+119 If ignorance is bliss, republicans must be experiencing pure ecstasy on a daily basis, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Totally not original

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I gotta say, democrats have this "Every opinion matters, except for Republicans, they can fuck themselves attitude." It really pisses me off. Some people call Republicans ignorant, but most people are really educated on topics but just take the other view because of their morals. Democrats are educated as well, their morals just lead them the other way. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion, as long as that opinion is open to others' opinion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I know! Liberals are constantly reminding me how open minded they are, whereas I'm just a close minded, homophobic, conservative. But then they disrespect any opinion I have based on a presupposition about conservatives.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Its not that bad most of the time, I understand they like their opinion. But when it starts leaking into the public school system it becomes a problem. At younger ages, if a kid hears something from a teacher, they assume it to be a fact. If a teacher is going around saying "Bush is an idiot" or "Republicans are so stupid," the child won't form its own opinion, it will repeat what it knows to be fact. I'm fine if people understand the conflict and take either side, but when people are on a side only because of what the media says or what the teacher says, its kinda disappointing. One racist once told me the only reason they voted for Obama was because he was black. Its horrible what the media does.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I've never had a teacher say anything like that.. teachers (should) give facts without their own bias or when children are older, present different opinions to each topic

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They should, but its not always the case. Especially during presidential elections or other big political seasons. Its hard, I know, but a teacher should be working to help children form their own opinion. (BTW, you probably don't live in California. The public school system here is a joke, it really is.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My History teacher this year is unbelievably biased. He's showing a Michael Moore documentary for extra credit no

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Michael Moore actually has a lot of very good things to say. Out of curiosity, which documentary are you (or your class) watching?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nah. Michael Moore is a fat, socialist pig. He's a liar, and produces some of the most biased and twisted documentaries you can find. He accuses Bush of lying about the WMDs, which is a complete fabrication. The entire world thought Iraq had WMDs. Bush was wrong, not lying. Fahrenheit 9/11

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Any chance you've ever seen SiCKO? He (Moore) took 9/11 first responders to Gitmo and asked for the healthcare that the prisoners receive, as it was better than what the 9/11 first responders were getting at home. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBtdsjAMfJI

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think the most amazing part of that video was that Michael Moore managed to find a boat that could keep him afloat. Well that never showed the medical attention they received at Gitmo. But that's a completely ridiculous comparison. A small island that contains prisoners compared to a country that supports 300 million people? Not a fair comparison at all. Besides, do you really think they received the exact same care? You don't think the care was just a little bit better when the TV cameras were around?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, why would they dress up the care that the prisoners were receiving just because a camara was around. The people at gitmo are terrorists, just in case you didn't know The people at gitmo should under no circumstances be getting better care than the 9/11 first responders. The Republicans have used 9/11 as a ploy to boost their ratings and they have praised the responders, but in my mind, they have lost all of that after they refused to give them any care at all in return for their services that day. Jon Stewart , a comedian, had to point out to the Republicans that wanted to block the 9/11 first responder's bill that THE 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS WERE GETTING NO HELP FROM THE PEOPLE THAT PRAISE THEIR HEROISM AND ARE USING IT AS A PLOY FOR VOTES/RATINGS.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Republicans claim to be so pro-life, but all they really are is anti-abortion, once the child is alive, they could care less. Primary education? Can't have that. Healthcare for families that can't afford it? No way is that good. Homosexuals? Nope, they can't have the rights of every other person in the country. The poor and middle class? No money for them and their families. Guns? Let's give everyone a killing machine to save lives! The Middle East? What? A problem? Let's invade, killing thousands of not only our soldiers, but their soldiers and citizens as well. Why? Well there's a problem there, we don't really have anything to do with it, but let's get everyone killed anyway!!! That is one of the main reasons I am a Democrat, not only do I agree with their views, but the hypocrisy of the Republicans is astounding.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You wanna call the treatment of terrorists at Gitmo too good and then complain about hypocrisy?!?! The liberals are the ones demanding they be treated like top class citizens! If I were in charge of Gitmo, those terrorists would be relieved to get to Hell. You don't seem to understand why conservatives are against all the things you just listed. Sure, they sound great, but conservatives know that more government=less freedom. As Ann Coulter says, the best way to convert a liberal is to make them get a job and start paying taxes. Serious trouble lies down the path of rewarding the unproductive. It's not good to incentivize poverty or unemployment. And you seem to view gun control strictly based on theory, not in practice. In theory, yes, gun control is the way to go. However, it never works. In 1997, the English Parliament decided to ban guns. From 1998 to 2005, the number of deaths and injuries from handguns skyrocketed 340 percent....

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In 2007, a study was done that compared gun ownership and murder rates in almost every single European country. It found that countries with more widespread gun ownership had fewer murders, while countries with less gun ownership had more murders. Saying that there was a "problem" in the middle east is like saying Michael Moore is thick. It's a massive understatement. Do you know how many people were killed in WWII? Quite a few, but few people would argue that the US had to enter into it. Sometimes war, as awful as it is, is necessary to stop tyrants and save innocent lives.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Treat them well, but not better than you treat the citizens of your own country, which is what they are doing. If you treat them like total crap, either they are their friends will be more apt to want revenge than if we treated our POWs nicely Plenty of liberals do have a job and pay taxes, and are plenty happy with that, knowing their money is going to both help the government and the less fortunate, not all of whom are freeloading. Yes, some are, but more don't than do. And I know more people who have turned liberal from conservative when they enter life than the other way (and I live in a very conservative area of the country, btw). How do pro-death penalty and pro-life match up in any way? Yeah, but there are big problems in Darfur and China and just about all 3rd world areas, yet we don't invade there. The US cannot solve the problem's of the entire world.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

yes, handguns, people don't need the semi-automatic shit that Republicans want to let them have. I have debated the gun right issue with you and others, and I know it gets nowhere in no quick fashion, so I will let that one rest, as there will be no winner, if you want to, fine, I will, but I know the outcome now.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I agree. They should not be treated well. But the left are the ones pushing for better treatment for them, so don't come whining to me about it. Talk to your party. Ah. Unfortunately, the statistics don't line up with you there. I've examined voting statistics, and the older the demographic, the more conservative. That was the case for almost every single state, and that is despite the fact that the Democrats try to enlarge Social Security and things like that. Similarly, the less money one makes, the more likely they were to vote Democrat. I know that you could flip that and say rich people vote Republican because they're greedy, but I don't like calling productive citizens greedy. America is the most charitable nation on Earth, and that includes the rich. But people like to know where their money is going. You say liberals are comfortable paying more taxes, because they know it's going to help somebody else in need, but personally, I'm never comfortable giving

by Anonymous 12 years ago

the government my money, because I know that massive amounts of it will be wasted. It's no secret that the government cannot do anything well. That's a large reason why I'm a conservative. Money is spent much much more efficiently in the private sector, and that includes private charities. Ugh. I hate that argument. To compare an innocent unborn child to a worthless murderer is despicable at best. The problems in the middle east were not just their problems, though. They were our problems. Which "war" do you not support? I will let the gun issue rest, but I'll say this first. I don't think the government has a right to regulate how much of the 2nd amendment I get to have. If they can do that, then the whole Bill of Rights can be "regulated." Once that happens, there is no Bill of Rights.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So you said you agree, but then disagreed. Should they be treated well or not? I say treat them well, but not better than the citizens of your own country. If they are treated like crap, they will only be out for more revenge later. Yes, that is because most conservatives are old white guys. There is a reason there are very few black Republicans, and most of the minorities tend to vote Democrat. If you are going to be pro-life, then all life matter s and has worth, no matter who they are or what the have done. I did not support Iraq. The only reason we were there is "Operation Iraqi Liberation" or OIL for short. Yes, they had a corrupt dictator. Yes, he was bad, no, we should not have gone in until the people showed signs of not wanting him and were willing to do something about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My bad. I meant to say we shouldn't be treating them better than our citizens. But that's the left's fault. Yeah, the reason blacks vote Democrat is because Democrats pander to minority votes. They pass racist legislation to buy the black vote. Affirmative action anybody? Not to mention that black are bullied by the left to vote Democrat, otherwise they're labeled as "Uncle Toms." Wrong. That's absolutely ridiculous. By your logic, because I'm against abortion, I don't think we should've killed Osama Bin Laden. That's bull crap. We did not enter that war for oil, nor did we do it just to help Iraq get back on their feet. Saddam was widely believed to have WMDs. Russia told us they did, Britian told us they did, the CIA told us they did. Even Iraq told us they did. Because of liberals in America, and overly peaceful policies by Russia and France, Hussein did not take America's threats seriously, and refused to cooperate with the U.N. We felt that Iraq was a

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not really, it was the right in power when Gitmo started to really be used as a prison for POWs No, it is because the Conservatives are out to get the middle and lower class, I mean, after all why should they get money? Minorities are usually lower/middle class, and they vote Democrat because it is more likely they will get help living month to month, and their taxes won't be sent to the rich people getting tax cuts and subsidies to prevent from losing any money at all. Because why should the average person have money? Exactly, I'm pointing out the fact that Republicans aren't pro-life, rather they are anti-abortion. You go on believing that it wasn't for oil, you go on believing that They have them in Korea too, why not invade there again?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Just because the right was in power doesn't mean their will was being done. They have to make sure they don't alienate the entire country. Haha. Yeah right. The conservatives aren't "out to get" anybody, by definition. They support the equalizing the tax code as much as possible, so that nobody is attacked by the federal government. If anything, the liberals are attacking the rich, which is completely unamerican. We're pro-life for people that are innocent. Your life has sanctity until you eliminate somebody else's life. At that point I refuse to pay for your food, clothing, shelter, and recreation for the rest of your pathetic life. You have no basis for believing it is for oil. You appear to believe that because of a predeposition against conservatism and against Bush. Hussein was refusing to cooperate with the U.N., and was kicking the UN inspectors out of his country. But let's play your game. Let's assume this war is for oil. The Republicans wouldn't

by Anonymous 12 years ago

be forced to enter into a war for oil if the liberals would allow us to drill for oil in our country. We desperately need energy independence. The extremely high energy prices lead to higher transportation prices, which makes doing business more expensive, and ultimately raises food prices. On top of all that, Obama is in favor of an energy tax! People aren't going to be able to heat up their own homes if we don't end this ridiculous offshore drilling moratorium. I think energy prices is going to be a huge arrow in Obama's back in his campaign for 2012.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ah yes, because the minority has all the power in the country (/sarcasm) Then why don't they want the middle class people to have money? Why must all the money go to the rich and upper class? Yes, the liberals are taxing the rich because guess what? They have money. More money that everyone else. And yes, while they are contributing the most by dollar value, they are nowhere near on top for percentage of income. They have more money, so they should be paying more than the middle class. But if you are pro-life for just a certain group of people, then it is not pro-life. The true pro-life standpoint would be that EVERYONE is sacred, no one deserves to die and everyone deserves dignity. But Republicans don't believe that, so they are not pro-life (I'm saying the Democrats do, I'm just saying the Republican don't, and saying which group does more is pointless, because neither side really is)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Actually, there is plenty of basis that it is about oil http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh my goodness. Take the extension of the Bush Tax cuts. The Republicans forced Obama to extend the Bush Tax cuts, despite being the minority. Did you know that government revenue actually increased after the Bush Tax cuts? And I don't think you understand just how much the rich already pay in taxes. The top 1% of incomer earners in the U.S. paid 39% of federal income taxes, while earning 18% of pretax income. The top 5% paid 61% of the federal income taxes, while earning 31% of pretax income. The top 40% of income earners pay 99.4% of federal income taxes, whereas the bottom 40% pay no federal income tax. Don't tell me the rich aren't paying enough. Well I consider myself pro 2nd Amendment, but I don't believe that people in jail have the right to bear arms. Does that mean I'm not pro 2nd amendment? Of course not, because that would be unreasonable. I refuse to debate with a link. You're going to have to present your argument to me yourself.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Either way, it wasn't the liberals that wanted to treat the prisoners like absolute crap. Waterboarding, anyone? http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html (The chart is the information I want to bring here) But that means you are regulating the Bill of Rights which you said not to do!!! And regulating part of the Bill of Rights for the safety of the US is not regulating the whole thing and destroying it. Just go to the link, there is too much type out and it would clog this thread. my brower has crashed trying to load giant threads before, and that would be quite a few messages, otherwise I would have typed it out in the first place

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well now I don't understand you're position. First, you complain that prisoners are treated better than citizens, and how outrageous that is. Then you complain that conservatives weren't treating them well enough. You better believe I'm for waterboarding. We got information to capture Osama Bin Laden from waterboarding. Wow. How evil of those Republicans to try to cut taxes, while cutting an appropriate amount of spending on entitlement programs. Cutting taxes for everybody (yes, including the evil rich) benefits everybody. It's easy to say they have enough money, but guess who employs people? The rich. If you take all of their money away, then you're essentially taking away jobs. It's not regulating. Believe it or not, prisoners aren't entitled to the Bill of Rights. Same with convicted murderers. And yes it is. When the Bill of Rights can be changed, then there's no point in having it. Those rights are supposed to be guaranteed, not negotiable. There is no

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Treat them well, but not better than your own citizens, that is what I have said. TORTURING THEM WILL ALSO ONLY MAKE THEM MORE MAD AND WANT TO ATTACK US. "You have to be the change you wish to see in the world" (Ghandi). Violence will not end violence. If we want violence to stop, we must embody peace. That is what I have said and am now saying. That would be great, except the rich aren't employing people. TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK, IT NEVER HAS. But it still stands that if you don't regulate what guns people can and cant have, a lot of people will go overboard and buy guns that are complete overkill for any civil purpose. How is that not detrimental to society?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Under that philosophy, we should not have killed Osama. I hate when people say violence never solves anything. Ya know, it does solve some things. Like, I don't know, slavery, genocide, Nazism, tyranny, oppression, etc. Violence is sometimes necessary. We will never have World Peace. I hate to burst your bubble. Show me where trickle up poverty has worked, then. Under Reaganomics, the USA saw its longest peacetime economic expansion ever. So I would say that's false. It's a slippery slope. Not a lot of harm will be done by people legally acquiring fully automatic guns. But a lot of harm will be done when the government decides the Bill of Rights is negotiable.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

room for negotiation in my rights. What is the point? I could link you to all the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh sites in the world. You're not proving to me that you have legitimate reason to believe the war is for oil. You're proving to me that you are choosing to believe that, because Bush is a Republican. Why is Obama starting a war in Libya? After all, Libya does have the 6th largest oil reserve out of all oil producing Middle East countries. Why don't you accuse him of going into a war for oil? Because he's a Democrat.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Except, ya know, killing is the cause of all of those things. Just a minor detail there. And yet Reagan still managed to drive us millions of dollars in debt. Why is it that Republicans are so much for military spending yet so against spending that helps citizens? And that brings us back to the pro-life thing and how Republicans aren't it. Beck and Limbaugh and O'Reilly have zero credibility whatsoever. All they ever say is OBAMA IS BAD OBAMA IS BAD OBAMA IS BAD and never have anything to back it up. That site had legit information, like facts, not opinions to back up it. It was more than evident that the Libya "war" was not for oil. Only a dumbass would say that it is. You have no legit reason as to say that Obama went in for oil, which he didn't. There was much legit info as to why oil could be a very big part of why Iraq was invaded.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Answer me this as well. So when Obama killed Osama, the Republicans paraded Bush because he laid the groundwork (He did, yes, I'm not saying he didn't). But whenever something bad happens (that Bush had also set the groundwork for), the Republicans say it is Obama's fault, as he has been in there for two years. So is the groundwork Bush laid for everything still valid or not?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, but we can't stop their killing. Just ours. I'm not saying that I don't want an end to violence. Of course I do. But I'm not naive enough to think that is achievable, and I know that it is often times necessary for America (among other nations) to utilize violence to stop horrible things from happening. Yes, Reagan regretfully drove America into debt. But he did so because he was busy masterfully dismantling the Evil Empire. You don't think military spending helps the country? Do you realize why you're free? Conservatives realize that entitlement programs don't actually help people. They prefer endorsing jobs creation, rather than unemployment. Also, your pro-life argument makes no sense. Also, do you think it would have been hypocritical for a "pro-life conservative" to kill Hitler to save millions of innocent lives? Do you listen to Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh? Really? There are good reasons to believe it was for oil? Because I have yet to see you tell

by Anonymous 12 years ago

me those reasons. I still refuse to go research your "opinion" for you. That's not how debate works. Really? Politics has bias? Go figure :p Most conservatives I know are willing to give Obama the credit he is due. The problem is, he never thanked Bush for laying the groundwork, and the left won't give Bush any credit. They attacked him for being a war-monger, and entering into wars for oil. Then when Obama kills Osama, they are all of a sudden very supportive of the Afghanistan war. I give Obama the credit for making the call. But I give more credit to the CIA and the Navy SEALs, and I think Bush deserves some recognition.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The whole thing is a vicious cycle, they kill us, we kill them to get back at them, then they do the same. If we actually treat them like humans, they will be more willing to negotiate rather than just blow the shit out of us I'm not saying to cut military spending, I'm asking why is it the only thing Republicans will spend money on. Of course the military is important, I'm not denying that, but so are a lot of other things, like education and medical care for US citizens I put the link, and all you have to do is click on it, exactly like you did to get to this page, and you will see all the points. I did the research, all you have to do is click and read I have yet to see a Conservative give credit to Obama, just as I have yet to see a Liberal give Bush credit. I'm saying that the Republicans are only taking the good groundwork that Bush laid whenever something happens, and blame it all on Obama when bad things happen that Bush laid the groundwork for

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's a vicious cycle that they started with 9/11. We had no choice but to stop them. If you honestly think that Al Qaeda is willing to negotiate, I don't know what to tell you. So I take it I don't have to defend the military spending, just defend the lack of spending elsewhere? In terms of education, Republicans realize that throwing money at the problem will not fix it. (Although, Bush massively increased education spending, and Republicans were on board, which I disagreed with.) True conservatives realize that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to involve itself into education. Education is a states issue, and would be better dealt with by the states. I support a voucher system for education, which I think would vastly improve education without the need for excesses of wasted money. In terms of medical care, conservatives believe that the free market is better suited to handle health insurance, because the free market handles pretty much

by Anonymous 12 years ago

everything better than the government can. http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/Businessweek/BW/2003/03_17_2003.pdf There. That link refutes that the war was for oil. Do you see how that isn't a legitimate argument? You have not showed me that you know why it is for oil. You don't have to tell me every reason you believe that. Just rattle off your initial thoughts about it, and it will develop from there, like the rest of the debate has. Ah. Well that's politics in America. I don't know what to tell you. I know conservatives like Glenn Beck have given Obama the credit he deserves. I think that Obama came across as rather arrogant when he announced Osama's death, because he appeared to take a lot of the credit. The American people are going to give him credit regardless. I think it would've been a better political move to, the speech, completely worship the ground the military walks on. If he would've just kissed the soldiers' feet, he would've seemed much more

by Anonymous 12 years ago

appreciative of the Navy SEALs. Whew. That was a long one.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You don't know if they will or not. Has it ever been tried? My freshmen English teacher told me a story of a US interrogator who made friends with the people he was supposed to get info from. He didn't torture them, just made friends. Then when he asked questions, they were answered with little to no hesitation. Moral: treat others well, and they will treat you well in return. Yes, I understand military spending is important, you have to defend the lack of spending elsewhere, you are correct. Throwing more money at the problem will not fix it, but nor will taking money away. I live in Wisconsin, by the way, so you can probably guess why I am against the Republicans and their education policy right now. Why do you say education is a state's issue?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The free market is great at regulating nothing. All the money would just go straight to the rich and powerful, and the middle/lower classes would get metaphorically crapped on. There needs to be some regulation, we saw that with the Progressive Era. The Progressives massively regulated industry, and whether you agree with that or not, you must admit that it helped greatly. In the free market, money is the driving force and the only thing that matters. If it can be done cheaper, then it will be. But business people will become so greedy that worker's rights will be compensated. Very well then, In Apr 2001 (before 9/11), the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq Here are quotes from the link I posted: "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet! Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas, which was formerly run by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has already been awarded a contract by the US government to operate in post-war Iraq. Haliburton "has a history of government contracts" and will be a "leading beneficiary" of the war on Iraq. Mr Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed. And there are more, but that is sufficient for now

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Praising the ground the military walks on really wouldn't be appropriate either. It wasn't just the military, it wasn't just Obama, it wasn't just Bush. It was all of them, and highlighting just one and pushing back the others would not be appropriate in any sense of the word.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Pshh.. I highly doubt if that's true. You'll have to find me a link for that. Well in tough times, we have to cut everything. That includes education. Are you upset that the teachers lost their collective bargaining rights? I say that because the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to interfere with education. The education system of America went a long time without Federal interference, and it did just find. 10th Amendment. The progressive age had it's time and day, but we have more than enough regulations now. Especially considering the recession we are now in. Increasing regulations now is just going to discourage businesses from starting, and continue to keep the unemployment rate at 10% (even though Obama promised the unemployment rate wouldn't go above 8% were his stimulus package to pass). Sigh... I'm not sure copy-pasting from the website is any different from just posting the link. You continue to push the idea that you believe the war

by Anonymous 12 years ago

is for oil simply because George W. Bush is a Republican. But you can't assume that, just because a country has large amounts of oil, any war waged on it must be for oil. Like I have said, virtually every country in the world thought Iraq had WMDs. Bush was told the "WMDs in Iraq is a slam dunk." Russia said the same thing. Britain said the same thing. The CIA said the same thing. Saddam Hussein said the same thing. Even the overly-passive U.N. said the same thing, and Bush got permission from the U.N. before he invaded Iraq. Bush gave Saddam ample opportunities to negotiate. He tried diplomacy, and gave Hussein loads of time to cooperate, as did the U.N. If the war was for oil, Bush would've just invaded without diplomacy or permission from the U.N. I know that it was all three of them, but there was no need for Obama to go on television and pat himself on the back. I thought the speech was rather self-serving. He could've just thanked other people, and the

by Anonymous 12 years ago

American people would've given him the credit he deserved. Instead, he came across as rather arrogant. I think you have taken all the debate out of me. But, in the words of Bill O'Reilly, "You can have the last word."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, this could go on forever. I want to let this one rest, it won't be going anywhere anytime soon. I will post replies to your above statements, but I will not reply after that. I just want to show that I do have replies and am not reply-less (if that is a word) I know you could have rebuttals to my reply, but there is no need, this one can rest. If you want the last word, go ahead. Anyway, Yes, cut everything. Then why is military exempt? Everything else is just as important to the survival of the country. Without education, the next generation won't know anything and the country will be highly screwed. But without regulations, corporate greed would take over more than it already is. The high-ups of companies are always demanding more and more, leaving the workers screwed over.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't say the Iraq war is for oil because W. is a Republican, I say it because W. is a moron. And you complained when I posted just the link, so I brought the link to you and you still said that wasn't good. Direct quotes is a much better source than paraphrasing. He really didn't come off as arrogant. He basically just said "Hello, Osama Bin Laden is dead. And here's what happened. Good night." And in the aftermath he has acted very respectfully. The body was buried according to Muslim tradition, which shows huge levels of respect to even the greatest of his enemies. And when he was pressured to show the pictures, he said no, because "it isn't a trophy".

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Okay. As tempting as it is to respond to those points, it ends here. Nice debate. I had fun. I'm sure we'll meet again.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Very well then, I had fun as well, I look forward to seeing you again in debate. I don't agree with your views, but I still think you're a pretty cool guy. Political debates in the real world need to be like this, respectful. Never had any insults been hurled and very few cuss words, just respectful debate. Why can't everyone in Washington do this?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Likewise Haha. Good question. But politicians have one goal-- getting reelected.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Actually, I want to say one last thing about the war being for oil. If Bush entered into the war for oil, then you have to tell me that Australia, UK, Romania, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Denmark, South Korea, Japan, Poland, Georgia, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain all entered into the war for oil, as well. And there were plenty of other countries that joined the coalition, as well. Now you can have the last word :p

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But there is no evidence that those countries went in with an oil motive, which contrasts why the US went in.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

threat to America's security, as well as Israel's.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't quite agree with your gun idea. letting it go completely free, even for the average citizen, is a horrible idea If people want guns for self defense only, fine. There are guns, like small handguns, meant for that. If someone comes in your house to rob you, a handgun would suffice. But all the semi-automatic guns, be them handguns or machine guns that conservatives want to let them have, those are tremendous overkill and will lead to nothing good.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Whoops. I just saw this. Do you know what semi-automatic means? If you ban semi-automatic guns (like Obama supports) then that bans pretty much all handguns. You either get all of the 2nd amendment or none of it. The bill of rights are supposed to be guaranteed, though the liberals don't seem to think that much, seeing as how they go through great lengths to silence conservatives.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What? You won't be able to have a machine gun?!??! Oh no, the absolute horror of wanting to protect citizens!!! How dare Obama do that!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And with your use of the word "machine gun" you have proven your ignorance of firearms. There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic machine gun." A semi-automatic gun simply means you don't have to re-cock the gun in order to fire another shot. IE: Almost every single handgun.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, I apologize for being peace loving and not owning any/knowing about guns

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So all people who own/are knowledgeable about guns are war-mongering violent rednecks? I apologize for asking you be somewhat knowledgeable about something before you try to ban it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, but I don't need to be an expert on guns in order to see that they don't help society

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I have shown you the statistics that prove that they do, in fact, help society.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Look at Australia, very strict guns laws, very little gun crime. I can give stats too

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fantastic. But guess what Australia doesn't have. Two largely unguarded borders over which large amounts of illegal guns can be and are smuggled over for criminals to buy. No amount of gun control can stop a criminal from buying a gun. Criminals buy guns the same way they do everything else: illegally.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, but if we just give guns to everyone, the flow to the black market will increase, as more will be out and more will get stolen, be them from either shops or from the owners. That is why gun buying needs to be restricted, so there aren't as many out for criminals to have. And the governor/congress in my state has proposed (and will pass) a concealed carry law that states you don't even need a permit or lessons in order to carry a gun. How is that at all beneficial, letting everyone just have a gun, even if they don't know how to use it?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

(I'm not really involved in this discussion, I just saw my country and it made me think of a point.) You can't say that one thing that works in one country will work in another. Even though they have similarities, the politics and social climate in Australia is drastically different from the US. I made that mistake too - I lived in New Zealand, and would say "X works in NZ, so X would work in Australia, because we're very similar" - it doesn't work that way.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes. You are completely right. Nobody understands guns and they keep tying to ban them and it pisses me off because all the criminals still have gangs because they'll get them through the black market.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

inb4 enormous political debate

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Go Libertarians! Even though we'll never win an election because everybody's focuses on only voting Dem. or Rep.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Libertarianism is the way to go! It actually sticks close to American morals, unlike the bullshit we have in our government now.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

*focused.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

HELL YES!! I love you fellow Libertarian. Please be my friend.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

im really neither political party (although i guess im more of a republican), but just because their opinions differ from yours doesn't make them stupid people. sure, george w. bush wasn't the best president ever, but do you see how obama is taking all of the credit for what bush started? it was bush who made sure catching bin laden was the #1 priority, yet obama comes in, they tell him they know where bin laden is, he says 'go ahead and get him', and he's a hero now. makes me so mad. anyway, rant over.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

it's unfair but that's how it is. obama got credit but it's because he had a part in it. Yes, bush made it a priority but obama did the work, it's like if you were to say i should do homework and you help me. yea you made and helped me but i did the work that i MIGHT not have, but the teacher thinks i did and they don't ask if i was helped. and in this case the teacher is the public: not bothering for details.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, the Navy Seals "did the work," but Obama gets the credit. Obama was more like the teacher who assigned the homework and now everyone is saying what an amazing assignment it was, while Bush started the quest to make the best assignment.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yup but unfortunately they don't get as much credit Obama does. I thought about but i didn't include it because in politics they don't really do much for armed forces except promise to bring s lot of them back which was an overstatement

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't think Obama deserves the credit either, but Bush also did start a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with catching Osama bin Laden. I wouldn't say catching bin Laden was his number 1 priority. Credit goes to the troops

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i mean as far as affairs with the CIA go. bin laden was their #1 priority because bush made it that way.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, this post just gave Democrats a worse name. Great...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Democrats are the ones who think that national healthcare would actually work well... Oh and the ones who are blind to see that racial profiling is often very necessary for safety.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

LOLOLOLOL. But no, racial profiling has been proven to... not work in airports actually. I don't they're the blind ones if they want to stop something that doesn't work.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This was a lovely reminder of why I hate both political parties. Seriously, Amiriters? This post has a positive score!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Most if not all political posts have a positive score....

by Anonymous 13 years ago

but most aren't as blatantly ignorant as this one.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I took it as a joke..

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Agreed. I'm not American, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but being opposed to the policies of a political party and it's supporters is different from insulting their intelligence - it just makes your own position look bad.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I love this.. it's so true.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

the tea party must be completely tripping balls then. lawll

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert (I acknowledge that this post is a joke and should not be taken seriously)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Political parties are stupid. All they do is get us to fight each other, when we're all on the same damn team. Believe what you want, and stop condemning people for their own beliefs.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm VERY liberal, but calling the other party stupid is completely counterproductive. You're not going to get anything done by saying Republicans suck.

by Anonymous 12 years ago