How is that any kind of compromise? That's just causing more problems.
Coming soon: WWIII, Russia vs the US and EU
-
-
While we're on the subject of the election, I think Palin is crazy. She claims the Iraq War is a task from god. And she is asking people to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Iraq. We don't really know if Bush wanted oil from Iraq but she sure does. According to her the pipeline is god's will. I'm not saying people who believe in god are crazy but she might be. I do NOT want her anywhere near the White House.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war;_ylt=AuZEKA_c2kZ6lsk3j.36SWis0NUE
-
I'm going to laugh my ass if McCain's candidacy winds up going belly up because of his VP pick I don't even like most republicans and even I think he might've made a mistake with his pick.
-
What? Just because McCain picked a woman who is the kind of man he wishes he were?
I think I'm beginning to understand the "Far Right", or whatever it is people say when they refer to fanatical "Christians" with a political agenda. I understood, clearly, that the two major parties operate on greed. The "Far Right" operates on pride. What liberals operate by is still a mystery to me. Given the vociferous nature of their rhetoric, I might say wrath, but I'm not sure. Of course, if all of this campaign claptrap is just the opening ceremonies for the End of World event, I suppose it matters little who I support for president.
JC for Theocrat!
I'm wondering if Putin plans to unleash some of Russia's bio weapons on the U.S. ships. They've supposedly got some particularly nasty stuff at their disposal.
-
who know who most people blame when a teenager is dumb enough to get pregnant
the parents
-
@_Meh_:
What? Just because McCain picked a woman who is the kind of man he wishes he were?
I think I'm beginning to understand the "Far Right", or whatever it is people say when they refer to fanatical "Christians" with a political agenda. I understood, clearly, that the two major parties operate on greed. The "Far Right" operates on pride. What liberals operate by is still a mystery to me. Given the vociferous nature of their rhetoric, I might say wrath, but I'm not sure. Of course, if all of this campaign claptrap is just the opening ceremonies for the End of World event, I suppose it matters little who I support for president.
JC for Theocrat!
I'm wondering if Putin plans to unleash some of Russia's bio weapons on the U.S. ships. They've supposedly got some particularly nasty stuff at their disposal.
what are you talking about exactly
-
The first part is a snide remark, based on how the Far Right ooh's and aah's over Palin's proclivity for firearms and hunting. The next part is an analysis of how broadly-defined behaviors like greed or pride shape political action and governance. The line "JC for Theocrat" or, "Jesus Christ for Theocrat" is a motto I developed due to my disgust with Christians who confuse politics for religion. Essentialy, it boils down to "why even bother with backing this one or that one for president? Shouldn't our focus as Christians be on how much better God will run things when he gets back?" It makes them more than a little nervous. The last part refers to some of the viruses Russia reengineered. Imagine coming down with flu-like symptoms for a week or two, recovering, then dying in horrible agony as your immune system starts attacking your organs.
-
@_Meh_:
The last part refers to some of the viruses Russia reengineered. Imagine coming down with flu-like symptoms for a week or two, recovering, then dying in horrible agony as your immune system starts attacking your organs.
Sounds like a fucked up way to die.
-
From what I hear, the KGB were masters at finding new and more horrible ways to kill people.
-
Did you or did you not actually read my post. I mean jesus. That was the practically the first thing I addressed.
No, I didn't read your post at all. I didn't care to because the 'first thing you addressed' was a smart ass comment directed at someone. However, that line I quoted from your post just happened to catch my eye and honestly, I really, really don't care what you think about the individual nor the individual in question. Just the fact that people feel the need to even make a so-called 'deal' out of it one way or the other. It's a VP.
lol
See folks. Now as I said, I wasn't directing my previous post at anyone, I was just venting but this I'd like to make an example of.
Those three key-strokes basically prove everything in my post. Elections turn people into venemous elitist bastards.
"I'm going to vote."
I mean, what kind of egotiscal bullshit has to travel through one's head to respond to that with, "I'm laughing out loud because you said you're going to vote." It boggles the mind.
This is literally the most useless thing I have ever heard regarding politics, which ironically, Ive heard all over hundreds of blogs and forums.
Politics are about communicating ideas, not communicating ideas based off originality of your delivery or news. It's not art.
"Don't express opinions if they may have been already said before by other people somewhere"
Eh??
Oh I completely agree. But you know what is indeed sad? When people actually believe EVERYTHING they read and hold up the so-called 'news' on FOX or CNN or MSNBC as if it were from the second coming or some shit.
People deliver news. Yes Deltron, news is NOT art, but those assholes make it art. They twist words, they tell half-truthes, they don't give full stories, they only report the positives or negatives from their own viewpoints.
THEREFORE, for any one person to run around spouting that same bullshit:
"This person voted against this!"
"This person had a drunk father!"
"This person doesn't agree with this!"
"This person is too old!"
You are being sucked into their artfully created mindset. And THEN to spread that around as if it was the result of something more than reading a newsgroup and OTHER people's opinions? That's something way worse than the so-called political 'art' you suggested, that's just being a tool.
Any 'fact' you hear about a person's political life has a double story. I doubt there is a single person in politics that got where they are today without friends in high places, deal cutting and generally shadey activity. When you hear someone did this, voted that way, only spent X time as a Senator and then use that against them as if you know them or you know the WHOLE story behind it? That's just sad.
Politics is about facts. Too bad most of those 'facts' are fabrications and sheeple are just happy to slurp them up.
1. What do you think the point of a political discussion is? It's a discussion within the frame of who your talking to. If Terek says something contuary to facts, why wouldn't I tell him this? Why the heck would the idea that "Well, C Span covered this awhile ago so why bother" be at all relevant to the discussion? Why would he in turn if he believes me to be wrong decide not to say anything because of some blog somewhere already saying it?
I wasn't talking about you and I wasn't directing my post at you. I didn't read your entire post, nor did I know what/who you were discussing something with. All I saw was a huge block of bullshit talking points that I thought deserved a line of text. NOW I am addressing you.
2. Either your advocating no such thing as political discussion, or your advocating political discussion to be broken down into nothing but linking to blogs and youtube videos without any personal input. Both of which are a joke.
I advocate not being a douche when someone has a different political view than you and listening to what they stay instead of bringing up rhetoric. I advocate learning about WHY political choices are made instead of quoting them as if I/you/anyone actually researched them and knew under what context they existed. It's easy to copy and paste what you read online, it's another to actually look into from ALL points of view.
This is why when it comes to political 'discussions' I keep my mouth shut and my opinions to myself because there's simply no way I know enough about both sides of the story and I refuse to simply spout off crap I've read somewhere, no matter who said/wrote it.
"But Greg! Then no one could have political discussions! You Red Bastard!"
No, you're missing the point. Political discussions would be interesting IF:
1. People didn't have fucking PMS when someone holds a different idea than their own.
2. Instead of throwing around talking points, learn about them. Learn their history. Be passionate about them. Read on how Obama came to where he is today instead of just saying he came off the streets and became a Senator. Read about how or why Palin (not that she even fucking matters) takes certain standpoints on some issues and for that matter, see if all of them are even true and to what extent. Don't just read something on the New York Post or New York Times and expect it to be true because some overpaid fuck wrote it.
I'm not talking conspiracy theory bullshit, simply acknowledging the reality that people have opinions and people have connections. And as long as we hold onto such things we're going to be a biased life form and that will come through in our work.
If you can protect 1 and 2, I think political discussions would be a dream.
3. Creative? What do you want. Me to present Palin's far right credentials through a mime routine involving poodles and rings of fire? What does that even mean?
Here yet again my observation from Post 1 comes through.
Who on this thread has turned into a terrorist over the issue?
I'm sorry what? Who was talking about this thread? I was talking about the entire country.
Uh-huh.
Believe what you like. But comments like that just make it seem like you have something to feel guilty about since I didn't care who wrote the quote I took, nor did I even read 90% of your post. I didn't even know your member name until now.
The only thing worse than politicians are the people who claim to understand them. Tongue firmly planted in cheek.
-
No, I didn't read your post at all. I didn't care to because the 'first thing you addressed' was a smart ass comment directed at someone. However, that line I quoted from your post just happened to catch my eye and honestly, I really, really don't care what you think about the individual nor the individual in question. Just the fact that people feel the need to even make a so-called 'deal' out of it one way or the other. It's a VP.
So you don't know what the point of a VP is?
Certainly you can't really think "irrelevant".Those three key-strokes basically prove everything in my post. Elections turn people into venemous elitist bastards.
Do you even see the hypocracy of bumuishing a thread, finger-a-waggin', and putting down this putting down that, and over exactly that sort of thing your doing?
Do you think what your doing doesn't count because your not supporting a side?"I'm going to vote."
I mean, what kind of egotiscal bullshit has to travel through one's head to respond to that with, "I'm laughing out loud because you said you're going to vote." It boggles the mind.
It was comical example of people who spray apathetic teenage style nihilism about a subject , and than follows it with "I'm still participating in it though."
Did you not notice what i included in the quotation aside from "I gonna vote".Oh I completely agree. But you know what is indeed sad? When people actually believe EVERYTHING they read and hold up the so-called 'news' on FOX or CNN or MSNBC as if it were from the second coming or some shit.
Where did I deny that?
Pemake itople deliver news. Yes Deltron, news is NOT art, but those assholes art. They twist words, they tell half-truthes, they don't give full stories, they only report the positives or negatives from their own viewpoints.
Oh wow, no way man.
THEREFORE, for any one person to run around spouting that same bullshit:
I don't think you understand the difference between, "News says bullshit", and "News says something that is actually true if you go and crosscheck sources."
Writing off everything you hear is every bit as lazy as believing everything you hear.
"This person voted against this!"
"This person had a drunk father!"
"This person doesn't agree with this!"
"This person is too old!"
What if, hypothetically, those things are true about the person, as you seem to be under the impression that they aren't. Or that it wouldn't even matter.
You are being sucked into their artfully created mindset.
When did I name my sources?
And THEN to spread that around as if it was the result of something more than reading a newsgroup and OTHER people's opinions?
Where did I … I don't even know what your saying. It's like your accusing me of some vague form of intellectual plagiarism, which is entirely unapplicable in this situation.
That's something way worse than the so-called political 'art' you suggested, that's just being a tool.
Repeating information heard elsewhere? Are you serious?
I'm not writing a formal paper here, I don't need citations for the purpose of giving credit.Any 'fact' you hear about a person's political life has a double story.
I don't really see what else needs to be known regarding a candidate blatantly saying they support position X.
I doubt there is a single person in politics that got where they are today without friends in high places, deal cutting and generally shadey activity.
Woot. Here we go again with the nihilism.
When you hear someone did this, voted that way, only spent X time as a Senator and then use that against them as if you know them or you know the WHOLE story behind it? That's just sad.
What exactly do you judge public officials on if not things they do and things they say they will do. And things they do that contradict either one of those things.
Do you flip a coin after deciding they're all shady deep down?
Politics is about facts. Too bad most of those 'facts' are fabrications and sheeple are just happy to slurp them up.
Tell me about the illuminati.
I wasn't talking about you and I wasn't directing my post at you. I didn't read your entire post,
You tried to address a point I covered. Don't assume the rest wasn't relevant.
nor did I know what/who you were discussing something with.
This is like a "don't do this" guide to jumping into internet debates.
All I saw was a huge block of bullshit talking points that I thought deserved a line of text. NOW I am addressing you.
Right, so you didn't know the context, origin, factuality, or damn well anything about the points, yet decided you could address them as if you did.
DURF
I advocate not being a douche when someone has a different political view than you and listening to what they stay instead of bringing up rhetoric.
So your still operating from the stance that you know exactly how those talking points hold up under scrutiny. Stop that.
I advocate learning about WHY political choices are made instead of quoting them as if I/you/anyone actually researched them and knew under what context they existed.
Hey, know what's worse than being a flat out douche?
Being a passive agressive condescending douche.Nice assuming I apparently have never heard the defenses for positions like pro-life, and assuming I of course blindly regard the situation as black and white.
Especially considering I'm right down the middle on it, and even better considering, my posting of those talking points wasn't even about analyzing them or thier validity of political stances.
This is where context is important.
It was because Terek was under the impression Palin was a moderate leaning republican. So I listed, without any sort of "grr these beliefs are stupid", things that are most certainly far or center right beliefs that she holds. As in, not moderate.
It's easy to copy and paste what you read online, it's another to actually look into from ALL points of view.
So how exactly were you present for the gathering, analysis, and cross checking I did?
Why are you assuming I didn't?This is why when it comes to political 'discussions' I keep my mouth shut and my opinions to myself because there's simply no way I know enough about both sides of the story and I refuse to simply spout off crap I've read somewhere, no matter who said/wrote it.
I'm an agnostic, but even I think this is bullshit. What your afraid of isn't that your wronging people with misinformation is it, no, I think your afraid, no terrified of any, slight, possibility, of being in the least ways wrong about something.
You've gone ahead and ignored the possibilities of confirmation and accuracy to rule out both things entirely with a vague idea of nothing is ever "right/wrong".Like I told Lobo, that's not principle. That's either fear, or laziness.
No, you're missing the point. Political discussions would be interesting IF:
1. People didn't have fucking PMS when someone holds a different idea than their own.
Can you stick to your own topic?
As in the issue of "truth".2. Instead of throwing around talking points, learn about them. Learn their history. Be passionate about them. Read on how Obama came to where he is today instead of just saying he came off the streets and became a Senator. Read about how or why Palin (not that she even fucking matters) takes certain standpoints on some issues and for that matter, see if all of them are even true and to what extent. Don't just read something on the New York Post or New York Times and expect it to be true because some overpaid fuck wrote it.
As Iv'e done absolutely nothing to hint at what your accusing, aside from the simple nerve to post information with a hint of stance, I have to ask if you trust anyone not yourself to have already done these things.
"I DON"T KNOW THIS GUY, HE CANT HAVE LOOKED OVER ALL THSI INFORMATION WITH ANY HINT OF RESPONSIBILITY."
If you want to be this cynical about other people, stick to your own principle of not entering debates, which you should extend to political or otherwise. Because as you yourself show, politics takes many forms beyond the state, why it can involve sand and shell artwork.
I'm not talking conspiracy theory bullshit, simply acknowledging the reality that people have opinions and people have connections. And as long as we hold onto such things we're going to be a biased life form and that will come through in our work.
Are you we should not have opinions?
Here yet again my observation from Post 1 comes through.
Me being a douche is about as relevant as you playing Miss Doubtfire.
Believe what you like. But comments like that just make it seem like you have something to feel guilty about since I didn't care who wrote the quote I took, nor did I even read 90% of your post. I didn't even know your member name until now.
Oh you do.
The only thing worse than politicians are the people who claim to understand them. Tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Or those who throw off the very idea of attempting comprehension for the possibility of being wrong.
-
wait why is her supporting the NRA a bad thing
-
Because they like guns and guns kill people:/
-
But then what will you do if there will be a zombie breakout (hey, you never know) and people don't have guns. Better be safe than sorry! Because zombies are bad. Really bad.
-
Eh its good some places in this world have lax gun laws, Then i can go there try out a gun/assault rifle and see what all the fuzz is about. And then go home and never ever have to worry about being shot its win-win:happy:
-
Hey, if you are interested I recommend Cambodia. That place is a land opportunity because there with just mere investment of 200 US$ you get to shoot a cow and a goat with a bazooka. Fuckin' rock'n'roll.
-
you could probably do that in Texas too But eh i think im to squemish to actualy kill any animal, Well except fish of course. Id be happy just shooting some cans of a fence or something like that.
-
wait why is her supporting the NRA a bad thing
Never said it was.
@someguy:
Because they like guns and guns kill people:/
Like Obama referenced in his speech, you can't really break down gun laws as a universal.
In rural america, or the south/midwest in general they're a casual cultural thing.While in the innercity they're a plague that is way to available too way too many people. A sort of horrible circle of "you need a gun to protect, because the other guy might have a gun." that keeps itself going and going, not to mention crime.
I don't see why we cant legislate what fits best for seperate communities.
-
-
But then what will you do if there will be a zombie breakout (hey, you never knowhttp://koti.mbnet.fi/yoska/numchuks.gif) and people don't have guns. Better be safe than sorry! Because zombies are bad. Really bad.
We don't need guns to kill Zombies. All you need is a sharp sword to chop off their heads.
-
-
@Sandai:
Surprised you didn't come out with dangerous minorities do.
What would Peter Griffin say in a situation like this?
-
Since guns don't apparently kill people, and I believe it, it kinda seem awefully wasteful for armies to spend so much money for firearms and stuff. They should arm soldiers with people instead. Chinese would make a good alternative for guns. Chinese are cheap and effective and there should be enough of 'em for everyone. And then the armies should adopt lots of big eyed African babies too. Those could make a good alternative for hand grenades, I think. I probably should e-mail my ultimate budget cut solution for someone, Obama or Putin…
...or I should stop writting pure soyashit and go to sleep. I'm so full of crap.
-
A gun is a tool, we shouldn't let people get away with making excuses on it anymore than we should Marilyn Manson, gangsta rap, Die Hard, or religion.
-
This post is deleted!
-
What's wrong with Die Hard?
-
@Sandai:
What's wrong with Die Hard?
Do you always suck this badly at following along? :getlost:
He's basically saying that every single crime or ill in society on guns isn't really any different than people blaming the same things on movies, music, religious beliefs, or video games for that matter.
(In the respect that its unrealistic and just a quick and easy answer without really looking into the matter at hand. (Example: Think Jack Thompson and the NIU shootings) )
-
@Deltron:
So you don't know what the point of a VP is?
Certainly you can't really think "irrelevant".Do you even see the hypocracy of bumuishing a thread, finger-a-waggin', and putting down this putting down that, and over exactly that sort of thing your doing?
Do you think what your doing doesn't count because your not supporting a side?It was comical example of people who spray apathetic teenage style nihilism about a subject , and than follows it with "I'm still participating in it though."
Did you not notice what i included in the quotation aside from "I gonna vote".Where did I deny that?
Oh wow, no way man.
I don't think you understand the difference between, "News says bullshit", and "News says something that is actually true if you go and crosscheck sources."
Writing off everything you hear is every bit as lazy as believing everything you hear.
What if, hypothetically, those things are true about the person, as you seem to be under the impression that they aren't. Or that it wouldn't even matter.
When did I name my sources?
Where did I … I don't even know what your saying. It's like your accusing me of some vague form of intellectual plagiarism, which is entirely unapplicable in this situation.
Repeating information heard elsewhere? Are you serious?
I'm not writing a formal paper here, I don't need citations for the purpose of giving credit.I don't really see what else needs to be known regarding a candidate blatantly saying they support position X.
Woot. Here we go again with the nihilism.
What exactly do you judge public officials on if not things they do and things they say they will do. And things they do that contradict either one of those things.
Do you flip a coin after deciding they're all shady deep down?
Tell me about the illuminati.
You tried to address a point I covered. Don't assume the rest wasn't relevant.
This is like a "don't do this" guide to jumping into internet debates.
Right, so you didn't know the context, origin, factuality, or damn well anything about the points, yet decided you could address them as if you did.
DURF
So your still operating from the stance that you know exactly how those talking points hold up under scrutiny. Stop that.
Hey, know what's worse than being a flat out douche?
Being a passive agressive condescending douche.Nice assuming I apparently have never heard the defenses for positions like pro-life, and assuming I of course blindly regard the situation as black and white.
Especially considering I'm right down the middle on it, and even better considering, my posting of those talking points wasn't even about analyzing them or thier validity of political stances.
This is where context is important.
It was because Terek was under the impression Palin was a moderate leaning republican. So I listed, without any sort of "grr these beliefs are stupid", things that are most certainly far or center right beliefs that she holds. As in, not moderate.
So how exactly were you present for the gathering, analysis, and cross checking I did?
Why are you assuming I didn't?I'm an agnostic, but even I think this is bullshit. What your afraid of isn't that your wronging people with misinformation is it, no, I think your afraid, no terrified of any, slight, possibility, of being in the least ways wrong about something.
You've gone ahead and ignored the possibilities of confirmation and accuracy to rule out both things entirely with a vague idea of nothing is ever "right/wrong".Like I told Lobo, that's not principle. That's either fear, or laziness.
Can you stick to your own topic?
As in the issue of "truth".As Iv'e done absolutely nothing to hint at what your accusing, aside from the simple nerve to post information with a hint of stance, I have to ask if you trust anyone not yourself to have already done these things.
"I DON"T KNOW THIS GUY, HE CANT HAVE LOOKED OVER ALL THSI INFORMATION WITH ANY HINT OF RESPONSIBILITY."
If you want to be this cynical about other people, stick to your own principle of not entering debates, which you should extend to political or otherwise. Because as you yourself show, politics takes many forms beyond the state, why it can involve sand and shell artwork.
Are you we should not have opinions?
Me being a douche is about as relevant as you playing Miss Doubtfire.
Oh you do.
Or those who throw off the very idea of attempting comprehension for the possibility of being wrong.
Thank you for proving my point.
Oh you do.
And no, really, I don
t. I
ll thank you for not calling me a liar or talking for me. -
Thank you for proving my point.
Which was what? That I'm an example of reckless political talk without research (ahahaha), or that I'm a douche (yes, but so what).
Or was it POLITICS BRINGS OUT THE WORST.
I always post like that soAnd no, really, I don
t. I
ll thank you for not calling me a liar or talking for meOh I'm sure your in the least familiar. Whether you know it or not.
-
Do you always suck this badly at following along? :getlost:
It just seemed a bit random compared to the other stuff he pointed out.
-
Which was what?
That bullies can`t exchange political ideas/information without making others feel bad about themselves based entirely on half truthes and sound bites.
Oh I'm sure your in the least familiar. Whether you know it or not.
I
ve seen your avatar before but as I said I didn
t know your member name or remember anything in particular about you. Now I do. -
Why is it when people on anime forums, game forums, or whatever, start talking politics, all that the thread ends up turning into is a bunch of snide pricks looking down on disagreements, teenagers trying to sound profound and sophisticated, people who don't follow politics acting like they follow politics, some guy coming in with a link to a pointless news story they took too far, and one guy (the King Dick, if you will) tossing out nastiness to as many people as possible?!
And while I'm at it, I now firmly believe it is impossible for such forums to discuss real world events without the topic spiraling into a wannabe CNN/Fox News panel, if said panel was occupied entirely by angry black women after someone just said "bitch". Hate to sound condescending, but if you know more about an anime character's backstory than that of a presidential cantidate, don't try to pretend you're an expert.
At least there's Greg in this situation (his paranoid view of the news not withstanding)…
-
Why is it when people on anime forums, game forums, or whatever, start talking politics, all that the thread ends up turning into is a bunch of snide pricks looking down on disagreements, teenagers trying to sound profound and sophisticated, people who don't follow politics acting like they follow politics, some guy coming in with a link to a pointless news story they took too far, and one guy (the King Dick, if you will) tossing out nastiness to as many people as possible?!
And while I'm at it, I now firmly believe it is impossible for such forums to discuss real world events without the topic spiraling into a wannabe CNN/Fox News panel, if said panel was occupied entirely by angry black women after someone just said "bitch". Hate to sound condescending, but if you know more about an anime character's backstory than that of a presidential cantidate, don't try to pretend you're an expert.
At least there's Greg in this situation (his paranoid view of the news not withstanding)…
Which is exactly why in my first post I was simply ranting and planned to leave until it was taken personally. People like me should just stay out of here because it
s a practice I don
t agree with, with methods I agree even less with. Everyone becomes a bully. Even if youre not using your fists, you
re still demeaning other people`s ideas and lifestyles.I think these things would work a lot better if, if you
ll allow me an example, fundamentalists didn
t steam with rage over someone being gay or aethists didn`t turn their nose up at the idea of faith. These political idealogues and talking heads tell us this crap like we should be angry at others for leading different lifestyles and it just creates cluster-fucks where eventually all sides just seem fucking INSANE when viewed from the outside.I know it
s not THAT simple, but that
s how it begins. And thats the society we live in, a lot of pissed off people that don
t like it if someone differs in their beliefs even slightly.I mean Christ, look at last week
s chapter thread? Name-calling and insults over an idea a poster simply didn
t like? -
This post is deleted!
-
I mean Christ, look at last week
s chapter thread? Name-calling and insults over an idea a poster simply didn
t like?That's the way places like these work not everyone is going to like the things you have to say even if something you say has some weight to it.
-
Sandai, that is entirely true. And even so, when something doesn't have weight, there's no need to hold a vendeta against the person. But as you simply put it, that's how it is. I shouldn't stick my nose where it doesn't belong.
-
That bullies can`t exchange political ideas/information without making others feel bad about themselves based entirely on half truthes and sound bites.
Whoa there sherrif, that won't hold up in the county court I reckon.
Why is it when people on anime forums, game forums, or whatever, start talking politics, all that the thread ends up turning into is a bunch of snide pricks looking down on disagreements, teenagers trying to sound profound and sophisticated, people who don't follow politics acting like they follow politics, some guy coming in with a link to a pointless news story they took too far, and one guy (the King Dick, if you will) tossing out nastiness to as many people as possible?!
And while I'm at it, I now firmly believe it is impossible for such forums to discuss real world events without the topic spiraling into a wannabe CNN/Fox News panel, if said panel was occupied entirely by angry black women after someone just said "bitch". Hate to sound condescending, but if you know more about an anime character's backstory than that of a presidential cantidate, don't try to pretend you're an expert.
At least there's Greg in this situation (his paranoid view of the news not withstanding)…
Seriously guys, you could cut the irony with a knife. Though I think it might break on the passive aggression.
Also King Dick? Are you serious?
-
Can't we all just…get along? sniffles, wipes tear Hm, guess not.
Personally, I can't stand politics, for exactly what's going on here: endless arguing that really has no way of being completely resolved. I'm really neutral here.
-
@Deltron:
Whoa there sherrif, that won't hold up in the county court I reckon.
Seriously guys, you could cut the irony with a knife. Though I think it might break on the passive aggression.
Also King Dick? Are you serious?
And the bullying and demeaning of others through quips continues. I'm just glad my participation here brought it out in the open.
-
And the bullying and demeaning of others through quips continues. I'm just glad my participation here brought it out in the open.
ahahahahahahaha
You really don't know me do you.
-
Since guns don't apparently kill people, and I believe it, it kinda seem awefully wasteful for armies to spend so much money for firearms and stuff. They should arm soldiers with people instead.
you can buy all the guns you want and i'm fairly sure nobody dies if you dont pick them up
-
@Deltron:
A gun is a tool, we shouldn't let people get away with making excuses on it anymore than we should Marilyn Manson, gangsta rap, Die Hard, or religion.
Wait, I'm confused, are you trying to deny that guns are a major cause of crime and death and removing them wouldn't lower the crime-rate?
You're probably not saying that but I'm just checking to make sure.
-
Wait, I'm confused, are you trying to deny that guns are a major cause of crime and death and removing them wouldn't lower the crime-rate?
Even if you did get rid of guns entirely that still wouldn't lower crime that much.
-
Are you kidding? Do you even have any factual basis on this? Of course not (or whatever basis you got was from some gun lobbyist because that's what they want you to believe) but I do and trust me when I say that taking guns off the street would greatly reduce the crime-rate.
Here, enjoy reading.
-
Ah! An essay on the internet said it! It must be true!
-
Are you kidding? Do you even have any factual basis on this? Of course not (or whatever basis you got was from some gun lobbyist because that's what they want you to believe) but I do and trust me when I say that taking guns off the street would greatly reduce the crime-rate.
Here, enjoy reading.
Still stand by that comment facts or not.
-
So in other words, you're being oblivious to the truth because you don't want to admit you're wrong?
-
So in other words, you're being oblivious to the truth because you don't want to admit you're wrong?
It's no more egregious than you believing something you read on a website.
-
So in other words, you're being oblivious to the truth because you don't want to admit you're wrong?
So rather than trying communicate you're points in a polite and civilized manner, you basically said "NO YOUR ALL WRONG", took some essay with outdated statistics from a blatantly far left website, threw it out here with nothing so much as a summary, and concluded your argument with HERE READ! YOUR ALL WRONG AND YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT YOUR WRONG. You expect us to instantly agree with it?
-
Better than saying something in a manner that makes it sound like a blatant fact without any factual basis whatsoever. Not to mention when aforementioned "fact" flies int he face of all common sense. taking away guns doesn't reduce the crime/homicide rate? How many robbers do you think are gonna try to raid a store with just a pen knife? How many more people would live in an encounter against an assailant who uses a knife rather than a gun where distance is now a factor not to mention it's harder to kill with? Seriously saying there won't be a huge change because of this is on the point of ignorance that's why over half of America wants guns banned. The only reason they aren't IS because of the damn NRA.
Besides Takinawa, didn't Sandai do the same thing? Hell isn't an argument where both sides say you're wrong to the other?