Liberals are lame Options

[*Steven*]

Discuss. Yes I'm generalizing. Yes I feel this way about the majority who try to be politically active. Why shouldn't I? They think they know whats best for everyone and think they're always right and that they're always doing the right thing. Take for instance, everyone who shuns people who don't agree with the global warming hype.

OMG GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING STOP DRIVING STOP THE INDUSTRY! IT'LL SAVE THE WORLD WE KNOW WHATS BEST!!!

See my point?

[AThorpedo]

See my point?

Yeah, but you can argue the same for any other political party. It isn't as if liberals are the first to think that they're right about everything, or even the loudest about it.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Better to fight for the planet than against a same-sex couple who wants equal rights.

[*kryogenix*]

Liberals suck gay gorilla penis.

[cyb3r0ptik]

Better to fight for the planet than against a same-sex couple who wants equal rights.

win.

[*Steven*]

Better to fight for the planet than against a same-sex couple who wants equal rights.

BOMBS OVER BAGHDADDDDDDDDDDDDD

[cyb3r0ptik]

you can always find reasons to hate either stance.
liberals may be loud mouthed and obnoxious...

but conservatives don't know how to open their minds to the world around them and accept the new beginnings going on.

[*Steven*]

Whoa whoa cowboy, I'm very open to the world, but very closed to impracticalities. That and stupid.

[cyb3r0ptik]

well i'm all for environmentalism, and peta, and all that... but i don't go around saying "OMGZORZ!!!11!!1111! HUG A TREE AND SAVE THE WHALES!"

:)

[*Michelle*]

I'M IMPARTIAL!

^_^

I don't know...

Honestly, I think both sides have their good stances and both sides have their bad. I'm all for helping the environment out a tad (to a certain point; no picketing with GLOBAL WARMING signs plz) AND homosexual marriage. shrug*

[*Steven*]

LOL PETA

Didn't they like, slaughter 15,000 animals a couple years back and leave them in a dumpster?

[*Michelle*]

PETA has some f**ked up ways of convincing people to join their so-called animal rights' movement. -_-

[*Steven*]

Like taking 15,000 to-be-adopted animals and when they aren't adopted within 3 days throwing them all out in a dumpster?

Liberals support a lot of groups because of the "ideas" they support, not the actions they perform.

[NoSex]

Yeah, but you can argue the same for any other political party. It isn't as if liberals are the first to think that they're right about everything, or even the loudest about it.

Yeah, your position really is kind of short-sighted.
The conservatives and the moderates feel exactly the same way, if we're going to speak generally. You just disagree with their positions, which is fine. But, say what you mean. Cause, your argument could be applied to any political group anywhere.

[*Steven*]

BUT conservatives didn't try to grant amnesty to illegals, and conservatives aren't making all these lame-ass rules that dictate certain aspects of our life. f**king liberals!

I suppose I should have expected you to take the liberal stance. Typically the poorer people take the liberal side, and I can't imagine washing dishes makes much, unless it's some fine ass china or something. I don't have much money either, but I'm hella conservative.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

conservatives aren't making all these lame-ass rules that dictate certain aspects of our life.

Really? You think so?

[NoSex]

BUT conservatives didn't try to grant amnesty to illegals,

So, you disagree with their positions? All you're doing is affirming what we already said. If you want to argue those specific positions, then makes topics for them. Otherwise, this thread is completely useless.

and conservatives aren't making all these lame-ass rules that dictate certain aspects of our life. f**king liberals!

What? Last time I checked this was the point of the legislative branch. Conservatives and liberals both contribute to "lame-ass rules" that "dictate certain aspects of our life." And, if you want to get nitty griddy: The liberals weren't the ones trying to amend the Constitution in order to tell us who we can and cannot marry.

I suppose I should have expected you to take the liberal stance. Typically the poorer people take the liberal side, and I can't imagine washing dishes makes much, unless it's some fine ass china or something. I don't have much money either, but I'm hella conservative.

You're so astute.

[*Steven*]

Really? You think so?

I do. Just because they call themselves conservative, doesn't make them conservative. Republicans have "conservative leanings", but that doesn't mean they take a conservative stance on everything, nor do they uphold conservative ideals. I'm not backing the republican party. I dislike both the republicans and democrats.

Y'all two are cute :)

Liberals suck.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

I do. Just because they call themselves conservative, doesn't make them conservative. Republicans have "conservative leanings", but that doesn't mean they take a conservative stance on everything, nor do they uphold conservative ideals. I'm not backing the republican party. I dislike both the republicans and democrats.

Yes, we are all perfectly well aware that the Republicans spend just as much as the Democrats.

Nevertheless, I can't imagine how you could seriously believe that conservatives impose fewer restrictions over people's lives. Conservatives are all about f**king with social freedoms. Not all Republicans, no, but you hadn't mentioned them to begin with. Still, gay marriage bans, abortion bans, stem cell research restrictions, are all things that the right strives for, while the left most certainly does not. From a liberal perspective, legalized marijuana makes much more sense, and alcohol should be sold on Sundays because there should actually be a separation between church and state (I don't know what other states that's the case in, but it's definitely still the way in Georgia, as this is such a ridiculously red state).
But liberals make all the "lame-ass rules that dictate our life." Right.

[NoSex]

Liberals suck.

Just because they call themselves liberal, doesn't make them liberal. Democrats have "liberal leanings", but that doesn't mean they take a liberal stance on everything, nor do they uphold liberal ideals. I'm not backing the democratic party. I dislike both the republicans and democrats.

Alright. Can your topic be closed now?

[*Steven*]

Let me rephrase. Economic liberals suck. I'm all about social liberalism. Mang I wasn't even talking about social things lol.

No it will not be closed Nate, and italics doesn't make it mean something either.

Also I'm not talking about people who call themselves anything. I'm talking about people who are. Anyone can say they're liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. That doesn't make them a liberal, moderate, libertarian, conservative, anarchist, what have you.

[*Uronacid*]

I don't know to much about the subject (I'm not a liberal, and it's a very complicated subject if you haven't studied it). Liberals are all about change, but I think that they tend to forget about the future (especially economic liberals). Many of the rules and regulations they tend to brew up make people feel good NOW, but are likely to hurt us later. They aren't investing in the future of the country. They're simply trying to get what they want, when they want it. I think it's lame because eventually they're going to start sacrificing our rights for stupid shit that just isn't necessary. I tend to see them focusing on things that "feel" right, but aren't actually going to help. It seems like conservatives are willing to get their hands dirty.

I definitely lean towards being a conservative, but I don't agree with all of their ideas either. I think that the best thing would be to find a happy median between the two. Trouble is, there are large percentages of people out there that think unnecessary changes are going to help the world become a better place. We need to prioritize, and everyone has a different plan. They're all playing off each other in a giant game of "tug-o-war", and nothing is getting done. Their like a bunch of toddles who are playing with building blocks, building towers with their own blocks, and constantly knocking other towers over.

Fuck, political parties are just so annoying.

Better to fight for the planet than against a same-sex couple who wants equal rights.

You're not even clever by saying this. I don't think that majority of people who are against homosexual marriage "fight" against it. Yes, if the topic comes up in discussion we give our opinions, but this doesn't mean that we go out of our way to start verbal fights with people who disagree with our point of view. I will simply vote against it. Presto!, no fighting, just the flick of a switch or the push of a button. The only people who blow steam are the individuals who are fighting for same-sex marriage.

I think you should change that phrase to, "Better to fight for the planet than for a same-sex couple who wants equal rights." Win.

Yes, we are all perfectly well aware that the Republicans spend just as much as the Democrats.

Nevertheless, I can't imagine how you could seriously believe that conservatives impose fewer restrictions over people's lives. Conservatives are all about f**king with social freedoms. Not all Republicans, no, but you hadn't mentioned them to begin with. Still, gay marriage bans, abortion bans, stem cell research restrictions, are all things that the right strives for, while the left most certainly does not. From a liberal perspective, legalized marijuana makes much more sense, and alcohol should be sold on Sundays because there should actually be a separation between church and state (I don't know what other states that's the case in, but it's definitely still the way in Georgia, as this is such a ridiculously red state).
But liberals make all the "lame-ass rules that dictate our life." Right.

Gay marriage: I see it as a majority rule and not a conservative stand. I'm a conservative. I will vote no, but when it's legalized I won't have a problem. There is no reason to bitch.

Abortion: is murder in some people's eyes. People have different views on this. It's another majority rule, it just so happens that the majority of conservatives think that murdering a child is wrong.

Stem Cell Research: I personally could care less about this one, it's one area where I agree with you. This should be legalized, but rules should be placed on top of this keep people from harvesting infants.

Marijuana: Ok, all the friends I had in high school that became a friend to Mary Jane are now complete idiots. I don't hang out with them anymore, and they will probably never have lives. Personal experience is more than enough reason to say no to the pot. Yes, even you were become a low life Jeremy.

Alcohol on Sunday: ask all the people who have had their children hit by drunk drivers this question. Having one day a week where liquor stores aren't open is definitely going to effect the number of drunk drivers on the road. Although you could tie this to religion, I don't think you should ban a law if it's clearly doing good for our communities.

Liberal rules and regulations are often selfish, feel-good-NOW-and-f**k-our-future rules. Conservatives are all about majority rule, sucks to be the minority doesn't it.

[bat19]

You're not even clever by saying this. I don't think that majority of people who are against homosexual marriage "fight" against it. Yes, if the topic comes up in discussion we give our opinions, but this doesn't mean that we go out of our way to start verbal fights with people who disagree with our point of view. I will simply vote against it. Presto!, no fighting, just the flick of a switch or the push of a button. The only people who blow steam are the individuals who are fighting for same-sex marriage.

I think you should change that phrase to, "Better to fight for the planet than for a same-sex couple who wants equal rights."

^Well that's a lie. I think you forget, Josh, the many, many, many arguments you and I have had about different issues, many of them stemming from my support of Homosexuality and your misguided views against it.

As for me, I guess I would call myself an Independent. I have conservative and liberal stances on different issues, and I think that's really the only way to do it right. Anyone who follows what their party says just for the sake of agreeing with the party is an idiot.

I am for the death penalty, and think that the punishments on rape and murder are too lenient. Someone who rapes a child should be put in front of a firing squad, in my opinion.

I don't care about the environment. As long as no dumping of toxic wastes happen in a pond or something my kids swim in, I dont think I will ever care.

Im for abortion and stem cell research. Let a woman choose what to do with her body. And the probabilities of stem cell research are just too great to not proceed with further studies.

I am for Gay rights, let them do what they want. They're not gonna drop trou and just bone on the street, I mean you gay haters are wayyyy too uptight about that. When will you ever see them? If it bothers you that much, move, or just avoid them.

As for economic liberals are concerned, I agree, they are f**king annoying. FUR IS MURDER! If I bought my wife or girlfriend a $2000 fur coat and some hippie bitch threw paint on it, I would beat the living shit out of that chick. I would break her face open, f**k the consequences. But they really arent any more annoying than these assholes you see in front of abortion clinics holding signs, trying to make people feel guilty. Its like "Wow, so this is what you do with your life? You're a f**king loser." Anti-war protestors piss me off, the people who protest the death penalty piss me off, union protests piss me off, protestors in general just piss me off.

*quick edit*
That stupid black guy who does the anti-smoking commercials pisses me off sooooo goddamn much. He is the most retarded little a-hole and I wish death on him. Every single time I turn on the tv, he's like "So in 1962, a tobacco company said this...but OH NO, it was proven wrong. So now in 2007, we're gonna throw it in their face." How about you grow some balls and start attacking the people who are actually smoking, instead of the companies supplying the cigarettes. There is not one person who smokes who the tobacco company went up to and said "YOU HAVE TO SMOKE THIS!!!" And that whole smoking in movies rule is just stupid(I'm refering to a bill they are trying to pass that would make any movie where someone smokes cigarettes rated R). Stop trying to force what you think is right on other people. If people want to smoke, let them f**king smoke.

Yes, even you were become a low life Jeremy.

Dude, do not even compare me to them. Just cause you have a big problem with it doesnt mean everyone has to. I've never gone to work stoned, Ive never gone to school stoned either. If I've had a bad day, which recently has been quite often because I work every weekend and go to school every morning, I'll go home and smoke a little. Im not saying its not wrong, but Im not overdoing it like other people you and I know. If and when I ever smoke during the day, it's when I know for a fact that I have absolutely nothing to do later on, and 95% of the time Im smoking alone in my room before I go to bed. Not walking the streets, not getting arrested, just relaxing after a long day. So again, don't compare me with them.

[*Uronacid*]

^Well that's a lie. I think you forget, Josh, the many, many, many arguments you and I have had about different issues, many of them stemming from my support of Homosexuality and your misguided views against it.

The last argument we had wasn't about the rights. It was about them being born gay, and before that... I don't even remember. It was at least a year to two years ago. We only fight and bicker because we're friends.

Omg, and the liberal-jackass came up with the smoking in "rated R" movies idea should be slowly cooked over a pit of lava.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

You're not even clever by saying this. I don't think that majority of people who are against homosexual marriage "fight" against it. Yes, if the topic comes up in discussion we give our opinions, but this doesn't mean that we go out of our way to start verbal fights with people who disagree with our point of view. I will simply vote against it. Presto!, no fighting, just the flick of a switch or the push of a button. The only people who blow steam are the individuals who are fighting for same-sex marriage.

I think you should change that phrase to, "Better to fight for the planet than for a same-sex couple who wants equal rights." Win.

That's not even close to what I was saying.

If you really want me to stop calling you an idiot, stop trying to argue with me when you don't even get my point.

Gay marriage: I see it as a majority rule and not a conservative stand. I'm a conservative. I will vote no, but when it's legalized I won't have a problem. There is no reason to bitch.

You shouldn't have a problem, seeing as it doesn't effect you. Why bother voting against it?

Abortion: is murder in some people's eyes. People have different views on this. It's another majority rule, it just so happens that the majority of conservatives think that murdering a child is wrong.

I am perfectly well aware of that, but that isn't what we're discussing in here. Of course it's the position the majority of conservatives take; I am familiar with both sides of the issue, but I disagree. However, it doesn't matter that most conservatives think that, because only the WHOLE majority matters, not just the majority of one sect. Abortion is still legal, and it should stay that way.

Marijuana: Ok, all the friends I had in high school that became a friend to Mary Jane are now complete idiots. I don't hang out with them anymore, and they will probably never have lives. Personal experience is more than enough reason to say no to the pot. Yes, even you were become a low life Jeremy.

"You were become a low life"? Come on, you can do better than that.
Anyway, by legalizing pot, I'm not saying that everyone should suddenly start smoking, but people are doing it regardless, and economically it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense to have it legal, especially from a capitalist perspective. Economic conservatives would probably agree if they didn't enjoy keeping foreign pot out so much.

Alcohol on Sunday: ask all the people who have had their children hit by drunk drivers this question. Having one day a week where liquor stores aren't open is definitely going to effect the number of drunk drivers on the road. Although you could tie this to religion, I don't think you should ban a law if it's clearly doing good for our communities.

No, think about it. One day will make absolutely no difference. People can stock up on Saturdays. Therefore, no clear good.

[*Steven*]

Also what with the taking money from my paycheck to give money to people who don't work, beat their wives, buy crack, or to give money to people who made bad investments or didn't save up for retirement? Gay.

[*Uronacid*]

That's not even close to what I was saying.

If you really want me to stop calling you an idiot, stop trying to argue with me when you don't even get my point. You shouldn't have a problem, seeing as it doesn't effect you. Why bother voting against it?

By you're first post I thought you meant:
Liberals Fight for Earth > Than Conservatives Fighting Against Homosexuality


What I am saying is:
Most conservatives don't fight against it. We simply vote against it., Because I think it's morally wrong, I'm sorry if that offends you. I don't look down on homosexuals. I'm not out to burn them at the stake. They can do what they want. I sin, they sin, everybody sins, but regardless of who is sinning or what sin it is I'm not going to vote "yes" so that people can legalize what I believe is sin. I know that you won't understand that, but there are many who will.

I am perfectly well aware of that, but that isn't what we're discussing in here. Of course it's the position the majority of conservatives take; I am familiar with both sides of the issue, but I disagree. However, it doesn't matter that most conservatives think that, because only the WHOLE majority matters, not just the majority of one sect. Abortion is still legal, and it should stay that way.

and I don't fight it in real life because the WHOLE majority does matter. On the other hand, if someone asks my opinion on the subject then I will tell them. The same way you disagree with the WHOLE majority on same-sex marriages. Although, that majority is shifting.

"You were become a low life"? Come on, you can do better than that. Anyway, by legalizing pot, I'm not saying that everyone should suddenly start smoking, but people are doing it regardless, and economically it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense to have it legal, especially from a capitalist perspective. Economic conservatives would probably agree if they didn't enjoy keeping foreign pot out so much.

"You were become a low life"?
God, that was bad... it would supposed to read, "Even you were becoming a 'low-life'." Anyway, I don't think that it would do the economy good at all. What are the side effects of pot smoking. One of the major ones is laziness. People loose their drive. If smoking was legalized then people would be doping up all the time (more often than they do now). It would be bad for our economy because an even larger percentage of our economy would fall into stupidity and laziness.

More stupid people in the United States of America. = Less capitol for the United States of America.

No, think about it. One day will make absolutely no difference. People can stock up on Saturdays. Therefore, no clear good.

It does make a difference because it takes them that much longer to do it. Forceing them to stock up makes them think why they are doing it, and reinforces the idea of "drunk driving being a no-no".

Also what with the taking money from my paycheck to give money to people who don't work, beat their wives, buy crack, or to give money to people who made bad investments or didn't save up for retirement? Gay.

I would much rather have a flat tax. Fuck the poor, most of them are that way for a reason. People are poor because of bad decisions, not bad luck. Why should I be forced to pay for your poor choices. The higher my salary, the more this bothers me.

[Tung]

f**k LIBERALS. ITS ALL ABOUT THE GREEN HOUSE PARTYYYY

[*Uronacid*]

f**k LIBERALS. ITS ALL ABOUT THE GREEN HOUSE PARTYYYY

That confused the hell out of me, but without looking this up on Google I would not have found the useful information below:

Liberals like to compare the conflict in Iraq to the war in Vietnam.3,846 US soldiers have died in Iraq. That's really not that much considering the death toll in other campaigns. Hahahahhahaha, how can people even relate this to Vietnam!!! LMAO!!! Look at the difference:

Iraq(to date)/Vietnam (%):
dead: 3,846/58,209 (6.6%)
wounded: 27,004/305,000 (8.9%)


These are the American losses. Keep in mind, the total losses in Vietnam were much much greater. Fuck you liberals. We haven't even accumulated 10% of the losses we had in Vietnam. STOP COMPARING THE TWO. Each death is life lost, let no soldier go unloved, but at the same time - the conflict in Iraq is no-where near as destructive as the war in Vietnam.

By the way, here is my reference to the casualties in Iraq:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm

[*Steven*]

Flat tax would be hax. The more you spend, the more you're taxed. People like Bill Gates get out of taxes because their salary is like "150,000" or something like that. Nothing taxes the millions they make. If income tax was removed and it was a flat user tax, then they would have to pay their share of taxes too.


Edit: Yeah and WTF @ them calling Iraq a "Vietnam." If I were a vet who served in Vietnam and had to crawl through damp forests, getting jungle rot on my feet, watching my best friend (of the moment) get his head blown off from Charlies, I'd be pissed they were calling Iraq the same thing.

That's exactly what the Liberals do though! OMG GLOBAL WARMING IS COMING ITS ALL OUR FAULT! They cry wolf, they over exaggerate things, they make shit up! I guess it's the only way they're going to get people to listen to their stories and take action on things that would be just fine left alone. Global warming for instance, but I've said my piece in the other thread.

Liberals suck.

[*Uronacid*]

OMG GLOBAL WARMING IS COMING ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

No it's their fault!

[NoSex]

Most conservatives don't fight against it.

They wanted the Constitution amended.
Sounds like a "fight" to me. Ever been to GodHatesFags.com? I have.

Anyway, I don't think that it would do the economy good at all. What are the side effects of pot smoking. One of the major ones is laziness. People loose their drive. If smoking was legalized then people would be doping up all the time (more often than they do now). It would be bad for our economy because an even larger percentage of our economy would fall into stupidity and laziness.

Wow, no propaganda gets passed you. Just because you smoke weed doesn't mean you will lose your drive. f**k, some of the worlds most successful, famous, and respected human beings were drug abusers. Hell, many of them used harder drugs, and frequently. Further, there are normal everyday sort of people that use cannabis regularly. Some of them are lawyers, some of them are doctors, some of them are stock brokers. It just so happens, some of them also happen to be lazy worthless bastards. Trust me, a drunk is much worse than a pot head.

As goes the economy: Legalizing drugs will do a lot of amazing things. Open free markets, close black markets. Put an end to a drug war that costs the American people billions and billions of dollars a year. Save time, resources, and money in the judicial system due to the great decrease in prison population, and court room bullshit (over half of our prisoners are non-violent drug offenders). With so many more people free to consume and to work the market would grow. Etc. etc.

More stupid people in the United States of America. = Less capitol for the United States of America.

Oh, and you demonstrate a rather poor understanding of elementary economics. Generally, the lazier and more idiotic the masses, the more prosperous the economy. Our free market is entirely based on consumerism and the stupidity of the masses. Didn't you ever wonder why Beanie Babies were so popular? But, that's all pretty meaningless anyways, seeing as pot doesn't make you stupid.

It does make a difference because it takes them that much longer to do it. Forceing them to stock up makes them think why they are doing it, and reinforces the idea of "drunk driving being a no-no".

Grasping for straws, huh?

I would much rather have a flat tax. Fuck the poor, most of them are that way for a reason. People are poor because of bad decisions, not bad luck. Why should I be forced to pay for your poor choices. The higher my salary, the more this bothers me.

Try being born into poverty. It's kind of hard to work your way out when your school can't afford text books to teach you and your teachers won't show up cause they're afraid of being shot.

Liberals like to compare the conflict in Iraq to the war in Vietnam.3,846 US soldiers have died in Iraq. That's really not that much considering the death toll in other campaigns. Hahahahhahaha, how can people even relate this to Vietnam!!! LMAO!!! Look at the difference:

When I relate the two I'm talking more about the situational aspects, not the causalities.
In fact, I think that's the comparison most people are making - both wars were highly unpopular quagmires.

[*Steven*]

Right but all of that was just an attack on Josh. What about my points? Don't forget about me.

[*Michelle*]

They wanted the Constitution amended.
Sounds like a "fight" to me. Ever been to GodHatesFags.com? I have.

Wow, using the Westboro Baptist Chruch is a TERRIBLE argument. They are a tiny church, and they are condemned by almost everyone. Christians, non-Christians, athiests, etc. I don't want to get too deeply into this debate, b/c I am very ignorant of politics...

but seriously, -_- I don't think that family and the few other members represent an entire political party very well.

and yes, I have been to their website. I've also watched the documentary on them filmed by some British guy who lived with them for a bit.

P.S. You forgot godhatesamerica.com and godhatessweden.com

[*Steven*]

Wow, using the Westboro Baptist Chruch is a TERRIBLE argument. They are a tiny church, and they are condemned by almost everyone. Christians, non-Christians, athiests, etc. I don't want to get too deeply into this debate, b/c I am very ignorant of politics...

but seriously, -_- I don't think that family and the few other members represent an entire political party very well.

and yes, I have been to their website. I've also watched the documentary on them filmed by some British guy who lived with them for a bit.

Haha it's about as bad as using wikipedia amirite?

[NoSex]

Haha it's about as bad as using wikipedia amirite?

Is this a joke?

[1]
[2]

[*Steven*]

Is this a joke?

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6102088-7.html




^See what I did thur!?

I don't care what the hell the news says. Universities/professors will never accept that as a source for a very good reason. The media can say what it wants, but f**k the media. The media is full of shit.

[NoSex]

See what I did thur!?

Riiiiiiiight. Nature magazine isn't the media, by the way.

[Tung]

Did someone say naturist? ehehehehehehe

[*Steven*]

Riiiiiiiight. Nature magazine isn't the media, by the way.

I'm not calling it the media. It was a response to your two links. Fact is, anyone can go in and change anything on wikipedia. Because of that, it will never be a valid source.

[*Uronacid*]

They wanted the Constitution amended.
Sounds like a "fight" to me. Ever been to GodHatesFags.com?

I have.
Wow, no propaganda gets passed you. Just because you smoke weed doesn't mean you will lose your drive. f**k, some of the worlds most successful, famous, and respected human beings were drug abusers. Hell, many of them used harder drugs, and frequently. Further, there are normal everyday sort of people that use cannabis regularly. Some of them are lawyers, some of them are doctors, some of them are stock brokers. It just so happens, some of them also happen to be lazy worthless bastards. Trust me, a drunk is much worse than a pot head.

I can't say anything to to that. I just don't have a problem with a drug that harms your body being illegal. As for drinking being worse: They tried to make drinking illegal, and it didn't work.

As goes the economy: Legalizing drugs will do a lot of amazing things. Open free markets, close black markets. Put an end to a drug war that costs the American people billions and billions of dollars a year. Save time, resources, and money in the judicial system due to the great decrease in prison population, and court room bullshit (over half of our prisoners are non-violent drug offenders). With so many more people free to consume and to work the market would grow. Etc. etc.

Oh my goodness... that's so stupid... it's just another liberal feel-good idea. Yeah, while that looks good right now, If we legalized drugs it would create even more problems. Do you take drugs Nate? Have you ever been around people who take drugs. If our gov't legalized drugs then everyone would be shooting up, smoking dope, and sniffing cocaine. I can just imagine the bill boards "Don't shoot-up and drive!" Yeah, it would open up entirely new markets, but it would cause other problems in the process.

Oh, and you demonstrate a rather poor understanding of elementary economics. Generally, the lazier and more idiotic the masses, the more prosperous the economy. Our free market is entirely based on consumerism and the stupidity of the masses. Didn't you ever wonder why Beanie Babies were so popular? But, that's all pretty meaningless anyways, seeing as pot doesn't make you stupid.
Grasping for straws, huh?

Stupid people don't contribute nearly as much as intelligent people do. This is why the government shells out so much money in financial aid. The Government is investing in our countries education because they know that these intelligent people will probably make more money and put more into the country through taxes. While we need stupid people to buy stupid things. We also need intelligent people to control them. I fear we are running out of them.

Try being born into poverty. It's kind of hard to work your way out when your school can't afford text books to teach you and your teachers won't show up cause they're afraid of being shot.
When I relate the two I'm talking more about the situational aspects, not the causalities.

I was born into poverty you dumb fuck. It's the choices you make. Ask Jeremy, he was born into poverty too. Were you born into poverty? Wait, you're falling into poverty right now. You're a dishwasher.

In fact, I think that's the comparison most people are making - both wars were highly unpopular quagmires.

There are people who are for the conflict and there are people who are against it. It wasn't highly unpopular, the media just makes it seem that way. Alright, forgive me, there is a high percentage of people who protest the conflict, but there is an even higher percentage of people who do not. You just don't see the people who are for the war because they don't protest. They have no need. Tool.

[NoSex]

I can't say anything to to that. I just don't have a problem with a drug that harms your body being illegal. As for drinking being worse: They tried to make drinking illegal, and it didn't work.

If you believe at all in individual freedom and the constitution than you should care that drugs have been criminalized. I thought the liberals were the ones trying to make lame laws to regulate and dictate our lives? Seriously, whatever we want to put into our bodies is our own business, not our governments'. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it still isn't working with drugs. The drug war is a failure. Drugs are more available, more deadly, and more affordable than they have ever been.

Oh my goodness... that's so stupid... it's just another liberal feel-good idea. Yeah, while that looks good right now, If we legalized drugs it would create even more problems. Do you take drugs Nate? Have you ever been around people who take drugs. If our gov't legalized drugs then everyone would be shooting up, smoking dope, and sniffing cocaine. I can just imagine the bill boards "Don't shoot-up and drive!" Yeah, it would open up entirely new markets, but it would cause other problems in the process.

I don't think your point is anything but alarmist. In all realism, I would imagine the legalization of drugs would work its way out much like the decriminalization of alcohol. Further, given a drug market, doses and purities could then be controlled - this could actually save lives. Hospitals wouldn't be prisons, people could actually get help if they needed it. And, really, we all know that "gateway" drugs are bullshit. If people aren't using now, there is a good chance that they aren't going to start just because of legalization.

Stupid people don't contribute nearly as much as intelligent people do. This is why the government shells out so much money in financial aid. The Government is investing in our countries education because they know that these intelligent people will probably make more money and put more into the country through taxes. While we need stupid people to buy stupid things. We also need intelligent people to control them. I fear we are running out of them.

We need intelligent people for innovation and competition. If you haven't noticed, our market is becoming less and less controlled by competition. People are born into money more often than they think themselves into fortunes. It's sort of a reality. But, I do sympathize with your point. We do need intelligent persons. But, without the morons, we'd have no one to exploit.

I was born into poverty you dumb fuck. It's the choices you make. Ask Jeremy, he was born into poverty too. Were you born into poverty? Wait, you're falling into poverty right now. You're a dishwasher.

If you ever lived below the poverty line then what is with this antagonism towards dish washing? To me, that just seems highly improbable. Further, the sort of poverty I'm describing is sort of institutionalized. Ever wonder why poverty is so geographic?

In either case, easier or harder? Imagine if you were born into a fortune? Eh?

There are people who are for the conflict and there are people who are against it. It wasn't highly unpopular, the media just makes it seem that way. Alright, forgive me, there is a high percentage of people who protest the conflict, but there is an even higher percentage of people who do not. You just don't see the people who are for the war because they don't protest. They have no need. Tool.

Going by the polls, this is an immensely unpopular war:
"By March 2004, only 48 percent of the American public supported the war, compared to 72 percent around the time of the invasion. The support numbers continued to drop, to 47 percent in 2005, 40 percent last year and, now, 32 percent." [CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll]

But, you ignored the fact that it is a sort of quagmire - much like Vietnam was. Even some of our own military evaluations show a sort of hopelessness in Iraq. Who remembers The Iraq Study Group?

[*Steven*]

Just because the war is immensely unpopular doesn't mean that it's wrong. The American public is stupid. They're brainwashed by the media. I find that maybe one in ten people are free of media influence. Some people I respect and know are very smart in their fields and live in general, jump on the global warming bandwagon and bash the war like it's the latest and greatest fad.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Who are you to say who is or isn't "free of media influence"? I mean, information has to come from somewhere, so it's pretty subjective to decide who digests info in the right way.

[*Steven*]

Who are you to say who is or isn't "free of media influence"? I mean, information has to come from somewhere, so it's pretty subjective to decide who digests info in the right way.

I am an observer. These people I talk to, when presented with the simplest of counter arguments rely on the word of a media face or figurehead of the campaign, such as Al Gore.

[bat19]

You people are idiots. Not one of you fuckers know what you're talking about, you're all regurgitating what you've heard on tv or from a friend. Not one of your opinions is your genuine opinion. Are any of you guys politicians? Do any of you actually know how the political system in this country works? I am tired of hearing all this blatant Liberal and Conservative bias when not one person in here knows what the fuck they're talking about. I don't know anything about politics and Im not gonna pretend to. So stop pretending, whats the point of debating something when none of you fuckers understand the issues.

[NoSex]

You people are idiots. Not one of you fuckers know what you're talking about, you're all regurgitating what you've heard on tv or from a friend. Not one of your opinions is your genuine opinion. Are any of you guys politicians? Do any of you actually know how the political system in this country works? I am tired of hearing all this blatant Liberal and Conservative bias when not one person in here knows what the fuck they're talking about. I don't know anything about politics and Im not gonna pretend to. So stop pretending, whats the point of debating something when none of you fuckers understand the issues.

Well, that was convincing.

[bat19]

Well, that was convincing.

At least Im not a 18 year old hermit virgin who watches movies all day and masturbates on a dishwashing rag, you have no fucking life, so why even quote me. I'm too good to be quoted by an inferior like you.

[*Steven*]

At least Im not a 18 year old hermit virgin who watches movies all day and masturbates on a dishwashing rag, you have no fucking life, so why even quote me. I'm too good to be quoted by an inferior like you.

Can't forget "watches films by Al Gore and Michael Moore"

[Tung]

LOL @ JEREMY"S AVATAR

[*Uronacid*]

Can't forget "watches films by Al Gore and Michael Moore"

Omg... seriously... ;_;

[NoSex]

At least Im not a 18 year old hermit virgin who watches movies all day and masturbates on a dishwashing rag, you have no fucking life, so why even quote me. I'm too good to be quoted by an inferior like you.

Can't forget "watches films by Al Gore and Michael Moore"

Your skills of extrapolation are very poor.

[*Steven*]

Your skills of extrapolation are very poor.

It's a shame you lack a sense of humor.

[*Villainess*]

Aw come on guys lets be nice.

[*Steven*]

Aw come on guys lets be nice.

</3 tact

[NoSex]

It's a shame you lack a sense of humor.

But, you're not funny.

[*Steven*]

But, you're not funny.

Blair witch was

[AThorpedo]

At least Im not a 18 year old hermit virgin who watches movies all day and masturbates on a dishwashing rag, you have no fucking life, so why even quote me. I'm too good to be quoted by an inferior like you.

Out of curiosity, how much effort is actually put into your counters when someone tells you that you're an idiot? The only thing that seems to be missing from your repertoire is the word "f****t" or possibly telling him that his penis is small. Someone that is obviously superior should really be able to do better than "masturbates on a dishwashing rag" and "hermit virgin."

[NoSex]

Blair witch was

I know, what of it?

[*Steven*]

Out of curiosity, how much effort is actually put into your counters when someone tells you that you're an idiot? The only thing that seems to be missing from your repertoire is the word "f****t" or possibly telling him that his penis is small. Someone that is obviously superior should really be able to do better than "masturbates on a dishwashing rag" and "hermit virgin."

I don't think you fully understand the humor in what he said. You should seriously stop trying to look cool

[AThorpedo]

I don't think you fully understand the humor in what he said. You should seriously stop trying to look cool

No, I definitely got it. No matter how you look at it, it isn't particularly funny.

[*Steven*]

No, I definitely got it. No matter how you look at it, it isn't particularly funny.

Unless you understand the joke

[bat19]

Unless you understand the joke

You have to want to understand. If you go in acting like a faggoty autistic kid trying to open a condom wrapper with his bucked teeth, you're obviously not gonna think it's funny, because you're a faggoty autistic kid with buck teeth. I have the idea that Nate is such a queer with no friends that he created a seperate account and is now trying to make it seem like the elitist collective is attacking me. What a fuckin loser dude, get a life.

*Nate's penis is really small. I'm just adding what I apparently left out last time. I thought it was implied, I guess I was wrong.

[Sandraaa]

Can we all stop talking about Nate's penis and resume the discussion about Liberals being lame? Thank you.

[*Steven*]

Can we all stop talking about Nate's penis and resume the discussion about Liberals being lame? Thank you.

So we have confirmation?

[Sandraaa]

^ Signed and sealed.

[bat19]

^ We need to make sweet love down by the fire. A campfire, so we can look up at the stars afterwards and talk about where our lives are going to take us. The stars will be bright because it will be away from the city, it will be perfect. Im gonna need you to RSVP ASAP.

[NoSex]

High school.

[*Steven*]

Denny's

[NoSex]

Deja Vu.

[*Steven*]

Bold

[NoSex]

RNC.

[MrElsewhere]

There's a lot of name calling and freeposting for a debate post. o.O

On topic:

I think the sudden surge of green politics is good to a certain extent. But sometimes people get overzealous and straight ignorant. Also, it's my personal opinion that nobody is completely liberal or conservative. People srsly need to start thinking for themselves more.

[*Steven*]

^Oh shit, a non-idiotic response. Regarding green politics, I also feel it's the fad of today. A few decades ago, there was fear of global cooling. For forty or so years there was fear of nuclear war. It seems politicians love to find something that could cause the end of the world and focus on that making it into a doomsday theory.

OH NO HONEY GLOBAL WARMINGS COMING LETS MAKE LOVE!

Baby Boomers #2 coming right up

[NoSex]

^Oh shit, a non-idiotic response. Regarding green politics, I also feel it's the fad of today. A few decades ago, there was fear of global cooling. For forty or so years there was fear of nuclear war. It seems politicians love to find something that could cause the end of the world and focus on that making it into a doomsday theory.

It's really just a way for the anti-globalization movement to get its foot into the door of the political world in order to effect policy. When someone says they're "afraid of Global Warming" what they're really saying is that they "hate energy companies and George W. Bush." It's really transparent and not exactly worth discussion. Further, these sort of tactics are certainly not unique to liberal slanted parties; all persons interested in politics tend to utilize similar means of "activism."

[*Steven*]

Well global warming hype is lame.

[NoSex]

Well global warming hype is lame.

Read a book.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

But not unfounded. Whether you want to think of it in terms of world destruction or not, people still ought to be conscious of the environment. There's a particularly big wave of green going around down here because we're running out of water, but as annoying and meaningless as it can get at times, it's certainly not a bad thing.

[*Steven*]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be more 'green'. I feel I've presented more than enough evidence in the Global Warming debate to support my side of the debate.


Regardless, Nate, I've done plenty of research on that issue in particular. You telling me to go read a book is like me telling you to go wash a dish.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Reading is belittling now?

Do you honestly believe that global warming is a myth?

[*Steven*]

:sigh:
Go read the global warming topic before you start accusing me of thinking global warming is a myth. Also the response I used wasn't w/ intent of belittling his job, as belittling as it may be.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

No no, the reason I was asking was because I don't want to read that topic, because quite frankly science bores me. Which is not to say that I'm ignorant concerning global warming, but I don't particularly want to read any more on it than I need to.

[*Steven*]

Ohh. Basically my stance is that yes, it's happening. Yes, we contributed. No, we were not by any means a deciding factor. We haven't done anything that significantly effected global warming. For instance, Mt Pinatubo exploded in the 80s releasing more particles/co2 into the atmosphere than we have since the start of the industrial revolution. Just a funfact. Anyways, I know this isn't the place for it so I'll stop :)

[xtwitchyx]

You know there has been scientists who have come out with proof that global warming is a lie, but they get discredited for it? Same with a few weather people. Anyone who knows that it's a scam and has the proof to back it up gets called a liar. I'll never understand it.

As for liberals... If there was one I could agree with on most issues, I'd vote for em. Same goes with republicans. It's all a matter of picking who is going to be less of an a-hole to the people. Doesn't really matter what party it is.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Can we please implement grammar-based exclusivity?

Um, the terms "liberal" and "Republican" don't really parallel. Generally, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, but that statement about the party not mattering doesn't really work, seeing as there is no such thing as the liberal party. And of course you should vote based on the issues, but parties represent general ideologies, so unless you're just completely moderate, you're more than likely going to lean towards one party. That's hard, though, because moderate candidates generally don't do very well in elections. But still, there tends to be enough of a dichotomy between the parties it's hard to be as independent of a voter as would be ideal.

It's also really hard to say who would be more of an "a-hole to the people," when you consider that people have different ideas of what the government can do that would be offensive. IE, conservatives could consider a politician to be an a-hole if he votes for higher taxes (and I'll leave it there and avoid snide comments), whereas a liberal could find him or her to be an a-hole if they support anti-gay legislature. It's all still completely subjective, so uh, your post basically says nothing.

[*Steven*]

It's all good. Stephen Colbert announced he was considering running for presidency in South Carolina. We'll be just fine. Also, Global Warming arguing person, I hate repeating myself so if you want to argue that go to the Global Warming thread and I'll gladly bring up quotes that I've already posted of responses to yours.

Nikki, I agree with the whole political party thing. It's unfortunate, really, regarding the moderate candidates. Sometimes, however, you get a conservative democrat (our representative is), which I'm always surprised by.

[NoSex]

Regardless, Nate, I've done plenty of research on that issue in particular. You telling me to go read a book is like me telling you to go wash a dish.

That you haven't done research wasn't my implication.
If you haven't noticed, I share your stance concerning global warming - and I have, for years.

[xtwitchyx]

Well by picking the one that is going to be less of an a-hole, you're picking the one who actually gives a damn about the issues.

I think we need a new party. We can call it PWDGAF which is "People Who Don't Give A f**k". Sound good?