNA CALL UR COUNTREE STUUPID BUT U CANT SAY NETHING CUZ U BE STUUPID 2"

Agree to Disagree or GTFO. ^^

Your opinion? O, well that changes everything we all thought you were talking about what that guy next door thinks. And yes, yes we do think you make generalized ignorant comments.

You see thats MY OPINION.

[Eugine]

... but what is ignorant about Icy's comment?

[Saturos S.]

That she thinks we're just yelling: "I'M GUNNA ... STUUPID 2"

and that's the generalising part as well if someone was going to ask.

[inthenameofDT]

im not gonna answer that poll entirely.

who do i think will win? Barack.

who do i want to win? neither.

[Golden Legacy]

All right, so I think we should redo the poll then.

Who do you THINK will win?
- Barack Obama
- John McCain
- Bob Barr
- Ralph Nader
- other

Who do you WANT to win?
- Barack Obama
- John McCain
- Bob Barr
- Ralph Nader
- other


Sound good?

[inthenameofDT]

i just read up on Bob Barr and Ralph Nader.

on a first impression, i think Bob Barr would be decent, but i dont know enough about him yet to make a decision.

[Nyktos]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 5 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

All right, so I think we should redo the poll then.

Who do you THINK will win?
- Barack Obama
- John McCain
- Bob Barr
- Ralph Nader
- other

Who do you WANT to win?
- Barack Obama
- John McCain
- Bob Barr
- Ralph Nader
- other


Sound good?

I think the "who do you think will win?" should just be Obama or McCain, because no matter your opinion, I doubt anyone is EXPECTING someone else to win. But I agree that the "who do you want to win?" should have others.

[inthenameofDT]

definitely.

im being told right now from a friend on AIM that i should just vote for McCain or Obama because they are the only ones with a shot. how difficult is it to understand that im simply not going to vote for someone i dont like? i dont get it.

but if i end up voting for Barr, that's essentially voting for Obama since he will take away the Republican vote.

still

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 5 2008, 12:07 AM, said:

That had to do with it, yes. I can't find an article yet, but the Bush administration knew about Katrina well ahead of time.

I remember Katrina very well considering I was sitting in the area that it was expected to hit at the time and at the very last minute it turned towards new orleans and they got the brunt of it, so granted that everyone knew about it, it definitely came as a surprise considering it hit and unexpected area.

[Golden Legacy]

Tell me then, why did it take so long for the administration to send relief workers there? Why did it take so long to send supplies and aid to the victims? Why are there people TO THIS DAY who haven't received the compensation they're entitled to?


EDIT:

So, poll-

Who do you support?
- Barack Obama
- John McCain
- Bob Barr
- Ralph Nader
- other

Who do you think will win?
- Barack Obama
- John McCain

yes?

[Eugine]

Katrina was a disaster, and anyone who defends the government response is um, nvm.

The Bush admin responded to the tsunami in Asia faster than Katrina o.o
Explain?

[Toasty]

Were we fighting the Iraq war then? I dunno. I probably can't.

I can't really do any defending as far as Katrina goes though, since all I know is that it was handled like ****. I don't really have much to go on.

Legolastom, on Jul 5 2008, 06:35 AM, said:

Your opinion? O, well that changes everything we all thought you were talking about what that guy next door thinks. And yes, yes we do think you make generalized ignorant comments.

You see thats MY OPINION.

Yes. And she has HER opinion. See how it works? Opinions. She has her own, and you're acting like she doesn't have a right to. That in itself is ignorance.

[Nyktos]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 5 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

So, poll-

Who do you support?
- Barack Obama
- John McCain
- Bob Barr
- Ralph Nader
- other

Who do you think will win?
- Barack Obama
- John McCain

yes?

Seems about right.

[Golden Legacy]

All right, new poll is up.

[Ironsight]

Isn't Bob Parr the alias of Mr. Incredible?

[Golden Legacy]

Yes it is, funny you mention that.

Poll doesn't surprise me thus far, it seems to coincide with the election. The Bush administration is a miserable failure, McCain is an extension of many of those same principles, and the people favour Obama as president. Whether the people of the US are actually capable of voting as such... is another question.

[inthenameofDT]

at least nobody here has voted for nader. :unsure:

how many people here are actually old enough to vote? or will be by election day?

[Golden Legacy]

I'll certainly be. Good news is, I'm from NYC and go to college in Boston, both cities in extremely liberal states that will easily go for Obama in November. Now that my family's relocated south for my dad's job, however, near Atlanta, I'll be able to contribute my vote for a swing/competitive state!

\m/

[inthenameofDT]

ahhahah sounds good.

michigan's all ****ed up right now (there's that swear filter again) and i dont think any one candidate can fix this alone. so im still mixed, but just for the hell of it i placed my vote above for Barr

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 5 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

Yes it is, funny you mention that.

Poll doesn't surprise me thus far, it seems to coincide with the election. The Bush administration is a miserable failure, McCain is an extension of many of those same principles, and the people favour Obama as president. Whether the people of the US are actually capable of voting as such... is another question.

You make it sound like it actually takes intelligence to vote for Obama. <_<

Anyway, I can pretty much garuntee that if Obama gets in, the majority of the population will start to dislike him. Though the same can be said for McCain too.

I already hate both, so I'm ahead of the game. :unsure:


I voted other and McCain btw.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 6 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

You make it sound like it actually takes intelligence to vote for Obama. <_<

Intelligence? I'm well aware the average American is lacking woefully.

All anyone needs is some common sense.

Besides, polls have shown that people with college degrees favour Obama, people without go for any white person. :unsure:

[inthenameofDT]

ahahhahahahahhahaha

[Eugine]

True. During the primaries Obama won the majority of afluent votes while Hillary won the racist votes.

This is why I can't call the election for Obama yet. There are still downscale white people, who are afraid of black people and will not vote for Obama simply because of his colour. Obama needs to give them his trust.

[inthenameofDT]

and the same would go for hillary being a woman

[Eugine]

True.

But then, according to CNN, people are more worried about McCain's age than Obama's colour. But then, again, like CNN pointed out, most people are not willing to admit racial tensions in polls. I just hope if Obama loses, it's because of his policies, rather than other factors.

[inthenameofDT]

and a whole nother issue would come up when Jessie Jackson is the only person you hear from on any news network after Obama gets assassinated.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 5 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

Intelligence? I'm well aware the average American is lacking woefully.

All anyone needs is some stupidity.

;)

quote messing ftw.


In all seriousness though, Obama will give the government more power, which is something I'm against. (although I wouldn't be surprised if McCain did too)

And GL, I have some questions to ask:

Do you want a government with more power, or less power?
Do you think we should drill for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico?
If not, why? (if yes, ignore this one)
Do you think we will have serious repurcussions if we pull out of Iraq too soon?
Would you rather have Iraq governed by a Dictatorship, or a Democracy?
Do you think Iraq would be a worthwhile ally in the war on terror?
Were you brought up in a Conservative household, or a Liberal household?

Try to keep the answers to a few sentences a piece.

I suppose you could ask me some questions aswell. :D

[EDIT] And you STILL haven't told me why you hate Rush Limbaugh. As far as I know, it's because the Liberal media portrays him as some super right wing conservative nutjob bent on destroying America. Not to mention they continually call him a failure.

And yet he single-handedly saved the AM radio band. Among other things.

[inthenameofDT]

doesn't Iraq already have the democracy set up? Didn't they have an election? And don't they have a president?

[Toasty]

Yeah. And if we pull out too soon, their government will crumble, and one of the insurgent leaders will come to power as a dictator. That's practically garunteed.

[inthenameofDT]

i still think that will happen anyway.

[Toasty]

The insurgents don't stad a chance against the United States' military. At the veryleast, as lng as it gets the funding it needs.

[Laharl]

"they dont stand a chance", that's why you still havent beaten them after however many years

[Toasty]

It's because of the restrictions we have right now, and the fact that they kep recruiting newpeople. They've sill taken mroe casualties than we have (and by 'they' I mean the insurgents, not the Iraqi people, Laharl).

[Eugine]

More importantly, the strategy for win in Iraq wasn't well thought off. Only after the surge (which McCain supports and proposed, and Barack Obama opposed - hats of to McCain) were there any substantial progress.

[Gio]

Eugine, on Jul 7 2008, 06:06 AM, said:

More importantly, the strategy for win in Iraq wasn't well thought off. Only after the surge (which McCain supports and proposed, and Barack Obama opposed - hats of the McCain) were there any substantial progress.

Agreed, in fact if there was a well thought through strategy I believe we would be out of Iraq right now and it would be stable.

[inthenameofDT]

Laharl, on Jul 7 2008, 06:45 AM, said:

"they dont stand a chance", that's why you still havent beaten them after however many years

i was going to comment on that as well. we still keep losing innocent lives.

EDIT: was talking with my dad about who my great grandpa would've voted for if he was still alive. we came down to it being McCain for two main reasons.

1: he was very conservative

2: he was prejudice. would never vote for a black guy, or a woman. he would've flipped out if he had known the pastor of my church is female too.

but that was his style.

[Drizzy Drake]

Ahh, the good ol' days of discrimination. I miss those.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 6 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

Do you want a government with more power, or less power?
I've never understood how liberals give the government more power, when the conservatives are having the government tell people they can't marry or telling women what they can do with their own bodies. At any rate, you always talk about this in purely ideological terms. How about giving some examples?

Do you think we should drill for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico?
Generally, I don't think drilling should solely be relied on. Am I outright against it? Mostly, though in severe circumstances like this I favor temporarily drilling just to keep things in check. However, the future lies with alternative fuels (there is no denying this), and so far the US is very far behind than the rest of the world.

Not to mention we're responsible for most of the world's pollution, and use a disproportionate amount of energy too.

Do you think we will have serious repurcussions if we pull out of Iraq too soon?
I think we've long since moved past this.

Would you rather have Iraq governed by a Dictatorship, or a Democracy?
I'd rather they work it out for themselves. And for the record, while Saddam was indeed a dictator, the majority of people experienced improved lives under his reign. It's not our right to go around doing what we think is "right" and what is "democracy".

Do you think Iraq would be a worthwhile ally in the war on terror?
I highly think this "war on terror" is hugely exaggerated. It's a phrase manipulated by the neo-conservatives to keep the people drenched in fear and keep them favouring and hungry for war. Disgusting that it got us involved in two wars with little end in sight, but luckily people are turning against it.

Were you brought up in a Conservative household, or a Liberal household?
Very conservative household, very liberal environment.

Quote

And you STILL haven't told me why you hate Rush Limbaugh.

I will NEVER support a filthy revolting man who believes Abu Ghraib is "having a good time".

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/ful.../nimmo05082004/
http://mediamatters....ms/200405050003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/...ain616021.shtml

[Drizzy Drake]

Rush Limbaugh is fat. lol.

[Toasty]

I've never understood how liberals give the government more power, when the conservatives are having the government tell people they can't marry or telling women what they can do with their own bodies. At any rate, you always talk about this in purely ideological terms. How about giving some examples?

Government run healthcare, decideing who gets how much money (something Obama proposed. Basically, evenly distributed wealth), and at least half of the bills they vote for/propose. Higher taxes may help us get out of debt (well, only if the people paying the taxes are bringing money intothe US somehow), but they also give the government more funds and thus, more power). I'm not against having a surplus, but only if the peole in charge of the money aren't obsessed with control. Regardless of their party.
I know I've only stated two, but I'll get back to you soon on the others. I know there's more that I can't remember.

Abortion should only be allowed if the person was raped. If they made a choice to have sex (I don't care how old they are, or what their martial status is), they should be prepared for the possible outcome. I don't care if the condom ripped, or the pills failed or what. Abortion should only be available for those who didn't have the choice of not having sex.

As for gay marriage, I'm just plain against it. If people of the same gender were meant to be together, then they;d be able to reproduce together. Obviously, that's not possible.

I'd like you yourself to name anything conservatives are for/against other than those two things that give the government power.

Generally, I don't think drilling should solely be relied on. Am I outright against it? Mostly, though in severe circumstances like this I favor temporarily drilling just to keep things in check. However, the future lies with alternative fuels (there is no denying this), and so far the US is very far behind than the rest of the world.

Not to mention we're responsible for most of the world's pollution, and use a disproportionate amount of energy too.

Renewable energy sources may be the future, but that future is at LEAST 7 decades away. We should start drilling now, and work on renewable sources while our need for fuel is taken care of. We can put more effort into developingthose fuels if we aren't currently trying to fuel ourselves. Let the technologies mature whil we don't need them, so by the time we do, they'll be ready to impliment. Plus, the next time an oil crisis hits, the integration of an alternate fuel will go smoother.

And last I checked, China was the world leader in pollution. If it isn't, then it's only a hair away from the position.

Besides pollution, name one good reason why we shouldn't drill for oil, regardless of whether it's a crisis or not (and no,"it's bad for the environment" isn't a valid response because the places where we want to drill are practically wastelands to begin with).

I think we've long since moved past this.

I don't. I don't remember anywhere were you said we would or wouldn't. I only remember saying what I though.

I'd rather they work it out for themselves. And for the record, while Saddam was indeed a dictator, the majority of people experienced improved lives under his reign. It's not our right to go around doing what we think is "right" and what is "democracy".

By being over there right now, they CAN work it out for themselves. All we're doing is trying to prevent civil war. From what I understand, America's involvement in the actual formation of their government has been limited. If we pull out, they won't get to choose anything. They'll be emidietly pluged into another dictatorship. The chances of a life there being any good will drop considerably. Also, they may have had fairly decent lives while under Saddam's reign (well, the men atleast), but under a democracy, the status of their lives will improve far beyond what it was under Saddam's leadershp. It may be worse right now, but things usually have to get worse before they can get better.

I highly think this "war on terror" is hugely exaggerated. It's a phrase manipulated by the neo-conservatives to keep the people drenched in fear and keep them favouring and hungry for war. Disgusting that it got us involved in two wars with little end in sight, but luckily people are turning against it.

Yes. Because conservatives are fear and war mongers. <_< There are REAL terrorists out there that we're REALLY trying to catch, so we can REALLY prevent another attack on US soil. It's hardly exaggerated at all. If we don't do something to try and prevent terrorists from attacking the US (or its allies), then an attack is garunteed to happen. Not saying that there's no way we'd be able to fend off an attack, but I'd rather not have an attack to begin with.

Very conservative household, very liberal environment.

Environmentas in the man who was president, or as in the state/city/etc. you lived in? Or do you mean the news?



And here we go again. XD

And I'll get back to you on that thing about Rush once I get a clearer picture of what did/is going on over there. On one side it's human cruelty, and on the other it's a harmless fratboy party.

But as for the first link, I like how they're so Liberal that they called Rush a drug addict. It's like they're tryingto say he's on crack or something.
I remember him being addicted to a PERSCRIPTION drug that was clinically proven to show signs of dependancy in it's users, but that's it. It's hardly even worth mentioning (nor was it revelant to the topic).

[inthenameofDT]

i like the other Rush.

as for abortion, i understand your point about a rape victim, and i fully agree with your point about people being careless with condoms or the pill. but even from rape, i dont feel abortion is correct. from the time the egg is fertalized, the fetus is living, and that would be murder. morally i think adoption is wrong as well, but that would be the better choice for someone that doesn't want a child, especially not from rape.

[Toasty]

After doing a little research, I've concluded that your sources are full of themselves heavily biased towards the left. The only people being tortured (heck the only people at the facility for that matter) are people who are KNOWN to be connected with terrorists, or are terrorists themselves. Most of them have been there sine the war started. None of them are innocent of what they're being accused of doing. Some of the more "harmful" things they've done to the detainees, is having them walk around naked. Though of course, those are the things being done outside of the torture room. Inside of which they practice more harmful things like inerrogating the known terrorist affiliates Israeli style.

Very harmful and inhumane indeed. They're either terrorists themselves, or affiliated with them. They deserve what they're getting.

And even though Rush obviously isn't against what the soldiers did over there, you have to realize his style of speech is somewhat different, and contains overly healthy doses of sarcasm (something you can't realize unless you actually listen to the show instead of reading articles neo-liberal news sites publish).


Also, Obama fails miserably when it comes to foreign policy. The only difference is that while Bush's policy protects the United States at the expense of making us look like asses, Obama's will protect our image at the extent of national security. Hardly a big deal, I know. His mindset is that it's possible to make everyone happy, and to end war altogether. He seems to think that it's possible to change the terorists' mindsets by being nice to them.

I can assure you, the only time we will have world peace is in the end of days.


[EDIT] And as for Abortion, it's a right that can only be taken away by the supreme court. Neither congress, nor the President have the power to take that right away.

[Eugine]

Yes, but the President appoints the judges.

[Gio]

Eugine, on Jul 8 2008, 07:23 AM, said:

Yes, but the President appoints the judges.

really the only outside influence on the supreme court though. And the judges can flip flop after being appointed.

[Drizzy Drake]

Quote

As for gay marriage, I'm just plain against it. If people of the same gender were meant to be together, then they;d be able to reproduce together. Obviously, that's not possible.

Here we go again. I can see a flame war brewing. Yup, there we go. And why shouldn't it be legal? We aren't supossed to rape the land for our own profit, and we do it. I see that you are for drilling for oil. Yup. Oh, it shouldn't be legal because they can't have children together. Well fuck, some women just married a dolphin if I'm correct. Really, what the fuck does children have to with the fact that they might love each other, and want to show it in the most sincerest of ways? And even if they can't actually concieve a child, there is always suragocy, and adoption, and just because the child isn't theirs, doesn't mean they wont care for it like their own. "All men are created equal." I know reigion really shouldn't be brought into this since religious fucks think gays are evil, but still. Everybody deserves to marry the person they love. Denying them that is just cruel.

Oh, and men CAN have children together. There is a male(albiet a female made into a male) who is pregnant.

[inthenameofDT]

dipset's got my vote on that topic.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 8 2008, 03:06 AM, said:

The only people being tortured are people who are KNOWN to be connected with terrorists, or are terrorists themselves. Most of them have been there sine the war started. None of them are innocent of what they're being accused of doing. Some of the more "harmful" things they've done to the detainees, is having them walk around naked. Though of course, those are the things being done outside of the torture room. Inside of which they practice more harmful things like inerrogating the known terrorist affiliates Israeli style.

Very harmful and inhumane indeed. They're either terrorists themselves, or affiliated with them. They deserve what they're getting.

A confidential report in February by the International Committee of the Red Cross said that ''military intelligence officers told the I.C.R.C. that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.''

Red Cross
BBC
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/

[Toasty]

You know the one ting I've figured out? That whenever it comes to news about the US military, or it's soldiers, it's always making them out to be horrible, awful people. We're always made out to be the bully.

Most news sources nowadays can't even be trusted anymore. For instance (and I'm not saying that this is a fact), the ICRC could've thrown that statistic out to appease the people who aren't happy with America right now. Dan rather tried to forge documents proving that Bush went AWAL. He's a news anchor trying to create false news. See where I'm going?

It's very possible that the statistic you provided is correct, but I honestly believe that the people imprisoned were done so with good reason. They wouldn't have been imprisoned if they were 100% innocent.

[EDIT] Here's an article about what Rush really said. Though you'll likely write it off as being fake similarly to how I wrote off your article as probably being fake. The only difference being that Rush doesn't skew his news to appeal to anyone. He just reports it from a conservative perspective.

Anyway, here.

Another refrence to journalists fabricating news.

Quote

News agency Reuters has been forced to admit that footage it released last week purportedly showing Russian submersibles on the seabed of the North Pole actually came from the movie Titanic. The images were reproduced around the world - including by the [UK] Guardian and Guardian Unlimited - alongside the story of Russia planting its flag below the North Pole on Thursday last week.

A caller on Rush's show pointing out how the Liberal media constantly mis-qoutes Rush, despite it being blatantly easy to get exactly what he said from the archives on his own website.

Quote

It goes a lot deeper than Bill Moyers, but my problem is that every time that I see you on the air, on like mainstream media or anywhere you're quoted in the mainstream media, you're misquoted -- and the reason why I know this is because I was telling your screener that I was in a conference in New York City, and on one of the monitors there, they didn't have the sound up but I saw your face and I saw Michael J. Fox's name on there, and so when I heard the news, I heard what they were talking about and then immediately I went to your website and here's the deal, is that any of these media people can go to your website. If they're blind, if they're deaf, they can go to your website and they can get exactly what you said, word-for-word. You don't leave anything out of your website on your daily shows, and even if you go back to your archives, you can see and listen to exactly what you said and there is never any reason for them to take you out of context and these people are supposed to be professional reporters. I don't understand it. If little old me can walk to my computer within ten minutes and find out exactly what you said, why is it that they can't? I mean, I know the answer to that.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 8 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

You know the one ting I've figured out? That whenever it comes to news about the US military, or it's soldiers, it's always making them out to be horrible, awful people. We're always made out to be the bully.

Um, not really, no. They make the GOVERNMENT out to be horrible and awfull. I support your troops 100%, because they are risking their lives for their country because they trust your president. I do not, however, support Bush, or why the troops are in the Middle-East. It's very simple.

Oh, and respond to what I said about the marriage. I really want to see why you feel gays should not be married, other than the fact that they can't have children. Does that mean if I was shooting blanks, I shouldn't be allowed to get married since I can't have children?

[Toasty]

Pay attention to the news, Skidz. Our soldiers are constantly being accused of abusing citiczens. Even if some of them are, you rarely here any actual good stories. I know you support the troops, but the media often doesn't. For every news article about how great a soldier is, there's ten more on how awful others are.

And skidz, males weren't designed to reproduce with other males. Even if you were shooting blanks, you were still meant to have sex with females, not males. No matter the situation, a man will never be able to reproduce with another man (the same goes for lezbians). However, unless somethings wrong with the reproductive organs of either the man or the women, a man and a women WILL be able to reproduce. (if it's a man who was origionally a women, then that doesn't count). That is what I mean.

Not to mention that if a gay couple adopted a kid, regardless of their good intentions, it would still be hard on the child. In today's society, they'd be criticized for having gay parents. I'm not saying a gay couple is incapable of raising a child properly, but it would be hard on the child regardless. I suppose that would be my main concern.