magekillr

Precisely, well said, I am in agreement with everything stated. I still thought it was a disgrace to execute him, but what made it worse is they publicized it. The parts in bold are key because those happenings allow more recruitment to happen. There's essentially 3 major causes of terrorism: extremism in the name of Islam (which is a new phenomenon (much like the spread of Evangelical Christianity), and hasn't been happening for "thousands of years" like people attempt to make it out to be), poverty/destroyed infrastructure/lack of education/lack of water/lack of food, lack of civil rights whereby the only way to get recognized for the cause is extremism. How could I possibly have misunderstood? Comparing the figures? How about, we didn't need to spend any money, nor have any soldiers killed, nor destroy any infrastructure/citizens, nor allow for al Qaeda to make way in the country if we hadn't invaded on a hunch with evidence that was manipulated by the Office of Special Plans. I explained to you why the Iraq War has been a failure, regardless if you agree with the invasion or not.

Let's see... 1.) The world hates the United States 2.) Saddam Hussein being dead has allowed terrorists to infiltrate Iraq 3.) Civilians have needlessly been killed, and their homes destroyed 4.) Guantanamo Bay and torture has been allowed under our watch 5.) We've spent billions, if not trillions 6.) Terrorists have reacted to our involvement by mass-recruiting, successfully, because "The Great Satan" is destroying any hope that the recruits may have had I could go on and on about the failures of this war, but the most important thing is that we did not achieve what we sought to do. To compare WWII and Iraq is pathetic, ignorant, and shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances. Iraq posed no threat to the United States; the Japanese attacked our bases and people. Had the Japanese not attacked us, there's a chance we wouldn't have been involved. You act like we were involved for the entire duration of WWII, when we barely were involved at all until the end of it when Germany's armies had been exhausted from fighting the Russians on the Eastern Front. You're calling the atomic bomb a success? I call it man's worst invention.

Please, even if we weren't completely "alone", there was no plan. The next thing you're going to tell me is that the Georgians helped us too :| The UN did not agree with our intervention, plain and simple. We violated so many international laws to do what we did, and that I do not agree with unless the signers of those laws agree to make them void for that particular action.

Historically, it is. If you look at "real" conservatives, they were all isolationists when it came to war, while the liberals wanted to intervene. The neo-cons have taken interventionism, and turned it on its back. However, LBJ had a similar issue when it came to Vietnam, and he's probably America's most liberal President of all time (either him or FDR); there was no real set plan....just go in and wage war on the "communists". It's faulty policy, and exhibits no real plan/leadership. With a plan, and an action as one world...many things can be achieved through interventionism. Interventionism doesn't necessarily include war, either.

Why? With interventionist foreign policy, things like Iraq can easily happen. Because interventionism is a liberal view point, technically. I agree with interventionism, but I do not agree with America acting alone. THAT is where I disagree. Also, the War in Iraq could have been successful with a real plan, and a mix of military/diplomacy/policing, rather than just "let's invade and take over...but now what?" There was no plan. It could have been a success. I still probably wouldn't have supported it, but I could have been a lot less cynical about our involvement. If the world acts as one about certain issues, we can certainly take care of more of the world's problems. I think it's immoral for the world's leading powers with all of their wealth to sit around doing nothing, while ruthless dictators mistreat millions of uneducated, starving people.

I have my reasons and maybe I am homophobic, but meh, it doesn't bother me. I've been raised anti-homo and that's how I'll continue to carry on with my life. If someone can show me proof that two men can NATURALLY produce a child, then I'll start showing some respect to gay people. What the hell? So for someone to earn your respect, two beings in a relationship need to be able to naturally produce a child? What about older people? What about a woman that cannot have children? A man with low sperm count? "I've been raised anti-homo, so that's how I'll carry on my life." Yeah, great rationale. Disgusting.

SUVs are even worse than the trucks, because more often than not they are not diesel, and they are not manual. They're also larger, and they don't have a bed to create a pocket of circulation which gives better mileage.

Yes, people do need them. Most, do not. You'll see 75-80% of our population driving these tanking things down the road, just count them (this is my anecdote). It's always 1 person driving them, too (more often it's a woman than a man, probably stay at home). Well, I'm not interested in your cool anecdote, because I trust statistics.

Well let's see: the cars are pieces of [cabbage] compared to foreign cars, in that they die in half of the time; they get crap mileage; they're huge [wagon] cars that people don't need. I like how you perceive "20 mpg" as good mileage. Although, in their defense, they're just feeding the demand of the public with their huge over sized, over polluting, crap mileage cars.

At least you only deal with it on the internet...I get tormented at family reunions, and any other time that I'm home from college. I don't deal with the same situation while I'm at school because I can lament with my other "radical" friends.

Just curious, what was the last one we bailed out? Chrysler under Jimmy Carter in 1980.

I'd rather the government just take over completely, but if a "bailout" is the only other option (minus letting them die), I'd take the "bailout". For the record, the last time a car company was "bailed out", we profited. Furthermore, I'd rather not lose millions of jobs in a sinking economy (directly from the car companies, and the millions of others indirectly involved). Strict strict oversight, however.

Wow, the OP is incredibly hard to read, although I at least understood what he was trying to get across. Ralph Nader is an idiot. He might be in-line with me politically, but he's a scum-bag race baiter that will be known as the guy who called Obama an Uncle Tom, or not be remembered at all. What a pathetic face for the American progressive movement; no leadership, pure arrogance. As far as what I am politically...according to this test: http://www.politicalbrew.com/politest.cgi , I am a 0 on social issues, and a 10 on economic issues. I did not have an opinion about funding the arts, however. On this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ , I am a -8.88 economically, and a -6.92 socially.

I can't remember what thread it was on, but I said Prop 8 could be overturned, and Jack told me I didn't know what I was talking about.. Anyway, I forgot to respond to that, so now I shall. They spent over 20 million dollars to pass Prop 8. Prop 8 has been thrown around as a constitutional amendment but the truth is that it did not meet the standards of a constitutional amendment or to change the state constitution in any way for that matter. (Example of such requirements are 2/3 vote of the state legislature. That never happened.) They also need the California Supreme Court to say "We were wrong when we said sexual orientation is a protected class under the constitution.", "You can change the state constitution without meeting the basic requirements to change the state constitution." And "The state constitution can contradict itself." The chances of that happening are small and they can easily overturn Prop 8.

It shouldn't be made illegal, the taxes on them should just be insanely high. Cigarettes in Virginia are very cheap compared to the rest of the US because VA is like the capitol for tobacco. Like a pack of Marlboro Lights is about $3.97, and they're probably $7.00 in a state like Illinois.

What are your opinions on a minimum wage, and how helpful it is to citizens? Many argue that it increases unemployment among unskilled workers, and inflates their "worth" beyond what it actually is. This decreases the amount of labor a company can withstand, reducing productivity, etc etc etc. They also argue that the costs are put on customers, but that's not backed by any clear data. It seems to me that opponents of the minimum wage argue with only theoretical models out of the text book, and none hold any water in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herrin ... al_fallacy)#Red_herring This is the same fallacy used by people against gay rights, time and time again. They try and change the subject to incest, pedophilia, polygamy, and marrying of objects/pets to try and make their point about gay rights. Why can't they just admit that they don't want gays to marry because their god says it's wrong? Sorry, that's not how logic works. We're discussing gay rights, we're not discussing something that's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. When it comes time to discuss whether or not a teenager that didn't give their consent to be married to someone else should have that right, then we'll discuss that. Wait, isn't that how marriage USED to be defined? An agreement between two families between two unwilling teenagers that never gave their consent, nor in today's society would have the legal authority to do so as they're minors? Something else that was acceptable and, quite frankly was a conservative trait, was polygamy. This was acceptable and frequent in Biblical times, and a few centuries into the beginning of the AD calendar. Third, there's a reason incestuous relationships are taboo, and it's because we don't want mutant babies running around in society. However, some countries do allow it, guess what one of them is? Israel. Marrying of pets/objects. Last I heard, neither were consenting partners. Case closed. I mean, I addressed those issues, but the thing you're not understanding is that they're completely unrelated to this; mainly because those involve two parties in which one cannot consent to the marriage.

Did you choose to be straight?

^^ Because you're a bigoted [wagon]?

It was a fun time. We had about 100 some odd people show up. I didn't expect many people here, though. It's a pretty conservative college. However, we had a lot of people cheering us on as we walked by. It was a great day to protest too...it was "Open House". May have scared a few high schoolers away lol. My favorite sign was: "I still can't believe that I have to protest this crap!", and then it had a check list with check marks filled in: "African American Rights" "Women's Rights", and then "Gay Rights" didn't have a check mark in it.

Protest pictures:

I don't see how this would be bad for the economy, though. If he makes cuts to the money states get for education, it should even out now, and give government more money as not all students are going to participate. If the jobs students do would normally be paid jobs, what's wrong with that? Less costs for companies, and free work. Sounds like a good idea to me. I am concerned about where the money's going to come from, however. Our debt is astronomically high from a man that had HIGH spending, and low taxes. I might be extremely left economically, but that doesn't make me fiscally irresponsible.

I agree. However, he's gotta make cuts somewhere to pay for it. My guess is he'll slash some federal funding that goes to the states for education, the states will then impose some costs down to the students, and we get the $4,000 for doing the community service. Tuition might rise as a result, but all in all it should be a net gain for students, and well worth it. Plus, as Barihawk pointed out, many are NOT going to take advantage, which would put more money in the government's pocket to pay for other things.

Blow it out of proportion? They've continued to LIE! It's not disagreeing with him, it's nothing but lies and deceit....and it's coming from the right-wing. I mean, worldnetdaily? Seriously? I might as well cite the Daily Kos.

It was never mandatory. God dammit [bleep]ing right wing [wagon]. I'm getting sick of this crap. He hasn't even gotten into office yet, and I already see people demanding he be impeached.