magekillr

One issue voters, on an issue that will NEVER be overturned, when we're on the brink of another war and a continued war, with an economy teetering on recession...are you serious? Seriously? Really? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/us/po ... ref=slogin *sigh* Which issue? And may I ask, how McCain's are any better? Now, tell me, how is he going to pay for it, and have this happen? Does he tell you on his website? No? Why not? It's "elusive" no? I mean he let's you know where it's coming from, but at what expense? He's continuing the war for god knows how long, and there's a health care tax credit being issued? Tax credits don't solve problems, they reduce spending HEAVILY somewhere else at the expense of the tax credit. Why should Obama be any different? I mean, I don't know about you, but I'd say this is far more specific, and it's something he can do: he can establish new departments if he so wishes. Does he tell you how he'll establish it or pay for it? The progressive tax plan he proposes that most other countries have would be apart of it :roll: It was NEVER immediate. He has ALWAYS stated: "We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq, as we were careless getting in". ALways, ALWays, ALWAYS! Fail soundbite is fail. Oh yeah, a sound-clip of him taken out of context. I would imagine that he went on to say, "BUT! I would not be against an energy plan that has nuclear options on the table." :roll: You don't? What don't you see? I see investing billions into research for new energy sources which should have been going on YEARS ago, an option for Nuclear, and EVEN an option for drilling, but people who aren't naive about the drilling will know that's just a Republican wedge issue, just as abortion is. Besides, 17% voting record for energy independence, this is not good. "Times change, people change." They do? I mean, the man has a voting record of being 90-95% alongside Bush, while the Republicans are 100% alongside him, except for Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel. He's saying he is Bush, the world sees him as Bush, and yet Americans are still too thick headed to not see it. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/E ... tSheet.pdf I took all of your reasons, and responded to them. Dude, you are a right winger making it sound like you'd give someone on the left a chance. That's called trolling, and I know it when I see it. I've been on this campaign for over a year, and I've talked to too many people...don't try and take me for a fool. I called you out as a troll, if that's name-calling, then get off the internet. I responded to all of your claims, and this is flaming? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://myclob.pbwiki.com/02-26-2003 Looks like he was a gambling man to me. He also wants to re-instate Reaganomics, which are rubbish. Lol? Lower taxes, while we're at war...is he serious? Yeah, by cut taxes he means for the billionaires who do not need them. It's almost like we ignored the sub-prime mortgages just so the Republicans would have a talking point later. Taxes are going up, it's just a fact of life. John McCain knows it, and that's why he said what he recently said about them. He is in a pickle, he can't fully admit that taxes are going up because that would probably make him lose in a landslide right about now, but he knows they will be increasing. Except, "times change, people change". All of his now-talking points are a repeat of Bush. What does a record matter if he's just continuing Bush's policies? S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) today hailed the Senate's passage of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans. http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes_c/ Authored by U.S. Sens. [bleep] Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/ I will find you more, there's just too much for me to respond to atm. not for the execs to give him it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01891.html Besides, the grassroot campaign that Obama has run has been a total change in campaign reform. You can bash his stances all you want, but you cannot deny that this is the most organized campaign in recent memory... Both Ginger Warrior and I have explained to you about this in the Iraq thread, there is no need to carry it on here. I agree he isn't as much of a proponent as I'd like him to be, I have made a long post on the "Nuclear Power" thread, or maybe it was Chernobyl, either way I made a long post about why I support Nuclear Power. Obama, and many others, have a fear of the waste, so once he is educated by the scientists about the art of recycling it, then he could be a bigger proponent. I suggest we talk to Canada about sharing the Canadian Shield for waste storage...possibly buying pieces of the land, and that money is re-invested in other energies. Again, I'm not as Pro-Obama as you think I am, I am really anti-Republican/conservative, and I am Pro-bridging gaps in American politics so we can move America back to the center/left when FDR was in office. I don't see these propositions, and they're kind of forced to now that America is realizing what a big deal energy is. Gas went up like $1.50 out of nowhere thanks to speculators. Wow...really? Really? I mean, it's not like I like to cite wiki, but it is monitored 24/7 with legitimate sources, and has footnotes, so I will cite it anyway: ??? I don't know what you're asking, or why you're asking. There's nothing to solve. It's a fact: America needs illegals more than they need us. They do the jobs that Americans refuse to do for that kind of pay, so until they're citizens to be taxed and on official pay-rolls, they will be here to stay. Sorry, I should have said what I specifically agreed about. I agreed with him that he is unfit to be President because of his experiences over there. I feel he has issues with PTSD that were unresolved. The sad thing is, a lot of churches in America are like this, and many black liberal churches have a "political" singe to them. Furthermore, I said I can't disagree with SOME of the things he says, I said "other controversial issues that I didn't agree with". Oh, so anything he has done isn't meaningful? What does it matter how long he's been there, he did things, and all of the sudden because he hasn't been there "that long" that his resume is disqualified? It is constitutional. Different interpretations lead to different assertions. I believe the Father of the Constitution believed in a lax-interpretation :P Yep, and I LOVE taxes, love them. Just thinking about them makes me salivate. See, unlike you, I like to see the government re-distribute the wealth, not the corporations. White felon has a better chance at getting a job than a "clean" African. Something's wrong there. It's not institutionalizing unfairness, people who don't understand it are the ones who advocate this. I shall dedicate a thread to AA after this. You're free to speak what you want, but you have to give the opposition air-time to present a rebuttal. Seems fair to me. So you don't want to deport them? Or are you just saying this because McCain worked on the bill? My favorite Senator ALSO worked on the bill, and that would be Russ Feingold. What's your point? I support what it advocated, while I doubt you do, you're just using it as a weapon because McCain supported it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If part of your statement is a lie, then that would make the entire thing a lie in my eyes, as you tried to force it off as truth in one big snippet. He has lowered taxes for the wealthy, this is a fact. Smaller government? That's the opposite of neo-conservatism, which is what Bush is...making my statements quite true :? American Conservatism has no definition, it's the most evanescent chameleon in world politics. Big 3? I don't know what you would consider big, and what I would consider big. Most people, before going into politics, start out on school boards, and in communities. The man was a community organizer for years, and I see that as something very big because of the leadership aspect of getting people involved. It's beyond just being a leader, it's doing what a President does on the small scale: giving hope to Americans that they're the ones with the power to change and reform. Change occurs from the bottom up, not the top down. Do you want bills? Legislation? Speeches? I mean, how vague can you get? What allows someone to pass the test to be President? Video made by my friend at UVA: I'll concede there are a few, but the Democratic party as a whole, and a VAST majority, not just a simple 51%, oppose banning guns altogether. Point taken, though. I love taxes, and so does the rest of the Western World. Ok, if you wanna be real, of course no one LIKES taxes, but we support their purpose. Corporate welfare, hmmm...well as much as I hate to buyout places like FannieMae, the costs would be far more detrimental to let them sink. Maybe if Bush intervened in the first place, it could have been avoided. I shall make an AA thread. Fine by me. I'll look into these things more. The fact is, McCain is not liked among veterans, and I won't go into this further because jackattack will quote me again and talk about it when we just disagree, so I'll leave it at that. A reformist...reformists are typically socialist democracy advocates. How can you be a reformist, followers of many Marxist ideals, yet dislike many of the things you've stated. More and more, you're looking like a libertarian. What have I done? Well, I've been registering new voters for over a year, and making calls every weekend to states that are polling bad for Obama. I've canvassed, I've held actual voter drives, I helped get Jim Webb elected...is that enough? I am a student in school, I do everything I can. My political athileations, well asthileaton isn't a word, but I assume you're asking what I believe...so here goes: I had a friend PM me: "I almost changed to a liberal today..." He said: Here was my response: If you truly felt this way, you would detest conservatism because what conservatism and capitalism advocate are the complete opposite. What they advocate is that, despite how much you want this man to succeed and be appreciated, there's really nothing you can do but hope that he feels that he can succeed, and will have the will power to make it on his own. That's all they advocate: "you're on your own, I wish I could help you, but I have my own desires to succeed and it's not my fault that you don't have the same amount of ability to make it like I do." You know, I've always thought that most of you and who you were was like Bush: a person who really does care deep down, they've just been led/taught/raised astray in a different world of thought, and haven't really been able to give up what they have to make the difference. Perhaps this will change when you reach the college level, I don't know. College students in general tend to be "idealistic", but most people in America, just flat out don't understand socialistic policy due to McCarthy and the Red Scare. You say "Is there any economic plan for this to happen?", and it's sitting right there in socialist democracy, and you dismiss it. People don't seem to like taxes in America, people like my Dad included. They're afraid of a government becoming too powerful, and I can understand this fear. However, the way America is set up, I do not think we should fear an "all be all" government; it's simply not possible in a realistic view point for it to happen. They also don't think it's fair for the government to be the one dispersing the wealth, "Is that fair for the government to do that?" Well, who says it's fair for the corporations to do that? At least with government, we elect and choose our officials; they represent us. The corporations represent their stock holders, and will almost always do what is in the best interest of the company. If that just so happens to benefit the people, then great. If not, well too bad. This is why I feel a government levying the taxes, and directing where the wealth goes is a much better idea: they have accountability on the voters. If we don't like them, we don't elect them again. One thing that needs to happen inside Washington outside of elected officials, however, is a mass form of "accountability". As of right now, we have useless departments because people simply cannot get fired unless they punched their boss in the face. If there was new management in how things were done, and people worked like they would in a company (where if they [bleep]ed around, they'd be fired), then we would be all set. So herein lies the conundrum: how do we bring the poor closer to the rich, without totally creating a Nanny state, and without encouraging greed? I mean, granted, there will ALWAYS be poor and rich in every society unless it's a Communist Utopia...which as we all know 1.) can't happen, and 2.) I personally would not like for it to happen. I would not like for that to happen because as much as I want everyone to be equal, I'm aware that not everyone is willing to put in the same effort, and I don't believe hard work is rewarded through Communism; there's no way of getting ahead. This leads to eventual "work just hard enough to not get fired" mindsets, and it's not healthy for progress or society. However, even though there will always be disparity between the rich and the poor, it is and will always continue to be, a large distance in America. If you took a city like Baltimore, and looked at their poor, and then took a city like Paris, and looked at their poor, you would see a much greater difference. The poor in Paris are still poor, sure, but their quality of life is much greater. They have access to medicine, and education, and shelter, and even food...and vacation times. They're still poor, but they still have access and their quality of life is much greater. People in Baltimore are not so lucky, and they're completely on their own. This is a common misconception about socialism: that you somehow still can't be rich, and that your hard work is not rewarded. My dad has this misconception...when he thinks socialism, he thinks Russia and China, which are not socialist states whatsoever. If I told him Germany was a socialist state, he probably would not believe me. It's very possible to be rich in socialism, just as it is possible to be poor. The difference is, the poor and middle class have better qualities of life, at the expense of some of the riches' wealth. It's like owning 10 houses and 5 cars with capitalism, and owning 7 houses and 3 cars with socialism; the only difference is that with capitalism there is a sheer vanity and greed for more that is never ending. Why the need for so much? Just because you can? Just because you want? I mean if you take most rich people, they're not rich because of the businesses they own, but because of their assets and investments. Yet, Canada has a 50% capital gains tax...and yet, your father is still wealthy no? Germany has 0% capital gains tax under many circumstances, but gets as high as 28%. Iceland, probably the most socialist country on earth, has 0% capital gains tax...0%. I mean, some people might not think it's fair for the rich to be taxed in greater numbers than the poor, and maybe they're right. However, I do not think just because something is fair, means that it is right. I think it's disgusting to see a gold plated Porsche, and I see my Aunt without access to health care; a woman who hasn't seen a doctor in over 7 years because she can't afford to. I think it's disgusting to see our troops serving this country with all their heart and soul, to return home to people metaphorically spitting on them by not giving them treatment for their PTSD or decapitations, or a house to sleep in, or food to eat. I think it's disgusting to see myself be taxed 23%, a person who can't afford school or food or laundry who works 12 hours a day of hard work every day, and see someone like Warren Buffet be taxed 17% of his assets because of loopholes that are easily exploited. So maybe for an economy, capitalism is the best way...I concede that point. However, socialism in a socialist democracy can be mixed with capitalism...and I see the two converging to the middle to be a far better way for the citizens. What is the point of a booming economy, if 90-95% of its citizens who lay toil to the work everyday reap none of the rewards? I mean, the US has the greatest economy by far...great. Now, how are the lives of its citizens? If their lives are not being lived happily, what the hell is the point of such a great economy? So a few rich [wagon] can sit at home doing nothing while Wall Street increases their assets, venturing out on rich-filled vacations full of [cabbage] that really does not matter, or should not matter at least, while hard working Americans work 8-16 hours every day for minimum wage, receive no benefits, and go home hungry with no access to education or health care? No, I'm sorry, I cannot bear or be apart of a system that is so corrupt that it would rather see its economy booming to the point that it can control the world, leaving a few people very rich, while the rest of the country suffers. That is why I am a socialist, and that is why I am a liberal.

Please. It's just the opposite. The aclu goes after anything even remotely religious. Like that football coach who bowed his head during *student led optional prayers*. Or stuff like putting a nativity scene on city property even if there are menorahs already there. North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8 "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." 1st amendment to the US Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding." - United States Constitution, Article VI

*Takes Deep Breath* Romney is exactly what's wrong with politics, he is the slime of slime. For one thing, he did raise taxes, although they weren't taxes, they were fees. Tuition for colleges increased, spending on education for public schools went down by a lot, and many other things "increased" with the fees. It's funny, doesn't McCain want to lower taxes? This is a game of semantics here, just to sound like he didn't increase taxes. Furthermore, he treated the state like he would a business: what's good for the state economy, but not the citizens. Yeah, what's your point? The fact remains that this is a wedge issue, and Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned. In another video that I cannot find atm, he said he agreed with Bush 90-95% of the time on all issues. Erm, McCain HAS taken that money from oil companies, this is a fact. Hey, I'm not an idiot: I know lobbyists and PACs don't affect your campaign money that much, but it's not a lie to say you're accepting all of your money from supporters and ignoring the PAC and Lobbyist interests. Did I not say I was an Obama endorser? Jesus Christ... 92,000. I have no issues with this as long as we get rid of places like Halliburton buying the contracts and asking for the money they ask for, without any accountability. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you ever click cnn.com/livefeed for his townhall meetings? Or do you only happen to catch sound bites as you walk by your television? I mean, it's like people expect speeches and rallies to be about his stances on issues. Do some [bleep]ing research, it's 2008 for christ sake...all the information about his plans are at your fingertips, and you use this as a reason not to vote for someone. Get real. People who use this as a talking point never planned to vote for the man, they're just grasping for straws. In case you're wondering: http://www.barackobama.com/issues Far more in-depth than McCain's website about issues. Source? I see no flip-flop on this, or anything even remotely close to it. I see "I'll listen to Patreus and the Generals, Maliki, and my own intelligence sources for making decisions. Maliki supports Obama's plan, what's more to say? Yes, they happen, but it could have been prevented. Hoover is not to blame for the depression, Calvin Coolidge is. He did nothing as President, it's what he's known for. Germany made sub-prime mortgages illegal years ago, George Bush could have prevented it, just as Coolidge could have set limits on who banks were giving loans to. I agree with McCain about nuclear power, disagree with him about drilling. The fact is, Nuclear power will do very little to curb the energy crisis as it stands. Why? Because last I heard, we're short on oil, not coal. Nuclear power provides power for homes, not cars. Obama says no? Where: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iym-8Q7 ... /54/563366 Very end of the video he discusses Nuclear. Typical right wing ploys. It's funny, because for years, the Republicans have always only professed off-shore drilling, and consistently get ranked 0% by CAF. Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) (John McCain). I've been working on this campaign for too long to know when I see a troll, and when I see someone who's legitimately seeking a candidate to support. You sir, are a clear troll acting to be innocently looking for a good candidate to support, and then just praising the right. So typical, you're nothing new. I agree about the typical politician. What's your point? He has to appeal to the right-wing (center in America). I mean, you're acting like he's not a politician, when he is. You're right, because he's a neo-con. Well, he has lowered taxes for the wealthy, so your statement is either lying, or you're an idiot who's still lying. Take your pick. It is about Bush because McCain has said he agrees with Bush on those tax cuts, and foreign policy. It's a fair comparison. I am also talking about currently, not this election necessarily. Immigration could be solved in this country if the US really tried, it's just that the US needs illegals more than they need the USA. I agree. Didn't see the film though, so I cannot say anything about that. I believe in my heart that Obama is a closet atheist, who joined this church to rally support in Chicago to propel him into politics. Furthermore, a lot of things Wright says I cannot say I disagree with, while he does say some other outlandish things. Adding onto that, there are many things my pastor has said about homosexuals, and other controversial issues that I didn't agree with...and really, until the election, I never took notice. I kind of just sat there, not really wanting to go, but going because of my parents. Well after all of the homosexual jargon, and creationism lies, I had enough and told my parents I'm not going anymore. Do I think he left the church for political gain more than anything? Of course. However, what he tried to do first and foremost was just distance himself from Wright, and this I did not see as political gain. Obama looked very hurt, and upset personally at this men, and I felt sorry for him. If you want to talk guilt by association, let's not even begin to mention Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, John Hagee, and mass other pastors associating themselves around politicians. You've "heard", nice. I have a list of things I can get you, if you'd like. No, that's the Green/Progressive party and I, not the democrats. The democrats only seek for regulation and gun control, with background checks. What's wrong with taxes? There's already affirmative action for well connected white people. Your dad calls up a friend, and you're set up with a cake job out of college. And that's not to say this is a white only thing. Hell, the job that I just started I got because I know somebody. Am I capable, do I have the bona fides? Sure, but having a friend that worked at the school gave me that little push I needed to get the job over someone else with similar stats on paper. Many of us are hired for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with our qualifications. Why is using race or gender any worse? Would love to have that back. That would be great, because then they'd be paid the wages they should be paid, and be taxed. What's your plan? Deportation? Good luck with that. You said that already. Like the GI bill that McCain and Bush were against? I mean you guys love the military to go out and fight your dirty wars, and when they come back they're on their own. Many homeless people fought in Vietnam. ???? I don't know where this came from, but ironically, other countries that are more liberal have more freedom of speech than the US. I read a publication a while back that talked about this, and it was kinda funny. There's more censorship in the US for writings like newspapers, and in other venues. I don't like either party because the Democrats are spineless, and the Republicans are thugs. What's your point? If you want to see change, then stop sitting around on the computer and do something. It's why I dislike the Green Party...they go straight for President instead of focusing on communities and changing the heads of people, one at a time. I take it you're a Ron Paulite judging by your posts. Let me ask you something: how many voters have you registered this year?

For America as a Whole: Obama was the best candidate this year, by far. I mean, we're headed for a recession, McCain doesn't know anything about economics or economic policy, he wishes to keep the course with Iraq while ignoring the rest of the world and Maliki and head into a war with Iran, while at the same time ignoring where the terrorists are in Pakistan (although I personally disagree with the obsession with Bin Laden, catching him will do nothing). His views on education are awful...vouchers, and allowing school districts to allow Creation "science" if they so choose, he has some of the worst votes for veterans benefits, his civil rights record is lacking, I could go on. Now, I am not an Obama supporter, but more of an endorser. He and I disagree on almost every issue except for abortion, and abortion is just a wedge issue that doesn't even matter as the courts decide that. His insight with what would happen in the middle east if we invaded was spot on, and time and time again I am impressed with this. Unlike Kerry, he knows how to re-frame the debate by allowing a convergence of right and left politics to the center for compromise, and has continued to show that he is a centrist rather than a liberal-progressive. However, America doesn't need a liberal progressive like Kucinich, we need a man who can unite both sides together, and give people the ability to see that they're the change we've been waiting for. How do we reform campaign finance? Be that change. Make calls, register voters, get there and volunteer. Too many people are apathetic in this country, and it shows with the ignorance and knowledge. There's alot of discussion about Obama being a socialist and re-distributing wealth. Certainly, the man is not a wolf hiding in socialist's clothing, but it is appearant that he cares enough about the MAJORITY of citizens to ensure that the US resources are distributed evenly ENOUGH to guarantee access to basic services, sort of. I mean he's not advocating the health care, education plans that I'd like, but it's definitely a start. It's always interesting to me to see how Americans refer to European socialist policies as being somehow evil. Certainly in Europe, there are rich and poor but the MAJORITY of people have a higher quality of life. Why? Because taxes have paid for efficient transport to and from work, because taxes have paid for health care systems were all citizens can access care, because taxes have paid for schools where people are not graduating en masse being illiterate. In case most Americans have not noticed, the US is moving towards a society like Mexico. If you are rich, you live in enclaves behind walls and have access to great health care and schools. If you are middle class, you struggle like hell just to stay afloat. And if you are poor, you are excluded from basic services. So when Americans are so against paying taxes, maybe they should think of living in a society like Mexico in the future. And how much of US taxes really go towards this "redistribution" that everyone fears? And how much goes to the war in Iraq, Social Security, and the interest on the public debt that Mr. Bush has helped to push to record levels? The funny thing about all of this debate is that the quintessential Republican policies of small government and low taxes have been promoted by Mr. Bush. What happened? The dollar fell, spending still continued at a brisk pace, the financial system is in turmoil, and most Americans are worse off than when Clinton was president. Why do Americans think taxes is a dirty word? I heard that the US is spending is about $10 billion a month on the war in Iraq. No problem, say the people. No problem, says the Congress. But when a $3 billion bill to ensure working class child reached the President's desk, he vetoed it because it was a waste of money. Hmmm. The US government nearly outspends the rest of the entire world on defense and no one says a word. But when a relatively small spending bill comes up that will provide vital services and improve the quality of life, the people are crying bloody murder. Would you rather spend a little money on American human beings that alot of money of bombs? It's hard to see that Americans are not a war mongering people when you look at the American polity makes its spending priorities.

Even if it WAS a deterrent, which way more sources point that it isn't and you can look at places that have completely gotten rid of it at their crime rates, but even if it was, I STILL wouldn't use it. Are we so barbaric that we cannot know that the BEST way is to lead through example, and not vengeance? You know what's a deterrent for theft? Cutting off people's hands, well, it works in theocracies. You know what helps keep kids away from having sex before marriage and unwanted pregnancies? Killing pregnant mothers for fornication. I swear, some of the people here... :wall:

I don't want to turn this into a debate on the legality of drugs but are you saying to make marijuana legal? Also I would like to see some statistics on that. Statistics are above. Nope, I do not agree with marijuana being legal until America has a broader, and more open mind about drugs. They've been lied to all these years, which was strongly perpetuated by Ronald Reagan and his criminal gang, so now when all of the sudden they realize this, they might lash out and go use "safe" drugs. America can't handle alcohol right now, let alone marijuana and other drugs. Now, when we're officially educated about it properly without scare tactics and lies, and people understand it, then I do not have any objections with it being legal. Until then, it should not be a crime to possess it in smaller quantities. You wanna know why America has it's alcohol and drug policies, the Christians who run the government. As much as the words separation of church and state are shoved in everyone's faces, how often is it actually separate. Take our marriage laws for example, homosexuals can't get married because it is a christian viewpoint that stops it. Before I get carried away with my conspiracy theories, I would like to state tha tI agree on the whole America needs to get unbrainwashed thing, before marijuana should be legalized. On topic: This man is an embarrassment to fat people everywhere. He's almost as bad as the fat people that use handicap parking spaces. Fat people, get off your fat lazy [wagon] and go for a walk, not to the fridge. Oh I see, so you use this as a conduit to attack Christianity and religion? It's about money, it's not about religion. Marriage I will agree with, but not drugs.

Maybe, but this means nothing unless it's actually working. Which it isn't. It is a deterrent. Each execution saves 18 lives. http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DezRub ... rFinal.pdf I mean if you wanna post links and stuff... http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/ ... italpunish http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2374 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... bbe2f.html http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/200 ... to-murder/ etc. I say Ronald Reagan because he amplified it a million times ten raised to the one hundreth power.

I think the phrase "war on crime" doesn't mean literally declaring war on criminals and preparing the extinguish them. I notice things we don't like, we strive to stop, but we don't declare war on. Its a figure of speech, if you ask me. *Sigh* I know it's a figure of speech. It's the war to get rid of, and lower crime, not against the criminals. Just like the War on Poverty, I don't expect the government to go around whacking poor people. However, the phrase in general just spouts America's views: war, violence, retribution. The anthem has bombs in it for christ sake.

I don't want to turn this into a debate on the legality of drugs but are you saying to make marijuana legal? Also I would like to see some statistics on that. Statistics are above. Nope, I do not agree with marijuana being legal until America has a broader, and more open mind about drugs. They've been lied to all these years, which was strongly perpetuated by Ronald Reagan and his criminal gang, so now when all of the sudden they realize this, they might lash out and go use "safe" drugs. America can't handle alcohol right now, let alone marijuana and other drugs. Now, when we're officially educated about it properly without scare tactics and lies, and people understand it, then I do not have any objections with it being legal. Until then, it should not be a crime to possess it in smaller quantities.

I'd love a statistic on that. :| http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/ This is a statistic to show racial profiling at its finest, along with the fact that 62.5% of blacks are in jail because of drug offenses; the majority being because of marijuana. Half of state prisons consist of non-violent crimes; 20% of those beings drug related offenses, the rate is higher among Federal prisons. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf So now you're putting NON-VIOLENT people in jail, for resorting to 2 crimes that help them financially because they have no other options. You're exposing them to violence, gangs, the drugs are still in prisons, they're abused by the cops who have an authority complex, and when they get out they have a felony on their record and cannot get a job. What happens then? Back to square one: more theft, more drugs. Can't you see, even if a very very small blur, that these criminals are victims of society?

Jails are overcrowded because half of the "criminals" are there for possession of marijuana. Blame the war on drugs, yet another Conservative talking point/entity. Notice how anything we don't like, we declare war on...now you have the war on crime. Nothing like solving problems with war and violence.

Which brings us to a question: Are humans born evil? Are they born thinking "damn, crime sure looks appealing right about now..." I can think of one such case for these views, and that's Ted Bundy. He believed that his crimes were equal to that of snatching a cracker from a child's hand; a crime is a crime. If they're not born the way they are, rehabilitation can always be tried, at a minimum. Not only that, but the spawn of crime is that there is no other way out in their eyes, it's the only option they have. So perhaps tacking onto rehabilitation, we need to focus on more preventative measures. Which goes back to the gun control thread with jackattack screaming that "welfare increases crime", and I shall respond to that. Ta.

Isolation from society for irreparable damage to the psychosis; it should be used as a last resort, with rehabilitation coming first and foremost for ANY crime.

It would be slightly more ironic if you only had John Lennon in your signature instead of The Beatles as a whole. I didn't say put him to death, all I'm doing is stating no one's fat enough to die from a bullet wound to the head. I'd love peace in the world, it would save millions of innocent lives, but human nature isn't going to let that happen. My apologies for making that incorrect inference, it's just what I got from the post as others have stated "Just shoot the guy....damn!"

It would be slightly more ironic if you only had John Lennon in your signature instead of The Beatles as a whole.

Why it's a straw man: I said I would not have had them put to death. I NEVER said I wouldn't have stopped them from committing their crimes, and have them placed in prison. They were not so much questions as they were sarcastic "quips". He did not mean for them to be answered, they were apart of his argument. edit to your edit: Yes I am aware, I was saying so for the sake of getting my point across.

I do like that phrase, but I only say it when people DON'T address the argument at hand, or put words in my mouth. If you can find an instance when I've used it, and did not use it properly, then be my guest...but you won't find any. 1.) If they don't address the argument I've laid out... or... 2.) If they say something that I never said, and try and claim that is my argument such as this fellow did here. Those are the two times I will use the phrase.

:!: :!:

This post is full of win, take caution when reading it, or you might be struck with guilt if you're for the death penalty. The death penalty should NEVER be a method of "justice", I would not have had Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam put to death...EVER! The fact that Saddam's death was publicized made me sick to my stomach... Here's how I think it should be: I believe that in the case of a grand felony or something so horrendous it deserves retribution, the offender should be offered the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. If he chooses the death penalty, he has to give himself the injection. After many years, they should be offered a chance of parole. Ultimately, though, it should just be outlawed.

Ginger, even if we had a rough start in the very beginning of my noticing him frequenting these boards with misunderstandings in the relationship thread, is by far my favorite in terms of views: world-views, politics (although we disagree at times, but that's more interpretation than anything), and how the world should and can be. I look forward, and read anywhere he posts. Now, if it's in terms of FAVORITE posters, like posts I look forward to reading OTHER than Ginger's, I gotta say it's Lenin, and Zonorhc. When I got Zonor's approval for my witted sarcasm on the Conservapedia post, I almost fainted :lol:

Yes, yes it is. not really, every day someone comes up with a new way to split water, that article is just hype At this cost, through another renewable energy? Hardly. This not only takes the concept of hydrogen, but it uses solar to advance that in an inexpensive way. The costs of catalyst have been reduced from $2,000 an ounce, to roughly $2.00 an ounce.

... Make informed decisions? Are you crazy? Drugs ARE bad. Alcohol IS bad. The only one that you might make an "informed decision" about is sex. Otherwise that's it. Why would you want to make a desicion to do drugs? I don't think I expressed this the way I could've. I hope you get what I mean .. Great, but you don't have to LIE, and that's what scare tactics do; they twist truth, and throw it into a soup pot full of lies, and stir it with a lying soup ladle. Take Reefer Madness: scare tactic, and they lied. Means never justify ends....especially when you put such a stigma about said topic. Prescription drugs aren't bad, or are they? They cause more deaths than heroin, coke, meth, and any other illegal drug combined, yet schools don't educate about those...why? Because they're THEIR drugs.

Hmmm...really? Lemme try and find another source of it, it's quite possibly the most disgusting thing I've ever seen when it comes to the American way of educating children about alcohol... http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=5005097&page=1 That work?

Yes, yes it is.

Problem with criminals eh? Then let's work towards rehabilitation rather than incarceration...let's give people more options through socialist programs, that help them have access to education, health care, and other opportunities that are more appealing than crime. Oh wait, conservatives have an issue with that too, huh?