What's new

What is Wrong With These People!? - The U.S. Politics Discussion Thread

aj1701

Noob
he supports gay marriage. doesnt think government should tell them if they can or cant get married..

the biggest thing that i find odd about him is how he isnt "pro choice" :confused:
Not quite. He wants to use states rights to undo roe v wade. I'm ok with states rights, but the fed should step in when they violate peoples freedoms.
 

aj1701

Noob
DanCock, I think all marriages should be replaced by civil unions at the federal level. If, however, a church does not wish to marry two men or two women, it has the right to do so based on being a private institution.

And I agree with you 100% about bullying.
Id go a bit further. The govt has no need at all to legally bind people together. Marriage started as property law, its an out dated concept.
 
Marriage is actually more of a class function than anything now. A marriage affects you legally far more than most people admit. So it makes more sense to marry people that waft in the same social circles and class that you do than it does to marry outside of it. Men are often willing to "marry down" if the woman is attractive enough or young enough, though in general smarter men tend to ignore that and go for more of an equal partner. Women in general try to pick someone that offers them an advantageous situation.

Of course classism and race go hand in hand. Especially right now. A woman might not be racist, but women are also clobbering men educationally and as earners right now. If a woman has a post graduate degree and has a powerful career and is going places, well, white and Asian males tend to make up the majority of those that are going to be on her level or above. The education gap is also letting women become a lot more choosy when it comes to mates.

People are less likely to brush you off over race. But people are far more likely to brush you off over not being good enough on the socioeconomic level than ever before. Of course what often happens is "she blew me off because she's a racist", when that's not the case. You got blown off because how you dress, what your hobbies are, how you act points to you being a step down the socioeconomic ladder, which is a problem for people.

With the gap between rich and poor growing greater due to conservative economic policies, this is only going to get worse.
 

rev0lver

Come On Die Young
Time to clear some things up.

Wrong. And very hypocritical, first of all half if not most of your post is all lies or made up by the mainstream media that most libs just drink up.
According to your statistics, the conservatives dominate the mainstream media since Fox has much more viewers than MSNBC (not counting the other news networks because they do not/seldomly host opinion shows).

Anyone who thinks they can negotiate with terrorists are delusional or flat out dumb. These people want to kill us for different beliefs, and it has nothing to do with "oh americans off our land or else" why do I say this? Simple, because they've attacked people all around the world from Europe to the US. France and Spain are neutral half the time or don't want to fight the, yet they were attacked...care to explain that? Purpose? Oh yeah, because they're evil freaking people that are radicals extremists and feel the only way they can "speak" is thru killing innoncent people...please.
First of all, you realize the biggest terror threat (and most prevalent) after these people are right-wing extremists, right? Also, you are incorrect about their purpose. It has very little to do with beliefs, it is political reasons. OBL himself admitted that political relations with Israel and military presence in the region was the driving force behind his attacks. The Madrid bombing did not have a clear group responsible, but no connections to established islamist groups. While France has not been attacked recently (though there was a plot), they are FAR from neutral as far as Israeli relations go.

Bush never quit looking for Bin Laden, he simply said he's focus on other things...at least he had the balls to pursue him. You really think Obama would have caught and killed him with his philosophy on terror cells? pfftt hardly...if not for the Bush administration going after him, hunting his trails, Obama never would have had a slightest chance...and the fact that he was so secretive with disposing Bin Laden's body makes me wonder...America wanted to see him, yet there was no footage, only supposed pictures of him being shot in the head....so what Obama was trying to hide boggles me, people deserve to see him after what he did to us in 2001.
After 9/11 any president would pursue bin Laden. The fact is that he didn't become a priority, and Obama ensured that he still would be. Bush decided to continue a failed war, Obama decided to stop this and focus on only the important aspects. And please don't tell me that you believe OBL death conspiracy theories. As far as the pictures go, you should read this article: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/dont-release-the-photos.html

Proves that Obama not only spent more then Bush did, but spent more in a year then anyone else in history putting us in a serious deficit. Bush is also to blame, but the whole "Bush spent far more then Obama" that's pure bullshit to put it lightly
I fault the Republicans' failure to put military spending cuts on the table more than Obama, personally. This is still coming from the Bush era, and will be cut in the future. There will be inevitably less spending when we decrease our military presence.

And don't even get me started on his ridiculous proposal to have religious organizations like Churches, Temples etc pay for other people's birth control and abortions...arguably one of the dumbest ideas to date, and oh yeah wanting to re-write the constitution.
You realize this has to do with access to medical services, right? And include the fact that there are states that already HAD such laws before Obama did this. I would find it absolutely terrible if there were portions of the population without access to birth control and abortion services because their local religious-based medical centers refused to provide it. It's not forcing churches to pay for it, it's forcing church-sponsored medical facilities to do so.

What American President fails to put your right hand over your heart during National Anthem? Better yet what first lady mocks the American Flag and disrespects it along with those who lost their lives on 9/11, one of the worst events to happen on American soil?
It's shocking that this is actually important to some people. You're not required to follow a certain procedure. It has nothing to do with what they think of America.
 

MKF30

Fujin and Ermac for MK 11
According to your statistics, the conservatives dominate the mainstream media since Fox has much more viewers than MSNBC (not counting the other news networks because they do not/seldomly host opinion shows).
No dude, I'm pointing out that the mainstream media is way more liberal then conservative...Fox while has the highest ratings just proves that it's watched more then MSNBC, CNN etc...however, that being said it's also the ONLY network that isn't mainstream liberal/pro Obama/democrat....Fox is obviously as big as MSNBC etc, but what i'm pointing out is that it's watched for a network that's always "being mocked" by people on the internet....Dominating most watched TV shows politically is entirely different ballgame then which party the mainstream media whole supports, which have been liberals for a while now. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, UPN, CBS etc are all liberal...Fox is the only one conservative.



First of all, you realize the biggest terror threat (and most prevalent) after these people are right-wing extremists, right? Also, you are incorrect about their purpose. It has very little to do with beliefs, it is political reasons. OBL himself admitted that political relations with Israel and military presence in the region was the driving force behind his attacks. The Madrid bombing did not have a clear group responsible, but no connections to established islamist groups. While France has not been attacked recently (though there was a plot), they are FAR from neutral as far as Israeli relations go.
Ok, if you're trying to say that "terrorists are rightwing extremists" or that "right wingers are a threat" that's just beyond wrong lol, especially since the right wingers most anyway feel the need to deal with terrorists, not negotiate or bow down to them like radical libs want to like Obama...If anything, the radical lefties are making us weak, you don't negotiate or make "peace" with radical extremists...you destroy them. Or...you die. Simple really. That's how their mind works, most liberals however live in this rainbow world where you think you can negotiate and be friends "with everyone" soo not true....I'm not incorrect about their purpose, I said they talk and make their points by killing innocents and using fear. They don't do it for religious reasons but will use that as a reason at times with their "70 virgins, all for allah" bullshit. To be more specific as to what I'm saying...that's more so what I was referring to. They've been saying that for years yet didn't attack us until now...because Clinton didn't go after OBL when he had the chance, if he had like I said 9/11 could have been prevented...The Madrid bombing group actually Al-Kaida said they were responsible or had involvement...France has always been neutral overall and had little involvement with fighting terrorists....much less getting involved in wars.



After 9/11 any president would pursue bin Laden. The fact is that he didn't become a priority, and Obama ensured that he still would be. Bush decided to continue a failed war, Obama decided to stop this and focus on only the important aspects. And please don't tell me that you believe OBL death conspiracy theories. As far as the pictures go, you should read this article: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/dont-release-the-photos.html
Failed war is relative, people forget while I admit we did spend too much time there, we still liberated Iraq and ridded two menaces off the Earth. More then I can say when Clinton was in. He may have did a good job economically but did a piss poor job with national security...like I said earlier, 93 WTC bombing completely ignored and treated as a criminal case, that's not a criminal case. That was an act of war/terror cell bombing....not taken seriously. Then when Clinton passed on killing OSB when he had the chance, OSB took advantage of it and created the blue prints(which we found under Bush) of their 9/11 plan, WTC being among them.... I don't believe in the OBD death conspiracy, nor do I believe 9/11 was an inside job...they're ridiculous. I'm just saying, the fact that Obama was in such a rush to sweep the OSB thing under the rug was a little shady if you ask me....people wanted closure and he pretty much denied that by all the cover up of having no pics showing him dead(the ones we saw were leaked) Just saying...I don't mean to dismiss your link, but being as how it's a ny.com site, it's most likely liberal biased like the local papers except for the post....I've read that site before and they're definitely more left.



I fault the Republicans' failure to put military spending cuts on the table more than Obama, personally. This is still coming from the Bush era, and will be cut in the future. There will be inevitably less spending when we decrease our military presence.
It's actually both their faults, but Obama pretty much lied bigtime with his "I'll spend less" prior to becoming president and all his "we're in too much debt" lectures, then goes ahead and breaks Bush's spending record....It's not just military defense spending, it's flawed surplus and Obamacare killing us now as well...especially when 50% of the country is against it.



You realize this has to do with access to medical services, right? And include the fact that there are states that already HAD such laws before Obama did this. I would find it absolutely terrible if there were portions of the population without access to birth control and abortion services because their local religious-based medical centers refused to provide it. It's not forcing churches to pay for it, it's forcing church-sponsored medical facilities to do so.
What laws were ever in place prior to Obama's idea of having churches, temples, religious organizations etc pay for birth control and abortions? There is none, so I don't know where you're reading such things or watching...it has nothing to do with medical services, sure it's medical but that's just an excuse the liberals are using to try to justify it...it goes against moral and ethical code of these religious organizations asking them to pay for something they don't believe in doing...

Let me ask you something, what if a republican president asked or tried to force Muslims to "NOT practice their beliefs" in schools or do pay for something against their moral, religious beliefs....do you have any idea of the uproar would be? lol This is just wrong and flat out unconstitutional...flat out. You can always have access to birth control, it's called the pill and condoms or if you're willing and have the will power...abstinence. As for abortion, either way it's forcing the church to do something they don't believe in nor want anything to do with....you want an abortion, get it done the way we've always done it via a specialist and pay for it yourself. People don't have to get knocked up either you know...but I wouldn't go as far as to say "people should be more responsible" god forbid. Oh and there's also something called adoption, I should know being as how I am adopted. Just saying...I don't get this mentality of "omg, a baby abortion is the ONLY way to go!!! and others must pay for it too, all because I took no responsibility and spread my legs because I was horny!"





It's shocking that this is actually important to some people. You're not required to follow a certain procedure. It has nothing to do with what they think of America.
It's not shocking at all, it's just common sense and pure respect for your country that you live in. Sure, it's your "right" to not do so but be prepared to be bashed for it...Why is it so much trouble to put your right hand over your chest may I ask?

Concerning the flag point. I mean, you go to a funeral will you laugh or say a prayer? Same principle here with the 9/11 "all this for a damn flag" comment Mrs. Obama Said, very disrespectful and very rude in such an important time and memorial not to mention a lack of respect for the American flag. I really believe liberals don't understand the concept of the American flag or what patriotism is....I mean, spitting at our soldiers who come home from war or booing them seriously? Those people deserve a kick to the face...it has everything to do with what they think of america, there's tons of Michella Obama vids out there on youtube proving her hatred and disappointing in America until Obama got elected....shall I post them?
 

Espio

Kokomo
Lead Moderator
MKF30 are you serious? "I really believe liberals don't understand the concept of the American flag or what patriotism is...."

All liberals are not the same and neither are all conservatives, the level of ignorance being displayed is shocking to me....

There's not one true set way to be an American, we're a republican style democracy for a reason.

Below the lines is not directed at anyone in particular.​
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My political leanings are Libertarian, it's a blend of liberal and conservative viewpoints.


Dogma and blind loyalty to party politics and to one linear ideology has been rampant in the United States for too long.


Our politics is disgraceful...people in this country vote for people based on how much they pray, go to church and other private matter shenanigans that have no place in politics and aren't relevant to running the country correctly.

So many people want to invade and dislike Iran( both politicians and the public), asserting that they're a "religious theocracy", a "threat" and not "free" yet almost 50% of the country seems to want religion to dominate politics and encourages it from politicians from the way they vote.
 

rev0lver

Come On Die Young
Dominating most watched TV shows politically is entirely different ballgame then which party the mainstream media whole supports, which have been liberals for a while now. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, UPN, CBS etc are all liberal...Fox is the only one conservative.
The only people still promoting these talking points is the right wing media themselves. Other than MSNBC (which isn't all liberal hosts), the other networks haven't showed liberal slant for over a decade. They're primarily focused on news reporting/documentary specials/interviews than opinion pieces. Fox is attacked on the internet because they say stupid shit and people look into what they said. Plus things like issued terms like "Obamacare" which Fox hosts were told to say instead of "public option" or "universal healthcare". And lol UPN just thought that was funny.

Ok, if you're trying to say that "terrorists are rightwing extremists" or that "right wingers are a threat" that's just beyond wrong lol, especially since the right wingers most anyway feel the need to deal with terrorists, not negotiate or bow down to them like radical libs want to like Obama...
Right wing extremists have been a threat since the Oklahoma City Bombing, and not just in America (for example, the Norway attack last summer). Two years ago, a man flew a plane into an IRS building on principle of his conservative beliefs. It was all over the news until they found out he wasn't a Muslim or a Middle Easterner. Right-wingers were all over the internet supporting what he did at the time. There is also the plot by the Hutaree militia. The regular attacks/murders of abortion doctors and American muslims by right-wing extremists, while small-scale when considering individual attacks, constitutes terrorism by definition of the word. Here's a long list of right-wing terror attacks that have occurred since 1995: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

The issue of the way we deal with terrorists is also very important. Right-wingers don't want to follow law and they want to racially profile and surveil Muslim-Americans. This is what violates the Constitution. I also find it funny how over 60% of the world's Muslim population lives East of Pakistan and aren't suspected at all (because they haven't done anything wrong to us). Islam isn't the problem here.

Also, you can't fight terrorism with a war like this. You can kill as many terrorists as you want but the ideology still thrives. All that is doing is making them want to fight us more. What we need to do is not give in to their demands, per se, but to understand why we were attacked and to logically recognize what we MIGHT have been doing something wrong in our foreign policy.

They've been saying that for years yet didn't attack us until now...because Clinton didn't go after OBL when he had the chance, if he had like I said 9/11 could have been prevented...The Madrid bombing group actually Al-Kaida said they were responsible or had involvement...France has always been neutral overall and had little involvement with fighting terrorists....much less getting involved in wars.
Clinton actually DID go after bin Laden, it's not just playing Captain Hindsight here. He ordered a missile strike against his purported location (which nearly worked), and the RIGHT WING criticized him for trying to draw attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. I'd argue that the right-wing's focus on this scandal caused bin Laden to slip through our fingers more than Clinton did, as this was happening at the same time. An al-Qaeda affiliated group initially claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, but this was later proven to be false. France is not neutral as far as their relations with Israel go, Israel being the primary reason terrorism started in the Middle East and still is today. They have supported and financially aided their government since the 1960's.

Failed war is relative, people forget while I admit we did spend too much time there, we still liberated Iraq and ridded two menaces off the Earth.
Do I regret Hussein's death? Absolutely not, but the war was not necessary and started to cause more problems that still linger today. Iraq isn't a perfect westernized democracy as it stands right now. Remember that we caused the insurgency; we weren't fighting military forces for the most part, but ex-military forces who wanted to fight us because we invaded them and fired them from their positions.

I don't mean to dismiss your link, but being as how it's a ny.com site, it's most likely liberal biased like the local papers except for the post....I've read that site before and they're definitely more left.
They are leftist, but this specific article has nothing to do with politics. It is specifically about the issue of releasing the death pictures before the government announced that they wouldn't release them. It's not long and is a very good read.

It's actually both their faults, but Obama pretty much lied bigtime with his "I'll spend less" prior to becoming president and all his "we're in too much debt" lectures, then goes ahead and breaks Bush's spending record....It's not just military defense spending, it's flawed surplus and Obamacare killing us now as well...especially when 50% of the country is against it.
That's not at all what's killing us. I'm not sure you realize how much defense takes up our budget. We aren't even in a real war anymore and we are still spending over 7x the amount of the next-biggest department on our military. And don't get me started on taxes... Obama caved to the right. Just what Bush wanted. We're going to be in a shithole if we pay off our debt by lowering taxes while just eliminating things like "Obamacare" and the surplus (which has done well, actually).


What laws were ever in place prior to Obama's idea of having churches, temples, religious organizations etc pay for birth control and abortions?
22 states had mandates similar or the same to Obama's birth control mandate prior to this being passed. It has nothing to do with churches paying for birth control and abortion, once again. It is religion-sponsored medical centers.

Let me ask you something, what if a republican president asked or tried to force Muslims to "NOT practice their beliefs" in schools or do pay for something against their moral, religious beliefs....do you have any idea of the uproar would be?
Muslims have the same limitations and the same freedoms in public schools as Christians. Muslims already are paying tax dollars that fund subsidies for pork-producing facilities and for us to kill fellow Muslims and for us to spy on them.

I don't get this mentality of "omg, a baby abortion is the ONLY way to go!!! and others must pay for it too, all because I took no responsibility and spread my legs because I was horny!"
That's not the only issue. Even adoption is not an option for some due to their life circumstances and cannot be carrying a child for nine months. If you're a crack addict and you get pregnant, I wouldn't want this person to have this child whether he/she was put up for adoption or not.

Why is it so much trouble to put your right hand over your chest may I ask?
Because maybe there are more important things on his mind and it was a standard slip-up? This whole issue was blown way out of proportion. When you have several huge world-changing things to deal with, you're not always thinking of the procedure you're supposed to follow in every moment. I can certainly point out many more times when Obama did have his hand over his heart.

And sure, post the videos.
 

Espio

Kokomo
Lead Moderator
Plus we nerfed Iran with sanctions...on a serious note though, I hope we leave Iran and Syria alone, if the people there want it, they will overthrow their theocracy and their dictatorship on their own, no nation can donate liberation to another nation.
 
What I don't like about Ron Paul
- he wants to cut federal funding for social programs
- he wants to cut federal funding for research (as someone going into this field, this is a big problem for me)
- he is in favor of states' rights in a higher-than-normal way
- he doesn't support anti-discrimination laws (on the principle of freedom, not racism, however)
- he is not in favor of public healthcare
- he wants less federal regulation on private corporations
- he supports religious displays/prayer in public schools
- his stance on gay marriage has yet to be very clear
- he is very pro-life and doesn't want federal money put toward family planning/birth control
- he believes too much in the free market
- if elected, I feel he would fall victim to congress and his good ideas could not be implemented
- he wants to cut federal funding for social programs- This has to do with balancing the budget. You need to cut real spending in order to get the country back on its feet.
- he wants to cut federal funding for research (as someone going into this field, this is a big problem for me)-This goes back to balancing the budget. This country is broke right now and can't afford alot of things. Real sacrifices have to be made.
- he is in favor of states' rights in a higher-than-normal way- This has to do with his views on liberty and government involvement in our lives. This country was designed by the founding fathers to be a free society and government's role wasn't to tell us what we can or cannot do, thats what the constitution is for. Thats why he wants to leave things to the states.
- he doesn't support anti-discrimination laws (on the principle of freedom, not racism, however)- He's against some of those laws because they involve the loss of property rights as well.
- he is not in favor of public healthcare- I agree with you on this one:)
- he wants less federal regulation on private corporations- If the markets control prices(markets=the people) then this isn't necessary.
- he supports religious displays/prayer in public schools- This goes back to his views(and the constitutional view) on what a free society is really suppose to be about. True freedom doesn't stop where you want it to stop. People are free to do as they please, as long as there not harming or forcing their beliefs on you.
- his stance on gay marriage has yet to be very clear- He's all about liberty and has explained his position on this a number of times. To him, the states nor the government should be involved in this.
- he is very pro-life and doesn't want federal money put toward family planning/birth control- I agree
- he believes too much in the free market- The free market=the people. Your saying he believes in the people too much.

- if elected, I feel he would fall victim to congress and his good ideas could not be implemented- This is so sad but probably true. This is precisely why he needs the support of the public. This way the corruption in Washington can see that the people are waking up to their bullshit. The internet is making people aware of the bullshit and thats why they are scrambling to regulate it. It really sucks when you look at the presidential candidates and only 1 of them is really looking out for the well being of the country. I wonder if we'll ever see a day when you look on the stage and there's 1 corrupt fucker and the rest are legit.

 

DanCock

Cock Master!!
Dan, typical lame lib responce...you have no argument so you'll resort to insults. SMH. You are a perfect example of this video....Why? Can you not respect my views since they're merely different then your own?

finally had time to watch that video LOLOL you are a funny guy :)

 

rev0lver

Come On Die Young
- he wants to cut federal funding for social programs- This has to do with balancing the budget. You need to cut real spending in order to get the country back on its feet.
- he wants to cut federal funding for research (as someone going into this field, this is a big problem for me)-This goes back to balancing the budget. This country is broke right now and can't afford alot of things. Real sacrifices have to be made.
This is all why I think (which Paul agrees on) that military spending needs to be cut heavily, but I think this truly needs to be done before everything else. If you cut 1/15 of our military spending it'd be the same as eliminating the entire department of energy. I also believe taxes on the wealthy need to be raised. We don't have to eliminate what's important to improve the deficit.

- he is in favor of states' rights in a higher-than-normal way- This has to do with his views on liberty and government involvement in our lives. This country was designed by the founding fathers to be a free society and government's role wasn't to tell us what we can or cannot do, thats what the constitution is for. Thats why he wants to leave things to the states.
Delegating more power to the states only regresses parts of the country. Hell, Texas could even still have their sodomy laws. The government's role should logically be to tell us what we can and can't do. It is for a good greater than freedom.

- he doesn't support anti-discrimination laws (on the principle of freedom, not racism, however)- He's against some of those laws because they involve the loss of property rights as well.
It doesn't matter. There should be no justification for allowing these things to happen in a modern society.

- he wants less federal regulation on private corporations- If the markets control prices(markets=the people) then this isn't necessary.
It's not just economic reasons. Corruption exists in business at a FAR higher rate than in politics. Unethical business practices involving the environment, working conditions, safety, and pure power for the purpose of efficiency and profit are the problem.

- he supports religious displays/prayer in public schools- This goes back to his views(and the constitutional view) on what a free society is really suppose to be about. True freedom doesn't stop where you want it to stop. People are free to do as they please, as long as there not harming or forcing their beliefs on you.
Think about a Muslim kid in a public school that regularly practices group prayer. The kid would feel ostracized. Being part of the outgroup leads to a variety of psychosocial issues. What leads to freedom is a secular society, and things don't have to be forced to cause a significant effect. And then there's the issue of teaching creationism in public schools. This is a dangerous practice that slows the educational progress of our country and SHOULD be regulated by the federal government.

- his stance on gay marriage has yet to be very clear- He's all about liberty and has explained his position on this a number of times. To him, the states nor the government should be involved in this.
This removes the legal benefits that come with marriage. I would not like it if both gay and straight couples could not have inheritance rights. His stance isn't thought-out.

he believes too much in the free market- The free market=the people. Your saying he believes in the people too much.
Yes, the people cannot be trusted.
 

LesMore

Top 8 Injustice Frosty Faustings VII
The only people still promoting these talking points is the right wing media themselves. Other than MSNBC (which isn't all liberal hosts), the other networks haven't showed liberal slant for over a decade. They're primarily focused on news reporting/documentary specials/interviews than opinion pieces. Fox is attacked on the internet because they say stupid shit and people look into what they said. Plus things like issued terms like "Obamacare" which Fox hosts were told to say instead of "public option" or "universal healthcare". And lol UPN just thought that was funny.



Right wing extremists have been a threat since the Oklahoma City Bombing, and not just in America (for example, the Norway attack last summer). Two years ago, a man flew a plane into an IRS building on principle of his conservative beliefs. It was all over the news until they found out he wasn't a Muslim or a Middle Easterner. Right-wingers were all over the internet supporting what he did at the time. There is also the plot by the Hutaree militia. The regular attacks/murders of abortion doctors and American muslims by right-wing extremists, while small-scale when considering individual attacks, constitutes terrorism by definition of the word. Here's a long list of right-wing terror attacks that have occurred since 1995: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

The issue of the way we deal with terrorists is also very important. Right-wingers don't want to follow law and they want to racially profile and surveil Muslim-Americans. This is what violates the Constitution. I also find it funny how over 60% of the world's Muslim population lives East of Pakistan and aren't suspected at all (because they haven't done anything wrong to us). Islam isn't the problem here.


And sure, post the videos.

!

Can you name ONE liberal extremist that has committed a violent act?

Also I am sorry to put it like this but revolver is serving you hard on all of your talking points...
Dan,
As for the obama video, How hard is it to not put your hand over your chest for the national anthem? Did you just stand there in school or services or did you put your hand over your chest? Curious?
,
this is just pittifull that you have been so deluded to think THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is not a patriotic person and your jabs at Michelle Obama are just so sad considering you think you could judge a woman as prestigious, caring and educated as the first lady. If she were a white man with the same resume I bet you would cream to be her/him. It sure seems strong and manly to trash a woman...
 

rev0lver

Come On Die Young
Can you name ONE liberal extremist that has committed a violent act?
To back this up, since I'm half-expecting it to come in a response by someone, of course there are the attacks by groups like the Earth Liberation Front/Animal Liberation Front. However, both of these groups have it in their ethics codes to not cause human harm. They're only vandals who cause financial damage in losses and destroy infrastructure.
 
It is for a good greater than freedom.

Yes, the people cannot be trusted.
I understand where you are coming from now, but if you feel that we are better off being told what to do as oppose to making your own choices, then I'm sorry to say, but you don't deserve to be free. Like I said before you can't dictate what people can and can't do in a free society, then it isn't free anymore and democracy is just an illusion if you allow that to happen. If the majority of the people in this Country feel as you do, then we will undoubtedly keep losing our freedoms in the name of a "Greater Good". Stuff like whats in this video is what awaits the American people if they don't wake up. I'm not sure where your getting your info from, but you should try looking a little deeper into things, no matter how much you trust whatever sources guide your decisions. I hope for your sake you change your views on what freedom is really about. Please don't take offense to anything, because in reality all it is, is a difference in opinions.


 

Mt. Mutombo

Asshole by nature
My 2 cents...

1)Ron Paul might not be perfect, but who's left? Obama, hasn't done shit, just incompetent. Romney? Still haven't heard anything from him on what his policies are, all i keep hearing is him trashing the other candidates. Santorum? Ha! one of the dumbest dipshits i've seen in politics. And Gingrich seems like the stereotypical republican, he seems like a smart version of Bush(and that's not a compliment).

2)I don't believe Bin Laden was killed last year. There were some international reports in 03' that Bin Laden was on hardcore dyalisis treatments. And anyone who knows anything about kidney failures and renal diseases knows that you won't last very long. Why all of the sudden he appears dead? To ensure Obama's second term plain and simple. USA's supposed biggest enemy thrown in the ocean? WTF is he? Goddamn Megatron? Osama was a transformer lol? For crying out loud they had videos of Saddam and Gaddafi found in holes...

3) I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job by the US but i certainly think it was an inside job in terms of bombs or demolition equipment being inside the buildings. Every engineer i know has told me the exact same thing, a plane would have cause some serious damage but not taken the building down, not even close. And based on the way they collapsed, there were definitely some demolition tactics utilized.

4) Gay marriage, well... you wanna fuck a man? Your bad buddy, sucks to never feel the warmth of a pussy brah! But in all seriousness, this has to be approved nationally. It's not like 100% of the population is gonna be gay and it's the end of our species, in other words it's not a problem, so i don't see what all the fuss is about.

This is something irrelevant but it irked me when it happened. I remember the week when Japan got hit by the tsunamis and earthquakes. That same week, the US decided to aid the united nations of EU in the Lybia conflict. I don't know but as a human being if i was faced with the option of helping someone in their time of need or help someone usurp a government, i wouldn't choose the latter. As i said it's irrelevant but it bothers me that we live in a world where the biggest superpower in the world focused its efforts in fighting a fight that's not theirs rather than aiding a country that was passing through the worst times in their history.
 

rev0lver

Come On Die Young
I understand where you are coming from now, but if you feel that we are better off being told what to do as oppose to making your own choices, then I'm sorry to say, but you don't deserve to be free. Like I said before you can't dictate what people can and can't do in a free society, then it isn't free anymore and democracy is just an illusion if you allow that to happen. If the majority of the people in this Country feel as you do, then we will undoubtedly keep losing our freedoms in the name of a greater good. Stuff like whats in this video is what awaits the American people if they don't wake up. I'm not sure where your getting your info from, but you should try looking a little deeper into things, no matter how much you trust whatever sources guides your decisions. I hope for your sake you change your views on what freedom is really about. Please don't take offense to anything, because in reality all it is, is a difference in opinions.
This is all unsubstantiated philosophical talk not based on logic. Do we need to lose all of our freedom and become a police state? No. I don't need to be told what to do, but unfortunately a large portion of our population is dumb and/or greedy. Yes, I want the government telling businesses that they can't destroy the environment and take advantage of their workers. I want the government telling businesses that they cannot discriminate against their workers or customers based on race/gender/sexuality. I do think there should be limitations on how free the free market is. Free markets make money disingenuously. Ron Paul's general philosophy sounds great when you're really baked or if you're senile, but in reality it produces a broken mess of a society. I don't agree with everything the government mandates, such as their drug laws and things like the Patriot Act, but it is FAR better to temporarily live with those and have such things fixed as our society progresses and the democratic process allows for that. I believe in social freedoms, with some exceptions (though I AM a liberal who disagrees with gun control laws). I simply think that there is A LOT that the government needs to regulate to preserve the health of our country.
 

rev0lver

Come On Die Young
Wait now i kind of want to talk about conspiracy theories just so I can blow people up. This got me too excited.
 
How can the democratic process advance if we are being striped of our freedoms? Here read this if you ever get a chance, its the American constitution(The Supreme law of the land). There's not much more I can say if you don't understand this document first. http://constitutionus.com/#x1
 
lol. please don't tell me you believe the zeitgeist garbage... i'm sorry but i can't be nice after seeing this posted.
I don't believe in all of it, but it talks about a lot of facts. Like I said before, do your research on things. Look into the stuff that you might find stupid or unbelievable. I can tell we look at things very differently and our interest in things are also very different.