1) According to you and other reactionaries, Castro is scum and hates all Americans, just like Saddam.
2) No, but he was known to have missles pointed at us. Cuban Missle Crisis. Is it ringing a bell?
3) There weren't terrorists in Iraq until we entered it.
4) I'm not even going to reply to that. Terrorists are EVERYWHERE, not just the Middle East. I am positive that that are bigger cells of terrorists in some parts of North America and Europe then in some parts of the Middle East.

1) Ok, and after he used them, there was a war called the Gulf War.
2) Please stop
3) repeating yourself.

Some of them, yes. Same for Whites, but just not as much.

That's a very nice thing to say. :rolleyes:

Why are you repeating DJ?

What about French people who hate the US and think Bush is a 'low-life scum?' No wonder they don't like us. It's people like you who set a bad example.

How do the tax payers feel about spending extra money for Bush's lost causes?

This has already been discussed numerous times here. Sudan and Nazi-Germany are 2 different ball parks.

Yeh, my difference in opinion means I'm wrong.

Condoleezza Rice: "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "
http://www.cnn.com/virtual/editions/europe/2000/roof/change.pop/frameset.exclude.html

So sure that we can't find them? :p

I blame his WHOLE administration, not George Bush alone, but at the end of the day, it's up to him to propose to go to war. George Tenet must've dunked after the buzzer went off.

Oh yeh? Source? Unbiased? Thanks.

Show me. Thanks.

Over 1000 dead and thousands more wounded = 'no sweat?' What was your stance on the Vietnam War again? :p

I am done talking with you. You seem to blame everything on thugs and punks, yet don't know the true definition. I have responded to you with respect, yet you continue to insult my beliefs with no remorse. -Pat

You take evertyhing out of it's context and rely on one-liners to keep up in debates.

I meant Castro wasn't as bad as Saddam in his own ruling, i.e. genocide, not hatred for us.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was 40 years ago, Pat, and we didn't have intelligence that said he had WMD's.
There were terrorists in Iraq!!!! This is angering me. The regime, for one, were terrorists. There were Al Quaida, Hammas, etc. connections with Saddam in abundance!
The terrorists come in VAST majority from Mid East, hence a Mid East haven for them to train, operate, get weapons, etc. is more of a concern then a place half way around the world from their hot spots.


Yeah, the Gulf War. And after that war, he remained in power, people continued to die, and he had technology enough to create such weapons. I'd stop repeating myself if you'd stop falsifying reasons to go to Iraq.

So some blacks ansd Hispanics are just simply dumber than whites? Okay... but "same for whites?" What are you talking about? Some white people are plain dumber than white people but not as much? I'm lost.

No, it's not a nice thing, Pat. True however, considering your view that "some" Black people and Hispanics are just naturally dumber than White people.

I'm not. If I am, I didn't even see his comment. I'm simply stating a fact-- the world has been spitting on us for a long time, disliking us, and for what?

Do some research, pal. Chirac is as corrupt as they come. He's good friends with Saddam, and has done major business with him, selling him weapons, jets. And I'm not talking about the 70's or 80's business, I'm talking business right before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Chirac hates America, and constantly undermines us.

Like what? Iraq? Good one.

No, not in the context of what your comment was. you said:
"Because sending troops into a country to kill people (i.e. Iraq) doesn't solve anything. The country needs money so its' army can fight off the rebels and stop the starvation."
Same thing is happening in Sudan. It's genocide, and it's stopped by sending in soldiers. I don't see how sending these guys money is different than sending Jews or Poland money in WWII.


No, I'm saying you're uninformed about the regime of Saddam Hussein. You don't know a lot about it is what I'm saying. It seems to me you aren't familiar with the terrorist ties it had or how it operated.

Yeah, now go out and stop it. It's not exactly specific enough to get the problem ironed out. Airport security, Arab people extra screening, etc. would've helped though. Nevertheless, Clinton had 8 years Bush had 8 months so don't blame it on Bush like so many liberals do. After all, if we're going to point at Bush for getting memos linked to Bin laden, let's not forget Clinton's turned down offer from Sudan to get Bin laden turned over to the Saudi government.

Again, you take it out of context. You commented on NK and Iran having WMDs and we weren't sure about Iraq. I said we were sure, which we were, from CIA and MI6 intel. Turns out, it was bad intel.

Blame the CIA and British Intel and Russian Intel, then because they got the intelligence reports. Bush and his Cabinet aren't out in the field disguised or operating sattelite imagery of the Mid East. Yeah, it's up to him to go to war, and.... you're not really connecting your dots. One-liners.... tsk tsk.


I won't even direct you to a site, since you'll make it biased. Off the top of my head, Saddam trained Hamas members, he trained Abu Abbas,Abu Nidal, he gave asylum to Al-Zarqawi ( the Al Quaida # 2 in charge guy and the man responsible for all the beheadings in IRAQ) and gave him medical treatment, let him open up a terror training camp in Iraq.

One site that covers a few of the ties is this:
Saddam-Terrorist Connections

Man... have you ever heard of Google or a library? Just look it up I'm tired of checking my sources when I type.


No sweat in that is can be done by us. UK cannot do what we can in employing huge Armies across the world, and fast. We have larger numbers and better technology, that's why we went led the Iraq war. Vietnam was totally unecessary and a huge mistake.

Alright. You obviously won't toy with the idea that Eminem and his pals aren't good for society or morals. If you think that is an insult to your beliefs, fine. I think Eminem (and his type) is a thug with no morality.... oohh, what a remorseless thing to say. I'll take TV Land morals, thanks.


If you won't talk with me anymore, fine. Let's leave it at this. Any unbiased 3rd party can come through, read our posts, and make up their own decision on who won this debate.

Is anyone else losing the will to live??

Yup. Everyone arguing just look like tits. Politics brings out the worst in people.

Oh but by the way. I always look like a tit so you're in good company.

Patrick, you're so misguided and brainwashed it's truly pathetic. I don't even have the heart to dislike you anymore, only to pity you.

What a waste of potential and intelligence.



Ah, well...you're very young and there's still time for you to open your eyes. Best of luck!

Apple

So you're basically discriminating against peoples opinions and motivations behind voting.

That doesn't sound like a good reason to institute a poll "quiz."

Cite? Also, what about Kerry's numberous votes to cut intelligence, and Clinton, hell, he had hearings and panels to eliminate weapons and such that we are using in Iraq! Torecelli Principle? Do a google search for that.

They admitted it. BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY HAVE THEM...[/facetious]


As soon as you're opinions on intelligence become less laughable.

So you want to unilaterally attack a nation because they have WMD's, instead of using diplomacy?

You're very lost. You say that's the reason we shouldn't have war in Iraq, but that's exactly what you want to do with N.Korea.

No, I'm just trying to prove your hypocritical stance on attacking N.Korea unilaterally but not Iraq, despite your basis that "N.Korea has weapons, Iraq didn't."


Well then guesstimate for me.


M'kay. What about Carter and the Shah of Iran? How about Clinton, and him letting Bin Laden go? Whoops.

Again, I said it was a black eye.


Yeah, we'd rather be legal and support a leader we'd like to see be pro-American, instead of depriving millions of Iraqis by corrupting an international aid program.

Hmm...

legit contributions...

vs...

corrupt foreign aid...

yes, we clearly are worse than the French government.


Where have you been? It's been suspected and researched since the early years of it's execution.


As I said before, we had hoped that Saddam would be a pro-American leader, or at least, neutral.

We had no influence over Kim Jung Il's succession over his father, Kim Il Sung.


If you don't have a problem, why are you complaining? If someone doesn't want to learn, we can't force them. But by that same token, we shouldn't have to support your deadbeat ass once you come of age and can't get a job because you didn't graduate from high school.

I'm talking about the people who are perpetually on welfare, with no intention of ever getting off. Genuinely unemployed people are clearly different.

Don't fuck up in the first place. I mean, we aren't talking misdemeanors, we're talking rapists, murderers; the scum of the earth.

M'kay...so explain to me how this is a Bush Administration problem...or fault...


You claim there is no more big business left in America, but the top 10 world businesses are as follows (as of 2002):

1.) Wal-Mart (U.S.): $219.8 Million
2.) Exxon Mobil (U.S.): $191.6 Million
3.) General Motors (U.S.): $177.3 Million
4.) BP (UK): $174.3 Million
5.) Ford Motor (U.S.): $162.4 Million
6.) Enron (U.S., defunct): $138.8 Million
7.) DaimlerChrysler (U.S./Germany): $136.9 Million
8.) RoyalDutch/Shell (Netherlands): $135.2 Million
9.) General Electric (U.S.): $125.9 Million
10.) Toyota Motor (JPN): $120.8 Million

*Source: "Microeconomics" 6th Ed., Boyes and Melvin.

No big business left in America, eh?

:rolleyes:

And I'm supposed to know this when you don't cite?

Oh yeah. That's right, because according to you, we can ALL RELY ON SOCIAL SECURITY...

Explain to me how people are saving if they are unemployed... :rolleyes:

Really? The China man would be in China. IN CHINA.

And I want to see more power given to the middle class, less restrictions on business in America, protection of domestic companies, and less of this welfare society we have currently lived in since the Clinton administration.

Not when I find it redundant.

I think we need a stronger penal system. The 3-strike? So explain to me how this is fair to the businesses the guy robs, especially the third?

And I'm saying, if you feel they don't have the mental capacity to serve life or be executed, then explain to me how they have the capacity to be a sociopath.

Every case is unique.

That being said, what do you say to the parents of a little girl that gets shot up by the crack dealer who just got out and is reclaiming his "territory" and she got in the way? "Oh, he desertved a second chance?"


See my above responses.


You know Russia was originally on their side, right?

The British and French were getting creamed until US involvement.

Again, you put plenty of emphasis on the Russians when the US had a much more substantial role.


So it's the bucket collecting the dripping water from the faucet, but not the wrench needed to fix it?

I hope you get the analogy.

You seem to take some smug pride, as if europe sending troops in somehow makes them better than America.

Fuck Europe.

If they actually cared, they would've acted by now.

And I'm saying the whole point of outsourcing is trade.

Get it?

w00t.

Yes. I love to see that. Look at my grandfather, WWII vet, paid into Social Security all his life, but when he came of age, and got sick, HE DIDN'T SEE A DIME.

I forgot. It's not all about yourself.

We need to work our balls off to support those who don't.

Silly me.

That's fine with me.

Again...outsourcing is bad, which we agree on. I don't think it's right that America outsources, but it's also a business evil, and not necessarily something new.

I would like to see Bush be more anti-outsourcing.

So we should just leave the country without a stable government, in a warzone militia state?

:rolleyes:

WHEN I SAY DO IT NOW, THAT MEANS 'DO IT LATER...MUCH LATER...'

So why isn't Europe, most of which not dedicating troops to Iraq/Afghanistan, send their armies to Sudan??????

DJ--Let's say that you're against the Iraq war, for abortion, for taxing the wealthy, and for stem cell research, but you vote for Kerry because you think that he's for these things and get the 2 canidates mixed up.

Why do I need a site? Yo obviously know the cut I'm talking about. Both Kerry AND Bush voted for cutting. I don't see what Kerry or Clinton have to do with this, but alright.

How do we know they don't? I'm going to take someone's word over intelligence that has proven to be wrong in the past.

Diplomacy isn't working in North Korea. When was the last time Kim Jong even wanted to speak with us? Oh yeh, June. We'd have a lot more support for a war against North Korea then the war in Iraq.

For the 30th time, I don't want us going to war with anyone, but I said, if we had to go to war with either Iran, Iraq, or North Korea, I would've picked North Korea. What part of that aren't you getting?

You think I'm a fortune teller or something? Let me look into my magic 8 ball. :rolleyes:

How about Reagan giving $3 billion to the Taliban and Bin Laden, along with CIA training to fight off the Soviets? How about Bush Sr. letting Saddam go? How many times did Bush go to Israel to meet with both Sharon and Arafat to try and make peace? Bush should be happy Arafat died. If, by some slim chance there can be peace, now's the time to do it. Let's see how long it takes Bush to realize it.

If anyone though Saddam would be pro-American, then that's there problem. I don't trust a single one of those bastards in the Middle East, let alone a dictator.

The early YEARS. My exact point. I said that in its' first few months, nothing was recognized.

Is this why we gave $3 billion to the Taliban and Bin Laden too? Were trying to make them pro-American, or is our country just so prejudice over communism, that they took terrorism instead?

We can force them until they're an adult.
There are also vo-tech schools that kids can go too.

That's why welfare needs to be more strict, as I've been saying the last few months. The government should make certain committees to look into the people who've been on welfare a long time and try to get them a job. If these committees can get them a job, but then the person loses it, then we need to decide what to do with him/her.

So if a guy rapes a girl when he's 17 and is sentenced to 25 years in prison, but serves 20, he shouldn't get another chance at age 37?

It's whoever made that God damn NCLB Act's fault. They need to appoint someone young who understands the youth.

Oh really? I remember saying that 95 % of businesses in America are small. When did I mention the other 5 %?

Explain to me why people are unemployed and you don't think the unemployed should get welfare, AND I mean ALL unemployed.

Oh, I thought he'd be in Vietnam. No crap. :rolleyes:

I want more power to the middle AND lower classes, MORE restrictions on businesses in America, lower taxes on domestic companies, and enough welfare that all people can live on.

Ok, so explain some sentences to me in these situations. What if a 19 year old kid looking for a job and getting cuts on welfare goes out and robs a store at gun point so that he can get enough money to feed him and his sister? It's his first offense.

They can be counseled years and years.

Depends if the little girl dies. Depends if he was aiming for someone else. Like you said, all cases are different.

No, they weren't. Russia was on NO ONE'S side. They signed a treaty with Germany (can't think of the name) saying that as long as Germany didn't go on their soil, Russia wouldn't get involved. Germany attacked them for their wheat and oil supplies breaking the treaty, therefore Russia joined the allies and led them to victory.

And the Americans were getting creamed by the Japanese for the first 6 months after Pearl Harbor too.

EVERY allie had a substantial role, but without Russia, the Axis Powers would've won.

Name a European military that can even compete with America's.

No wonder the world hates us. You and your side just want to spit on them. You wish not to be their friends. How would people in the UK take this? Poland?

Hmm. But I thought we had this big coalition for the Iraq war? :rolleyes:

And healthcare and medicare premiums have sky rocketed. Blaming it all on SS is idiotic.

Do you think it'll stay a democracy if we ever make it one?

Because today the UN successfully helped organize a peace deal that will go into afect as of December 31st.

Did you ever read the publication by the League of Women voters? They clearly outline these types of issues. You can pick up a copy of this at a local library or town hall, they are a nonpartisan (well...in all honesty, a smidgen liberal) organization.

Problem solved.

What do Kerry and Clinton have to do with this? They've all cut defense, but Clinton cut the defense in record numbers.


I need a big stamp that says "facetious" in bold.

Err...but diplomacy was working in Iraq, RIGHT?!?

Oh yeh. Hehe. Convenience in your arguments.

Europe wouldn't support us against N.Korea. You have no idea what european elitism and politics entails, clearly by your support for the world community.

Apparently you're not getting the idea that your argument is redundant, by being against a unilateral war and then being for another in the same context.

Good. I just wanted you to see that you clearly know less about what's going on than the President and the government.


Gee, since we weren't at war with those "nice" Soviets, we're we? And plus, the Soviets were having fun with their massacre of Afghanistan and such, why not support an anti-Soviet movement?


w00t. How many times did you boy Clinton go, and NOTHING HAPPENED. Hmm...your argument is futile.

And how long ago was that?!? Chronological negligence, and also, convience for those who profited from the corruption.


Sorry. During the Cold War, Russia WAS the terrorists.

Goodness gracious, I seriously wonder whether you get all your fodder from some liberal tightwad who teaches you basic world history at your school.


Until the age of 16, we have truency laws. But if the kid doesn't work anyways, then what?

Really? Where?

Better yet, rather than dump more money into a committee, we could STOP GIVING PEOPLE MONEY and force them to get off their asses if they've been on or no longer meet the qualifications. And reform SSI as long as we're at it.

Another chance to rape some other innocent girl?

I thought, according to you, the youth were apathetic and didn't care about their education.

Which is it Pat?

And please, refrain from taking God's name in vain. I don't tolerate blasphemy well, especially as a Catholic.

Right here...


My statistics also proved your argument wrong there, as well.


Then why did you say he'd be in the American lower-class. :rolleyes:

Haha...yeah. Restrict business, since the economy is clearly flourishing. And also...welfare for everyone?

Let's give everyone money so they don't have to work...

...but where will the money come from if nobody works...

...oh shit, we should've thought of that!

First of all, I did say, and I quote..."every case is unique."

However, up until you just specified and mentioned that case, you've left it quite ambiguous.

All costing the taxpayers millions each year...

Let's not rationalize. So if she doesn't die, or was aiming for someone else, it's okay?

Wow.

Do you have ANY concept of right or wrong?


It was called the "Nonagression Pact," for those who don't bother to open a book.


Meanwhile, Stalin was committing mass genocide across his own country as well. Maybe that's why...he was a tad busy himself with dead bodies.


w00t. Then we kicked ass at Midway, and thusly taught them a lesson thereafter.

w00t (again). Before you were saying how Russia won the entire war. Now each has a substantial role?

Again, I don't know who fed you this stuff at one point of another, but you are overemphasizing the Russian involvement to the success of the Allies efforts against the Axis powers.

So what? That means they can't send troops?

w00t! The world hates us because America is the greatest country, period. A champion of human rights and personal freedoms. The Middle East hates us because we support Israel. Europe hates us because we didn't have to go throught a bajillion revolutions to emerge as a powerful nation, and they are a bunch of elitist prats.

I don't care about Europe. Like I've said before, I'd like to see a move back to some isolationism.

Yeah! And what are the NONCOALITION countries doing? Playing with their dicks?


Yeah...I forgot. You think Social Security is a perfect system.

You're history teacher is bloody amazing.

If nothing else, this proves you didn't read my statement in the now notorious other thread. Try reading it, and then get back to me.

w00t.

Who will enforce it, ideologue?

Regards,
Double-J

I have to intervein here... Russia was allied with Germany, and they invaded Poland from the East while Germany invaded Poland from the West. Then later Hitler ordered Operation Barbarossa and invaded Russia.

France was completely conquered, and Britain was getting creamed. But no, the Americans were not getting creamed for the first 6 months after Pearl Harbor. The PH attack crippled most of our Pacific defenses, but the US quickly went on the offensive. If anything, it was a stalemate until Midway. The War in Europe started in 1939, and the US didn't go in until 1942. The Germans were creaming the British and already bombed the hell out of London. It was only a matter of time before a ground invasion.

Seriosuly, research WWII. I know this subject better than anything; without Russia, the US and Britain would have defeated the Axis Powers. Without the US, there would have been NO Western offensive. Without the US, Russia and Britain wouldn't have defeated the Axis Powers.

Yeh, EVERY SINGLE American will do that. :rolleyes:

If you want to talk record numbers, let's talk about how Clinton slashed the deficit in HALF, while Bush has the highest one ever.

It's working in Iran and North Korea though, right?

And you have no idea about what could happen with the future of our country if you want it handled the way you do.

It's not the same context.

Of course I know less than the government, but saying I know less then the President is stretching it.

Hey, while we're at it, lets give money to the Palestinian terrorists in Israel too!

Clinton's presidency and his numerous visits preety much made peace in Israel until 1996. In 1996, Israel's prime minister at the time did something as some sort of Palestinian church. I can't think of what it was. My UN Club teacher was telling us about it Tuesday.

This is where we don't see eye to eye. A communist isn't a terrorist, IMO. Fidel Castro isn't a terrorist. The NVA and Ho Chi Minh weren't terrorists. Enemies? Yes. Communists? Yes. Terrorists? No.

Then they'll obviously go on welfare.

Yes.

Look at all of the committees FDR made during the Depression and WW II.

Or another chance of life.

Where did I say that ALL of the youth are lazy? Also, appointing someone young doesn't mean a teenager. People in their early or late 20's are young.

I said there are BARELY ANY. I didn't say there weren't any! And compared to small businesses, there are BARELY ANY big businesses! (95% to 5%)

I didn't say the AMERICAN lower class. I said he'd be part of THE lower class!

A flourishing economy means that we're in a prosperity stage. Are you nuts?

All the people on welfare deserve to get money if they try to get a job. The government should have more restrictions on who gets it, but they DON'T. I don't see George attemping to fix that.

Which is why taxes need to be raised.

Show me where I said it was ok. Show me. Thanks. I didn't say it was ok, so don't say I did and stop saying that I said things I didn't. If she doesn't die, then it's obviously not murder or homicide.

Do you have any concept of listening to the other side. Seems like you have Hannity syndrome.

Genocide. Do you really want to go there?

Answer my question.

Personal freedoms? What about the freedom for two men or two women to get married? Europe hates us because we're in Iraq.

Where did I say it was a perfect system? Just because I like it the way it is now, doesn't mean I think it's perfect. I don't have history this year. I have World Cultures.


Answer my question.

The UN and Sudan, baby. -Pat

They have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. Whether they vote utilizing this free service of information, or research their issues, is their own business.

The issues you mentioned above...the people you claim to want to "restrict," tend to vote democrat. Democrats are marked for their feelings that everyone should vote.

Yet you feel that rather than exercising free will, there should be some arbitrary quiz or regulation to test 'intelligence' on the issues to validate their constitutional rights?

I don't understand how anyone thinking logically can take your argument seriously. And I'm not saying that as a conservative - I'm saying that as an American citizen.


No, I don't want to talk numbers - you know why? Because you clearly don't want to discuss the issue. Stop running around Clinton's record defense cuts.

And what's your point? We're at war...and btw...guess when the second highest deficit was? Oops! 1994-5, during Clintons administration! And he wasn't at war...whoops. (My source is again, Microeconomics 6t Ed. Boyes and Melvin. If you want, I'll post their diagram as well).

Is it? You tell me? You're the one who is against the Iraq war, but thinks diplomacy won't work in N.Korea, and Iran, who knows.

I beg to differ. And I bet a whole bunch of people here agree with me...and not just conservatives or liberals. What I have argued in this thread is not partisan - it's common sense.


How do you figure?

War with Iraq (Cause: WMD's, Genocide)
War with N.Korea (Cause: WMD's)
War with Iran (Cause: WMD's)

So explain to me how this is in a different context? Because according to your argument, you want to wage unilateral war against one country arbitrarily, but find it completely wrong to do it for the same reasons in another.

And here's a reality check -

- The President is a Yale graduate (history, actually...my kind of guy ).

I sincerely doubt, regardless of any linguistic conundrums he might have (he's clearly not the most eloquent speaker in the world), he is much more knowledgeble than you.

Hey! Rather than try and refute my argument, just concede, since you apparently can't. Otherwise you'd actually try to respond.

M'kay?

"Peace" is an overstatement. These two countries have been warring since the inception of the state of Israel in 1948 (enacted in '49), and they are using religion to back their land rights for the holy land. Their should be a safe Israeli land, and a safe Palestinian homeland.

Oh, and here is some information on Clinton...

From the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993 until September 2000, when the Camp David summit came to naught, about 256 Israelis -- civilians and soldiers alike -- were killed by Palestinian violence. Bill Clinton was in office during those years...Between Sept. 29, 2000, and September 2004 -- four, not eight, years -- 1,026 Israelis were killed by Palestinians...those years correspond to the second intifada, which erupted after the collapse of the Clinton-inspired peace talks...The second intifada was not caused by Bush, and Clinton's critics are right in saying that for too long Washington was much too nice to Yasser Arafat. In fact, Clinton's own Middle East negotiator, Dennis Ross, writes in his book, "The Missing Peace," that "President Bush and those around him were right to believe that we had indulged Arafat too much."

Source: The Washington Post, Tuesday, October 26, 2004; Page A25.

Israel-Palestine Relations Since Clinton Inauguration

Israel-Palestine "peace" hasn't been the same since the second intifada, which has nothing to do with Bush.

Mmm, okay, I was using terrorists to compare to our current situation in Iraq.

And I don't associate communists with terrorism, or necessarily anything negative. But the problem is inherently most people are to stupid to understand the philosophy behind the system itself, and rather, it's cool to either make fun of or support communist doctrines.

However, it is somewhat interesting that you can't really find a "good" communist out of the whole bunch...Hitler (totalitarian)...Stalin...Mussolini (fascism)...Castro...et al.

And that's a problem with the system. Welfare should be reserved for people in actual need...i.e., unwed mothers who can't afford day care in order to earn a living. That would be an instance where I would support welfare.

And now the second part of my question...where?

Yeah...what's your point? That WWII and FDR helped put people back to work? Okay. That's historically accurate.

But in doing so, he also created long-term issues over the role of social programs such as welfare, the essentially defunct social security system, and medicare/medicaid.

Yeah...forgive me for being a bit of a pessimist. I think, in all honestly, maybe rapists should be castrated. That would solve the problem real quick, eh?

[/politically_incorrect]

Hmm...I didn't say all. I was generally referring to youth, in general. You said most. Here's your quote though, to refresh your memory:

Well then you should've compared it to small businesses in the first place, but either way, you should classify the difference between a "small" business and "big" business. Also, you do realize that the reason for small business growth and excessively high numbers is because of the ease of start up? And also, that 90% of businesses fail within the first fiscal year?

THE LOWER CLASS OF WHAT?!?!? EAST JUHUNGA?!?!

Again, I'm going to need a big [/sarcasm] sticker to help you out, Pat.

It's called "unemployment," which are monies you can collect whilst unemployed but actively searching for a job, and it's a totally different thing.

Hmm...he wants medicaid reforms...it's clear he hasn't taken a blind eye to these corrupt systems...

but maybe he can't because democrats love their social programs, regardless of their corruption. I remeber a quote by a senator a few years ago that said "we refuse to reform medicare because it will hurt the receipients thereof."

Wow. You really are economically challenged, aren't you?

Please open an economics textbook before you come back, if you want to be taken seriously. Because it's illogical...and economically impossible - to spur fiscal growth if taxes are raised - because it lowers private sector revenue, and increases government revenue...


Ohh! Wow! So despite the fact that he was convicted on drugs before, gets "reformed," but ends up shooting a little girl...as long as she doesn't die...it's not a murder or homicide...so he's reformed?

Last time I checked - it would be felonious assault with a deadly weapon. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I do. Ask Plaw. Ask DonsAdvisor. But your argument is clearly warped and not in touch with reality, so of course I'm going to hammer your argument as if it were a hot chick. (that's for Partagas) :p

Do you think arguing is going to even help your argument? Sure. Let's see what your history teacher taught you today.

Done.

Gay marriage is now a personal freedom? Since when? Last time I checked, a majority of Americans feel it is wrong, and it should be banned. Religiously, and evolutionarily (there is not logic behind homosexuality - it would end procreation and the race would die out) wrong.

And if you think Iraq is why Europe hates us? I need to talk to your "history" teacher, because he's feeding you a load of crap. Please open a good history textbook - preferably one American, say, post civil war, and Europe circa WWI. Then come back to the table.


You dedicated an entire Pat's Thoughts (sorry, I find that statement kind of redundant in this case :p ) on how Social Security is fine as it is.

And World Cultures? Okay. Your world cultures "teacher" needs to get in touch with reality.

I don't have to. My thoughts were, and still are, clearly outlined in my previous statement, as I've said for the last week and a half.

Haha! Yeah...the same way they've enforced Israeli-Palestinian peace, stopped African genocide, corrupted aid programs, and wavered to the European agenda.

I really trust them. (HERE...BIG SARCASM HERE)

Ok, what I've gathered from Pat's increasingly irrational posts is this:

1. The U.S. must begin using literacy tests to ensure the "proper" people begin voting again. Nevermind that this was one of the myriad methods used in the segregated south before the civil rights movement to suppress the black vote, we should start doing it again!

2. Going to war in Iraq when we had evidence of WMD from numerous countries was a bad idea. Going to war in North Korea when we have evidence from numerous countries that they have WMD is a good idea. We should also attack the Sudan to stop the genocide currently occurring there, even though they present no imminent threat to us. Err wait a second here, isn't one of your main arguments against Iraq that they weren't an imminent threat to the U.S.? I guess when you are a liberal its ok to take both sides of an issue, as long as you're attacking George Dubya!

3. People are unemployed because there are greedy, oppressive rich people, and because George Bush is in office. To fix the economy, we should raise taxes and give more money to poor people who don't work and produce nothing for the economy. Wait, isn't wealth redistribution also known as socialism? When has that ever led to a successful economy? You also think that the president is somehow responsible for "outsourcing". Quote "I'm referring to American jobs that the President takes away, sends overseas, hires a foreigner, and then pays them 25 % of what the American worker would get here." Yes Pat, the President has control over who companies choose to give jobs to. Aren't you were taking an economics course?

4. The president has control over all aspects of the U.S. government. He controls intelligence gathering, he votes on laws passed in congress, in fact he probably controls the weather! How does a man that is so stupid manage to control all of this? That's the liberal paradox I suppose. Everyone in the republican party is stupid, yet they control everything and cheat the democrats out of power.

Well, there are Pat's views in a nutshell. Do they make sense to anyone else?

I think the following image sums up the argument nicely:

Reagan - January 1981 - Federal deficit was $79 billion and the debt was $905.5 billion, or 34 % of the GDP. By 1988, the deficit was $152.5 billion and the debt was $2.6 trillion, or 54 % of the GDP. When Bush Sr. was leaving office in 1992, the deficit was $255.1 billion and a debt of $4.1 trillion, or 67 % of the GDP. God, I love Alan Colmes.

Diplomacy won't work anywhere unless we have the support of the world and our citizens, which we clearly don't (for Iraq).

No shit. :rolleyes:

No, it's partisan. This common sense you refer to is your opinion. Not everyone agrees with it, trust me.

Because America would've supported going into North Korea over Iraq. Kim Jong made the news even before 9/11. I had never seen Saddam make prime time until Bush said he had WMDs, which was a lie. A war cannot be won without public support.

Do you really want to talk about Bush's knowledge?

He entered Yale in 1964 with a SAT of 1206 (Verbal 566, Math 640), 200 points below Yale's average freshman in 1970.

He graduated Yale in 1968 with a 2.35 GPA

In the fall of 1970, he was rejected from admission at University of Texas Law School.

In 1973, he applied to Harvard Business School with a 2.35 GPA. 1973 admission statistics are unavailable, but for an incomplete comparison: today's Harvard students average a GPA of 3.5 - no students were accepted with a GPA lower than 2.6.

You're the last person on here who can talk about refuting comments.

That's great, but I never blamed Bush. I just said he hasn't made as many efforts to try and make peace in Israel like Clinton did.

Ho Chi Minh. I don't think you can consider Hitler or Mussolini parts of communism either. Both loathed communism.

Amen. That's why I said the government should make a committee to decide who deserves to get welfare and who doesn't really need/deserve it.

http://www.thegodfathertrilogy.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=005413

The Medicare/Medicaid problem can be blamed solely on Bush. Social Security needs to be a tad edited, but doesn't need to be reformed like Bush wants it to be. Make a committee to monitor welfare is the only way to make sure that the people who need it get it and the people who don't need it don't.

They shouldn't be put in prison for life.

Small business is 100 workers or less. Big business is 1000 workers or more.

50 %

If we're talking about someone IN China getting an American job with payments that are 25 % of what an American would make, what lower class would I be talking about?

And those that are on unemployment are also eligible to welfare. Do you think a guy trying to support his wife and 4 kids on just unemployment will make it?

Bush has the Senate and House. All the power is in his hands.

Wow, your insults are growing tiresome. Enough is enough.

And government revenue needs to be increased. This economy is flourishing right now, according to you. I think we can afford a couple months of taxes.

You answered your own question. No one is going to be sent to prison for life for assault with a deadly weapon. It might even be better to keep him out of prison, but have him in some sort of counseling jail. There he will be off the streets and able to be rehabiliated. Also, you said that this guy who shot the girl is coming out of prison and then he shoots her. Prison doesn't do anything. It just makes a person worse.

Yes, sorry my opinion is different. :rolleyes:

The genocide in Iraq doesn't even compare to that of which has been happening in Sudan for the last 21 years. For the second time, I don't have history class.

Owned.

Last I checked, two women or two men getting married didn't affect someone else's life. It isn't hazardous to anyone else's health. It's their CHOICE, not yours.

For the 3rd time, I don't have history.

No, I didn't.

We're learning about the Axum, Egyptian, and Kush empires. I don't see what that or he has to do with American Cultures. I haven't had that since last year.

Peace begins December 31st. -Pat

It will get easier for you, DJ. -Pat

Pat you can't say that. You can only say YOU would've supported it.

1.) I said the US should have quizzes on canidates, so the voters know more about them.

2.) I don't want to go to war with ANY country. I said that if I had to pick between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, it would've been North Korea. What do you mean I want to attack Sudan? I want our forces to HELP Sudan. I could careless about Bush's view on Sudan. The only Senator I heard bring it up was Kerry. I've heard no one else.

3.) The President IS responsible for outsourcing. He can push to pass acts in congress for either MORE or LESS outsourcing and either increasing OR decreasing tariffs on American businesses that ship jobs overseas.

4.) I find your ignorance amazing. You're the only one in this thread who has to talk about one person being a liberal and one a conservative. Even DJ and I haven't said anything about that. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal or conservative, a Democrat or Republican, everyone has a different opinion on everything and you seem to be one of the lone riders in this thread who refuses to read what they don't want to see or face. -Pat

Yet that says nothing about Clinton's second-highest defecit...which was almost $300 billion.

Thanks for the revelation! So now we need the international community?

How did we get so far without Europe?

I don't trust you. Baggins summed your argument up nicely, and frankly, it strikes a cord of redundancy. It's not common sense - you've amalgamated issues that would not make America a better place - raising taxes, arbitrarily removing the right to vote, etc.

Really?!? And where do you get this from?

Those peace protesters seem pretty vehement that they oppose war, in general. Not only that, it would be another unilateral war - your eternal contradiction.


Really? Gulf War, anyone?

And w/o public support? What about World War I, when Wilson was re-elected on the principle that he would keep us out of "Europe's War?"


Please, as I have done, cite from a refutable source.


Really? I, and apparently from the PM's I receive, alot of other people, seem to think I'm doing a fine job, thanks. Though constructive criticism is always welcome.


Gee, since he hasn't been busy with the worst terrorist attack on our soil in our nations history and a two front war.

Maybe if all you do is get blowjobs from interns all day, you can jet whenever you like.

Yet their economic principles with regards to the way they ran the government echo that of Marxist ideology. So they can "loath" whatever they want - their systems are extensions of the original communist doctrine.

Good. Maybe we're getting somewhere.

Really? I guess if you ignore trends, you can make those arguments. But if you'd have been paying attention, Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare and Social Security have been problems for decades. Not "blames soley on Bush," which would be quite convenient for your argument, if you were arguing with someone who didn't know what they were talking about (fortunately for you, you have a spectacular debate partner ).

Again, as I think the majority of people have stressed, you have a blind faith in the Social Security system that has all but received it's death knell (which will come in a few years with the continued aging of the Baby Boomers).

And why do we need all these committees? Get the fucking congressman and senators in there, and fix it! No wonders nothing gets done - bueracracy at it's finest.

Maybe not. Maybe so. If someone raped your daughter, how would you feel about it?

Now we're getting somewhere.

For the first fiscal year.

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first year and 95% fail within the first five years.

Source: Business.gov

Your original statement was ambigous. "He would be a part of the lower class." Well what lower class are we talking about?

Generalizations kill debates, you know.


There are special allowances for # of dependants and such, so someone with 4 kids would get more than someone who is single.

And if he is actively pursuing employment? Yes, he will make it.

w00t. I guess John Kerry and Ted Kennedy can take their collective ball and go home, and we can stop paying their salaries, cause the world is going to end; there's no point. :rolleyes:

It's not an insult. Anyone who has any basic knowledge of economics can see you don't understand how the system works.

My comment on the "flourishing" economy was facetious, as I've said about twice now - because you said we should have more business regulation.

It is economically stupid to burden businesses in an economy such as ours in it's current status.

Again, for Christmas, someone get me a big rubber stamp that says "Sarcasm" or "Facetious: For Those Who Don't Get It" and an ink pad.

My point is that clearly, with your ideology of the penal system, offenders shouldn't even be punished. You apparently feel that, regardless of the crime (except for murder), regardless of how henious or destructive, there should be rehab and no prison.

And I clearly disagree. Where is the motivation to NOT commit a crime? "Oh man, homes, we'd better not do that - they'll give us 6 months in rehab for sure!" I see alot of dealers quivering in their boots.

Again, as Apple said, you're still young. Maybe once you get out in the real world, become a serious taxpayer, and see how Social Security really works, you'll change your tune.

Okay. Whatever class it is, it's clearly out of touch. And now we're comparing genocide? Well, maybe Saddam's genocide is NICER than Sudanian genocide. Right...

It's 0wn3d, or pwn3d, y0u 1@m3r.


Really? Whatever happens if some gay guy gives blood, and it has HIV? And it gets through the filters (as it has in the past). And you get it. How are you going to feel.

[/politically_incorrect]

It's like the abortion argument. Society would rather ignore a morally wrong act because of convenience, and call it a "right," while ignoring the rights of others.

You just said in this last post it needs to be fixed a tad...or fine tuned, I believe. Wait, here it is:

Yeah.

That's a shame then, because whoever did teach you clearly left their mark.

And btw - if you would like to research more into the middle east, I recommend looking into the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires.


Yeah. I'm sure the people suffering between now and then are going to be rejoicing in the streets tonight. :rolleyes:

Do you think this is hard? It's very theraputic for me, actually. I enjoy it quite much. And I've come up against much tougher characters in real-life debates than you, so this is like a practice session.

Regards,
Double-J

I see that patrick, & Double J are still going at it.

Way to go Double J.

So you advocate sending our troops into Sudan?


Didn't you oppose sending our troops into Sudan before in this comment:

?

Another interesting contradiction...although he did say that he didn't want to start war with anyone...I do find in unusual that on one hand he doesn't want to send troops but only money with Sudan, but wants to wage unilateral war against North Korea...immediately, but not right now.

Clinton cut the deficit in HALF.

We haven't gotten anywhere without Europe.

For the 4th time (hopefully you'll get it this time), I don't want war with ANYONE. I said that if our President HAD to go to war with either Iraq, North Korea, or Iran, I would've supported one for North Korea over Iraq or Iran.

My point exactly. Why does it take 2 wars to accomplish a 'goal?'

The public support theory was created during the main war of protest, Vietnam.

How in the hell am I supposed to know or make up any of those numbers?
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/10/new_york_times_endorses_john_kerry.php

Raise your hand, wait for me to call on you, and say, "Pat, do you care?"

If you really want to call Afghanistan a war, ok. FDR dealt with Pearl Harbor. I think fighting off Japan, Nazi-Germany, and Italy is a lot harder then fighting Iraq and a couple of terrorists in Afghanistan. Maybe Bush should send some more troops into Afghanistan, since only 11,000 remain. Afghanistan's heroin supply is now at RECORD numbers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60584-2004Nov18.html

No, no, wait a minute. You didn't even mention just the economy in your first post about it. You said they communists, I have to disagree. Mussolini blamed Italy's problems on communism and Hitler blamed Germany's problems on Jews and communism.

Is it his first offense? What are the conditions? Just for your info, even if someone in my family was killed by someone on purpose, I wouldn't want them killed. I'd want them to go to prison for life with no chance of parole.

..which is what I said.

Ok..I was complimenting Bush there. I don't see the need for that comment.

Just like my comment on the classes.

Yes sir.

Do you think that prisons or jails have no rehab?

One more insult and this discussion is over.

Are you one of those people who believe that gays started the HIV virus? The same thing could happen with a hetero sexual.

A fetus and embryo don't have a right. The woman carrying it does has the right.

You said I made a volume on it, and I said, "No, I didn't." -Pat

I said if I had to pick between Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, then I would've picked to go to war with them. What part of that aren't you getting?

says YOU. debating abortion is a waste of time. The debate is not whether its right to kill the baby, the debate is really when does life begin. which is something that really can not be debated.

Pat says a fetus and embryo arent a baby
I say it is

now where do you go? lol

I'm ignoring a lot of rhetoirc, but I want to reply to a few things.

There's a big difference. Terrorists today are a lot larger in their numbers, they blend into society, they aren't an actual nation or army or anything, like the Axis Powers, anmd they have all sorts of deadly weapons to work with, and urban warfare. A couple of terrorists in Afhganistan????? What the hell? A couple? A terrorist nation, and formerly the largest terrorist-harboring nation in the world? Yeah, I'd say there were a couple times a few million.

Jesus. I'm sure people who are going to commit murder are very scared of that rough rehab program they'll have to go through.... what a great way to prevent murders. And not even prison?? You know, people who commit crimes like murder, rape, or severe drug crimes, cannot be rehabilited. It's a foolish and ignorant thing to think that people aren't really sentient and alive, and that they're shell so to speak can be changed. People will always be who they are, a murderer is a murderer and is evil and scum and should be put down.

Who cares? They're in prison! Your point is moot.

But now you're going against probability and logic... is doesn't matter to be politically correct if it will save lives. Compare percentage rates with HIV among straights and gays.

An embryo doesn't, but a fetus does. What's the difference between a baby who's out and a baby whos' in? Maybe instead of getting knocked up the woman should have though about it more so some baby doesn't have to be killed.

What's your point? He still has the 2nd-highest on record...if GW cuts the defecit in half, I'm sure you'd still be like "h3 iz t3h sux0rs!"



Really? Then why didn't you say that the first time?


Hmm...well, we did have two "War To End All Wars," I guess we just don't learn. :rolleyes:

The "public support theory" or whatever they have decided to call it could be legitimately traced, as far as U.S. history, to the American Revolution.

Yes...it's so hard to make up numbers???

And the NY Times? Again, I suggest a non-biased source - for that matter, most newspapers were liberal biased anyways.

?

Less rhetoric, please.


So now you're going to compare the difficulty of each war, as well as some hypothetical Presidential strife?

That's a joke, I hope.

FDR had it easy compared to Lincoln.

This argument of yours, constant comparisons to FDR, is irrelevant and pointless.


So what? The fundamental principles of each derive, however loosely, from Marxist ideals, regardless.


Wait?!? Couldn't they be REFORMED?!?!

Right, but you also mentioned something about my statistic, which is also correct.

It didn't seem like one - I was anticipating another reciting of Bush's failures to unite the nation.

No it wasn't...unless you have no idea what the word means.


Oh goody.

What, are we going to talk about GRID now?

I guess you didn't see, or chose to ignore, the [/politically_incorrect] stamp.

Blasphemy. Absolute arrogant blasphemy.

I wonder how you would have liked to been aborted?

The woman carrying it, as well as the father, are not the living being inside the womb. The baby has rights, and as I've said before, if it didn't, why is it a double-homicide when a pregnant woman is killed? The Laci Peterson case, for example.

Anyone who uses your argument in this instace is using an argument of pure convenience to rationalize their advocation and support for murder and infanticide.

Keep telling yourself it's okay to kill, Pat. Maybe someday you'll get a wake-up call.

Huh? Okay then. I must have been imagining things.

Irregardless, you did make the statement about fixing it a "tad."

Do you have to keep repeating yourself to prove your point? It's not going to make it correct, regardless of whether you post it 1000 times.

---

Forum rules prohibit me from saying how I truly feel about abortionists like you, Pat. But trust me - and this comes from a sinner - I sincerely doubt the Lord shall have mercy on those who harm his little ones.

Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil." - Romans 13:4

Regards,
Double-J

No, I'd complimtent him for it.

Obviously all wars have protests, but the most protesting ever was during Vietnam, and more and more people have protested wars since then.

Ok--look, a newspaper isn't going to lie about numbers like that. Whether they are liberal or not, which I agree, they are, they still published it with sources. I could understand if I got it off of alfranken.com or something, but those numbers are legit.

And I never said he didn't. I never said anything about Lincoln.

Then how come a hawk's only defense when people say that Saddam wasn't part of 9/11 is, "Hey, Iraq is the right war. Hitler didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor either." Comparing FDR and Bush is completely relevant.

Communism is on the complete opposite site of fascism on the political spectrum.

No, as I said, all people who committ murder should be locked up.

I don't know. Can you tell me how other people who have been aborted feel? :p

That is a very good point (seriously).

I didn't say it was ok to kill. I never said abortions were the right thing to do. I said I support a woman's right to choose what she wants to do. If I ever got a girl pregnant, but she wanted an abortion, I'd try to talk her out of it, but in the end, it's her decision.

And it does need to be a bit edited.

Now I'm an abortionist? I support a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. It's her choice, not mine. -Pat

Forgive my skepticism.

Right. That's fine. But people need to realize what's happening around them - being an ideologue and wishing for world peace versus compassionate realism.

If that's true, then why are their corrections pages in every issue?

Right, but you're comparing Bush to FDR...

You just bashed your own argument...

Regardless, core ideals are similar.

But what if he didn't kill your family member? :rolleyes:

I find your humour, in this situation, rather atrocious. Though you have noosed yourself nicely; admitting that an abortion kills "people."

The core fault of your argument.

It needs a major overhaul.

You are just as guilty as those who do nothing to stop a crime they are witnessing, especially because of your support. The blood is on the hands of everyone who believes in this procedure.

Regards,
Double-J

I'm comparing Bush to FDR AND I'm comparing World War II to Iraq and the events that lead up to both.

No, I didn't. Answer my question.

The only similiar ideal between fascism and communism is that all political decisions are made by one leader.

Then, if he had a long record, he should get 20 years. If it's his first offense, then he could be reformed.

You asked me how I would've felt if I was aborted. How am I supposed to know? Honestly. An abortion eliminates an embryo or fetus, which ISN'T a person.

No, it's not.

It needs to be a tad bit edited.

As I said, I don't support abortion. I support a woman's right to choose. -Pat