Itsgettingcloser Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 If your making 75,000 a year 50 extra bucks off your paycheck is not going to make or break you. Arguing about the abortion issue is getting ridiculous not to mention his take on abortion is much more detailed than simply "abortions for all!" As far as an economic stimulus boost, we need to do something. Ideally creating some sort of debit system to force Americans to spend that extra cash instead of putting it into savings. You also can't just assume we will be out of a recession no matter what they are forecasting (just look how poorly they forecasted our current economic position). Closing Gitmo was inevitable and ultimately a good decision to do it now and try to save face and restore a positive image for our country. Drilling in Alaska is not the solution not only is it a short term solution but it just delays the inevitable. The only way to achieve a goal of independence from foreign oil is try NEW ideas and new technologies NOW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roxchick93 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 lets see : 1. Nationalize the banks (because of the bailouts the government now has a share in the banks) 2. Nationalize Healthcare (sounds good but means lesser quality of healthcare and the rest of us are gonna have to pay for the 45 million that aren't insured right now) 3. Close Gitmo within a year (means terrorists will end up in republican state prisions cuz no democrat will take them cuz its "unsafe"). 4. Push at least an $825 pork-filled stimulus plan (most of it doesn't come into play for years where we have a 99% chance of being out of the current recession. If you read the specifics you'll realize that most of it is pork ironically). 5. Pass the Freedom of Choice Act (this act not only allows doctors to kill living breathing babies that survived botched abortions but also makes it so that pretty much everyone can perform one) 6. Appease the terrorists like Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler (see where peace brought us) 7. Make the US eco-friendly. However it is not possible to be free of foreign oil in ten years, like Obama wants us to be, especially since he won't let us drill in Alaska. 8. Robin Hood philosophy - take from the "rich" and give to the "poor". remember when Obama said the only people to see raised taxes were those making a quarter million or more. Well, he lied. The new cutoff is $75,000. Basically hes gonna take away from middle class families (yes, $75,000 is middle class here) and give it to those on welfare and/or spend all their money and smoke and drinks (maybe if they wouldn't spend their money on drugs , they wouldn't have to have 2 jobs). I'm sure theres more but thats all I can think of for now. the man is fucking insane!!!! okay seriously he doesnt mind if a living breathing baby outside of the womb is killed!!! THAT FUCKING MURDER! gah. ok seriously. SOMEBODY come and protect your precious obama and tell me how it is okay to kill a human child and not call it murder . if the child is out side of the womb it should be considered murder. ITS A FUCKING HUMAN! geeez. he is heartless If your making 75,000 a year 50 extra bucks off your paycheck is not going to make or break you. Arguing about the abortion issue is getting ridiculous not to mention his take on abortion is much more detailed than simply "abortions for all!" As far as an economic stimulus boost, we need to do something. Ideally creating some sort of debit system to force Americans to spend that extra cash instead of putting it into savings. You also can't just assume we will be out of a recession no matter what they are forecasting (just look how poorly they forecasted our current economic position). Closing Gitmo was inevitable and ultimately a good decision to do it now and try to save face and restore a positive image for our country. Drilling in Alaska is not the solution not only is it a short term solution but it just delays the inevitable. The only way to achieve a goal of independence from foreign oil is try NEW ideas and new technologies NOW. okay. first of all. my parents make more than 75,000 a year. it doesnt mean we are rich. we dont have all this excess money to spend. Obama shouldnt take peoples hard earned money and give it to people who dont do shit. closing gitmo and putting terrist in our country?? oh yea brilliant idea. we should keep them and far away as possible from us. drilling in alaska will cut down on oil prices. i dont see why he is so against that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 the man is fucking insane!!!! okay seriously he doesnt mind if a living breathing baby outside of the womb is killed!!! THAT FUCKING MURDER! gah. ok seriously. SOMEBODY come and protect your precious obama and tell me how it is okay to kill a human child and not call it murder . if the child is out side of the womb it should be considered murder. ITS A FUCKING HUMAN! geeez. he is heartless okay. first of all. my parents make more than 75,000 a year. it doesnt mean we are rich. we dont have all this excess money to spend. Obama shouldnt take peoples hard earned money and give it to people who dont do shit. closing gitmo and putting terrist in our country?? oh yea brilliant idea. we should keep them and far away as possible from us. drilling in alaska will cut down on oil prices. i dont see why he is so against that.. If both your parents are making more than 75,000 a year you have nothing to worry about. So what about a single mom working full time with 2 kids making only 35,000 a year? Would you classify that as someone who "dont do shit." It is not as cut and dry as you think, not everyone who is poor is a scumbag or a drug addict. Do you work for the CIA? FBI? You personally know the facts about Guantanamo and what goes on there? There is a lot of shady shit going on there. So you have some strong opinions about abortion but when it comes to torture your fine with that? Drilling in Alaska would take a decade before it produced anything, not to mention there is a lot of speculation about exactly how much oil is there anyways and how long it would last. Oil prices are really not that bad at the moment its under $2.00 during a bad time in our economy, that's reasonable. Also the oil problem is more of an infrastructure problem rather than a supply of oil, our refineries are 30 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilley_1 Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 the man is fucking insane!!!! okay seriously he doesnt mind if a living breathing baby outside of the womb is killed!!! THAT FUCKING MURDER! gah. ok seriously. SOMEBODY come and protect your precious obama and tell me how it is okay to kill a human child and not call it murder . if the child is out side of the womb it should be considered murder. ITS A FUCKING HUMAN! geeez. he is heartless exactly (if it lets me you're getting rep again). i know this is terribly biased but you can sign a petition here http://www.fightfoca.com If both your parents are making more than 75,000 a year you have nothing to worry about. So what about a single mom working full time with 2 kids making only 35,000 a year? Would you classify that as someone who "dont do shit." It is not as cut and dry as you think, not everyone who is poor is a scumbag or a drug addict. Do you work for the CIA? FBI? You personally know the facts about Guantanamo and what goes on there? There is a lot of shady shit going on there. So you have some strong opinions about abortion but when it comes to torture your fine with that? Drilling in Alaska would take a decade before it produced anything, not to mention there is a lot of speculation about exactly how much oil is there anyways and how long it would last. Oil prices are really not that bad at the moment its under $2.00 during a bad time in our economy, that's reasonable. Also the oil problem is more of an infrastructure problem rather than a supply of oil, our refineries are 30 years old. dude, what you are suggesting is communism. in capitalism there are always going to be the rich and the poor. i'm sorry but you can't take money from the middle class and give it to the poor. Well my parents make $60,000 a year (one full time, one part-ish time (about 7 hours a day)) but apparently since we don't fall under the rich bracket we're poor and need help. You can't have the government saying who is poor and who isn't. When I was little my family made maybe $30,000 a year (two kids but TWO parents and still only one income) but we weren't considered poor and in fact couldn't even get reduced lunch at school. So by giving money to the "poor" , you are changing the definition of poor and rich until we're all the same (which would be poor). It is sooo markist that it isn't even funny (and we all know how that turned out. just look at soviet russia). as for guantamino and obama silly decision to close it... i'm more concerned about the where the terrorist go now and later. Basically I don't want those guys in my state prison (France is only taking the "innocent" ones mind you) because they'll get set free cause of you "progressives" (which is really another word for far-left liberal) spouting off how people who killed thousands of people and committed an act of war deserve rights. In WWII I guess we shouldn't have taken Japs and Nazis as POWS cause they also deserved "rights". they'll most likely be back plotting against the US in no time. According to your definition of torture we should ban 24 because it shows Jack Bauer "torturing" suspects. your slam against kiersten and i's opinion on opinion was not called for and is ineffictive use of dysphemism (if you don't know what that is look it up). guys that are going to bomb our country or already have in the worse attack on US since pearl harbor shouldn't be given a slap on the wrist. despite what you want to say... WE ARE IN WAR AGAINST THESE TERRORISTS and have to act like we are. Would you in WWII give Japs rights after Pearl Harbor? I think not! (since you guys so compare bush to hitler, i should have the right to compare terrorists to nazis) you are trying to talk as if you don't beleive in global warming (or climate crisis, or global crisis or whatever it is called this week) but I know you are. Obamas stimulus bill only has 2% going to clean or green or whatever you call it now technologies. I don't think thats going to fund that whole restructuring you're talking about. Plus most experts state that the second the economy starts to pick that we'll be looking at $4 gas again in no time. I do agree we need new and better reifineries but we have to start getting the vast majority of oil from the US no matter how long it takes. Like someone else said before the same companies own the rights to clean technologies as well as oil. So in ten years we're going to need that oil cause we won't have magic flying cars that don't need fuel or run on electricity (which still requires fuel from an outside source which is most likely coal and theres no such thing as clean coal). i was gonna comment on your earlier post but multiquote for some reason isn't letting me and i just spent like 20 minutes writing this (yes , i know there are grammar mistakes and i didn't capitalize.. bite me! it doesn't mean that some lonely, bored redneck that doesn't know anything!) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave34 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 If your making 75,000 a year 50 extra bucks off your paycheck is not going to make or break you. Of course 50 wont make or break you, but how many "extra" 50 bucks is the government going to keep docking off our checks for the "people in need"? Just because they made some bad decisions or caught a bad break or two doesn't mean we should have to pay for it so a politician can pretend they give a fuck about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roxchick93 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 thank u Kelcey. at least some one gets politics like i do =] i'll rep u again if i can too. If both your parents are making more than 75,000 a year you have nothing to worry about. So what about a single mom working full time with 2 kids making only 35,000 a year? Would you classify that as someone who "dont do shit." It is not as cut and dry as you think, not everyone who is poor is a scumbag or a drug addict. Do you work for the CIA? FBI? You personally know the facts about Guantanamo and what goes on there? There is a lot of shady shit going on there. So you have some strong opinions about abortion but when it comes to torture your fine with that? Drilling in Alaska would take a decade before it produced anything, not to mention there is a lot of speculation about exactly how much oil is there anyways and how long it would last. Oil prices are really not that bad at the moment its under $2.00 during a bad time in our economy, that's reasonable. Also the oil problem is more of an infrastructure problem rather than a supply of oil, our refineries are 30 years old. haha. okay now where to beging. the goverment shouldnt take money out of peoples paycheck. im sorry but that i COMMUNISM! if you love it so much them move to china. and 75,000 a yer doesnt mean we have all this extra money to give to the goverment. trust me we dont. you shouldnt be the one to judge. and on gitmo. im against abortion because its killing a human that hasnt done anything wrong and never had a chance to live. but these guys there are TERRORIST, they have killed other american citizens. why should we protect them and treat them so well? they know wat they were doing and consequences of it. if there torturing them to get info out of them to help protect america then thats fine by me. because there people who have no problem killing others but why r we suposed to feel bad for them?! now please tell me how obamas plan for killing innocent lives wen there out of the womb is so awesome but he doesnt want to hurt people who have killed others?!?! WTF.. answer that somebody. cuase nobody ever has.=p and last but not least. this summer gas went up to 5.00. thats quite a bit of money for one gallon. we should stop depending of forgien oil and instead use wat we have here. alaska and mid west. and speaking of abortion.. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide. FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections. FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions. FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions. :nono::nono: http://www.fightfoca.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 You guys are almost worse than the media, you really need to get some of your facts straight. It blows my mind that you are comparing the way Obama wants to run things to Communism. Completely dumbfounds me, I have no clue where you are getting this comparison from. Do you even know what Communism is? I don't want to have to come back to this so save yourself the embarrassment and stop comparing Obama's policy changes to Communism it just kills any credibility your trying to hold onto and I'm being serious. Now that that is settled. I clearly covered Guantanamo there is nothing else that really needs to be added. There is far too much grey area concerning how to deal possible terrorist detainees, mainly because you don't really know who is in fact working for a terrorist organization. So really there are 2 options Ill explain these 2 options and you can tell me which sounds most reasonable. 1. You hold them prisoner as you would a normal POW. Following the rights of the Geneva Convention. 2. You throw them all in a camp somewhere, whether they are possibly innocent or not and beat them, and torture them. Personally I would rather not risk having our country be responsible for publicized murder (abortion is not publicized murder it is a sometimes essential medical procedure). There are better solutions for dealing with detainees, therefore close the base. Arguing about abortion is tiring so im not gonna do it, give the rights to the woman who are bearing the child is my stance, be angry at their decision to have an abortion. There are certainly good arguments both ways, when it comes down to it, there are certain situations where an abortion is necessary so what do you do then when it is illegal, die I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_hymn Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Democrats: Brave enough to kill our babies, but not our enemies. And Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Are people really getting hung up on this abortion issue. Really....It's common sense. "Few people favor abortion. But sometimes women need that kind of information and medical attention. Obama is right to make this important change." Guantanamo is not being closed because Obama loves terrorist. The place is being shut down because of widespread criticism and government humiliation about the operation of the facility. Not to mention the affiliation with many of the detainees to terrorists is questionable and whether they even have any reason to be there or not. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ABORTION ISSUE THEY ARE TWO VERY SEPARATE VERY DIFFICULT ISSUES, STOP COMPARING THEM. There are a specific set of reasons for each decision, a thought process of "he doesn't care about our babies but cares about the safety of terrorists" is absurd and you should feel slightly unintelligent for thinking that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanguis Dominus Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Fucking cunt, dickhead, twat, fudgepackers have moved green back up to class B, dispite just about every educated organisation strongly suggesting that it's a bad idea. Fuck them. Fuck them right off. Claiming that contaminated strains are causing mental health problems. Moving it to Class B and handing out fines if caught with it isn't gonna stop me smoking it, or improve the quality of it. (Although, they're referring to shitty street skunk, the stuff I smoke is good shit.). Just moved it up to make more £££. If they were really concerned with contaminated strains, they should fucking legalise it and impose quality control, not make dealing it more risky. That just causes dealers to contaminate it more, to make it heavier. Fucking dumbasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilley_1 Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 You guys are almost worse than the media, you really need to get some of your facts straight. It blows my mind that you are comparing the way Obama wants to run things to Communism. Completely dumbfounds me, I have no clue where you are getting this comparison from. Do you even know what Communism is? I don't want to have to come back to this so save yourself the embarrassment and stop comparing Obama's policy changes to Communism it just kills any credibility your trying to hold onto and I'm being serious. Now that that is settled. I clearly covered Guantanamo there is nothing else that really needs to be added. There is far too much grey area concerning how to deal possible terrorist detainees, mainly because you don't really know who is in fact working for a terrorist organization. So really there are 2 options Ill explain these 2 options and you can tell me which sounds most reasonable. 1. You hold them prisoner as you would a normal POW. Following the rights of the Geneva Convention. 2. You throw them all in a camp somewhere, whether they are possibly innocent or not and beat them, and torture them. Personally I would rather not risk having our country be responsible for publicized murder (abortion is not publicized murder it is a sometimes essential medical procedure). There are better solutions for dealing with detainees, therefore close the base. Arguing about abortion is tiring so im not gonna do it, give the rights to the woman who are bearing the child is my stance, be angry at their decision to have an abortion. There are certainly good arguments both ways, when it comes down to it, there are certain situations where an abortion is necessary so what do you do then when it is illegal, die I guess. 1. I'm getting it from the The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Maybe you should actually read it sometimes instead of just blindly ignoring it. 2. The media is on your side dude. So stop acting like you're the victim here. 3. Theres a difference between abortions because the child is gonna be born without a brain or a grave medical condition (like Tay-Sachs disease) or if the mothers like is at stake then killing a perfectly healthy baby because the mother got knocked up at 16 by a gangbanger. The Freedom of Choice Act wants to release all restrictions on abortion (including those in the third trimester) and make it so that practically anyone can do it. The abortion laws in this act has are not just wrong but put the people who decide to have an abortion in harms way (theres a possibility of killing two lives instead of just one). This is also exactly why the federal government shouldn't get into issues like this. Democrats: Brave enough to kill our babies, but not our enemies. And that is epic Fucking cunt, dickhead, twat, fudgepackers have moved green back up to class B, dispite just about every educated organisation strongly suggesting that it's a bad idea. Fuck them. Fuck them right off. Claiming that contaminated strains are causing mental health problems. Moving it to Class B and handing out fines if caught with it isn't gonna stop me smoking it, or improve the quality of it. (Although, they're referring to shitty street skunk, the stuff I smoke is good shit.). Just moved it up to make more £££. If they were really concerned with contaminated strains, they should fucking legalise it and impose quality control, not make dealing it more risky. That just causes dealers to contaminate it more, to make it heavier. Fucking dumbasses. I'm not exactly sure what drug you're talking about but I sure hope you stop using drugs. They are bad for you (yes, I include alcohol in the drug category). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanguis Dominus Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Why would I stop using drugs? Everything's bad for you to some degree, even the air you're breathing. Most drugs? Not nearly as much as people make them out to be. There's a lot of unreasonable social negativity surrounding many of them, hence why most are banned in most places. It's a rather unfortunate legacy of the 60s, and the government's hunger for control, coupled with the government's control over a large percentage of the media in the 60s. True, there are some which you just shouldn't touch, such as heroin, ket, meth or crack, but most of them, such as green, ecstasy/MDMA or mushies aren't nearly as harmful as society and governments claim. In serious moderation, even cocaine isn't so bad, that's kinda difficult, though, cocaine's high addictiveness sucks, so it's best not to have it more than three, four times a year. It's quite stupid, really. The fuckin' Labour government impose a fine on possession in some poorly disguised attempt to make more money, but they don't realise, that by legalising it and imposing a tax on it's sale, they stand to make a lot more money. IMO, they should ban alcohol and make green legal. But no, because they can make a lot more money offa alcohol than they can green, because it's so easy to grow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 1. I'm getting it from the The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Maybe you should actually read it sometimes instead of just blindly ignoring it.2. The media is on your side dude. So stop acting like you're the victim here. 3. Theres a difference between abortions because the child is gonna be born without a brain or a grave medical condition (like Tay-Sachs disease) or if the mothers like is at stake then killing a perfectly healthy baby because the mother got knocked up at 16 by a gangbanger. The Freedom of Choice Act wants to release all restrictions on abortion (including those in the third trimester) and make it so that practically anyone can do it. The abortion laws in this act has are not just wrong but put the people who decide to have an abortion in harms way (theres a possibility of killing two lives instead of just one). This is also exactly why the federal government shouldn't get into issues like this. that is epic I'm not exactly sure what drug you're talking about but I sure hope you stop using drugs. They are bad for you (yes, I include alcohol in the drug category). Why are you not providing me with specific examples. There must be some huge connection between Obama and Communism since you seem so adamant about the subject. So please share it. I will respond to your abortion response by citing you to my previous responses because those responses have covered this issue thoroughly. If there are complications during a pregnancy the mother should have the choice between her life or the babies whether its a moral decision on her part or not. Realistically speaking how many mothers do you think are gonna wait until they are 8 months pregnant then decide to get an abortion? Your running down a slippery slope with the abortion issue put on some breaks and use your head. Would if some trauma is inflicted on the pregnant mother during her pregnancy, whether it be a car accident, a fall, a wound of some sort that is shown to have significantly and severely hurt her unborn child or even killed her child in her womb. There are certain instances when an abortion is necessary, to make it illegal is a step backwards in freedom of choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 LoL I saw this last night on the Daily Show about Guantanamo and makes a great point. 4:00 in is where it gets good. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216571&title=guantanamo-baywatch-the-final Saw this in the new this morning as well: Congressman intros bill requiring cameraphones to "click" for pics "Face to face with the worst economic crisis to face the nation in decades, our leaders are hard at work trying to come to America's aid. The latest legislative salvo? A bill that would require cameraphones to make a sound "audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone." Republicans hard at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roxchick93 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Democrats: Brave enough to kill our babies, but not our enemies. And :D love this. Are people really getting hung up on this abortion issue. Really....It's common sense. "Few people favor abortion. But sometimes women need that kind of information and medical attention. Obama is right to make this important change." . your right. killing living breathing children right out of the womb is okay. cuase thats wat he is gunna do. its called murder. but he want to legalize it. and force hospitals to do it, even if they dont want to. the only time i would allow abortion is if the mothers gunna die. but other than that if someone doesnt want the kid, at least give birth to it then give it to an adoption agncy. give it a fucking chance at life. obama doesnt want guns or war to protect us, but murdering a small defensless baby is completely okay. :roll: gah. damn people. i think im gunna leave this thread . LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER! anyone who thinks killing a baby is okay CLEARLY needs some fucking help. maybe one of u guys will have the balls to explain to me how its okay to kill a baby other than if the mom is in danger.?? but you guys never do. DEMOCRATS TALK AROUND THE ISSUE. republicans confront them. i might not believe it if u guys will answer my question... haha no one ever does oh and to answer your other thing. this is how socialist and communism is like obama. he wants to take from people who make money and give it to people who dont, make everyone equal, likreocialism. for instance the education thing. he doesnt want to help people send there children to private schools, like mccain, cause that would make it a competitiion for public school the be better. competition is wat makes things better. but he doesnt want competition. ...socialism. another thng. tkaing from business who make 250,000 to make it equal. no competition. .. SOCIALISM! haha. get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 :D love this. your right. killing living breathing children right out of the womb is okay. cuase thats wat he is gunna do. its called murder. but he want to legalize it. and force hospitals to do it, even if they dont want to. the only time i would allow abortion is if the mothers gunna die. but other than that if someone doesnt want the kid, at least give birth to it then give it to an adoption agncy. give it a fucking chance at life. obama doesnt want guns or war to protect us, but murdering a small defensless baby is completely okay. :roll: gah. damn people. i think im gunna leave this thread . LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER! anyone who thinks killing a baby is okay CLEARLY needs some fucking help. maybe one of u guys will have the balls to explain to me how its okay to kill a baby other than if the mom is in danger.?? but you guys never do. DEMOCRATS TALK AROUND THE ISSUE. republicans confront them. i might not believe it if u guys will answer my question... haha no one ever does oh and to answer your other thing. this is how socialist and communism is like obama. he wants to take from people who make money and give it to people who dont, make everyone equal, likreocialism. for instance the education thing. he doesnt want to help people send there children to private schools, like mccain, cause that would make it a competitiion for public school the be better. competition is wat makes things better. but he doesnt want competition. ...socialism. another thng. tkaing from business who make 250,000 to make it equal. no competition. .. SOCIALISM! haha. get it? Ok you just stated the only time you would allow abortion is if the mother is gonna die, lets say your pregnant with a child and you are in a car accident and the baby is not dead but it is seriously injured and needs to be removed or YOU will die. Abortion is illegal...sorry, you dead. You slam too much government control yet you want the government to force a woman without choice to have a baby, even in the most grotesque(rape, incest) of circumstances or outcomes(A destroyed and damaged woman, no free will or choice). The following is an example of why you are making a fool of yourself: "Obama doesnt want guns or war to protect us, but murdering a small defensless baby is completely okay." First of all what President in their right mind WANTS war? You and many others are making completely moot points and irrational comparisons. It would be like me saying, McCain is strongly against abortions, but hes pro guns and OK with the possibility of a man with a gun shooting a pregnant woman. Do you see how that statement is completely ridiculous? That is what your arguments sound like, reassess them fast. Edit: I forgot to talk about your Communist rant. You named 2, maybe 3 very broad points. First off, he doesn't want to make everyone equal. That is not even close to the point of what hes trying to accomplish. You have steered way too far off the wagon trail if you seriously and I mean, seriously believe his goal is a socialist society or that his policy is even remotely leaning towards socialism. The candidate for the socialist party has stated that Obama is not even close to socialism. He of all people would know the best, don't you agree? Secondly you think we should help our all of our children have an, I dunno "equal?" chance, at private schools? Well, to me that sounds like McCain is spouting off Communist nonsense, all our children having an equal chance at private schools, sounds Communist to me. (If you can't tell im using your logic). What happens to those familys that can't afford private schools, oh wait they arnt getting any extra money either to send their kids to private schools. I can't even begin to imagine how you will respond but if it's the same nonsense again ill have to call it quits in this thread cause logic is of no purpose here apparently. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilley_1 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Why are you not providing me with specific examples. There must be some huge connection between Obama and Communism since you seem so adamant about the subject. So please share it. the reason i didn't give you examples right away is because i no longer have the book. i read it in 10th grade (early 06) for ap euro and i had to give it back at the end of the year but if you must see examples i guess i'll try to find my notes from it.... it only took ten minutes but my pack-rattish ways prevailed I'm gonna try and paraphase here. All throughout society there you were either the oppressor or the oppressed (79-81). In the industrial revolution there were two class the Bourgeois were the modern feudal nobility or to put in into modern terms the rich. The proletariat were the laborers who wanted change and to rise against the Bourgeois (pg.80-85). The Bourgeois centralized production and politics (and thus created an uncontrollable society) while the Proletariat were enslaved by the machine (pg. 85-91). The proletariat were revolutionary due to the fact that the must rise against the bourgeois, overthrow them and become the majority (pg. 91). The communist party brings about the interest of the change-makers... the proletariat (pg. 95-97). Communism wants to abolish major truths in our society or to put it in a better way everything created by the Bourgeois must go (pg. 99-103). The communist have the interest of the working class in mind and against the traditional social and political order (pg. 119-121). At the end of the book he states (only direct quote btw) "The Porletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries,unite!" This means that the proletarians must band together and take over the country by getting rid of the rich and corrupted minds of the bourgeois (no doesn't this sound familiar to you). Mind you that this is bad notes from a sophmore in high school but i hope they'll suffice for now. I will respond to your abortion response by citing you to my previous responses because those responses have covered this issue thoroughly. If there are complications during a pregnancy the mother should have the choice between her life or the babies whether its a moral decision on her part or not. Realistically speaking how many mothers do you think are gonna wait until they are 8 months pregnant then decide to get an abortion? Your running down a slippery slope with the abortion issue put on some breaks and use your head. Would if some trauma is inflicted on the pregnant mother during her pregnancy, whether it be a car accident, a fall, a wound of some sort that is shown to have significantly and severely hurt her unborn child or even killed her child in her womb. There are certain instances when an abortion is necessary, to make it illegal is a step backwards in freedom of choice. I never beleive I said that abortion should be made 100% illegal, so stop saying like thats what i beleive. in fact .... 3. Theres a difference between abortions because the child is gonna be born without a brain or a grave medical condition (like Tay-Sachs disease) or if the mothers like is at stake then killing a perfectly healthy baby because the mother got knocked up at 16 by a gangbanger. The Freedom of Choice Act wants to release all restrictions on abortion (including those in the third trimester) and make it so that practically anyone can do it. The abortion laws in this act has are not just wrong but put the people who decide to have an abortion in harms way (theres a possibility of killing two lives instead of just one). This is also exactly why the federal government shouldn't get into issues like this. see right there i said exceptions to the abortion issue. i agree in roe v. wade only to the point that it should be left up to the states (not directly addressed in the constitution, therefore according to the tenth ammendment it should be left up to the states). therefore i don't get where you're getting that i'm some radical pro-life person from. Why would I stop using drugs? Everything's bad for you to some degree, even the air you're breathing. Most drugs? Not nearly as much as people make them out to be. There's a lot of unreasonable social negativity surrounding many of them, hence why most are banned in most places. It's a rather unfortunate legacy of the 60s, and the government's hunger for control, coupled with the government's control over a large percentage of the media in the 60s. True, there are some which you just shouldn't touch, such as heroin, ket, meth or crack, but most of them, such as green, ecstasy/MDMA or mushies aren't nearly as harmful as society and governments claim. In serious moderation, even cocaine isn't so bad, that's kinda difficult, though, cocaine's high addictiveness sucks, so it's best not to have it more than three, four times a year. It's quite stupid, really. The fuckin' Labour government impose a fine on possession in some poorly disguised attempt to make more money, but they don't realise, that by legalising it and imposing a tax on it's sale, they stand to make a lot more money. IMO, they should ban alcohol and make green legal. But no, because they can make a lot more money offa alcohol than they can green, because it's so easy to grow. I only know the psychological effects of the drugs (i'm a psychology student btw) and have never used any illegal drugs. However knowing that i'm pretty much addicted to caffiene and sugar, I get your point that what government makes illegal or legal has a lot to do with money (in 1914 caffiene was two steps away from becoming illegal). I just know that abuse of drugs (even occassional use) can literally change your brain chemistry and can cause brain damage. However, its really your decision but most of the ones you listed as ok seem to be Hallucinogens which you can still get addicted too beleive it or not (someone from around here actually was addicted to them...). I do agree that the gov would get a shitload of money if it were to become legal. However, most experts agree that if that were the case, that more people would become addicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 the reason i didn't give you examples right away is because i no longer have the book. i read it in 10th grade (early 06) for ap euro and i had to give it back at the end of the year but if you must see examples i guess i'll try to find my notes from it.... it only took ten minutes but my pack-rattish ways prevailed I'm gonna try and paraphase here. All throughout society there you were either the oppressor or the oppressed (79-81). In the industrial revolution there were two class the Bourgeois were the modern feudal nobility or to put in into modern terms the rich. The proletariat were the laborers who wanted change and to rise against the Bourgeois (pg.80-85). The Bourgeois centralized production and politics (and thus created an uncontrollable society) while the Proletariat were enslaved by the machine (pg. 85-91). The proletariat were revolutionary due to the fact that the must rise against the bourgeois, overthrow them and become the majority (pg. 91). The communist party brings about the interest of the change-makers... the proletariat (pg. 95-97). Communism wants to abolish major truths in our society or to put it in a better way everything created by the Bourgeois must go (pg. 99-103). The communist have the interest of the working class in mind and against the traditional social and political order (pg. 119-121). At the end of the book he states (only direct quote btw) "The Porletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries,unite!" This means that the proletarians must band together and take over the country by getting rid of the rich and corrupted minds of the bourgeois (no doesn't this sound familiar to you). Mind you that this is bad notes from a sophmore in high school but i hope they'll suffice for now. I never beleive I said that abortion should be made 100% illegal, so stop saying like thats what i beleive. in fact .... see right there i said exceptions to the abortion issue. i agree in roe v. wade only to the point that it should be left up to the states (not directly addressed in the constitution, therefore according to the tenth ammendment it should be left up to the states). therefore i don't get where you're getting that i'm some radical pro-life person from. I think you may be misinterpreting much of that book on Communism, or taking things far too literal. There is wide spread greed and corruption that has been slowly poisoning our nation until finally another economic meltdown happened. I don't see where the problem lies in holding these people responsible for their actions. Why should we turn a blind eye to corruption and lies? This sort of comradely that came about when Obama was elected has nothing to do with Communism, but rather a nation that is tired of the same policy practices that have been ruining American lives. The Obama slogan for change doesn't mean a change to socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilley_1 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think you may be misinterpreting much of that book on Communism, or taking things far too literal. There is wide spread greed and corruption that has been slowly poisoning our nation until finally another economic meltdown happened. I don't see where the problem lies in holding these people responsible for their actions. Why should we turn a blind eye to corruption and lies? This sort of comradely that came about when Obama was elected has nothing to do with Communism, but rather a nation that is tired of the same policy practices that have been ruining American lives. The Obama slogan for change doesn't mean a change to socialism. You do know that it was written in the 1800's and was the backbone to the russian revolution and stalinism right (Marx was also German and wrote it in his home country). This is not recent stuff here. the entire text : http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/61/61.txt or you could just google it yourself and actually read up on it. maybe after you read it you'll think differently. if you compare quotes from the book to obama quotes the similarities are staggering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I'm well aware, although the age of the text does not have anything to do with the fact that you are misinterpreting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanguis Dominus Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I just know that abuse of drugs (even occassional use) can literally change your brain chemistry and can cause brain damage. However, its really your decision but most of the ones you listed as ok seem to be Hallucinogens which you can still get addicted too beleive it or not (someone from around here actually was addicted to them...). I do agree that the gov would get a shitload of money if it were to become legal. However, most experts agree that if that were the case, that more people would become addicted. Of course it changes your brain chemistry, what would be the point if they didn't? The definition of a drug is a consumed substance that alters the body in one form or another. However, as far as I'm aware, there's never been any concrete proof, aside from psilocybin in mushies, that has any long term effects. Even with mushies, any negative long term effects are a lot rarer than the media and the government make it out to be. Tetrahydrocannabinol, the active substance in cannabis, is only very mildly hallucionogenic and even in such cases, hallucinations are rare. It's also not chemically addictive. Methylenedioximethamphetamine (MDMA), the active substance in Ecstasy, is a stimulant, not hallucinogenic. Again, not chemically addictive. Cocaine, another stimulant. Very highly addictive, not recommended unless you know you've got the will power to only do it a few times a year. The only hallucinogen I mentioned with any noticable hallucinogenic properties is psilocybin, or mushies, I'm not sure on it's addictiveness, but independant experts have rated it less harmful than cannabis (I'm going off of LSD, because psilocybin wasn't rated. I know there not the same, but I'm pretty sure mushies aren't as harmful as acid.). Which, in turn, was rated less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Ecstasy only being rated slightly more harmful than alkyl nitrate, or poppers. I think it was Bill Bailey that said something along the lines of governments fighting the war against drugs and losing this war to a bunch of stoned people. Which is exactly what's happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilley_1 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Of course it changes your brain chemistry, what would be the point if they didn't? The definition of a drug is a consumed substance that alters the body in one form or another. However, as far as I'm aware, there's never been any concrete proof, aside from psilocybin in mushies, that has any long term effects. Even with mushies, any negative long term effects are a lot rarer than the media and the government make it out to be. Tetrahydrocannabinol, the active substance in cannabis, is only very mildly hallucionogenic and even in such cases, hallucinations are rare. It's also not chemically addictive. Methylenedioximethamphetamine (MDMA), the active substance in Ecstasy, is a stimulant, not hallucinogenic. Again, not chemically addictive. Cocaine, another stimulant. Very highly addictive, not recommended unless you know you've got the will power to only do it a few times a year. The only hallucinogen I mentioned with any noticable hallucinogenic properties is psilocybin, or mushies, I'm not sure on it's addictiveness, but independant experts have rated it less harmful than cannabis (I'm going off of LSD, because psilocybin wasn't rated. I know there not the same, but I'm pretty sure mushies aren't as harmful as acid.). Which, in turn, was rated less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Ecstasy only being rated slightly more harmful than alkyl nitrate, or poppers. I think it was Bill Bailey that said something along the lines of governments fighting the war against drugs and losing this war to a bunch of stoned people. Which is exactly what's happening. Well green is hard to classify and sometimes it is give its own category and other times is grouped with the rest of hallucinogens. So I'll give you that victory cause without green in my halluncigenic category then mushies would be the only one you said was safe that would be classified as a hallucinogen (i also didn't realize that you were catergorizing cocaine as a safe drug because you kinda contradicted yourself by saying that its highly addictive). Also I do agree that alcohol is a dangerous a drug (its a depressant btw) and the fact that most people don't classify it as boggles my mind sometimes. Overall, you can die from drugs but you can also die from too much sugar (which studies have shown is really addictive oh the irony) or caffiene but society sees nothing wrong with those two (i guess nicotine should fall under this category as well). So yes, I do get your overall point but its kinda hard to change America's mindset on whats a bad drug or not. I just don't like people when their high and I think its really stupid that people choose to use (no matter what drug it is). I never said that I disagree with you on the governments stance on drugs but rather the fact that you're using drugs. I think that we are losing the war on drugs (whether its to a bunch of stoned people or not i don't know). It really needs to be a grassroots movement instead of the federal government pushing regulations and laws down our throats. And itsgettingcloser, I'm not going to respond to that cause you're basically saying that I'm stupid for thinking the Communist Manifesto lead to the Russian Revolution, stalinism and the cold war which it pretty much fact. k i better go to class bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 And itsgettingcloser, I'm not going to respond to that cause you're basically saying that I'm stupid for thinking the Communist Manifesto lead to the Russian Revolution, stalinism and the cold war which it pretty much fact. k i better go to class bye No no that's not what I am saying, I am saying you misinterpreted it in relation to our current political positions and policy. I don't doubt you have a general idea of what Communism is, its given a really bad reputation though when in fact some of the ideas are not terrible ones. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilley_1 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 No no that's not what I am saying, I am saying you misinterpreted it in relation to our current political positions and policy. I don't doubt you have a general idea of what Communism is, its given a really bad reputation though when in fact some of the ideas are not terrible ones. Then please do tell about the greatest that is Communism. What about is so great? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsgettingcloser Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Then please do tell about the greatest that is Communism. What about is so great? It's not great, there are a lot of problems with the theory of it, but some of the core principles are not bad ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.