user1991

Is it wrong that I think Cheney looks like Mr Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life" in all the pictures of this event? It's quite fitting though. I don't believe for a second that Cheney was injured. When I saw him come out in his wheelchair, the first thing I thought was, "Wow, [bleep]y doesn't think anyone will criticize a man in a wheelchair, what a slime ball." No millionaire on Earth, let alone a millionaire as old as he is with as many cancerous medical problems as he has would ever "pick up boxes" while moving. They pay people. He wanted sympathy, and didn't want to be booed at the inaugural ceremonies. The lows that this man will go to have no ends. Yeah...and? What's your point? The public has been like this for years, this is what the "moderates" will look like. They won't support all of his policies, but they'll support some. Just because something has always been like this doesn't mean that you should be content with it. Plus, it is different with Obama. What's wrong with voting for an antithesis when we're ruled by a two-party system, which is inherently binded in our Constitution as the majority rules. Because if people understood the issues then maybe we wouldn't be stuck in a two party system? Maybe if people woke up one day and were like "holy crap, the nature of the system itself threw me overboard before I was even born" they would start to make ACTUAL change. Just about as easy as Bush abused his. Bush was never a popular president. Only until immediately after 9/11 was he popular, yet he still was able to abuse his authority while breaking law upon law upon law during times of unpopularity. It's easy for any President to abuse their power. Frankly, the executive branch is given far too much power in my opinion just because they can execute Executive Orders. His popularity won't make this that much easier than it already is. You're fringing on conspiracy theorist. I said the same thing with Bush. You don't understand what I'm saying. The problem I have here is that the Obama supporters are so quick to dismiss all the "crazy bush supporters" when a lot of them fall into the same category. Blind support makes for "great leader" mentality. You act like no candidate has ever made promises that they cannot keep. If anything, you're treating him like he's a God more than anyone else by putting him above other politicians. Other politicians have made promises that they couldn't execute, does that necessarily mean we'll revert back to 8 years of Republican insanity? Maybe, maybe not. Obama being there certainly doesn't make it so. No. The nature of your political system makes it so that if a president doesn't come through on his promises, the other party will most likely win unless there is some sort of huge disenfranchised portion of the population (which there could be come next election). I don't expect him to come through on his promises, and to be honest I don't care. The problem is all these people who act like he will. If he doesn't, what happens? While I agree, I only agree on the basis that he's not as lefty as I am. When it comes to intellect and political prowess, he is a demi-God, and anyone that underestimates this will be burned. He is making Bill Clinton look like a toddler, and Clinton was a master politician. The problem with your sort of left wing ideals is that they invariably lead to collectivism. Don't abandon individualism so soon. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty far left on almost everything, just not in the same way. 1. Call on people to listen to their better angels and put aside petty fights. 2. Extend an olive branch and make a "concession" that's not really as big as it seems. 3. Allow himself to be slapped by the other side who thinks they've got a pushover on their hands. 4. Wait for the other side to overextend themselves. 5. Chide the other side for being childish and then proceed to do what he always meant to do anyway. He did it to Hillary (most notably when dealing with the issue of delegate counts in Michigan and Florida), he did it to McCain (the debate rules), and now he's doing it to the Republicans in Congress.

Seriously, some of these Obama supporters are just as crazy as the Bush supporters they were so quick to criticize during the campaign. They accept things just as blindly, the only difference is they're slightly to the left (when you look at the entire spectrum). Don't get me wrong here, I'd take Obama over McCain, but only after taking into account his policies. You have a decent percentage of the Obama supporters who have no idea about anything he is saying, voting for him simply because they dislike Bush so much. Sorry to burst your bubble, but its true. There really is a danger here. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for the Obama administration to abuse their powers? Plus, if Obama fails to come through on all these little promises he has made, what happens then? Do you revert back to another 8 years of fundamentalist Christian far right insanity? All I'm saying here is that Obama isn't all that he is hyped up to be. Granted, he is closing GB, which is a great thing to do, but the status he has been given is absolutely ridiculous. He is treated as some sort of God. Obama was better than McCain. Out of the two of them, it is better that he is president. Look, if you live in America, be careful. Seriously. When a president is given this much blind support there are lots of things that can go wrong.

All this hype is annoying, I agree. The problem we have with Obama is that people are so pissed off at Bush and Cheney, they think that Obama will magically fix everything. This puts the Obama administration in a position where they can easily manipulate and take advantage of huge amounts of people in the population who have no idea of any policies but simply voted for Obama out of hatred for Bush. Don't get me wrong, Obama beats McCain hands down, EVERYTIME. Giving Sarah Palin a chance at presidency is something noone should ever do. But, when I hear people on the right, like Bill O'reilly talking about people blindly voting for Obama as the "cool" thing to do without understanding his policies, I can't help but agree. I mean, it's just true, and it isn't good. Personally, I agree more with Obama than McCain, but I still think he is to be watched extremely closely. He is in a position where he could easily abuse his power.

I agree that police should pay for the consequences of their actions, but at the same time, you have to look at the long term result. We don't know all the details of the situation. It doesn't look like it to me, but it is POSSIBLE that the officer in fact did have a good reason to shoot the man. Every time a police officer shoots anyone, there are tons of inquiries as to whether it was in fact necessary, they don't automatically need to string up the cop because he shot someone. If the police know that as soon as they kill someone they will be pulled through the grinder over police brutality, it leaves them little motivation to use the gun when it is really needed. There is a video of the incident. In fact, there are about 5 different videos from different angles. It appears as if the guy was sort of resisting - I mean, he was lying face down on the ground, maybe he pulled his arm away or something, but the officer simply removed his gun and shot him. There is absolutely no way it was necessary - he had NO possible reason to shoot him. The only argument here is whether he shot him deliberately or not.

I used to be, but I had to reconcile that belief with other beliefs that I had, and it turned out that I was just picking and choosing which "freedoms" to support. @ Kranked - I'm talking more about America, but I think you underestimate how easy it is for something like this to happen. Sure, you say "the people wouldn't let it happen," but I'm not so sure. Fascism with a fascist face no, but under the guise of something else? Easy. Who knows, maybe I'm blowing this whole thing way out of proportion.

It's been said by dozens of people before to you over and over again. Addictive drugs just can't be controlled, are dangerous and do much worse to society than what good they do, nothing more than a release for a couple of hours. There's a reason why many prostitutes, burglars and criminals are drug addicts, because it is the quickest and quite often easiest way for them to feed their habit before they go into withdrawal. I'm all for legalizing recreational drugs governmently controlled like Marijuana, MDMA, LSD etc but I'll always be extremely against Cocaine, Heroine and Amphetamines or other forms of highly addictive drugs. They do nothing positive for society, just lead to high crime rates. So you think it is okay for the government (something which I was born into, and didn't consent to) to use coercion and force against people for putting a drug into their OWN body? Madness. Why do you want to be able to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves? I own my body, not the government, and if one day I want to put heroin into my body, then I should have that right. If someone steals a car, then they get punished for stealing a car. It doesn't mean that just because they did it for heroin money that every single person who takes heroin should be branded a criminal. Plus, you're completely ignoring the fact that making drugs illegal makes it HARDER to solve the problems that they cause. In a regulated system for example, 1) drugs wouldn't be laced, 2) the illegal drug trade would cease to exist causing 3) there to be no need to go to drug dealers/other shady people. Making drugs illegal just doesn't work. Ignore the freedom standpoint all you like, but the fact is, the problems you are aiming to solve are either a) caused by drugs being illegal in the first place or B) made harder to solve with drugs being illegal.

When Americans say "land of the free" what they actually mean is "land of the freer than a lot, but still not free". I mean, drugs aren't legal. So, you aren't free to do what you want to your OWN body. The same goes for most nations obviously, if not all of them, but still, America is responsible for a lot of the propaganda surrounding them. Yes, it could be worse (Saudi Arabia), but just because it isn't the worst situation imaginable doesn't mean that every complaint should just be ignored. I do not understand the mentality behind telling someone what they can and cannot do to themselves. Really, I just don't understand it.

Yes. Now excuse me while I shoot your plane down in flames. Good luck doing that while you're locked away in labour camp. Maybe if the people had had guns they would have been able to fight off the totalitarian fascist force opposing them. I've news for you: Much as I have a problem with America (the country, not the land), it's nowhere near fascism. In fact, as nations come, it's actually quite free. What it boils down for me is a simple choice: Do I panic about how they're out to get me, so I'd better arm myself quick for the impending civil war; or do I trust that my taxpayers' money goes to properly train the police on correct safety procedures and vetting (most of whom don't usually carry guns anyway)? I choose the latter, and I get on with my life. I'm aware of this, which is why I included the bottom part of my statement. If we can learn anything from history, it is that these things happen gradually, and that lots of times people just roll with it. People having guns is one thing that stands in the way of a totalitarian state. We must take measures to ensure that it NEVER, EVER happens again. Sure, it doesn't look like it will happen in the next few years, but you never know a few years down the line. I'm not paranoid, and I don't think they're "out to get me" (not in that way anyway), but you have to be realistic. These things happen, and afterwards the people always say "well we were just going along with it, and then before you know it, eventually this happened" etc. All I was doing by saying that was highlighting how stupid your statement was. Just because you could theoretically shoot down a plane doesn't mean guns should be against the law. I mean, first of all you would have to have some INSANE aim to do that, unless you had some sort of anti-aircraft gun/heat seeking missile, which is just ridiculous. I don't think people, especially here in Europe, understand or even notice the difference between the macho gun people and the people that are genuinely worried about their government. The situation I am really really scared of is that if the government continues down its road to totalitarianism (note: I'm not saying it is totalitarian, but you surely would agree that it has been going that way in the past few years/could conceivably become so in the future,) we will be in a situation where they control absolutely everything and we have no way of fighting back.

The best reason not to. There's no need to trash religion or waste your time whining about it when you can just simply ignore it. It's our choice to follow religion, it's your choice not to. That's what it boils down to and that's where it should stop, really. And as soon as you stop trying to put your religion into education/law and using it as justification for denying people rights etc, we will let it be. I would't generalize people if I were you, especially on topics like this. I, for one, am absolutely sick of creationists trying to get their ideological and irrational beliefs in schools, getting some people denied certain rights, the oppression of women in the middle east... Those happenings are caused by religion, or by people infuenced by religion, however that doesn't mean all religious people are like that. Though Islam is the cause of the oppression of women in the middle east, that doesn't mean there are no devout muslims who view women as equal. Though I do know that things like that can make it hard to be tolerant of religion or its followers, you really must learn to do so. I'm aware that a lot of Christians don't believe in those things. However, Barihawk said "why can't you just leave the religious alone?" - and I'm saying it is because the religious cannot leave everybody else alone. If they did I wouldn't have a problem with them personally. Sure I would disagree with them, and I would debate, because I find it interesting, but I really wouldn't care to the same extent that I do now. When I said "you", I meant "the religious." Obviously that is a generalization - but how far do you expect me to go? It is pretty obvious that not all Christians believe the same thing (some truth btw). What Barihawk said, basically boils down to "why waste your time arguing with us? why can't you leave us alone?" and my answer is because lots of you, and in some cases the majority of you, continue to deny people rights/push for creationism being taught in schools etc etc. If it came across that I was saying that every single religious person is like that - then I apologize.

Yes. Now excuse me while I shoot your plane down in flames. Good luck doing that while you're locked away in labour camp. Maybe if the people had had guns they would have been able to fight off the totalitarian fascist force opposing them. See how it feels to have your side blown out of proportion ridiculously? Cut that [cabbage] out

The best reason not to. There's no need to trash religion or waste your time whining about it when you can just simply ignore it. It's our choice to follow religion, it's your choice not to. That's what it boils down to and that's where it should stop, really. And as soon as you stop trying to put your religion into education/law and using it as justification for denying people rights etc, we will let it be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Polic ... scar_Grant WARNING: The following video shows the shooting. There is no blood and gore, but still, it may be disturbing for some people. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nXWSgG-KN ... re=related EDIT: Well, Barihawk seems to think that all of you are [developmentally delayed]s and are therefore unable to discuss anything without a prompt/being told what to think, but okay, I'll do it anyway. Do you think this was an accident or the officer meant to shoot him? Do you think the idea of gun control is appealing when you see videos like this? Would you want a country where the only people with guns are working for the government? ETC ETC, *insert more things that would have naturally been discussed as a product of conversation anyway*

No. The state should not have the power to decide who lives and who dies.

He didn't make any valid points. Every point he made was stupid, and then when proven wrong, admittedly with a little flame, he just resorts to saying "oh, well I'm right."

Much like bestiality, public masturbation, bigamy, and necrophilia just to name a few, there are no "problems" caused by homosexuality. But, the common theme between homosexuality and those other kinks I just mentioned are that they are all just that...kinks. None of them are anything beyond a preferred method of getting yourself off. Regardless of whether it is genetic or not, to act on such thoughts (or rather to not act) is part of what separates us from lower forms of life. Point being on topic, it's wrong. Now, that said what one does in private - hey more power to ya. However those of us who don't engage in those acts do not wish to hear about it 24/7 on television, in print, movies, etc...keep it in the proverbial closet where your chosen method of orgasm belongs. And the whole marriage thing? IDK...it should be given as much credence as my wanting to marry a tree, or a dog, or an abstract concept, like November 23rd, or the color brown. Laughable IMO. Wow, you're stupid. You can't have a social contract with a tree. Or an animal. Or a child. You cannot compare gay marriage to bestiality (animal consent?), public masturbation (do you think it is appropriate for young children to see any sex act in public?), or necrophilia. Necrophilia is a taboo because it is seen as disrespecting both the deceased person's life and their family. There is no consent, and there is no possible way consent can be given, but it still causes harm. How dare you compare these things to homosexuality. This is ridiculous. You remind of that Rick Warren guy, who compared homosexuality to pedophilia and tried to make it seem okay by saying that he gave money to AIDS charities, (which is like saying yeh I'm a racist but its okay because I give money to AIDs charities, cause as we know, all those black people have aids.) So while the concept to you is "laughable" (afte rall, you don't even have the mental capacity to understand the concept of social contracts and how inanimate objects/animals are different to adults,) this is a serious issue of rights for millions of people all over the world. You're an absolute moron. Oh, maybe its because it is only recently that it has become acceptable in the eyes of a lot of people? If I was going to be imprisoned/killed for being gay I would probably stay quiet about it. Seriously, do you not think through ANYTHING you post?

In your opinion, sin doesn't exist. Please realize that it is your OPINION and everyone is entitled to their own. And you think that Nazi Germany was stopped simply because it was "unfair"? A lot of unfair things happen in this world, but they are seen as acceptable by society. Why was that "unfairness" different? [/b] The bible does not say homosexuality is wrong, as I have stated several times before. You clearly aren't religious, but are attempting to explain something you know nothing about. Try actually doing some research before you jump to conclusions. Murder is wrong, why didn't God make it so we couldn't kill each other? I am playing the free will card, because we have free will. In every aspect of our life, we have a choice. That is why being gay IS NOT WRONG. Simply acting on it is. Just as wanting to kill someone is not wrong, doing it is. Okay, let me introduce you to my friend, Mr. Burden of Proof. What is the evidence for "sin" existing? The Bible? Well the Bible is terrible evidence. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. "Wrong" does not exist in the sense that it is "wrong" because God says so. Things are only "wrong" because it is what the majority of certain groups/nations/etc believes. The reason what Hitler did was "wrong" was because the majority of the people in the world thought it was wrong. The reason the majority thinks this is because they believe that society would not be able to function if we allowed these things. Sorry if you don't like it, but until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt/even show me the slightest bit of evidence for a) God's existence, B) That you know HIS MIND AND HIS WILL, then I don't believe a word you say. I'm not defending Hitler here, what he did was despicable, but it wasn't "wrong" in the sense that you believe. And okay, mr. Semantics, how about you cut the [cabbage] and stop avoiding my arguments? I have read the Bible. The Bible says "if a man lies with another man, it is an abomination, and they will surely be put to death." So okay, being gay is not a sin, but if you're gay and you have sex it is. So again, why would God make it so that people could be gay AND that they would have sexual urges? Let me guess, to test their faith? I hate to say it, but you sound like the sort of person that has never read any of the arguments against your position, EVER. EVER. EVER. I have read the Bible, and I don't buy any of it. Sure, a lot of it is good, and sure, people do good things because of it. However, I believe that the bad done in the name of the religion vastly outweighs the good, and religion still continues to deny people rights (gay marriage). Until we sort this [cabbage] out and you keep your goddamn religions to yourselves I will argue my point. Stop pretending you know God's mind. All you religious people just want to be able to subject your will onto the people as the will of God.

If you can't feel or think how the [bleep] do you know you're there? Sorry for double post; Smoke some DMT or get ahold of Mescaline. You're wanting to achieve Ego death. Taking DMT is as close as you will ever come to experience what is known as "God." Even though I don't think he exists, I could sorta see how taking DMT would make you believe in him. Kinda.

Oh my.. are you serious? "Sightings" of the "Virgin Mary" = omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Real nice reasoning there. Hey, this morning I took a dump outside, and it looked sorta like Buddha, so from now on, I'm a buddhist, because obviously the shape of my dump MUST mean that everything Buddha said is automatically true. You know what, nevermind. Just believe what you believe, but don't start making laws with it. I don't care if you want to believe this sorta stuff, just as long as you keep it away from government/the system of law. Oh and, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Like state communism, it is too easy for some d-bag to get in power and just force everyone to confirm to his will.

The problem with the far left is that it is too easy for someone to manipulate it/become a dictator etc. I don't get it, people on the far left usually have this whole thing about wanting to tell people what they can and can't do etc. Personally, I think that communism on paper is a good idea but will never ever work because we are human. Maybe in the future with a bit of transhumanism it could work, but not until we lose all our negative aspects. Libertarian socialism is a lot better though.

Sex, when done for the right reasons, isn't sinful. The right reason, the first reason, the most basic reason, is to procreate, to give life. If you are having sex without any possibility of that, it is a sin. That goes for straight couple's using contraception as well. And I don't think it is the same thing. I know several gay people who are deeply in love with their partners, but do not feel it necessary to fulfil their sexual urges to show that love. Being gay gives you a great oportunity, to show your love for someone that isn't, and can't be conditional on how much you enjoy the sex. Okay, here's one for you. SIN DOESN'T EXIST. I don't know if you believe what you said or if you're just informing someone of what certain religions say, but let me say it again. SIN - DOES NOT - EXIST. There is no "right" or "wrong" in an objective sense. And sly wizard if you're reading this just stop with your whole "moral relativism is stupid because you can't criticize other cultures without have moral absolutes" etc etc bs because this just isn't true. There is no "right" or "wrong" from God (at least there isn't any evidence for this anyway). And we can criticize other cultures if our own system of morality says that we should not defer from our own system of morality (unless of course the zeitgeist changes over time). For example, if we look at Nazi Germany, we can say, we believe that what you are doing is unacceptable, unfair to millions of people, and we are going to step in and stop this. Of course we aren't going to say that what they did is "wrong" because wrong is a stupid [bleep]ing word and the concept behind it doesn't make sense. If you replace "wrong" with "unacceptable in a world where countries should work together for peace and we should care more about others" then finally, we're getting somewhere. The reason why murder and rape is "wrong" is because we cannot have a stable society if such things were legal. Our morals change over time, you go back a few thousand years and they were murdering humans as a sacrifice to "God". In a world with nuclear weapons we can not afford to let people like Hitler get in power again. This is not because "God said it was wrong". Anyway, back on the homosexuality topic. Well, I've been reading the website "www.protectmarriage.com" (It would be funny if it wasn't so sad), and I've come to the conclusion that a) *these Christians are AGAIN, full of [cabbage]. B) *these Christians will hide behind children at every opportunity, c) the average IQ of the people on that website must be about 90. As George Carlin said, "people have traditionally hidden behind three things, the Bible, the flag, and children." Where do they get this whole "protect marriage" thing from? What do they mean "protect marriage." They make it sound as if marriage is being attacked. At the core of their reasoning is a hatred for homosexuality. I don't know where they get it from, maybe they were beaten into it by their parents, but I guarantee, if you look you'll find it. Yet they continuously hide behind children (what is the big deal with children knowing about homosexuality? Is this just an American thing..?) I saw a gay couple when I was like 5, and I asked my Dad something about it, and he said, oh, they're gay, which means they are attracted to men and not women (in this case), I was like, oh okay, and went on with my day. NO MENTAL TRAUMA, NO MURDEROUS RAMPAGE, NO RAPE SPREE. What the hell? ALL of their arguments are bullship. Every single one of them. 1. Gay marriage will lead to polygamy. False. And even if it was true, what's the big deal? 2. Marriage is about having children. Gay people can still have children, not by themselves of course, but there are various methods of going about it. Plus, there is a huge population problem in the world, so even if this were true (which it isn't), it would probably be a good thing. 3. Children will be taught about homosexuality. True, I think. But who even cares? Sure, you can teach your kids whatever you like, but why the scare of telling them about homosexuality? Most of these conservative d-bags are happy to teach their kids about how glorious it is to die for one's country *cough government cough* whilst blowing the brains out of innocent people in the Middle East yet they start shuddering when it comes to homosexuality. It is a part of life. 4. God/the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Well, unless you're living in a theocracy, this has no place in your system of law. Plus, if homosexuality is so "wrong" why didn't God make it so that humans couldn't be gay? Being gay isn't a choice you know, (so don't even think about playing the whole "free will" card.) 5. The culture war will have been won by them evil gays! Ok. Culture war = time and inevitable change. Things will never ever be the same, ever. Sure, celebrate your culture, that's fine. But what is this bs about "culture war?". Sure, I can understand class war, or just plain old normal war, but culture war? And why would homosexual marriage mean the end of your culture? This just doesn't make sense. I'm used to this from these fundamentalists, and usually I can sort of see their train of thought, but this [cabbage] just doesn't flow, at all. 6. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and they can get the same rights without being married! Well, it isn't this simple. What you're saying in essence, is the whole "separate but equal" (therefore not equal) thing. Equal means equal, not separate. There really aren't any reasons other than your hatred for gays to make it illegal. Keeping people separate (but apparently equal) does one thing, and that is creates a framework of "us and thems". According to neo-cons, apparently humans need an enemy in order to function as a society, maybe that's why they enjoy war and killing so much, who knows. *I said "these Christians" instead of "Christians" because if I had said the latter it would have obviously lead to about 20 people replying to me without reading my post using the old no true scotsman by claiming that these people aren't "real Christians".

Religion will always be present. Some things we just cannot know, and religions will always be there to pretend that we know the answers, and to make it seem as if we actually matter in the scheme of things. I can see Islam overtaking Christianity as the main religion - hopefully it won't - as much as I dislike Christianity, I must admit that Islam is a lot worse. Take everything bad about Christianity, multiply it by 10, and you have Islam. The religions are pretty much the same anyway. (note pedantic theists: "pretty much the same").. I think more people will become deists, agnostics and atheists in the next couple hundred years, it really depends. If we have a world war/huge natural disaster etc there will probably be more religion because when the [cabbage] hits the fan, people want a backup. There are too many problems in the world, and they always combine with each other to make it impossible for anyone to do anything about it. For example, our banking system coupled with our monetary system, the media, scare tactics and propaganda employed by various coercive governments, religion, "norms", brands and consumerism, private ownership of the means of production, patriotism, the system of education = control. They're all connected in a way, and I really can't see this ending anytime soon.

Police lie ALL THE TIME in court/have eachothers backs if they do anything wrong etc. Not saying all police are liars, but if you really think they can be trusted with something like this then you're just insane.

As much as I dislike police, we really aren't in a position to make a judgment on this. We haven't got any reliable information, we don't know exactly what happened etc, and until we do we can't possibly assume anything from this because we really just have no idea.