17-18 YO poll on 2012

[slappy]

I will vote for Obama

[Iceman]

Why?

[slappy]

Why?

Tiz the season for politics

[scuba steve]

Tiz the season for politics

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FxwAAcmkxpk/TJlJV_E7a3I/AAAAAAAACGs/IkFGEWQR7Ng/s400/polar+bear+face+palm.jpg

[deadpie]

http://d2o7bfz2il9cb7.cloudfront.net/main-qimg-eb890f4b0810480f9ef06dd69b7a2ecd

I won't vote. Choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich has never been something I can do. Yes, South Park references.

Plus, I might move out of the USA when I'm aloud to vote anyhow. I don't want any of those people in the poll to represent me. I would definitely not want Sarah Palin representing me. If she was president I would lose faith for humanity and blow a hole in my head.

[Iceman]

Tiz the season for politics

I meant why would you vote for Obama?

[slappy]

Because Obama is the only person I trust

[Iceman]

Because Obama is the only person I trust

Such a great explanation. Why would you trust him?

[scuba steve]

Because Obama is the only person I trust

No politician is to be trusted, especially not the leaders of countries, they're just puppets after all.

[slappy]

Because obama dosnt lie
He tells us what we need to know
Not what we want to hear

[Amnesiac]

Because obama dosnt lie
He tells us what we need to know
Not what we want to hear

As charismatic as Obama is, he's about as honest as any other politician. He speaks for his party, not necessarily for the people.

If I were eligible to vote in 2012 (which I won't ever be), I'd vote for the Libertarian ticket.

[Iceman]

Because obama dosnt lie


http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr351/SandRider_bucket/Ghafla/laughing-jesus.jpg

Are you serious?

[slappy]

image (http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr351/SandRider_bucket/Ghafla/laughing-jesus.jpg)

Are you serious?

Okay, who do u like?


Let me guess
No one?

[Iceman]

Okay, who do u like?


Let me guess
No one?

Anarchist bud.

[slappy]

Anarchist bud.

Will u ever vote
And don't just say
"if an anarchist runs"
Because that may never happen

[Iceman]

Will u ever vote
And don't just say
"if an anarchist runs"
Because that may never happen

I wasn't going to.

No, I will never vote.

[slappy]

I wasn't going to.

No, I will never vote.



Than don't complain about politicians when you are not willing to vote to change things

[embers]

Than don't complain about politicians when you are not willing to vote to change things

That's just fucking stupid.

[slappy]

I wasn't going to.

No, I will never vote.

This is America, we are a democracy. And we will never change that

[slappy]

That's just fucking stupid.


How?
I am saying
That if he is not willing to vote and change things
Than he has no right to complain

[Iceman]

Than don't complain about politicians when you are not willing to vote to change things

This is America, we are a democracy. And we will never change that

You double post an extreme amount.

My vote will never change anything. No presidency has been decided by one vote.

[embers]

How?
I am saying
That if he is not willing to vote and change things
Than he has no right to complain

Why?
I am saying
That even if he isn't willing to vote and change things
He still has a right to criticise politicians and their decisions.

[Korashk]

How?
I am saying
That if he is not willing to vote and change things
Than he has no right to complain
Voting doesn't change things, and even if they did the chance that your vote matters is less than your chance of winning the lottery.

[slappy]

Wisconsin
The democrat won
By just over 6000 votes

Now, it may not seem like that big of a deal when u say that that is 6000 people
If one person didn't vote they would have won by 5999

Here is the thing
If those 6000 people thought like you did than we would be noware

[embers]

If those 6000 people thought like you did than we would be noware

There will always be people who vote. Your point is pretty much invalid.

[slappy]

You're not understanding what I am saying

If people who are aginst voting
By any off chance convince all of America Not to vote,
Than where wiould we be?

[embers]

You're not understanding what I am saying

If people who are aginst voting
By any off chance convince all of America. Ot to vote,
Than where wiould we be?

Nowhere. But that's besides the point. This isn't about people convincing others not to vote, it's about one vote not making a difference.

I understand fully what you're saying, which is that if everybody had that 'I don't want to vote because it doesn't make a difference' mentality, then the country would be nowhere. But that's never going to happen, people will always want to vote.

[Iceman]

Wisconsin
The democrat won
By just over 6000 votes

Now, it may not seem like that big of a deal when u say that that is 6000 people
If one person didn't vote they would have won by 5999

Here is the thing
If those 6000 people thought like you did than we would be noware

What!?

If the 300 million people in the U.S. thought I do then we wouldn't have a government.

Everybody will vote the same without me or not. With me one side will have one more vote. One more vote. This would only matter if three people were voting.

[slappy]

What!?

If the 300 million people in the U.S. thought I do then we wouldn't have a government.

Everybody will vote the same without me or not. With me one side will have one more vote. One more vote. This would only matter if three people were voting.

You're not understanding
I'm sorry
I'm doing like three things at once right now and we can continue this later
Just PM ME and we can continue later

[TopGear]

Donald Trump. Because he is capitalistic, His views on unions "Unions fight for pay; managers fight for less; consumers win." Overall if he would run he would receive my vote.

[Severus Snape]

At this point Trump because I just hate everyone else.

[TopGear]

Here is a good site that represents Donald Trump and his views. I agree with about 95% of what he stands for.

Site http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm)

[Iceman]

Here is a good site that represents Donald Trump and his views. I agree with about 95% of what he stands for.

Site http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm)

I'm guessing the dates mean that is when he said it. Ten years ago things were alot different.

[TopGear]

I'm guessing the dates mean that is when he said it. Ten years ago things were alot different.

Yeah, Just saw that. Yep, Things were a ton different.

[slappy]

Yeah, Just saw that. Yep, Things were a ton different.

What are your views on his opinion that Obama was not born in america?

[Iceman]

What are your views on his opinion that Obama was not born in america?

No factual proof, and then that would be saying that people born in the U.S. can't do anything.

[TopGear]

What are your views on his opinion that Obama was not born in america?

I personally don't know too much about it, so Im not going to say much. But I would like to see more proof just to quite people down, I would think that if they are going someone to run for president they would already know if he was a US citizen. I personally don't care if he is or not. Its not changing my views on him as a president.

I still don't like his radical changes that hasn't done anything but make our National debt even worse.

[slappy]

No factual proof, and then that would be saying that people born in the U.S. can't do anything.

Can you re word your question?
Are you saying he has no proof or Obama has no proof that he was born in the U S?

[Iceman]

Can you re word your question?
Are you saying he has no proof or Obama has no proof that he was born in the U S?

It wasn't a question. I was saying there is no proof he wasn't. And that wouldn't change my views of his as a person or president.

[slappy]

I personally don't know too much about it, so Im not going to say much. But I would like to see more proof just to quite people down, I would think that if they are going someone to run for president they would already know if he was a US citizen. I personally don't care if he is or not. Its not changing my views on him as a president.


I believe on the topic if Obama being born here, he has no idea what he is talking about

[Iceman]

I believe on the topic if Obama being born here, he has no idea what he is talking about

What?

[slappy]

I personally don't know too much about it, so Im not going to say much. But I would like to see more proof just to quite people down, I would think that if they are going someone to run for president they would already know if he was a US citizen. I personally don't care if he is or not. Its not changing my views on him as a president.

I still don't like his radical changes that hasn't done anything but make our National debt even worse.



Here is an example

http://factcheck.org/2011/04/donald-youre-fired/

[Iceman]

Here is an example

http://factcheck.org/2011/04/donald-youre-fired/

He's a politician. They say what people want to here, and what people will eat like candy and believe, much like you just did.

[TopGear]

I believe on the topic if Obama being born here, he has no idea what he is talking about


I disagree with you saying that "he has no idea what he is talking about."

I haven't done research on this topic and really don't care. But I don't think Donald Trump would just talk out of his ass, He is a very intelligent man.

[slappy]

I disagree with you saying that "he has no idea what he is talking about."

I haven't done research on this topic and really don't care. But I don't think Donald Trump would just talk out of his ass, He is a very intelligent man.



Did u read the fact check page I posted?

Here it is again

http://factcheck.org/2011/04/donald-youre-fired/

[Iceman]

Did u read the fact check page I posted?

Here it is again

http://factcheck.org/2011/04/donald-youre-fired/

I did.

He says, he says, he claims...blah blah blah. You're eating his shit like candy.

[slappy]

I did.

He says, he says, he claims...blah blah blah. You're eating his shit like candy.

What are you emplyimg?

That I didn't watch the interviews?

I have, I herd him say that stuff
I don't beleve what he is saying

[Iceman]

What are you emplyimg?

That I didn't watch the interviews?

I have, I herd him say that stuff
I don't beleve what he is saying

That people believe politicians never lie. That they do exactly what they say, every time they say something.

[Peace God]

What? Donald Trump is running for president?

Also, fuck politicians and fuck every single administration from 1776 til the time America's reign ends...'tis my opinion.

[slappy]

That people believe politicians never lie. That they do exactly what they say, every time they say something.

Trump is not a politician. He never will be

He is a business man
A failed one at that

[Iceman]

What? Donald Trump is running for president?

Also, fuck politicians and fuck every single administration from 1776 til the time America's reign ends...'tis my opinion.
Touche.

Trump is not a politician. He never will be

He is a business man
A failed one at that

It's just a label that someone put on him. I can stick another label on him. Now I will continue with the earlier conversation about me voting. I will not vote when I become the legal age. One person will not make a difference.

[slappy]

Touche.



It's just a label that someone put on him. I can stick another label on him. Now I will continue with the earlier conversation about me voting. I will not vote when I become the legal age. One person will not make a difference.



Yes, and that is an opinion. You have that opinion. I'm not gonna waist my time and try to convince you otherwise. You beleve voting won't make a difference, I think it dose.

[TopGear]

Trump is not a politician. He never will be

He is a business man
A failed one at that

Yes, He at the moment is a business man right now, and how can you say he is a failed business man?! where have you been for the last 10 years?



I agree with Socko on this comment.
I did.

He says, he says, he claims...blah blah blah. You're eating his shit like candy.

[slappy]

Touche.



It's just a label that someone put on him. I can stick another label on him. Now I will continue with the earlier conversation about me voting. I will not vote when I become the legal age. One person will not make a difference.


A stubborn person should not try to change the opinion of another stubborn person, it just won't work

[Iceman]

A stubborn person should not try to change the opinion of another stubborn person, it just won't work

What? You're saying I'm stubborn, and you first met me today?!
I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm stating mine.

[slappy]

Yes, He at the moment is a business man right now, and how can you say he is a failed business man?! where have you been for the last 10 years?



I agree with Socko on this comment.



Trump Inc
Has been bankrupted for nearly 20 years

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/17/us-trumpentertainment-brand-idUSTRE51G70E20090217

This has been going on for years

[TopGear]

.... thats give me credible information. I have a hard time believing he is going bankrupted.

"That tone sounds a false note today, Adamson said, because the trumpeting of big spending is out of fashion."

Right at the bottom of the article

[slappy]

What? You're saying I'm stubborn, and you first met me today?!
I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm stating mine.


It's a figure of speech
I don't mean stubborn as an insult.
I called myself stubborn too

I'm saying
You beleve what you beleve, and I beleve what I beleve
I can neither proove you wrong nor right

[Iceman]

Trump Inc
Has been bankrupted for nearly 20 years

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/17/us-trumpentertainment-brand-idUSTRE51G70E20090217

This has been going on for years

He's worth like 3 billion dollars. Failed?

[slappy]

Bord you never answered my question. Please explain to my how Donald Trump is a failed businessman? I going to take that as sarcasm if not answered.



I call him a failed buieaneas man because
All of his hotels have gon into bankruptcy
Having to barrow money from banks.
He has yet to pay that money back
He is in debt to the government and banks

[slappy]

That means he failed

[Iceman]

I call him a failed buieaneas man because
All of his hotels have gon into bankruptcy
Having to barrow money from banks.
He has yet to pay that money back
He is in debt to the government and banks

Three billion dollars. Billion.

http://www.enemyofdebt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/billion-2.jpg

[slappy]

Three billion dollars. Billion.

image (http://www.enemyofdebt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/billion-2.jpg)

Yea, he may be worth. 3 billion
But he is in 20 billion in debt

[TopGear]

.... thats give me credible information. I have a hard time believing he is going bankrupted.

"That tone sounds a false note today, Adamson said, because the trumpeting of big spending is out of fashion."

Right at the bottom of the article

All of his hotels are not going bankrupted
Okay, Everyone barrows money from banks, that makes him a smart businessman.
Takes time buddy, get into the business world before you call one of the most successful businessman a failure.
Just like everyone else.

[Iceman]

Yea, he may be worth. 3 billion
But he is in 20 billion in debt

That will never be paid anyways. Doesn't matter. It wil get "paid". It's how the world spins now. Crooked.

[TopGear]

Yea, he may be worth. 3 billion
But he is in 20 billion in debt

Source?

[slappy]

Here is a chart


http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/trmp.png

[Peace God]

Three billion dollars. Billion.

image (http://www.enemyofdebt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/billion-2.jpg)
Just because he's rich doesn't make him a good business man. Mind you he's popular, has access to many things and he's been wealthy all of his life due to his father. Not trying to take all the credit away from him but it's not that hard for a man in his position to make money.

[slappy]

I am not sure on the amount of money he actually is in debt but here is a report from msnbc

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42483231

[deadpie]

Will u ever vote
And don't just say
"if an anarchist runs"
Because that may never happen

No, it never will happen because anarchists are against the government, so why would the want to be part of what they hate most?


That if he is not willing to vote and change things
Than he has no right to complain

I don't want to vote for people I disagree with, so either way I'm fucked.


Here is a good site that represents Donald Trump and his views. I agree with about 95% of what he stands for.

Site http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm)

uY5AFc-gB1A

Fuck Donald Trump.


Also, bord, stop double and triple posting. You can get in trouble for that.

[Origami]

How?
I am saying
That if he is not willing to vote and change things
Than he has no right to complain

He is an anarchist and your earlier reference of "if an anarchist runs" shows an obvious lack of understanding. An anarchist (spoken and truly pledged) can't physically run for a political office, it's a giant contradiction. So in actuality, Socko can bitch and complain about the government all he wants.
Also, you say you "trust" Obama. He "never lies." How do you know? Much like him I could tell you anything and you'd never know truth from fiction. I have 4 pet dogs, 3 birds, 1 cat and am going alone to prom this year to spend time with my friends. How much of that was truth? Political leaders can't be "honest" when they speak what they're told to speak. Political leaders are nothing more than well paid figure heads these days. They are nothing like the old kings and emperors who actually had "power" and could "tell the truth" or "lie" without having some bullshit voice in the back of their head.
My vote, much as it went in this midterm election, will remain in my back pocket.

[slappy]

[QUOTE=Origami;1242290]He is an anarchist and your earlier reference of "if an anarchist runs" shows an obvious lack of understanding. An anarchist (spoken and truly pledged) can't physically run for a political office,

That was my point

[Origami]

He is an anarchist and your earlier reference of "if an anarchist runs" shows an obvious lack of understanding. An anarchist (spoken and truly pledged) can't physically run for a political office,
That was my point

But as you said, unless he votes he has no right to complain. If he doesn't believe in something, why vote at all? He has all right to complain, much like an Atheist debating religion.

[Limelight788]

This poll is too narrow. There are many other candidates that could be running; Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, Randall Terry, Michelle Bachman, Jesse Ventura, etc.

I'm deciding between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, although I'm not sure which one of the two.

[Death]

Than don't complain about politicians when you are not willing to vote to change things

So if you choose not to vote because you don't like any of the politicians and then the politicians start taking away all of our basic human rights, we should not have a problem with that? Seriously, where the fuck are you getting this blatently flawed logic from?

[slappy]

So if you choose not to vote because you don't like any of the politicians and then the politicians start taking away all of our basic human rights, we should not have a problem with that? Seriously, where the fuck are you getting this blatently flawed logic from?



Calm down calm down
I think I can understand what you're saying in that statement

What I am saying is, if you don't want to change things, than don't complain when things get bad

[Death]

What I am saying is, if you don't want to change things, than don't complain when things get bad

But why? What if you didn't want society to change? What if you genuinly didn't feel the need to vote because you didn't agree with any of the policies given by MPs? Why the hell should you have one of your basic human rights to submit a complaint removed because of your active politics? It would be like disallowing everyone who has participated in homosexual activity from reporting abuse.

[Peace God]

What I am saying is, if you don't want to change things, than don't complain when things get bad
Have you not realized yet that many people here think that all of the candidates are bad?...how much of a difference would voting make if all of the candidates will suck corporate dick for their entire term?

We do want to change things... voting barely puts a dent in fixing our problems however.

[slappy]

I know what u guys are trying to say.
Some of you people don't want a government at all
Well, that won't work. A country needs order and leaders to thrive
Yea, the government may sometimes be devided, but it is still a government and most of the time it means well. That is what America was founded on, that is what we have been and that is what we will always be. It has worked. It dosnt matter if you don't like politicians that is not the opinion of most everyone else. Most people in America want a government, some want it to be smaller and some want it to be bigger. Never the less, it will still be a government, and nothing is going to change that. Because if government goes away, millions of people will be lost and a lot of people would have to live without things like Medicare social security. Do you know what would happen to those people? They would die. But anarchists won't care because they are all about every man for themselves. That's just selfish. The rather self-centered and greedy natural character of human beings particularly in large concentrations, any situation without some sort of overall control or law quickly degenerates into violence. Human beings have proven themselves to be unable to live together without some sort of master authority with enforcement powers. No human society lives in anarchy, even the smallest and most primitive tribes have some sort of authority structure, which is government by another name.

[Sebastian Michaelis]

I'd vote for trump (If i could) considering he can handle a budget.

[Peace God]

I know what u guys are trying to say.
Some of you people don't want a government at all
Well, that won't work. A country needs order and leaders to thrive
Yea, the government may sometimes be devided, but it is still a government and most of the time it means well. That is what America was founded on, that is what we have been and that is what we will always be. It has worked. It dosnt matter if you don't like politicians that is not the opinion of most everyone else. Most people in America want a government, some want it to be smaller and some want it to be bigger. Never the less, it will still be a government, and nothing is going to change that. Because if government goes away, millions of people will be lost and a lot of people would have to live without things like Medicare social security. Do you know what would happen to those people? They would die. But anarchists won't care because they are all about every man for themselves. That's just selfish. The rather self-centered and greedy natural character of human beings particularly in large concentrations, any situation without some sort of overall control or law quickly degenerates into violence. Human beings have proven themselves to be unable to live together without some sort of master authority with enforcement powers. No human society lives in anarchy, even the smallest and most primitive tribes have some sort of authority structure, which is government by another name.
No, I never said I didn't want a government. And that's not what everyone else is saying. My point was that I disagree with this current form of government and that it leaves voters with little power to change it to something different (like perhaps a real democracy). Voting is just choosing which face you want to see push similar policies as previous administrations regardless of what many Americans want. That's the main reason why I think elections are shit... politicians rarely put the views of their constituents first.

EDIT: I'll still be voting though. :P I mean, it's not that time consuming and I consider it a slap in the face to all of my ancestors that couldn't but still fought for my right to. But still, the entire political system is fucked and voting will do little to change that.

[Zephyr]

I voted for Obama in 2008, I figured I'd vote for the lesser of two evils :rolleyes:

As for 2012, I'm not sure yet, I'll cross that path when I get to it. I like to be informed on what exactly I'm voting for when I check my ballot, so once the candidates are nominated, I'll educate myself and vote for who I think is going to do a better job with running the country.

[Rainstorm]

So our choices are two over-religious zealots, a business tycoon or who we have now?

Not a big selection. I'd stay with Obama.

[A.J.]

This poll is ridiculous I doubt the latter three won't even make it to the final bracket. Obama is just as bad as any other leader, he just has a smile thats easy to swallow. I will vote for either jello biafra or Ron Paul

[nobodyimportant23]

I wont vote for any of those candidates....look up Herman Cain, i love that man

[RoseyCadaver]

image (http://d2o7bfz2il9cb7.cloudfront.net/main-qimg-eb890f4b0810480f9ef06dd69b7a2ecd)

I would definitely not want Sarah Palin representing me. If she was president I would lose faith for humanity and blow a hole in my head.
:lol:
i think that would leave everyone :bigsmash:

I vote for Ron Paul.....if I could vote!

[nobodyimportant23]

:lol:
i think that would leave everyone :bigsmash:

I vote for Ron Paul.....if I could vote!

Ron Paul is an idiot, he doesnt know where he stands on things

[Amnesiac]

Ron Paul is an idiot, he doesnt know where he stands on things

Actually, Ron Paul is arguably one of the most consistent members of Congress. I would support him for 2012 because of his social stance, and some economic things. However, most of the stuff he comes up with will never be done, and he has opposition from both Republicans and Democrats.

Also, I find the fact that he supports libertarianism for the federal government but not for states pretty stupid.

[Korashk]

Ron Paul is an idiot, he doesnt know where he stands on things
Ron Paul knows exactly where he stands on things (and isn't an idiot). He'd be the best president ever.

[RoseyCadaver]

Ron Paul is an idiot, he doesnt know where he stands on things

Umm, No. He does know where he stands. Unlike most politcalians he seems to be for the people and only the people(his track record does show he does ,unlike most politcains).I don't agree with some of his stuff like completet Pro-Life, but I do agree with when the way he views the economy and how we should fix it,and you just saying he is an idiot with out any basis makes you look ignorent my fellow human.

This being said;I've never heard of his son,but what people have been telling me ,he isn't as good as his Pops.

[anonymous.john]

Ron Paul knows exactly where he stands on things but he's too fucking weak to man-up and put the controversial ideas on the table.

That said, I can't agree with many of his policies.

I don't have a vote in this election, and if I did I wouldn't use it, the election is a douchefest.

[slappy]

People just say they like Paul because he wants weed to be leagilized and that's just a stupid reason. It's just kids saying "drugs are great, and I want my weed"

[nobodyimportant23]

People just say they like Paul because he wants weed to be leagilized and that's just a stupid reason. It's just kids saying "drugs are great, and I want my weed"

Exactly ^^^

[slappy]

Ron Paul is just a candidate for college kids who hate laws because all they want to do on there free time is go on a weed crazy weekend and smoke a lot of bowls, the kids who are just young and ignorant and think the solution to all of our problems would be to get rid of all our laws.

[Korashk]

Ron Paul knows exactly where he stands on things but he's too fucking weak to man-up and put the controversial ideas on the table.
Have you ever actually heard Ron Paul speak or read any of his statements? He isn't afraid to put the controversial ideas on the table. Hell, he doesn't even hide his views that the general, uneducated, public would find batshit insane.


People just say they like Paul because he wants weed to be leagilized and that's just a stupid reason. It's just kids saying "drugs are great, and I want my weed"
Ron Paul is just a candidate for college kids who hate laws because all they want to do on there free time is go on a weed crazy weekend and smoke a lot of bowls, the kids who are just young and ignorant and think the solution to all of our problems would be to get rid of all our laws.
http://forum.nationstates.net/images/smilies/sm_facepalm.gif
Anyways. The solution to most of our problems is to get rid of most of our laws. Especially the ones regulating the economy and putting people in jail for doing things that harm no one but themselves.

[slappy]

Have you ever actually heard Ron Paul speak or read any of his statements? He isn't afraid to put the controversial ideas on the table. Hell, he doesn't even hide his views that the general, uneducated, public would find batshit insane.




image (http://forum.nationstates.net/images/smilies/sm_facepalm.gif)
Anyways. The solution to most of our problems is to get rid of most of our laws. Especially the ones regulating the economy and putting people in jail for doing things that harm no one but themselves.

We don't need to get rid of a lot of our laws, the American people just need to get off there high horse and fallow the rules, not get rid of them.

[Korashk]

We don't need to get rid of a lot of our laws, the American people just need to get off there high horse and fallow the rules, not get rid of them.
Why should I have to follow a rule that violates my natural rights?

[slappy]

Why should I have to follow a rule that violates my natural rights?

Like what law?

Yea, I know gay merge and a few other laws are useless, but what laws do that?

[Korashk]

Like what law?
Most (if not all) economic regulation, drug laws, marriage laws, minimum wage, limitations to contract law. Just off the top of my head.

[slappy]

Most (if not all) economic regulation, drug laws, marriage laws, minimum wage, limitations to contract law. Just off the top of my head.


Economic regulation saved GM and help consumers.

Drug laws are useful because they keep meth freaks from running around and bothering people.

I agree with you on marriage laws.

Minimum wage keeps pay equal so people who work get payed for what they do.

Most of those yes, came off the top of a neo-con's head.

[Perseus]

I wont vote for any of those candidates....look up Herman Cain, i love that man

Oh God, I'd leave this country if that man became president. He's such a prejudiced bigot.

[Korashk]

Economic regulation saved GM and help consumers.
Economic regulations are the reason that GM needed saving in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. Failing businesses need to fail.

Drug laws are useful because they keep meth freaks from running around and bothering people.
No they don't. Before you're all "yah they do" why don't you explain exactly how. Then think of all of the gang related violence caused by current and past prohibitions, consider the millions of people currently in prison for nonviolent drug related charges, consider the millions of dollars that keeping them in prison costs, consider that legalizing drugs universally lowers their rate of use (see Netherlands, Singapore, 1920s America). Then try and explain how drug laws are justified.

Minimum wage keeps pay equal
http://forum.nationstates.net/images/smilies/sm_facepalm.gif Just no.

so people who work get payed for what they do.
Minimum wage laws force me to sell my labor at a minimum amount and punishes me if I would like to go lower.

They force companies to pay their workers said minimum wage regardless of how much their labor is actually worth. This may not be all that bad if the value of their labor is greater than the minimum wage, but it's really bad when said wage is higher than the value of said employee's labor. Meaning that the company is then forced to make a choice; keep the employee on and accept the marginal loss, or fire the employee. The choice is obvious. If you're said worker, minimum wage laws just cost you your job.

Lastly, increases in the minimum wage serve as a secret tax on businesses. Scenario: Suppose you're a small entrepreneur with, say, 10 full-time minimum-wage workers. Then a 50 cent increase in the minimum wage is going to cost you about $10,000 a year. That's no different from a $10,000 tax increase. Not much to big businesses, devastating to small ones.

Most of those yes, came off the top of a neo-con's head.
And just got shot down.

[RoseyCadaver]

People just say they like Paul because he wants weed to be leagilized and that's just a stupid reason. It's just kids saying "drugs are great, and I want my weed"

Umm ,when did he say this?!?!?If you can show the evidence I'll be happy to see.I don't think pot is good for us,but even if it isn't,well it's people's bodies,if they wanna be dumb asses let them be dumb asses.Saying that most people want him for that is just a generalization,I love his policies on economics,I am not wanting him to be president so we can get "our" weed legally.

[Blake1994]

I would of voted for Donald Trump, but sadly he's not running now. I think he would of been good in resolving the sluggish economy, that sadly Obama has done nothing to improve. For example instead of helping the American people, Obama goes and sends 1 Billion Dollars to Egypt in aid. That is pitiful and disgusting in my opinion. At least Trump would do good for the economy. I don't know who I would vote for now, but it sure as Hell won't be Obama. Especially since he's also turned his back on the Israelis too.

[Amnesiac]

I would of voted for Donald Trump, but sadly he's not running now. I think he would of been good in resolving the sluggish economy, that sadly Obama has done nothing to improve. For example instead of helping the American people, Obama goes and sends 1 Billion Dollars to Egypt in aid. That is pitiful and disgusting in my opinion. At least Trump would do good for the economy. I don't know who I would vote for now, but it sure as Hell won't be Obama. Especially since he's also turned his back on the Israelis too.

You complain about him giving money to other nations, then criticize him for trying to soften the U.S.'s incredibly stupid foreign policy of supporting Israel's inhumane Zionist land-grabbing? Were you aware that we give over $17 billion to Israel every year, so they can do more stupid and unfair shit? But no, you probably support that because the Israelis are 'good'.

Also, what do you mean "helping the American people"? Having the government help people sure sounds like the socialism that you probably complain about so much.

[Blake1994]

Were you aware that we give over $17 billion to Israel every year, so they can do more stupid and unfair shit? But no, you probably support that because the Israelis are 'good'.

Yes, I was aware of that. I have no problem with the Israelis receiving that money. But according to you, you obviously think its ok for the Palestinians to go force a little kid to blow himself up in a suicide bombing at a crowded Tel Aviv market or on a bus full of people in Jerusalem? But that's "good" is it to you I suppose? Oh, and I suppose what happened to the millions of Jews under the Nazis was "good" as well according to you? That was a bunch of stupid and unfair shit that happened to the Jews under the Nazis. Israel has the right to defend itself, and there is nothing wrong with the United States assisting Israel in doing so.

[Amnesiac]

Yes, I was aware of that. I have no problem with the Israelis receiving that money. But according to you, you obviously think its ok for the Palestinians to go force a little kid to blow himself up in a suicide bombing at a crowded Tel Aviv market or on a bus full of people in Jerusalem? But that's "good" is it to you I suppose? Oh, and I suppose what happened to the millions of Jews under the Nazis was "good" as well according to you? That was a bunch of stupid and unfair shit that happened to the Jews under the Nazis. Israel has the right to defend itself, and there is nothing wrong with the United States assisting Israel in doing so.

It's not like Israel hasn't does bad things as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy), and it's wrong to assume that they're perfect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories). Both sides have evil in them. It's not right to assume the Palestinians are the 'bad' ones – their land was stolen in the first place, after all. Don't they have the right to defend themselves?

But no, it all comes back to the Nazis and the Holocaust. Yes, what happened to the European Jews was horrible, but that's no excuse to allow them to establish a country in what is arguably the most sensitive territory on Earth and then ruthlessly expand it beyond its borders. Israel does not have the right to expand its borders beyond the land the United Nations gave it. The United States should not aid them since they have done so.

Because both sides of this conflict are evidently too immature to handle themselves properly, it shouldn't be the business of the West to aid them. Leave the Israelis and Palestinians to themselves. That $17 billion dollars should go to things that actually "help Americans," rather than to fund the Israelis in 'defending' the lands they've unjustly occupied.

[Blake1994]

It's not like Israel hasn't does bad things as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy), and it's wrong to assume that they're perfect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories). Both sides have evil in them. It's not right to assume the Palestinians are the 'bad' ones – their land was stolen in the first place, after all. Don't they have the right to defend themselves?

But no, it all comes back to the Nazis and the Holocaust. Yes, what happened to the European Jews was horrible, but that's no excuse to allow them to establish a country in what is arguably the most sensitive territory on Earth and then ruthlessly expand it beyond its borders. Israel does not have the right to expand its borders beyond the land the United Nations gave it. The United States should not aid them since they have done so.

Because both sides of this conflict are evidently too immature to handle themselves properly, it shouldn't be the business of the West to aid them. Leave the Israelis and Palestinians to themselves. That $17 billion dollars should go to things that actually "help Americans," rather than to fund the Israelis in 'defending' the lands they've unjustly occupied.

Never said Israel was perfect, but the Palestinians aren't either, regardless if their land was "taken" or not. Oh and the Arabs have all that land all over the Middle East, and you and every other anti-Israel person bitch about the Jews having a tiny little strip of land in the region too. What's so bad about a Jewish State being in existence? Sounds like somebody might be a little anti-Semitic to me.

[Amnesiac]

Never said Israel was perfect, but the Palestinians aren't either, regardless if their land was "taken" or not. Oh and the Arabs have all that land all over the Middle East, and you and every other anti-Israel person bitch about the Jews having a tiny little strip of land in the region too. What's so bad about a Jewish State being in existence? Sounds like somebody might be a little anti-Semitic to me.

I would be content with Israel, if it didn't expand its borders. Really, I fail to see why a Jewish state is necessary in the first place (why is it necessary for every ethnicity to have their own country? It doesn't do them any good), but that's another issue. The Israelis do, indeed, have the right to that land as the British and UN divided Israel into two 'factions'. That was given to them. The West Bank and other occupied territories were not.

The bigger problem I have with Israel is the fact that we fund it.

Don't accuse me of being anti-Semetic. Just because I don't support Israel doesn't mean I hate Jews; only someone who's extremely blinded would make that ridiculous and overexaggerated assumption.

[Blake1994]

I would be content with Israel, if it didn't expand its borders. Really, I fail to see why a Jewish state is necessary in the first place (why is it necessary for every ethnicity to have their own country? It doesn't do them any good), but that's another issue. The Israelis do, indeed, have the right to that land as the British and UN divided Israel into two 'factions'. That was given to them. The West Bank and other occupied territories were not.

The bigger problem I have with Israel is the fact that we fund it.

Don't accuse me of being anti-Semetic. Just because I don't support Israel doesn't mean I hate Jews; only someone who's extremely blinded would make that ridiculous and overexaggerated assumption.

I don't think I'm blinded at all :cool:

[Sith Lord 13]

I don't think I'm blinded at all :cool:

The blind rarely do.

[Perseus]

Never said Israel was perfect, but the Palestinians aren't either, regardless if their land was "taken" or not. Oh and the Arabs have all that land all over the Middle East, and you and every other anti-Israel person bitch about the Jews having a tiny little strip of land in the region too. What's so bad about a Jewish State being in existence? Sounds like somebody might be a little anti-Semitic to me.

Tell me, why should we fund Israel's wars? What do we get out of it? You wouldn't like it if a bunch of Mexicans came into Texas and set up their own country and you had no say in it.

[Amnesiac]

I don't think I'm blinded at all :cool:

There, you've just shown you have absolutely no way to contradict my argument, and you're trying to cover that up with some sly comment and a cool face.

[Blake1994]

Tell me, why should we fund Israel's wars? What do we get out of it? You wouldn't like it if a bunch of Mexicans came into Texas and set up their own country and you had no say in it.

We get stability in the Middle East. Israel has a right to defend itself. Why should we also support a bunch of terrorists like Fatah & Hamas too?

[Perseus]

We get stability in the Middle East. Israel has a right to defend itself. Why should we also support a bunch of terrorists like Fatah & Hamas too?

How is there stability helping them in their wars? There wouldn't be wars like this if Israel never became a country. We wouldn't have things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing). The Middle East wouldn't hate us if we didn't stick our nose in their affairs.

[Amnesiac]

We get stability in the Middle East. Israel has a right to defend itself. Why should we also support a bunch of terrorists like Fatah & Hamas too?

You're taking things out of proportion. Nobody's suggesting we support Fatah and Hamas.

Israel's existence causes anything but stability, and everybody knows that. Its existence is unnecessary. The Jewish population would be just as well off, if not even better, if they didn't have a 'homeland'. It's just not something that needs to happen.

What we're trying to say is that the U.S. should adopt a policy of non-interventionism and not mess around with countries we have absolutely no relation to.

[slappy]

Economic regulations are the reason that GM needed saving in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. Failing businesses need to fail.


No they don't. Before you're all "yah they do" why don't you explain exactly how. Then think of all of the gang related violence caused by current and past prohibitions, consider the millions of people currently in prison for nonviolent drug related charges, consider the millions of dollars that keeping them in prison costs, consider that legalizing drugs universally lowers their rate of use (see Netherlands, Singapore, 1920s America). Then try and explain how drug laws are justified.


image (http://forum.nationstates.net/images/smilies/sm_facepalm.gif) Just no.


Minimum wage laws force me to sell my labor at a minimum amount and punishes me if I would like to go lower.

They force companies to pay their workers said minimum wage regardless of how much their labor is actually worth. This may not be all that bad if the value of their labor is greater than the minimum wage, but it's really bad when said wage is higher than the value of said employee's labor. Meaning that the company is then forced to make a choice; keep the employee on and accept the marginal loss, or fire the employee. The choice is obvious. If you're said worker, minimum wage laws just cost you your job.

Lastly, increases in the minimum wage serve as a secret tax on businesses. Scenario: Suppose you're a small entrepreneur with, say, 10 full-time minimum-wage workers. Then a 50 cent increase in the minimum wage is going to cost you about $10,000 a year. That's no different from a $10,000 tax increase. Not much to big businesses, devastating to small ones.


And just got shot down.

Government regulation helps consumers what people like you apparently think is, consumers don't need to be helped

Drug laws do help, because like I said before what you people like about people like paul is, you want your drugs

[Perseus]

Drug laws do help, because like I said before what you people like about people like paul is, you want your drugs

Not every person who wants drugs to legalized is a drug user. I think marijuana should be legalized, but I don't smoke weed. Think before you speak. Though, Korashk thinks all laws should be abolished for drugs, I doubt he himself uses hard drugs such as meth.

[RoseyCadaver]

So many separations over political madness,can't we just get along*sigh*."United We Stand,Divided We Fall."

[Amnesiac]

Drug laws do help, because like I said before what you people like about people like paul is, you want your drugs

This is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

[Blake1994]

There wouldn't be wars like this if Israel never became a country.

Well Israel is a country and its here to stay. It has been in existence since May 14th, 1948. The Israelis have never lost a war. As Daniel Craig said in the movie Munich: "You don't fuck with the Jews". Israel simply cannot afford to lose a war. Just accept the fact that Israel is a country that is not going away any time soon.

[Amnesiac]

Well Israel is a country and its here to stay. It has been in existence since May 14th, 1948. The Israelis have never lost a war. As Daniel Craig said in the movie Munich: "You don't fuck with the Jews". Israel simply cannot afford to lose a war. Just accept the fact that Israel is a country that is not going away any time soon.

You've come to a debate board to tell people to "just accept" something?

Are you serious? Is that your argument??

[Blake1994]

You've come to a debate board to tell people to "just accept" something?

Are you serious? Is that your argument??

Well, you know as well as I do that Israel isn't going away, so why debate that?

[Amnesiac]

Well, you know as well as I do that Israel isn't going away, so why debate that?

You don't know whether or not it'll go away, and we were debating about what Obama said regarding the 67 borders in the first place.

You know as well as I do that that particular region of the Middle East is the most unpredictable place in the world.

[Blake1994]

You don't know whether or not it'll go away, and we were debating about what Obama said regarding the 67 borders in the first place.

You know as well as I do that that particular region of the Middle East is the most unpredictable place in the world.

Maybe so, but I don't see Israel going away in our lifetimes.

[slappy]

Israel is a tough subject. One day everything could be going fine, and than the next day they could be in the middle of a nuclear war. Yea, I support them to a point, but if they drag us into a war that support will go away.

[RoseyCadaver]

We just need to get our arse out of the Middle East and find a new fuel.Besides i don't like oil being a super power xD!

[Korashk]

Government regulation helps consumers what people like you apparently think is, consumers don't need to be helped
Government regulations hurt consumers more than they help.

Drug laws do help, because like I said before what you people like about people like paul is, you want your drugs
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6n5MEIFnuos/TSu4K9h9rkI/AAAAAAAAAT8/I91lQSdFMfE/s1600/fuuuuuuuuu.jpg

You ignored everything I said and stick to your flawed view. Yes, your flawed view. The notion that drug laws help anything is OBJECTIVELY FALSE!

[Perseus]

Well Israel is a country and its here to stay. It has been in existence since May 14th, 1948. The Israelis have never lost a war. As Daniel Craig said in the movie Munich: "You don't fuck with the Jews". Israel simply cannot afford to lose a war. Just accept the fact that Israel is a country that is not going away any time soon.

Uh, I accept that fact that Israel is a country and isn't going away any time soon. I never said it wasn't. I said if it weren't a country, there wouldn't be all of these goddamn wars in the Middle East. The Israelis have on of the strongest militaries in the world. I know they have never lost a war. I don't need a history lesson from you. Sure, the Jews deserve their own country, but not at the expense of the Palestinians. What part of that do you not understand?

[Blake1994]

Uh, I accept that fact that Israel is a country and isn't going away any time soon. I never said it wasn't. I said if it weren't a country, there wouldn't be all of these goddamn wars in the Middle East. The Israelis have on of the strongest militaries in the world. I know they have never lost a war. I don't need a history lesson from you. Sure, the Jews deserve their own country, but not at the expense of the Palestinians. What part of that do you not understand?

Uh, well considering the Arab World stretches over 8 million square miles of the Earth's surface, I don't see how the Palestinians (who are Arabs themselves) have a right to bitch over the piddly 8,000 or so square miles that is Israel. Especially considering that Arabs consider themselves "brothers" and unified regardless of where they are.

So technically if they believe that, the Palestinians have 8 million square miles of land that is already their home and the home of their "Arab Brothers". Meanwhile, the Jews are stuck with a measly little strip of land on the Mediterranean coast. I personally think that's fucking selfish as all damn Hell of the Arabs honestly. Oh, and if you agree that the Jews deserve their own country but not "at the expense of the Palestinians" and since the current location is not acceptable and not to your liking, where on Earth would you consider a legitimate place on this Earth for a Jewish State then?

[Peace God]

Uh, well considering the Arab World stretches over 8 million square miles of the Earth's surface, I don't see how the Palestinians (who are Arabs themselves) have a right to bitch over the piddly 8,000 or so square miles that is Israel. Especially considering that Arabs consider themselves "brothers" and unified regardless of where they are.
Try not to speak for people, especially ones that you obviously don't remotely understand in the first place. This isn't about Arabs vs. Jews. People don't deserve the right to their own separated land just because they're surrounded by people of a different ethnicity.

So technically if they believe that, the Palestinians have 8 million square miles of land that is already their home and the home of their "Arab Brothers". Meanwhile, the Jews are stuck with a measly little strip of land on the Mediterranean coast. I personally think that's fucking selfish as all damn Hell of the Arabs honestly. Oh, and if you agree that the Jews deserve their own country but not "at the expense of the Palestinians" and since the current location is not acceptable and not to your liking, where on Earth would you consider a legitimate place on this Earth for a Jewish State then?
What if the UN decided to make Texas a Hispanic State? I mean, why not? America is big enough. It would be pretty selfish to not want it if you ask me.

[Blake1994]

Try not to speak for people, especially ones that you obviously don't remotely understand in the first place.

I understand this subject very well. Don't assume things about what I may or may not understand in your opinion just because I disagree with people on certain things.

[slappy]

Government regulations hurt consumers more than they help.


image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6n5MEIFnuos/TSu4K9h9rkI/AAAAAAAAAT8/I91lQSdFMfE/s1600/fuuuuuuuuu.jpg)

You ignored everything I said and stick to your flawed view. Yes, your flawed view. The notion that drug laws help anything is OBJECTIVELY FALSE!

regulation demonstrably does work where tort law doesn’t. Consider the environmental issue: in reality, the perpetrators of oil spills never pay most of the cost; but in reality, environmental regulation has led to much cleaner air and water. (Look up the history of Los Angeles smog or the fate of Lake Erie if you don’t believe me.)
I beleve your the one who is flawed.

[RoseyCadaver]

regulation demonstrably does work where tort law doesn’t. Consider the environmental issue: in reality, the perpetrators of oil spills never pay most of the cost; but in reality, environmental regulation has led to much cleaner air and water. (Look up the history of Los Angeles smog or the fate of Lake Erie if you don’t believe me.)
I beleve your the one who is flawed.

Yes, because I love my food being filled with toxic oil :yes: or the coral I purchase for my livestock aquariums to be having tar balls inside them for them to only die a few weeks later after i pay :)!Our government doesn't give a flying fuck about our enviroment.Only a few officals really want to do something.They have many alternative fuels to come out ,and then suddenly the maker of the fuels/energy disappears xD!Most (rich)people are worried about getting there black gold from the middle east,and will do anything to stop someone from taking their monopoly:yeah:.It gets me sick when people say our government is doing their best to help the world's enviroments out :mad:.

[Perseus]

Uh, well considering the Arab World stretches over 8 million square miles of the Earth's surface, I don't see how the Palestinians (who are Arabs themselves) have a right to bitch over the piddly 8,000 or so square miles that is Israel. Especially considering that Arabs consider themselves "brothers" and unified regardless of where they are.


So technically if they believe that, the Palestinians have 8 million square miles of land that is already their home and the home of their "Arab Brothers". Meanwhile, the Jews are stuck with a measly little strip of land on the Mediterranean coast. I personally think that's fucking selfish as all damn Hell of the Arabs honestly. Oh, and if you agree that the Jews deserve their own country but not "at the expense of the Palestinians" and since the current location is not acceptable and not to your liking, where on Earth would you consider a legitimate place on this Earth for a Jewish State then?

Actually, the Palestinians are not well liked, for some reason. And, no country wants to give up its land. You don't seem to understand that no one wants their country stripped and given to another people. Like has been said twice, what would be your reaction of Texas was turned into a part of Mexico, etc.?

It wouldn't make any sense to give Jews a country anywhere else, considering Jerusalem is their holy city, as with the Muslims and Christians. It'd make more sense if the present day Israel was both for Jews and Palestinians, but that's not the case. The Palestinians were screwed over, and you know it. But you don't care.

[Blake1994]

Actually, the Palestinians are not well liked, for some reason. And, no country wants to give up its land. You don't seem to understand that no one wants their country stripped and given to another people. Like has been said twice, what would be your reaction of Texas was turned into a part of Mexico, etc.?

It wouldn't make any sense to give Jews a country anywhere else, considering Jerusalem is their holy city, as with the Muslims and Christians. It'd make more sense if the present day Israel was both for Jews and Palestinians, but that's not the case. The Palestinians were screwed over, and you know it. But you don't care.

Do your history, Texas was a part of Mexico at one point. Of course it wouldn't be acceptable if Texas was turned over to Mexico or a part of it was. That wouldn't fly, you know it and I know it. As far as the Palestinians being screwed over, your right honestly, I don't care. The Jews have been screwed over more in history far more than any other ethnic and or religious group in existence. Your argument is invalid, because regardless of the Palestinians not being liked, Arabs are Arabs, and they all consider themselves brothers, therefore the Palestinians have land. The entire Arab world is theirs. You can't change the past, and Israel will never concede land to the Palestinians, you know it and I know it.

[Amnesiac]

As far as the Palestinians being screwed over, your right honestly, I don't care. The Jews have been screwed over more in history far more than any other ethnic and or religious group in existence. Your argument is invalid, because regardless of the Palestinians not being liked, Arabs are Arabs, and they all consider themselves brothers, therefore the Palestinians have land. The entire Arab world is theirs. You can't change the past, and Israel will never concede land to the Palestinians, you know it and I know it.

The Palestinian people are an Arabic-speaking Levantine people with origins in Palestine. In the areas of Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, as of 2004, Palestinians constitute 49% of all inhabitants, some of whom are internally displaced. The remainder comprise what is known as the Palestinian diaspora, of whom more than half are stateless refugees, lacking citizenship in any country. Of the diaspora, about 2.6 million live in neighboring Jordan where they are approximately half the population, one and a half million between Syria and Lebanon, a quarter million in Saudi Arabia, while Chile's half a million are the largest concentration outside the Arab world.

Recent genetic research shows Palestinians are mainly of Mediterranean ancestry, similar to other peoples of the Levant. Closely related to Jews, Palestinians represent "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times."

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that Palestinians are just Arabs. Also, when does some historical event that affects an ethnic group give them the right to take land from others? Your entire argument is flawed. According to your logic, since Mexicans were displaced from Texas, they should have the right to move back and establish a country here. Don't come up with that "you know that wouldn't work" excuse, because that's not valid.

Insert credit to Jake for half-coming up with the Texas-Israel analogy here.

[Blake1994]

According to your logic, since Mexicans were displaced from Texas, they should have the right to move back and establish a country here. Don't come up with that "you know that wouldn't work" excuse, because that's not valid.

Uhh no that's not what I'm saying. Don't try to put words in my mouth and don't assume things like that. Look in the mirror, because your argument isn't entirely valid either. I think you are a little bit anti-Semitic in all honesty. Not everything the Israelis do is bad, just like not everything the Palestinians do is bad. You just can't handle the fact that the Jews have a nation of their own can you? Face it, Israel isn't going away, so deal with it. It's been in existence since before we both came along, and its going to be in existence long after we are both gone too. What is happening to the Palestinians now is NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD as what happened to the Jews and other ethnicities in Europe under the Nazis.

[Amnesiac]

Uhh no that's not what I'm saying. Don't try to put words in my mouth and don't assume things like that. Look in the mirror, because your argument isn't entirely valid either. I think you are a little bit anti-Semitic in all honesty. Not everything the Israelis do is bad, just like not everything the Palestinians do is bad. You just can't handle the fact that the Jews have a nation of their own can you? Face it, Israel isn't going away, so deal with it. It's been in existence since before we both came along, and its going to be in existence long after we are both gone too. What is happening to the Palestinians now is NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD as what happened to the Jews and other ethnicities in Europe under the Nazis.

And your counter-argument is to call me anti-Semitic and then say that Israel is "never going to go away"? You have absolutely no defense for your arguments, so you resort to, basically, playing the race card.

What I don't understand about conservatives like you is that you all base life on independence and self-reliance. You're against affirmative action and welfare, two things that help people who have been unfairly displaced. Yet, when it comes to the Jews, you think it's okay to displace another group of people and cause another hundred years of wars and needless deaths because the Jews somehow deserve something in return for the Holocaust. The existence of Israel affects more people than it helps. It's not necessary. The Jewish population would be much better off if they assimilated into other countries.

I mean, gays were executed in the Holocaust, and genetics play a part in determining their sexuality – should they be given their own countries? African-Americans were displaced from Africa to the United States, should the government pay them for what happened 150, 200 years ago? I know you would say no to both of these things, but when something terrible happens to the Jews, they get special treatment, hurting themselves and others in the process so they can claim ownership to the most hostile slice of land on the planet.

[Korashk]

I beleve your the one who is flawed.
Quit trying to get away from your drug stance. That's what I'm trying to discuss.

[Blake1994]

I mean, gays were executed in the Holocaust, and genetics play a part in determining their sexuality

1. In regards to where you say gays being killed in the Holocaust, go back and read my posts, I said THE JEWS AND OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS. While Homosexuals are not an ethnic group, they were still persecuted nonetheless.

2. Genetics don't play a part in Homosexuality, that's a bunch of bullshit.

3. Affirmative Action itself is discriminatory. Enough said.

[Amnesiac]

1. In regards to where you say gays being killed in the Holocaust, go back and read my posts, I said THE JEWS AND OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS. While Homosexuals are not an ethnic group, they were still persecuted nonetheless.

Fine. Other ethnic groups were killed in the Holocaust. They didn't get their own countries. Many of them had to fight long, bloody wars to even get a glimpse of freedom. My argument is still valid.

2. Genetics don't play a part in Homosexuality, that's a bunch of bullshit.

Well, that's a reasoned argument that's backed up with so much evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation)

3. Affirmative Action itself is discriminatory. Enough said.

So is taking land from one ethnic group and giving it to another.

[Blake1994]

Well, that's a reasoned argument that's backed up with so much evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation)

Yeah, I'd hardly call Wikipedia a credible source for information on anything.

[Amnesiac]

Yeah, I'd hardly call Wikipedia a credible source for information on anything.

Fine. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=sexual+orientation+genetics&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_ylo=&as_vis=1)

But you're dodging the other topic, Israel. And calling Wikipedia unreliable is just an excuse for being proven wrong. The citations are in that article.

[Korashk]

Yeah, I'd hardly call Wikipedia a credible source for information on anything.
A study came out some time ago that confirmed that Wikipedia is at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Personally, I think that people not accepting Wikipedia and not using non-Wikipedia sources to do so are just mad that they're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars

[Perseus]

Do your history, Texas was a part of Mexico at one point. Of course it wouldn't be acceptable if Texas was turned over to Mexico or a part of it was. That's why I used my analogy. You still haven't answered the question.
That wouldn't fly, you know it and I know it. As far as the Palestinians being screwed over, your right honestly, I don't care. The Jews have been screwed over more in history far more than any other ethnic and or religious group in existence. I'm aware, though Africans have had a shady past, too. But I don't see you conservatives trying to help them at all. You just want to waste all the money keeping wars alive in the Middle East.
Your argument is invalid, because regardless of the Palestinians not being liked, Arabs are Arabs, and they all consider themselves brothers, therefore the Palestinians have land. The entire Arab world is theirs. You can't change the past, and Israel will never concede land to the Palestinians, you know it and I know it. What part of no one wants to give their land up? Especially to a group of people they don't like. And what Justin said, that you ignored, is that Palestinians are more Mediterranean.

[Blake1994]

And what Justin said, that you ignored, is that Palestinians are more Mediterranean.

What the Hell is "more Mediterranean"? They are Arab, the Palestinians even identify themselves as Arabs. Who cares, seriously? They are Arabs.

[Perseus]

What the Hell is "more Mediterranean"? They are Arab, the Palestinians even identify themselves as Arabs. Who cares, seriously? They are Arabs.

Oh look, you ignored almost everything, once again. "more Mediterranean" means exactly what it says. They are more Mediterranean than they are Arabic. Stop getting all fussy, too.

[slappy]

Quit trying to get away from your drug stance. That's what I'm trying to discuss.

Sorry, you're trying to pick a fight and I'm not going to contribute to it

[RoseyCadaver]

Sorry, you're trying to pick a fight and I'm not going to contribute to it

The correct term is debate :P!It seems a lot people are trying to run away from these debates.

The thing about Wikipedia not being a credible source is silly.My damn teachers try to say the same thing.I've looked up stuff on Wikipedia and then refacted it on books to be sure and so far the stuff i use it for are good.So I find Wiki very good.

[Blake1994]

Oh look, you ignored almost everything, once again. "more Mediterranean" means exactly what it says. They are more Mediterranean than they are Arabic. Stop getting all fussy, too.

They are Arabs, they speak the Arabic language, they read and write in the Arabic alphabet, they are majority Muslim. The qualifications to be Arabic are speaking Arabic, and being Muslim. Therefore they are Arabic genius. Stop getting all touchy with attention to detail, too.

[Perseus]

Stop getting all touchy with attention to detail, too.

What do you mean by this? And you keep ignoring everything. No one is going to take you seriously.

[slappy]

The correct term is debate :P!It seems a lot people are trying to run away from these debates.

The thing about Wikipedia not being a credible source is silly.My damn teachers try to say the same thing.I've looked up stuff on Wikipedia and then refacted it on books to be sure and so far the stuff i use it for are good.So I find Wiki very good.

In a debate people are respectful. You have a perverted view of what a debate is.



Also, I will point out Blake1994's rep power is dropping right in front of my eyes

[Amnesiac]

They are Arabs, they speak the Arabic language, they read and write in the Arabic alphabet, they are majority Muslim. The qualifications to be Arabic are speaking Arabic, and being Muslim. Therefore they are Arabic genius. Stop getting all touchy with attention to detail, too.

Why the fuck does it matter if they're Arab? All the word 'Arab' means is:

Arab people also known as "Arabs" (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are an ethnic group or panethnicity primarily living in the Arab world which is located in West Asia and North Africa.

And that makes them bad? Why are you advocating the disposition of Palestinians, unfairly, from the region they've occupied for thousands of years? Because of some 'unfairness'? No matter how bad things get, there should never be free rides for anybody in history. There never have been. As I said before, the creation of a Jewish homeland has caused so much unnecessary bloodshed and frantic disorganization that it will be considered a horribly bad idea by historians in the future. Yes, I'm sorry that the Jews have been picked on so much, but that gives them no right to go into a region and pick on other people.

Of course, the root cause of all of this conflict in the Middle East is religion itself, and religious bias from the West in support of the Jews and from the Arabs against the Jews

[Blake1994]

What do you mean by this? And you keep ignoring everything. No one is going to take you seriously.

I mean the fact that you keep getting so touchy the moment something bad is said about the Arabs / Palestinians. Isn't that the point of a debate forum, where different viewpoints are debated, regardless if something bad is said.



And that makes them bad?

Never said that made them "bad". What makes some Palestinians "bad" is the fact that they resort to terrorism in regards to achieving their goals. And yes, some Israeli Jews also resort to terrorism, like the Kahane Chai and Kach Parties / organizations, which is also wrong. Not all Israeli Jews are good either. Also, there are many Israeli Jews who do not support what is happening to the Palestinians. Yes what Israel does to the Palestinians is wrong in some aspects, but on the Israel has a right to defend itself, especially when it is surrounded on all sides by enemies. If Israel were to lose a war, it would essentially no longer exist. Its death warrant would be signed. Plus the Arabs know that Israel does have an advantage over them, given the fact it is the only nation in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons.

[somethingrandom]

They are Arabs, they speak the Arabic language, they read and write in the Arabic alphabet, they are majority Muslim. The qualifications to be Arabic are speaking Arabic, and being Muslim. Therefore they are Arabic genius. Stop getting all touchy with attention to detail, too.

Wrong. Arabs are people from the Arabian Penninsula. Palestineans are a different group, they're from Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon, and they face constant threats from the Israelis, Syrians, Iranians, and Arabs. They do have in common that they use the same alphabet and follow the same prophet (The branches of Islam are different), but that's really it. They don't really speak the same language, it would be like comparing Monegasque (the language of Monaco) and Italian. They're similar but completely different at the same time.

Or to put it in a way you can relate to, what you're saying is the equivalent of associating you (I think you said you're a catholic), Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians as one religion. They're not the same, beyond following the same prophet, Jesus Christ, and having the same core belief in one god.

Never said that made them "bad". What makes some Palestinians "bad" is the fact that they resort to terrorism in regards to achieving their goals. And yes, some Israeli Jews also resort to terrorism, like the Kahane Chai and Kach Parties / organizations, which is also wrong. Not all Israeli Jews are good either. Also, there are many Israeli Jews who do not support what is happening to the Palestinians. Yes what Israel does to the Palestinians is wrong in some aspects, but on the Israel has a right to defend itself, especially when it is surrounded on all sides by enemies. If Israel were to lose a war, it would essentially no longer exist. Its death warrant would be signed. Plus the Arabs know that Israel does have an advantage over them, given the fact it is the only nation in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons.

Well, shouldn't Palestine also have a right to defend itself? They're in even bigger shit because they're surrounded by enemies on all four sides, Israel is only surrounded on three (the Mediterranean Sea.....). And there will always be a place for Jewish people to live. More Jews live in the United States than in Israel, they also have heavy populations in Paris, Buenos Aires, New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto, and many other places. Plus, the Middle Eastern countries have been relatively busy annihilating each other to worry about Israel.

And by the way, WRONG AGAIN. Pakistan and India both have nukes, but they'll never waste their time launching one at Israel. Saudi Arabia also has nuclear power, and Iran will soon have nuclear power too.....

[Blake1994]

Wrong. Arabs are people from the Arabian Penninsula. Palestineans are a different group, they're from Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon, and they face constant threats from the Israelis, Syrians, Iranians, and Arabs. They do have in common that they use the same alphabet and follow the same prophet (The branches of Islam are different), but that's really it. They don't really speak the same language, it would be like comparing Monegasque (the language of Monaco) and Italian. They're similar but completely different at the same time.

Or to put it in a way you can relate to, what you're saying is the equivalent of associating you (I think you said you're a catholic), Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians as one religion. They're not the same, beyond following the same prophet, Jesus Christ, and having the same core belief in one god.



Well, shouldn't Palestine also have a right to defend itself? They're in even bigger shit because they're surrounded by enemies on all four sides, Israel is only surrounded on three (the Mediterranean Sea.....). And there will always be a place for Jewish people to live. More Jews live in the United States than in Israel, they also have heavy populations in Paris, Buenos Aires, New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto, and many other places. Plus, the Middle Eastern countries have been relatively busy annihilating each other to worry about Israel.

And by the way, WRONG AGAIN. Pakistan and India both have nukes, but they'll never waste their time launching one at Israel. Saudi Arabia also has nuclear power, and Iran will soon have nuclear power too.....

WRONG. An Arab is also the description I gave. They do not have to be just from the Arabian Peninsula. Maybe that's what they teach in Canada. But here that is not what is taught. Yes, Palestine has a right to defend itself, just as Israel does. However, it should be left to the Palestinian Security Forces, not terrorists and suicide bombers with Hamas. Oh, and yes they do speak the same language, it just may be different dialects, but its all Arabic. Just as Spain, Mexico, Guatemala, Cuba, and Argentina all have different dialects of Spanish, but its still Spanish at the end of the day.

Pakistan may be considered a part of the Middle East depending on how its looked at and analyzed. India is certainly in no way at all a part of the Middle East whatsoever. Saudi Arabia and Iran may have and may soon have nuclear power respectively, but they do not have actual NUCLEAR WEAPONS (that we know of anyway). Israel is the only nation that has that distinction in the region (with of course, the exception of Pakistan as you say, and like I said that depends on how it is looked at when talking about the Middle East). So you, my friend, are wrong again.

[somethingrandom]

WRONG. An Arab is also the description I gave. They do not have to be just from the Arabian Peninsula. Maybe that's what they teach in Canada. But here that is not what is taught.

Firstly, Canada ranks sixth in the world in education. The United States is 30th. Well behind various communist, facist, and impoverished countries. In texas, you get a slightly better education than the average Mexican, and just a bit worse than the average Isreali (Israel is the worst developed country to live in by far, even without counting the Palestineans). So what they teach here is probably right.

And if you're not from the Arabian penninsula you're not an Arab. A Palestinean is as much of an Arab as a Brazilian is American.

Yes, Palestine has a right to defend itself, just as Israel does. However, it should be left to the Palestinian Security Forces, not terrorists and suicide bombers with Hamas. Oh, and yes they do speak the same language, it just may be different dialects, but its all Arabic. Just as Spain, Mexico, Guatemala, Cuba, and Argentina all have different dialects of Spanish, but its still Spanish at the end of the day.

They're not different dialects. A person from Palestine cannot carry out a conversation beyond some incredible basic words with a person from Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or any non-Palestinean speaker. They're based on the original arabic script, but they're very different. Just like a human and a monkey are very similar but very different. (Not in terms of evolution, which there's a decent chance you don't believe in cause youre catholic. This is in terms of DNA)

Pakistan may be considered a part of the Middle East depending on how its looked at and analyzed. India is certainly in no way at all a part of the Middle East whatsoever. Saudi Arabia and Iran may have and may soon have nuclear power respectively, but they do not have actual NUCLEAR WEAPONS (that we know of anyway). So you, my friend, are wrong again.

Pakistan is a part of the Middle East in terms of culture. Economy-wise, it's a lot grayer, since pakistan is sort of in between the middle east, india, and the former USSR. And Saudi Arabia and Iran have nuclear capability, or in other words, they just have to put their nuclear power (which they have) on top of a missile (which they also have), and they'd have nuclear weapons.

[Blake1994]

Firstly, Canada ranks sixth in the world in education. The United States is 30th. Well behind various communist, facist, and impoverished countries. In texas, you get a slightly better education than the average Mexican, and just a bit worse than the average Isreali (Israel is the worst developed country to live in by far, even without counting the Palestineans). So what they teach here is probably right.

And if you're not from the Arabian penninsula you're not an Arab. A Palestinean is as much of an Arab as a Brazilian is American.



They're not different dialects. A person from Palestine cannot carry out a conversation beyond some incredible basic words with a person from Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or any non-Palestinean speaker. They're based on the original arabic script, but they're very different. Just like a human and a monkey are very similar but very different. (Not in terms of evolution, which there's a decent chance you don't believe in cause youre catholic. This is in terms of DNA)



Pakistan is a part of the Middle East in terms of culture. Economy-wise, it's a lot grayer, since pakistan is sort of in between the middle east, india, and the former USSR. And Saudi Arabia and Iran have nuclear capability, or in other words, they just have to put their nuclear power (which they have) on top of a missile (which they also have), and they'd have nuclear weapons.

An Arab is NOT JUST FROM THE ARABIAN PENINSULA GENIUS, look it up. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=What+is+an+Arab&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C11&as_sdtp=on)

Anyway, I could care less if Canada is 1st in the world in regards to education, that is completely irrelevant. I admit the US education system is not one of the best in world, and that is grounds for a different debate thread entirely. The point is obviously different countries teach their students differently in regards to some things.

Oh for your information, Texas is always capitalized, and I may be Catholic, but I do believe in evolution actually. Even I find it to be a bunch of fucking bullshit that mankind originated from Adam and Eve.

[somethingrandom]

An Arab is NOT JUST FROM THE ARABIAN PENINSULA GENIUS, look it up.

Well, that link isn't giving me much..... But regardless, The "Arab" generalization for Muslims is derived from the religion being centred around Mecca and Medina, both of which are in Saudi Arabia. Calling Palestineans Arabs is OK. Saying that all Arabs co-operate with each other is very wrong.

Anyway, I could care less if Canada is 1st in the world in regards to education, that is completely irrelevant. I admit the US education system is not one of the best in world, and that is grounds for a different debate thread entirely. The point is obviously different countries teach their students differently in regards to some things.

Oh for your information, Texas is always capitalized, and I may be Catholic, but I do believe in evolution actually. Even I find it to be a bunch of fucking bullshit that mankind originated from Adam and Eve.

First off, sorry if I offended you. I don't like to make generalizations, but I wanted to clear it up in case your response was that evolution is fake. And with regards to the education thing, I know that different students are taught different things, and we're not taught much history here. That's just from my own personal interest that I know it, and middle-eastern social-political issues are incredibly tough to understand.

[Blake1994]

Well, that link isn't giving me much..... But regardless, The "Arab" generalization for Muslims is derived from the religion being centred around Mecca and Medina, both of which are in Saudi Arabia. Calling Palestineans Arabs is OK. Saying that all Arabs co-operate with each other is very wrong.



First off, sorry if I offended you. I don't like to make generalizations, but I wanted to clear it up in case your response was that evolution is fake. And with regards to the education thing, I know that different students are taught different things, and we're not taught much history here. That's just from my own personal interest that I know it, and middle-eastern social-political issues are incredibly tough to understand.

Agreed, but I never said that all Arabs co-operate, just look at the example of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, when only two Arab coutries (Jordan and Yemen) sided with Iraq (another predominately-Arab nation). The other Arab countries in the region turned against Iraq.

[somethingrandom]

Agreed, but I never said that all Arabs co-operate, just look at the example of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, when only two Arab coutries (Jordan and Yemen) sided with Iraq (another predominately-Arab nation). The other Arab countries in the region turned against Iraq.

You're right to some extent. The first gulf war was more about oil. The countries with an interest in selling oil to the U.S. (namely, any country with oil and a port) sided with the U.S. and Kuwait. Every other arab country sided with the Iraqis. Something more people should be talking about is that 100 out of 160 (roughly, cant remember the exact numbers) US troops killed in the Gulf War were killed by friendly fire, and about 50 were shot at point-blank range. But that's another topic. But I was referring to this:

Arabs are Arabs, and they all consider themselves brothers, therefore the Palestinians have land. The entire Arab world is theirs.

And that's where I disagree. They're brothers in that they have the same language group (not the same language), and the same prophet. But there are several different groups of muslims who hate each other, primarily the Sunnis and Shi'ites. And there are several cultural groups that don't like each other that much either. I'd go by "estranged ex-partners", not "brothers".

And to answer the original question of this thread. I don't like Barack Obama, but he's the second (maybe third) best candidate that there is. Ron Paul is by far the best presidential candidate, and four years of a Ron Paul presidency would solve the vast majority of the problems that the US has. He can be a bit of a nutcase sometimes, like when he voted against banning child porn because its not authorized by the constitution, but he has so many incredibly amazing ideas that those bad ones are worth it.

Romney was a great governor of Massachusetts and Pawlenty was decent, but they've both gone to the lunatic fringe so I don't like them. Palin is a moron who'd just quit halfway through like she did in Alaska. Donald Trump was a joke. Huckabee seems good, but he's not running.

[Korashk]

Sorry, you're trying to pick a fight and I'm not going to contribute to it
I'm sorry, bigotry makes me angry.

[Korashk]

He can be a bit of a nutcase sometimes, like when he voted against banning child porn because its not authorized by the constitution,
Source on this one? I'm interested in reading the particulars to see if I agree with his stance.

[slappy]

I'm sorry, bigotry makes me angry.

Hey, same with me but I don't like antagonists

[Korashk]

Hey, same with me but I don't like antagonists
If bigotry makes you angry, then why are you being a bigot?

[slappy]

If bigotry makes you angry, then why are you being a bigot?

Why are you being an antagonist?

[RoseyCadaver]

Why are you being an antagonist?

I think he asked why you're being a bigot,not asking you to change the subject.


This reminds me of the republican debate in 2007 xD!

[somethingrandom]

Source on this one? I'm interested in reading the particulars to see if I agree with his stance.

"Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators, one of the votes used in the CNET "Technology voter guide." In response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech)

[TuRdz]

I don't know much about politics and the economy, probably should, but you know....
Anyway, since Obama has been in power, the US dollar had dropped below the AU dollar for the first time in history. Does that not tell you something?

[Korashk]

"Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators, one of the votes used in the CNET "Technology voter guide." In response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech)
Yeah, he didn't vote against banning child pornography. He voted against a law forcing people to report crime related to child pornography. Which is why you shouldn't just accept reports you hear on face value.

It happens that I do agree with his position.

[somethingrandom]

Yeah, he didn't vote against banning child pornography. He voted against a law forcing people to report crime related to child pornography. Which is why you shouldn't just accept reports you hear on face value.

It happens that I do agree with his position.

I'm paraphrasing. But he would vote against banning child pornography if it ever came to a vote, I'll put down a HUGE bet on that

[pineinchneis]

wow, you start your elections early. in britain we only have 6 weeks of campaigning