Most people seems to be voting Obama, the minority seem to think he's a terrorist either because of his skin colour or because his name sounds like Osama *sigh*
... I decidedly do not like either candidate. (I, however, dislike Obama more than McCain. He makes my stomach sick. ) However, I do not intend to return to this topic, because then I'll get frustrated.
A lot of Americans we spoke to on holiday didn't want to vote I only want Obama to win because I saw him in a car (lol), but Sarah Palin is hot for a middle aged woman, it has to be said
Originally Posted by Canto Most people seems to be voting Obama, the minority seem to think he's a terrorist either because of his skin colour or because his name sounds like Osama *sigh*
Yeah, Obama all the way.
Yeah the worst was that lady at a Mccain rally who said "I heard he's arab", not even that he's a terrorist. . . apparently being arab automatically makes you want to destroy america
Originally Posted by Pixelthief no i mean the fact obamas favored like 5:1 right now
And I hope it stays that way. I mean isn't the McCain camp all for book burning and crappy foreign policy, and basically boiling it down to another 4 years of Bush-like madness? See we don't get half the news relating to the US elections but from what I've gathered Obama is pretty much a way forward for the US and McCain is what you have now. Any US folk care to clarify?
Dustin Gunn Gnarly Tubular Way Cool Awesome Groovy Mondo
Registered 15/12/2004
Points 2659
13th October, 2008 at 02:30:24 -
Originally Posted by Pixelthief no i mean the fact obamas favored like 5:1 right now
he's winning by 6% in the polls so not really. Sarah Palin is an idiot and had her email account "hacked" because her secret question was what highschool she went to.
Lol, I remember the last time when everyone said "Don't vote for Bush!" Even Hayo said it. Guess what? George W. Bush won that year. Probably because people like doing things that nobody else would do
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I thought a topic like this would be dangerous but you guys don't seem to fight about it
Hey guys, if you need a spritist or someone to create anything about art:
-Logos
-Cut-scenes
-Sprites
and all sort of other things, then just send me an email or PM me!
Originally Posted by Pixelthief no i mean the fact obamas favored like 5:1 right now
And I hope it stays that way. I mean isn't the McCain camp all for book burning and crappy foreign policy, and basically boiling it down to another 4 years of Bush-like madness? See we don't get half the news relating to the US elections but from what I've gathered Obama is pretty much a way forward for the US and McCain is what you have now. Any US folk care to clarify?
Basically, McCain is Bush v2, same crap just 10 years older and with a hot running mate. Obama is more like Kennedy, young, fresh blood right when we need it, and sadly I suspect he's going to be assassinated sooner or later just like jkf.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Well uh... People are falling for Obama because he's charismatic, in the same way that Hitler was charismatic. We really know nothing about the guy, besides he used to have a drug addiction and resides in Chicago. Sure McCain is like Bush, but Bush was only a bad WAR TIME president. He would have been great for peace time. The war is almost over so McCain should be fine. Plus he has lots of heart trouble and such, so Palin is most likely going to end up president if McCain is elected, besides the fact it would be cool to have an attractive president, I support Palin because she has not been in jerk off washington very much. So Palin will support the small guy more than anyone I beleive.
I think its stupid how instead of talking about what they plan on doing for America most Americans I've heard talking about the presidential candidates have just been spreading rumours and name-calling their opponents. The world is plummeting into the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression, the War of Terror and Terrorist acts are splitting the world in half, and all I've heard the Republicans saying is Obama is an arab, a terrorist, and an associate of corrupt politicians.
I haven't heard anything about Sarah Palin's views apart from she likes hockey, but the Republicans pulling out the female VP card reeks of desperation, and trying to counteract Hilary. I'd suggest that the campaign should be more about the issues, but it seems that most American voters don't CARE about the issues and just care about the candidates ability to pay out his opponent.
I don't mean to insult anyone but that's how I'm feeling about this election.
SUMMARY: Go Obama, McCain may think you're a terrorist but you'd still be a better Prez than him if you are.
I usually tend to ignore these things and vote for the better candidate, but lord knows the republicans over here lost all chances with me after the RNC in my city; I was one of the peaceful protesters out in front of the capitol building, getting tear gassed by the admirable Mr. Riot Gear and his cronies. Politics are awful enough, but when it gets to the point where theres government snipers on top of your rooftops and questionably homoerotic man-chains of riot police blocking off the roads, its going too far. I don't know any Minnesotans who took kindly to having a bunch of out of state police tussle with us, just to appease some out of state republican drunkards. Not that the old fart ever had a chance here this year anyway.
rofl this is what McCain said about Obama in an interview for cnn I just read:
"It's not that I give a damn about some old washed-up terrorist and his terrorist wife, who in 2001 said they wish they'd bombed more."
I'm just speechless, how did he managed to win the primaries ?
His campaign strategy is mostly about making everybody think he's running against saddam hussein, which can only mean one of these things:
He's either stupid, or he thinks the american people is stupid.
We'll see the answer in 20 days, I just hope I don't get surprised.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Well uh... People are falling for Obama because he's charismatic, in the same way that Hitler was charismatic. We really know nothing about the guy, besides he used to have a drug addiction and resides in Chicago. Sure McCain is like Bush, but Bush was only a bad WAR TIME president. He would have been great for peace time. The war is almost over so McCain should be fine. Plus he has lots of heart trouble and such, so Palin is most likely going to end up president if McCain is elected, besides the fact it would be cool to have an attractive president, I support Palin because she has not been in jerk off washington very much. So Palin will support the small guy more than anyone I beleive.
We only know that McCain is an old fart with incredible anger issues, who consistantly voted for Bush acts in the Senate and lies in debate. Bush was an awful PEACE TIME president too. Aside from the favoring of the wealthy and unconstitutional intrusion of privacy, he started the war itself on false terms. Arguing that he would've been a good president is, I hope you don't mind me reusing this, like saying that Hitler would have been a good leader if only given a little more time.
If you want a president that will support the small guy, why would you be against Obama? His policies emphasize the middle class, in fact strengthening the middle class is his primary goal as president. If you want a president who hasn't been a jerk off in washington, why don't you vote for me?
If you do not know the candidates plans for America by now then you have not been paying attention to either one of their campaigns.
Democracy runs best with a small government. You want the people to run almost everything themselves and the government to watch over it. At this point the government is big, and has taken it upon themselves to bail out major companies who have broken the law, while in the process breaking some laws to do so. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were originally created by Clinton. The government was not regulating the market and allowed these frauds to happen. Then they bail them out by using hard earn tax payers money. Leaving us to worry with problems of inflation.
Now think about this, why do we not see anyone facing trial and being held accountable? Hmm
What SHOULD have been done was the government loan these companies money with high interest rates instead of just giving them the money. That way they would save the companies as well as gain a profit in doing so. Another problem is wasteful spending. The country is in debt and the government is not helping this matter.
Some people would have you believe that it's the Bush administrations fault for everything when he actually warned us that this would happen in 2003. In fact this all began when the Democrats gained over the House. In my opinion, if Bush was not unpopular this election would not even be close.
Well, I guess you could say Obama supports the small guy in some ways. But in different ways. He wants to be puttig extra largetaxes on supposebly 'rich people', personally I have nothing to much wrong with taxing Bill Gates for a lot of money, but it's not just them type of people. The tax is based on Gross income if it's over $250,00, not the total income(after paying everything off and such). So it can actually effect local and small businesses. Say this guy owns a plumbing business, he has a lot of employees and gets a humongous gross income. But then by the time he pays wages for all of his employees, he only gets $40,000 left for himself. Just because he has a large gross income doesn't mean he has a large income. Or let's say a farmer, does good on crops and cattle one year, gets a huge gross amount of money, but he still has to pay for the fertilizer and hay and diesel, and there's barely any money left. He gets payed as much as a normal person in the end, so why should he get taxed for extra money?
I'd for a chimp in a business suit if it had a surefire plan to fix the economy right now. And frankly its the entire republican executive that got us all into this on a global scale, and the last people to get us into a period of growth were the democrats. People vest too much into the figureheads, they need to remember that they are electing an entire machine. Even if McCain was FDR reincarnate, his buddies and advisors would have us setting up McCainville and riding the rails and standing in lines for soup, and given our economic centricy that wouldn't be restricted to just the USA.
course things might already be bad enough down the drain that a year from now I'll be living in an Obamatown, but at least it would get better after it got worse
"And I hope it stays that way. I mean isn't the McCain camp all for book burning and crappy foreign policy, and basically boiling it down to another 4 years of Bush-like madness? See we don't get half the news relating to the US elections but from what I've gathered Obama is pretty much a way forward for the US and McCain is what you have now. Any US folk care to clarify?"
Now as you can see this is a prime example of pure deception.
"he's winning by 6% in the polls so not really. Sarah Palin is an idiot and had her email account "hacked" because her secret question was what highschool she went to."
Yeah, Palin's the idiot. Not the guy who hacked her email to find dirt on her, by the way he never did, and will face time behind bars.
"in the final, every president turn out to be an idiot. all of them are doing so...even Bush. "
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan...
Must I go on?
"It's not that I give a damn about some old washed-up terrorist and his terrorist wife, who in 2001 said they wish they'd bombed more."
That remark was about Bill Ayers, a man who participated in a series of bombings. This is a perfect example of taking something out of context.
"We only know that McCain is an old fart with incredible anger issues."
I'm sorry but this remark is on the same level as saying Obama is black. It is completely irrelevant and I would hope as a society we could move on from this type of thinking.
Wiiman, I completely agree with everything you said. That is exactly why I do not back Obama's tax plans. We have a 35% tax rate on companies, the second highest in the world, 50% of those companies are small businesses. John McCain wants to lower those taxes and create more jobs. Obama's plan is to distribute the wealth. The problem is that your taking away someone's hard earned money and giving it to someone who does less work. Your giving your money away for Obama to decide how to use it. McCain wants you to decide that. I said it before, democracy runs best with a small government. Obama's plan revolves around a big government that decides on where your money goes to even who you have health care with. Now what does that sound like to you? hmmm
"If you want a president that will support the small guy, why would you be against Obama? His policies emphasize the middle class,"
You are right, his policies do emphasize the middle class. His plan is to raise taxes on small companies who are run by the middle class during an economic crisis.
"the last people to get us into a period of growth were the democrats."
Guess who was over Congress while Clinton was President? Republicans!
These last two years the Democrats have not done a damn thing to solve the problems we're facing. Why do you think that is? Because they wanted matters to get worse. They know that most people are not intelligent enough to recognize them as the source of the situation, which gives them a better standing of winning the next election. So then it's no longer about you and me, but rather them gaining more power.
These last two years the Democrats have not done a damn thing to solve the problems we're facing. Why do you think that is? Because they wanted matters to get worse. They know that most people are not intelligent enough to recognize them as the source of the situation, which gives them a better standing of winning the next election. So then it's no longer about you and me, but rather them gaining more power.
Edited by the Author.
Edited by the Author.
How do you know that ? if it worked like that why would the republicans help Clinton ? For the sake of the country?
Wake up dude, the republicans aren't the justice league.
These last two years the Democrats have not done a damn thing to solve the problems we're facing. Why do you think that is? Because they wanted matters to get worse. They know that most people are not intelligent enough to recognize them as the source of the situation, which gives them a better standing of winning the next election. So then it's no longer about you and me, but rather them gaining more power.
Edited by the Author.
Edited by the Author.
How do you know that ? if it worked like that why would the republicans help Clinton ? For the sake of the country?
Wake up dude, the republicans aren't the justice league.
It's true, a couple of years ago, the conservatives in congress foresaw what was going to happen to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and demanded tighter regulation. The liberals refused to let them do any thing.
These last two years the Democrats have not done a damn thing to solve the problems we're facing. Why do you think that is? Because they wanted matters to get worse. They know that most people are not intelligent enough to recognize them as the source of the situation, which gives them a better standing of winning the next election. So then it's no longer about you and me, but rather them gaining more power.
Edited by the Author.
Edited by the Author.
How do you know that ? if it worked like that why would the republicans help Clinton ? For the sake of the country?
Wake up dude, the republicans aren't the justice league.
It's true, a couple of years ago, the conservatives in congress foresaw what was going to happen to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and demanded tighter regulation. The liberals refused to let them do any thing.
Oh so now the world crisis is the democrats fault ? Should I remember you that it was the republicans who were at the power ?
Originally Posted by Yami I'm sorry but this remark is on the same level as saying Obama is black. It is completely irrelevant and I would hope as a society we could move on from this type of thinking.
Guess who was over Congress while Clinton was President? Republicans!
These last two years the Democrats have not done a damn thing to solve the problems we're facing. Why do you think that is? Because they wanted matters to get worse. They know that most people are not intelligent enough to recognize them as the source of the situation, which gives them a better standing of winning the next election. So then it's no longer about you and me, but rather them gaining more power.
Actually no, it's on the same level as saying that Obama is a former drug addict. It's kind of obvious what I was referring to. You disregarded the fact that Wiiman made the exact same kind of remark. Bringing McCain's age into anything is wrong (although his temper is sometimes relevant), but blankly connecting Obama to Hitler?
What if I said that the crisis is manipulated by the Bush administration to bail out his cronies before leaving office? Yes, it's a baseless conspiracy. So is yours. They're profitting because they knew by soiling their own policies, nobody would realize a thing?... There is NO advantage to be gained from the crisis from any political body. You basically said, "I'm smarter than you because I buy into anything the Republican party propagates to smear the democrats." People unaligned with the democrats are no more likely to vote Obama; if anything, they hold the same accusations that you do.
One last thing I'd like to point out: If you are discussing politics, don't throw controversial references into a persuasive argument. In that line of presidents... Ronald Reagan? You may see him as a hero; anybody you were trying to convince probably sees him as one of the worst presidents of all time, whose policies led to the rise of poverty in the US.
I think trying to convince anyone to change their political views on the internet is the greatest of all exercises in futility. If you're really intent on spreading Mccain's word, you should buy into his stuff about obama being a gayloving inexperienced elitist muslim arab celebrity terrorist with a black baby and a wife who hates america. I mean, after all, this is how Bush managed to get into office twice in a row, in case the rest of the world was wondering.
"How do you know that ? if it worked like that why would the republicans help Clinton ? For the sake of the country?"
Yep.
"Actually no, it's on the same level as saying that Obama is a former drug addict. It's kind of obvious what I was referring to. You disregarded the fact that Wiiman made the exact same kind of remark. Bringing McCain's age into anything is wrong (although his temper is sometimes relevant), but blankly connecting Obama to Hitler?"
We can have our own opinion on what's on the same level, but I agree that some of Wiiman's remarks were over the top.
"You basically said, "I'm smarter than you because I buy into anything the Republican party propagates to smear the democrats."
No, I was stating situations where Republicans were not always wrong. I just so happened to also include some of my own assumptions within that.
"One last thing I'd like to point out: If you are discussing politics, don't throw controversial references into a persuasive argument. In that line of presidents... Ronald Reagan?"
Yeah, the reason I said it was for controversy. haha The same could be said to Johnny Look's comment on JFK.
"I think trying to convince anyone to change their political views on the internet is the greatest of all exercises in futility. If you're really intent on spreading Mccain's word, you should buy into his stuff about obama being a gayloving inexperienced elitist muslim arab celebrity terrorist with a black baby and a wife who hates america. I mean, after all, this is how Bush managed to get into office twice in a row, in case the rest of the world was wondering."
haha I find the contradictions within this post to be funny. First you say it's pointless to try to convert ideas while at the same time blasting those who oppose your views. What happened to it all being futile?
I am not trying to convert no one! Someone said they did not know either of the candidates plans so I merely stated both of their tax plans while including some of my personal opinions on the matter. (Nothing no one else has not already done in this thread.)
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, but go back to my comments on their tax plans if you have not already done so and think about it. I personally believe Obama leans more towards socialism, but then again that's just me. I do not know about you nor try to imply that I do.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I feel like too many people vote for the party, not the person. I am a democrat, but I still support McCain!
That's the point. You vote for the party because it's the collective that bring change. Voting for 1 person is stupid and best left to Pop Factor and all them kind of shows. The "frontmans" style, appearance, charisma and personal beliefs do not come into it. If anything they do less than the individual administrators and secretaries - the party leader is just their boss.
Nope, the person stands for the parties policies. They don't just appear from nowhere. They (at least in the UK) start off as MP's for a specific party (whichever is closest to their own ideology) and then get 'promoted' until they're in a position that they could become PM. The party doesn't adopt someone and then take on their ideas. That's utter nonsense. Policies are decided upon as a party.
I see what you mean James, but Obama is known for being the most liberal out his party. So Wiiman may not fully agree on everything the man does. We have parties so people with similar ideas can work together, but in some ways it divides the country. The system is obviously not perfect, yet it is the best known type of government.
I'd have a pretty rough time picking a party close to my ideology if I lived in yankeeland. I mean in my country we have around 15 parties to choose from.
I sometimes get Americans asking me "are you lib or con?" as in "are you a commie pig or a right winged hawk?"
aye frankly I wish they'd just have the manners to leave us alone. I can't watch the tube without seeing a bunch of partisan bickering, and we get fed up with it enough to elect 3rd party candidates (thank you very much Mr Jesse). But I guess they republicans annoyed me a bit much this year with the whole riot-police-in-front-of-my-neighborhood thing. Theres not much room for those who don't either kill babies or drop bombs. I think I'm one of those who will be gladder when this is over. Or will move to Canada.
and I mean really, they won't leave us alone:
if you got this kind of crap in the mail, you'd be fed up with it too
Another thing I don't understand about US politics, why is being 'liberal' so negative there? Don't you want to progress your country, or does liberal mean something else there?
Originally Posted by Hayo I'd have a pretty rough time picking a party close to my ideology if I lived in yankeeland. I mean in my country we have around 15 parties to choose from.
I sometimes get Americans asking me "are you lib or con?" as in "are you a commie pig or a right winged hawk?"
My family were asked what part of London we were from by an American Man on Holiday London and Scotland are the only places that exist in the UK.
Originally Posted by Dr. James Another thing I don't understand about US politics, why is being 'liberal' so negative there? Don't you want to progress your country, or does liberal mean something else there?
Well in America, Liberal usually means extreme, going to far to make their ideas a reality.
Originally Posted by -Adam- Aren't Americans born with McDonald tracking devices?
Nah... with one on every block, no one ever really gets lost when finding one. If we did need to find one and on the rare occasion there isn't one in sight, our enhanced acute scent smell for McDonalds leaves us with the option of merely tilting out head back and taking a deep breath. Works every time.
Originally Posted by Jon C-B Mc Donalds has MUCH better fries
Uh, NO. McDonald's fries suck, horribly. Burger King fries are crisp and have flavor. McDonald's fries are all floppy and cold and flavorless.
Also, I went to London with my school orchestra, band, and chorus for the 2008 New Year's Day parade. We stayed for a week. I went to McDonald's and their mcnuggets sucked compared to those in the US.
Originally Posted by Jon C-B Mc Donalds has MUCH better fries
Uh, NO. McDonald's fries suck, horribly. Burger King fries are crisp and have flavor. McDonald's fries are all floppy and cold and flavorless.
Also, I went to London with my school orchestra, band, and chorus for the 2008 New Year's Day parade. We stayed for a week. I went to McDonald's and their mcnuggets sucked compared to those in the US.
Vote Barack Obama.
Uh NO NO Mc Donald's fries own all (atleast in Dallas) They're salty and slightly crisp.
Originally Posted by Dr. James Another thing I don't understand about US politics, why is being 'liberal' so negative there? Don't you want to progress your country, or does liberal mean something else there?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers were seen as pretty liberal in their days.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Jon C-B Mc Donalds has MUCH better fries
Uh, NO. McDonald's fries suck, horribly. Burger King fries are crisp and have flavor. McDonald's fries are all floppy and cold and flavorless.
Also, I went to London with my school orchestra, band, and chorus for the 2008 New Year's Day parade. We stayed for a week. I went to McDonald's and their mcnuggets sucked compared to those in the US.
Originally Posted by Dr. James Another thing I don't understand about US politics, why is being 'liberal' so negative there? Don't you want to progress your country, or does liberal mean something else there?
Liberalism in America usually means socialism. While lots of people outside of the U.S. probably like socialism, many Americans are still in the Reagan mentality that Big Government = Bad.
Originally Posted by -Adam- You know all McDonalds and their food is the same crap world-wide, right?
I worked at McDonalds, and I've seen people screw it up. So yes, it's the same stuff when it enters the restaurant but that's not the end of the line. So no, based off of what you say. No, what you buy is not always the same. Who's jumping on who now?
Originally Posted by -Adam- You know all McDonalds and their food is the same crap world-wide, right?
Kinda, they're all based on the same cooking method but they use local ingredients. It's why mainland Europe has better tasting chicken nuggets (and why I can eat them all day over the UK ones :3).
I don't mind a birra MaccyD's. They're actually quite balanced meals now, it's just people who eat them all the time and don't exercise. They're just a high gain food like other weight gaining meals and after a good hike I'd rather sit down with a Big Mac, Chicken Sandwich, 99p Bacon Cheeseburger and large fries (but small Coke or Fanta). Yumyumyum!
Only beef is they can be a bit greasy. Always feel the need to have a shower after eating there
Originally Posted by -Adam- You know all McDonalds and their food is the same crap world-wide, right?
I worked at McDonalds, and I've seen people screw it up. So yes, it's the same stuff when it enters the restaurant but that's not the end of the line. So no, based off of what you say. No, what you buy is not always the same. Who's jumping on who now?
Oh you worked at McDonalds... that sounds about right...
Originally Posted by -Adam- You know all McDonalds and their food is the same crap world-wide, right?
Nope, it's different in every country. Seriously. There's a difference in taste between the ice cream, apple pie, and fries between the ones in Sydney, Gold Coast, and Kuala Lumpur.
And on liberals in the USA.. most of them are just plain stupid. Seriously.. they talk about breast cancer, AIDS, abortion, gay marriage, but half the facts they present were taken from a website that has all the facts wrong. It really annoys me. At least the conservatives bother to get their facts straight. Some of their suggested policies (legalize marijuana, destroy all cams and privacy-infringing national security, end militarization, use only non-lethal weapons on the battlefield) will kill a country in a decade.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
And those Mcdonald's breakfest egg mcmuffins are darned tasty. I really wished they served them 24/7 here like they do in some overseas countries. Theyre quite healthier than a burger, and though a tad overpriced, it would get a lot more of my business. I can never wake up that early. But I was at a Golden Arches over in Spain not long ago, and the menu looked exactly the same! I couldn't have told the different from the spanish big mac and the minnesotan one. Although I'm not really a fan of the big mac anyway. If I wanted a big juicy burger I'd go to the BK lounge, or Wendies. If I wanted a bunch of tiny burgers, I'd go to White Castle. So to me their breakfest is the only real attraction.
oh and in brief; Pot should be legalized for consistency if alcohol and tobacco are, and the people who say that other drugs should be legal are nut jobs. The current government spying is wildly unconstitutional, and unless we're deliberating aiming for a big brother overlord, the fact that its completely illegal and unneeded sums up why it should be gotten rid of. Our health care is the worst in the world, and needs immediate reform and nationalization. And as far as Militarism? My grandpa explained that one to me, a month ago. He fought in WW2, got a purple heart for saving his buddies life, stood guard over Nazis at the Nuremberg trials, and started up a life and family back at home. And when vietnam and korea came around, he was a supporter of the military back then, a real staunch one. And looking back now, 88 years old, he tells me, he was wrong. Every war since WW2 was in his words, bullshit, and we're just sending a bunch of our kids to die out east for no good reason. So unless we start fighting WW3 to save the world, that juicy military budget would be better spent on oh you know, education, welfare, social security, the economy, etc. The things that help people.
It's probably all the mentalisms that cannabis causes as to why it's banned. Smoking and drinking mostly affect the user (barring second hand smoke and angry drunks). I'd rather be living next door to somebody with liver psoriasis or lung cancer than a mental on drugs who listens to the voices in his head one day and massacres us all.
Look at Salvia. It causes short but intense stuff, but since it has no long term effect on health it's left uncontrolled in the UK. Whereas something like Kava damages the liver when continually used in high doses, yet has minimal effect and it's ever-so-slightly controlled now (you can have it, just can't buy it... Yet you can in Wales). Ah it's all daft.
Originally Posted by Dr. James It's probably all the mentalisms that cannabis causes as to why it's banned. Smoking and drinking mostly affect the user (barring second hand smoke and angry drunks). I'd rather be living next door to somebody with liver psoriasis or lung cancer than a mental on drugs who listens to the voices in his head one day and massacres us all.
Look at Salvia. It causes short but intense stuff, but since it has no long term effect on health it's left uncontrolled in the UK. Whereas something like Kava damages the liver when continually used in high doses, yet has minimal effect and it's ever-so-slightly controlled now (you can have it, just can't buy it... Yet you can in Wales). Ah it's all daft.
Originally Posted by Knudde (Shab) Hopped up? More like sunken down. We're not talking speed here James. Massacring people would require one getting the motivation to get off the couch.
well I'm sure it would make the concept very amusing somehow
Well, election day is almost here... I still support McCain, mainly because Obama is against all forms of hunting and firearms, and etc. (No joke!) But his election is eminint, so it looks like it will be hard times from now for my family...
I see buying guns will get harder and harder, and waiting periods will get longer and longer...
Adam, you need guns for self-defense. Especially when all the criminals have guns. When a criminal walks into your store, house, or alley with a gun pointed at you, you'd want to be rummaging around your pocket for a gun to scare him out of it.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
That argument is two directional btw. Criminals can get guns easily as well if you can get them easily. And guns never protect, rarely ever. All they do is cause accidents.
Pot is banned because it has no industry built up around it; I'm pretty sure they'd ban alcohol and fags too if it didn't upset some very powerful multi-million pound corporations. Also there's no long-standing culture around pot like there is with alcohol.
Oh and Obama to win, McCain and Palin are dumb, gun-loving conservatives desperately trying to hold onto some "values" they call "American" or "Family". Time for a change.
PS, Does anyone else think that the whole world should be allowed to vote for US president?
I choose not to vote, even though I follow electoral politics perhaps better than the average US citizen.
I don't like the idea of 'majority rule' being what runs this country. I'm terrified and rather resentful that it means my neighbours tell me how I am to live my life. Furthermore, I have no right whatsoever to tell anyone else how to live theirs, so I consciously avoid voting, and support consensus agreements instead.
I could go on a long diatribe on how I dislike the democratic system, corrupt elections, and interventionist politics, but I'll spare you. But please understand that there are many people in the USA who do not like the political system here, or in pretty much any other government. To us, it's all oppression, liberal, conservative, or otherwise.
Oh, and I'm vegetarian. The last thing I ate at McDonald's was an apple pie.
Originally Posted by \/\/olf That argument is two directional btw. Criminals can get guns easily as well if you can get them easily. And guns never protect, rarely ever. All they do is cause accidents.
If nowone is allowed to have guns, then only criminals will have guns. If we can't get guns easily, criminals still can. Guns really do STOP crime, there is a country in europe where everyone is required to have a gun. That country has one of the lowest crime rates in all of europe.
@ wiiman
id like to know what country this is. 2ndly, i doubt guns have anything to do with low crime rate over there. crime has more to do with poverty and lack of education.
guns kill people. If guns were banned, criminals would still have guns. Deaths might be halved; after all, you're much much much more likely to die to a gun in your household than to stop a criminal with it. But the criminals would still have guns, and you wouldn't. Of course, after a few years, nobody would have guns. Kind of how like the USA has 1000x or so times the gun deaths per capita that Japan does, where they are banned. But those criminals would still have their guns. A lot less of them. And your toddler wouldn't accidently blast his face off with a shotgun. But the criminals would still have their guns, and you wouldn't. Two boys who get into an argument might settle it with their fists instead of their pieces, and live to tell the story, but the criminals would still have their guns.
@Wolf; Guns don't have anything to do with crime rate. Crimes are done by people. They have something to do with mortality rate, violent crime rate. Its a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. And thats why Detroit has the same homicide rate as Sierra Leone.
I think the world would be a much safer place if everyone had a firearm. You could avoid home accidents by educating children in primer school on gun safety or something like that. Maybe you could let children have some very low calibre gun for protection when they're away from home? I don't know what you think about it, but that would really make the way home from school a lot safer for kids.
And there probably wouldn't be as many muggings and robberies since it would be a lot riskier for the crook.
So if I was an american I'd vote McCain, cause then there's atleast a chance that something like that could be seen through by the government.
my favorite thing about the gun vs gun argument is that owning a gun doesn't stop people from shooting you any more than owning a toothbrush. If everyone had a gun at all times, then the one of the first two person to get in an argument would be blown away. Maybe we should legalize class IV dragon skin body armor & flashbangs
well, see thats what ive been trying to say pixeltheif. guns do affect crime. violent crime as you said. which is why im against them. i do believe if the majority of people were quite above the poverty line, and they were sufficiently educated, there would be less crime. very little, i would say.
Originally Posted by Pixelthief guns kill people. If guns were banned, criminals would still have guns. Deaths might be halved; after all, you're much much much more likely to die to a gun in your household than to stop a criminal with it. But the criminals would still have guns, and you wouldn't. Of course, after a few years, nobody would have guns. Kind of how like the USA has 1000x or so times the gun deaths per capita that Japan does, where they are banned. But those criminals would still have their guns. A lot less of them. And your toddler wouldn't accidently blast his face off with a shotgun. But the criminals would still have their guns, and you wouldn't. Two boys who get into an argument might settle it with their fists instead of their pieces, and live to tell the story, but the criminals would still have their guns.
@Wolf; Guns don't have anything to do with crime rate. Crimes are done by people. They have something to do with mortality rate, violent crime rate. Its a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. And thats why Detroit has the same homicide rate as Sierra Leone.
Gun crime per capita is much higher in the US than the UK, where possession of any firearm without a license gets you royally buggered with an automatic 5-7 years in prison.
So yes unless you have a license (I only know 1 person that has one) you can't have a gun and if any miscreants are caught with them they will be sent down. In the US (state and weapon depending) they'd be let go to commit their planned crime.
Some people do slip through the net here but gun crimes are so very few and far between that by allowing more people with guns we'd be increasing that number.
Personally I think the law needs to be tougher. 10-15 years for possession of a firearm would be such a powerful, and fitting deterrent. Miscreants will always go around the law. It's what they do. It's just having the proper laws in place to put them in gaol for a very long time that reassures me.*
*And it does. There was an idiot around here who tried attacking me and a friend when we were back in secondary school, but he was a drunk buffoon and didn't do very well. He evaded the law for years but recently took a picture of himself with a sawn off shotgun, then was found acting suspicious outside a big posh house so the police did a quick search of the area and found his gun. Thankfully he got sent down.
Sarah Palin is an idiot. If McCain got voted in he's so old that he'd kick the bucket pretty quickly... leaving her in charge?!
She doesn't believe in global warming... as if to say the existance and/or the human contribution to of global warming is a matter of opinion? Anyone who blurts out shit like that instantly loses my respect. Problems like this are to be assessed by qualified scientists who can perform a proper quantitative study of the situation, not some brain dead bint of a politician.
Stuckboy
JC Denton: "I know your UNATCO killphrase: Laputan Machine."
Gunther Hermann: "I - am - not - a - machi --"
JC Denton: "Sticks and stones..."
It's all to do with the American constitution and the so-called American values which conservatives and those in the South hold dearer than anything (I'm talking Conservative Christians, Intelligent Design arguments, the right to bear arms, complete and utter belief in everything that's USA). Americans wouldn't give up their arms because it's all part of being an American.
Now I now this doesn't hold for all Americans, in a country with 250 million people at least some have to be capable of independent thought, but a large amount will vote Republican simply to keep things as they are, America is scared of change.
Maybe if America had had a proper war on its soil like most developed places in the world they would be more cynical of its own government and less nationalistic, like in Britain, Germany, France etc.
Originally Posted by Dr. James It's Tuesday, has Obama (officially) won yet?
Originally Posted by Pixelthief guns kill people. If guns were banned, criminals would still have guns. Deaths might be halved; after all, you're much much much more likely to die to a gun in your household than to stop a criminal with it. But the criminals would still have guns, and you wouldn't. Of course, after a few years, nobody would have guns. Kind of how like the USA has 1000x or so times the gun deaths per capita that Japan does, where they are banned. But those criminals would still have their guns. A lot less of them. And your toddler wouldn't accidently blast his face off with a shotgun. But the criminals would still have their guns, and you wouldn't. Two boys who get into an argument might settle it with their fists instead of their pieces, and live to tell the story, but the criminals would still have their guns.
@Wolf; Guns don't have anything to do with crime rate. Crimes are done by people. They have something to do with mortality rate, violent crime rate. Its a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. And thats why Detroit has the same homicide rate as Sierra Leone.
Gun crime per capita is much higher in the US than the UK, where possession of any firearm without a license gets you royally buggered with an automatic 5-7 years in prison.
So yes unless you have a license (I only know 1 person that has one) you can't have a gun and if any miscreants are caught with them they will be sent down. In the US (state and weapon depending) they'd be let go to commit their planned crime.
Some people do slip through the net here but gun crimes are so very few and far between that by allowing more people with guns we'd be increasing that number.
Personally I think the law needs to be tougher. 10-15 years for possession of a firearm would be such a powerful, and fitting deterrent. Miscreants will always go around the law. It's what they do. It's just having the proper laws in place to put them in gaol for a very long time that reassures me.*
*And it does. There was an idiot around here who tried attacking me and a friend when we were back in secondary school, but he was a drunk buffoon and didn't do very well. He evaded the law for years but recently took a picture of himself with a sawn off shotgun, then was found acting suspicious outside a big posh house so the police did a quick search of the area and found his gun. Thankfully he got sent down.
Edited by the Author.
what you don't seem to get is that most people in the US who has a gun only uses it for self-defense.
If you were a house robber in the UK, your only worry would be the cops, in the US you'd probably worry about the house owners too, because chances are they have a gun too, and they know the house better than you do.
Also notice the fact that most criminals already have at least one gun (most likely to be illegal), either they're from the us or the uk, so in the uk the common civilian is usually in disadvantage when facing a criminal.
Originally Posted by Dr. James It's Tuesday, has Obama (officially) won yet?
Originally Posted by Pixelthief guns kill people. If guns were banned, criminals would still have guns. Deaths might be halved; after all, you're much much much more likely to die to a gun in your household than to stop a criminal with it. But the criminals would still have guns, and you wouldn't. Of course, after a few years, nobody would have guns. Kind of how like the USA has 1000x or so times the gun deaths per capita that Japan does, where they are banned. But those criminals would still have their guns. A lot less of them. And your toddler wouldn't accidently blast his face off with a shotgun. But the criminals would still have their guns, and you wouldn't. Two boys who get into an argument might settle it with their fists instead of their pieces, and live to tell the story, but the criminals would still have their guns.
@Wolf; Guns don't have anything to do with crime rate. Crimes are done by people. They have something to do with mortality rate, violent crime rate. Its a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. And thats why Detroit has the same homicide rate as Sierra Leone.
Gun crime per capita is much higher in the US than the UK, where possession of any firearm without a license gets you royally buggered with an automatic 5-7 years in prison.
So yes unless you have a license (I only know 1 person that has one) you can't have a gun and if any miscreants are caught with them they will be sent down. In the US (state and weapon depending) they'd be let go to commit their planned crime.
Some people do slip through the net here but gun crimes are so very few and far between that by allowing more people with guns we'd be increasing that number.
Personally I think the law needs to be tougher. 10-15 years for possession of a firearm would be such a powerful, and fitting deterrent. Miscreants will always go around the law. It's what they do. It's just having the proper laws in place to put them in gaol for a very long time that reassures me.*
*And it does. There was an idiot around here who tried attacking me and a friend when we were back in secondary school, but he was a drunk buffoon and didn't do very well. He evaded the law for years but recently took a picture of himself with a sawn off shotgun, then was found acting suspicious outside a big posh house so the police did a quick search of the area and found his gun. Thankfully he got sent down.
Edited by the Author.
what you don't seem to get is that most people in the US who has a gun only uses it for self-defense.
If you were a house robber in the UK, your only worry would be the cops, in the US you'd probably worry about the house owners too, because chances are they have a gun too, and they know the house better than you do.
Also notice the fact that most criminals already have at least one gun (most likely to be illegal), either they're from the us or the uk, so in the uk the common civilian is usually in disadvantage when facing a criminal.
And the proper way to protect citizens is to make it even easier to get a gun! In fact, it should be so easy that a person in a state of affect can just buy a gun and solve his problem without having to think things through! That would make things even better. Yeah!
It's plain stupid to promote firearms. Why do you insist on solving the problem in the wrong end? The problem is that criminals have guns in the first place, resources should be put to stop that, not to promote the use of guns even more!
So we let anyone possess a gun and just sit back and watch as the firearm homocide figures rise and rise but at least we can say "we're better protected for it!"
lol smartass don't talk about something you don't know a thing about.
Do you think anyone could go out at a supermarket and buy a gun ?
Not everyone can buy a gun, contrary to what you might think. There's something called the the firearm owners protection act, and it disallows some people to buy guns, and that's why most criminals in the US only have illegal fire weapons.
Also if preventing people from having guns would be that easy so why would people ever need guns ?
It's just impossible to prevent bad people from getting guns, if they don't get them legally, they would get them illegally anyway.
Nobody ever said guns are a good thing, nor I remember promoting firearms, I think you should calm down a bit and learn how to read properly.
Perhaps you could be a little less aggressive? It doesn't look good when you attack someone as peaceful as Eternal Man, he was never personally offensive towards you.
It's plain stupid to promote firearms. Why do you insist on solving the problem in the wrong end? The problem is that criminals have guns in the first place, resources should be put to stop that, not to promote the use of guns even more!
Exactly. The problem is bad guys with guns, so arming the good guys is just a way to continue the violence.
Off topic but I remember watching one of them daytime US talk shows on ITV7 or something. Some woman said their neighbours were 'terrorizing' her, smashing up garden ornaments, windows and breaking in. Only rather than moving house the woman armed herself and instead of calling the police she shot and killed one of her unarmed neighbours whilst breaking in. The crowd broke into cheers and applause, celebrating what amounted to as a murderer.
Now. I know how shows and their studio audiences are manipulated and such but to show that it was okay to kill someone was just... As a Brit it's beyond me and I'm very surprised the TV execs let them do that as it sends the wrong message to viewers.
Well I'm glad I just got done voting for Obama, who will in turn not have the guts to stand up to NRA and impose actual gun control in America, even though he would obviously want to, if he were in control.
south of here, during halloween, robbers attempted to break into a house. Having already had his house burglarized once a few months before, where the thieves shot and wounded him as he resisted, our hero immediately grabs his ak-47 as he hears the burglars knocking down his door, and sprays 29 rounds through the walls, windows, and door, killing the 12 year old and critically wounding the 9 year old and their dad, who were trick-or-treating in costumes. There was enough blood the fire department had to hose it off. that would be south carolina 4 days ago
stories like that are why we need more guns to protect ourselves God Bless America & The 2nd Amendment
Originally Posted by Pixelthief south of here, during halloween, robbers attempted to break into a house. Having already had his house burglarized once a few months before, where the thieves shot and wounded him as he resisted, our hero immediately grabs his ak-47 as he hears the burglars knocking down his door, and sprays 29 rounds through the walls, windows, and door, killing the 12 year old and critically wounding the 9 year old and their dad, who were trick-or-treating in costumes. There was enough blood the fire department had to hose it off. that would be south carolina 4 days ago
stories like that are why we need more guns to protect ourselves God Bless America & The 2nd Amendment
That's terrible, but in the other hand you could easily find stories of entire families slaughtered at home by armed robbers which could be prevented if the house owners had a gun.
Once again I'm not saying guns are a good thing, because I think it's pretty obvious that something made to kill other people can't be good.
I could find exaggerated stories about people going violent just because they play GTA, Diablo, or some other similar thing. But commenting about that is going off topic
Looks like Obama's winning this one. If he gets Texas he's practically won All hail the new president!
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by M I could find exaggerated stories about people going violent just because they play GTA, Diablo, or some other similar thing. But commenting about that is going off topic
Looks like Obama's winning this one. If he gets Texas he's practically won All hail the new president!
True dat! Tomorrow in histort class, the election is all we're talking about.
Originally Posted by Pixelthief south of here, during halloween, robbers attempted to break into a house. Having already had his house burglarized once a few months before, where the thieves shot and wounded him as he resisted, our hero immediately grabs his ak-47 as he hears the burglars knocking down his door, and sprays 29 rounds through the walls, windows, and door, killing the 12 year old and critically wounding the 9 year old and their dad, who were trick-or-treating in costumes. There was enough blood the fire department had to hose it off. that would be south carolina 4 days ago
stories like that are why we need more guns to protect ourselves God Bless America & The 2nd Amendment
That's terrible, but in the other hand you could easily find stories of entire families slaughtered at home by armed robbers which could be prevented if the house owners had a gun.
Once again I'm not saying guns are a good thing, because I think it's pretty obvious that something made to kill other people can't be good.
Firstly, robbers are usually more interested in getting hold of valuable objects/money and getting out before they are even seen than they are of crashing in and gunning down a whole family just for kicks. But if all robbers set on robbing someone expect to be met guns blazing they probably won't take any chances and just shoot any person in sight, especially if they're packing.
And I know that you have to fulfill certain criterias to be allowed to get a gun, just so you know, and I didn't jump you anyway, so nah-ha.
NO!
This is terrrible, things are going to be going down hill worse now. McCain would have brought us downhill, but not as steep a hill...
On a final note, Obama has already lied to us. He said if he got in Illinois Senate, he would not run for another political office ever again. He got in Illinois senate, and look where he is now...
Originally Posted by Canto Most people seems to be voting Obama, the minority seem to think he's a terrorist either because of his skin colour or because his name sounds like Osama *sigh*
Yeah, Obama all the way.
Obama Sin Laden - He's like the opposite of terrorism!
Yeah! Obama won!
Congratulations to USA! I'm proud of USA today. It's a big lesson for the world, and particulary for people who dislike USA.
In France, we can't bear Sarkozy anymore. Nobody want a Bush, but now, everyone want a president like Obama... Now, good luck to him^^.
Congratulations.
Where are the McCain supporters? I mean everyone seems to be celebrating (cept Wiiman) Obamas victory, even on the other forums I visit everyone was in support of Obama. Yet a large minority of people voted for McCain but there's no word of it. Can McCain supporters use the internet?
Originally Posted by Dr. James Where are the McCain supporters? I mean everyone seems to be celebrating (cept Wiiman) Obamas victory, even on the other forums I visit everyone was in support of Obama. Yet a large minority of people voted for McCain but there's no word of it. Can McCain supporters use the internet?
Quite frankly no. Notice how the red states in the electoral map are almost all ex-Confederacy states.
Scream for joy now, little children, while you can. For today there's been a close victory of a man. Who delights in sneers and subversive plans.
Scream for joy now, little children, for soon you'll be screaming from terrorist plans. For he'll watch and ponder, and perhaps delight, in the planes falling right in front of your sight.
Scream for joy now, little children, while you can. For you don't know your siblings rest, half murdered in hospital rooms. Waiting to die with outstretched arms, wailing for the love of a careless mohters eyes.
Scream for joy now, little children, while you can. For when bombs go off in front of your eyes. And in the buses from which you used to ride. And pray for protection from the horrific tide.
Scream for joy now, little children, while you can. For you'll scream tears, when your parents are left in the sand. And the soldier is left dying and wounded, from a senseless scam. Scream little children, for joy while you can. For the cry of God's people will not reach a holy man. And the pain will be so great, you'll weep yourself awake.
Scream for joy now, little children, while you can. For you'll ask for a toy, treat, or other delight. And your parent will look over and say, we cannot get that. Or you'll not eat tonight. Scream for joy now little children, while you can. For when you are older, and your country's in rust.
If you survive, you'll not know who to fear or to trust. And you'll reach for a beer, or some other grog. Then remember you need the money to pay for the dinner hog. And very slowly walk away, and remember when you used to play. In joy and happiness in the light of the day.
So, one more time, just go out and play. Listen to laughter, be as happy as you may. So scream on for joy, little children, while you can.
Edited by the Author.
All platforming problems can be mostly solved here:
The McCain supporters are out there complaining, I assure you.
Obama's going to take my money!
Obama's going to make everyone drive a prius!
Obama's going to end the war in Iraq without us emerging victorious!
Obama's going to destroy the constitution!
Obama's going to turn America into a communist country!
Obama's a muslim! Really!
Obama only won because of dumb black people who only voted because of race!
Seriously, try arguing with someone who uses those arguments. You won't get anywhere.
Could an admin delete my above post? This isn't the place for that sort of thing.
In other news, I was hoping for the opposite of the election. But I guess this is slightly fortunate as it helps fuel the back story for my game even more. (I'm not saying that THIS election is the cause of my story. Check the fictional newspaper pieces date that I have on there.)
All platforming problems can be mostly solved here:
As you all know... I'm a McCain supporter. And I just want to say...
WE ELECTED THE ANTI CHRIST
In the bible the anti christ will be muslim, dark skinned, and the same age as Obama...
666!!!
n/a
Deleted User
5th November, 2008 at 21:42:25 -
Hes not Muslim he said in front of everyone that the Muslim religion makes no sence. And Sine Mccain Almost converted to islam...
and Xhunterko your post is ok. This place is random sometimes.
thats the biggest load of bull i have ever heard wiiman. im saddened at the fact that in this day and age, people still discriminate against race and religion. Who gives a shite if he's muslim or black as long as he does good for the country?? If we discriminate against such things, how are we to say that we are better than all the other racists?? And history is filled with them.
Originally Posted by BrandonC Well I have to say, my first voting experience was really positive. Not to mention the first president I vote for actually wins.
you do know that science can prove some of this "fictional story" (big mistake on your part since its actually a compilaton of many books not just one story. most of which have nothing to do with one another) to actually be true, and that a lot of the names and events are also in history books and are accurate, right?
sorry prove isnt the right word...show great evidence is more what i mean.
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. "
"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house."
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man HE MADE INTO A WOMAN, and He brought her to the man."
Yeah. . . I guess it does make more sense than evolution............
Originally Posted by cecil you do know that science can prove some of this "fictional story" (big mistake on your part since its actually a compilaton of many books not just one story. most of which have nothing to do with one another) to actually be true, and that a lot of the names and events are also in history books and are accurate, right?
sorry prove isnt the right word...show great evidence is more what i mean.
Edited by the Author.
A lot of the events in Forest Gump were true. Does that mean all of them are?
first your first post. i believe those are all from the old testament. the old testament law was created by man. the new testament law by god. it doesnt mean you should follow it.
second post. forest gump is a movie for entertainment. the bible is a book of stories laws and accounts of history. meaning im not debating that some of it is fiction and some nonfiction. im saying it HAS truth to it. most of which is EASILY discernable. its not to just be tossed aside as entertainment.
he partly belives it. just like i believe in micro evolution. not macro.
darwin made observations of micro evolution and made a bold conclusion that PERHAPS all living things slowly evolved in this process. it was a theory that is easily disproved by science.
Originally Posted by \/\/olf thats the biggest load of bull i have ever heard wiiman. im saddened at the fact that in this day and age, people still discriminate against race and religion. Who gives a shite if he's muslim or black as long as he does good for the country?? If we discriminate against such things, how are we to say that we are better than all the other racists?? And history is filled with them.
Lol! It just a joke. (Even if he does fit the descrimination perfectly.) Did you not notice the ? Or did you think those were his laughing demon minions? I just making a joke, because that's one hell (bad punne, 'scuse me) of a coincidince if you ask me. The bible probably was talking about someone else. I read a really interesting thing the other day saying Bill Clinton was the anti christ...
BTW, I know I brought it up, but let's not make this topic about religion, I said it jokingly.
So the new testamant says crazy stuff, but that doesn't mean you should follow it? So what should you follow? Basically you get to just pick and choose what's relevant in today's society or whatever fits your personal ethics.
I don't really get where you're coming from on this. Some of it's true, some of it's not, it's not meant to be entertainment? So what is it? I could go out and write 20 pages right now. 10 of them could have facts that are 100% accurate, things about history, math, etc. Then write another 10 pages that have laws and rules that I made up. It's the same thing.
Originally Posted by \/\/olf thats the biggest load of bull i have ever heard wiiman. im saddened at the fact that in this day and age, people still discriminate against race and religion. Who gives a shite if he's muslim or black as long as he does good for the country?? If we discriminate against such things, how are we to say that we are better than all the other racists?? And history is filled with them.
Lol! It just a joke. (Even if he does fit the descrimination perfectly.) Did you not notice the ? Or did you think those were his laughing demon minions? I just making a joke, because that's one hell (bad punne, 'scuse me) of a coincidince if you ask me. The bible probably was talking about someone else. I read a really interesting thing the other day saying Bill Clinton was the anti christ...
BTW, I know I brought it up, but let's not make this topic about religion, I said it jokingly.
Originally Posted by JustinC So the new testamant says crazy stuff, but that doesn't mean you should follow it? So what should you follow? Basically you get to just pick and choose what's relevant in today's society or whatever fits your personal ethics.
I don't really get where you're coming from on this. Some of it's true, some of it's not, it's not meant to be entertainment? So what is it? I could go out and write 20 pages right now. 10 of them could have facts that are 100% accurate, things about history, math, etc. Then write another 10 pages that have laws and rules that I made up. It's the same thing.
again you need to read the bible justin. i never said pick and choose. i said the old testament as well, not new testament. the new testament law replaced the old testament law. thats why jesus came and died. i never said pick and choose. the new laws arent even crazy. theyre reasonable, and guess what! most laws in most countries are SCARILY similar.
I just realized why gridquest was crashing when doing a certain action. Stare closely at this and tell me if you can figure out how the heck MMF2 created THAT when converting from TGF.
Back on topic, we have a recount upcoming in my state. The two sleazebags senators got within 500 votes of each other, and nobody really cares because it won't give the democrats their 60 either way, but now its going to be an entire month of recounts.
1,211,628 votes to 1,210,901 votes
he partly belives it. just like i believe in micro evolution. not macro.
darwin made observations of micro evolution and made a bold conclusion that PERHAPS all living things slowly evolved in this process. it was a theory that is easily disproved by science.
Edited by the Author.
I've made it a point to stay away from this topic, but I couldn't help poke my head in when I saw Codemonkey had posted. This is what I was going to say-- micro evolution is entirely different from macro. I'm actually very surprised that *most* of you in here have behaved yourself so well, or at least on this page you have.
I really can't think of anything else to say... There are a number of things I could touch on, but there's no need. I haven't been following the conversation. And now, I shall go.
Ok, so what are you trying to prove? That god is real because a book with some rules that aren't absolutely insane has some accurate history lessons in it? I guess that's what I'm getting at.
funnily enough no im not. and my argument was initially aimed at brandonC not you. but you looked like some fun so i said what the hell
@oldmanclayton - i never said they were the same. i actually said exactly what you said in fewer words.... *scratches head*
n/a
Dustin Gunn Gnarly Tubular Way Cool Awesome Groovy Mondo
Registered 15/12/2004
Points 2659
6th November, 2008 at 00:30:33 -
Originally Posted by Wiiman Well uh... People are falling for Obama because he's charismatic, in the same way that Hitler was charismatic. We really know nothing about the guy, besides he used to have a drug addiction and resides in Chicago. Sure McCain is like Bush, but Bush was only a bad WAR TIME president. He would have been great for peace time. The war is almost over so McCain should be fine. Plus he has lots of heart trouble and such, so Palin is most likely going to end up president if McCain is elected, besides the fact it would be cool to have an attractive president, I support Palin because she has not been in jerk off washington very much. So Palin will support the small guy more than anyone I beleive.
Hmm, Obama is charismatic, Hitler was charismatic!
OMG GUYS, Obama wrote a book, HITLER WROTE A BOOK!
Oh ok. I guess I needed to be arguing with codemonkey then.
Anyway, I would more say that Religion "believes" while Science "knows(to the best of our scientific ability)". But I guess it depends on what aspect your talking about.
Originally Posted by JustinC Oh ok. I guess I needed to be arguing with codemonkey then.
Anyway, I would more say that Religion "believes" while Science "knows(to the best of our scientific ability)". But I guess it depends on what aspect your talking about.
Actually, it's inaccurate to say that science "knows", because it really doesn't. It just assumes based off of evidence and tends to come out right, because it bases things off of realistic logic. Religion takes more of a blind leap and explains a lot more in doing so, but because of doing just that, it's results tend to be illogical and highly inaccurate. Both have there strengths and weaknesses, and both have a place in this world. However science I think, because of it's willingness to often attempt to find truth rather then hope for it, would be better suited for a large group of people who tend to all have different large scale beliefs.
well either way, you cant say how the universe was really created. neither can reproduce or collect evidence enough to support a valid claim. they are all far fetched.
hes quite the orator, gotta hand him that. Poor john seemed to stumble a little each time, but he certainly pulled off something decent for a change when he stepped down
I need to check it out, because apparently whatever he said, managed to turn a friend of mine who was against Obama with ever fiber of his being, to "give him a chance", which doesn't make much sense seeing as he already won, but yeah.
sweet jumpin chili beans! unlockededed goodnesssess.
all i know is that my sister thinks obama will be assassinated. a few of my friends think hes the messiah, and a few think hes the antichrist. i personally am indifferent as i slept through the whole voting day and election process only to awake to a new president looming over our nation.
I missed out on the usual slew of politicking, so I have no idea what promises he intends to break this year, but I know that whatever Obama intends to do, it's certainly going to be interesting. Bush should've been assassinated. Somehow Bush managed to wreck the economy of the most powerful nation in the world, along with some of its ally states. The Australian dollar value dropped by a third! A hundred suicide bombers AND an anthrax/dirty bomb couldn't wreck the economy that fast.
Obama isn't half the anti-christ that some fanatics say he is. I find it amusing how some people run around screaming that Obama is going to create a Christian holocaust. They're probably being racist
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
As positive I am about Obama I just hope he doesn't turn into your very own Tony Blair. He promised change and such. And we got it, we're now a PC nanny state with an economic party that lead us to where we are now, top up fees and judges who are afraid to put people away for crimes incase it infringes their human rights.
Even though I support Obama, he isn't in office yet and he's already starting to disappoint me.
Contrary to what I expected, he's continuing Bush's USA vs. World campaign: he already started badmouthing Iran's nuclear program, restarting the verbal conflict with them, and he stated he intends to continue with the stupid missile shield in Poland which is threatening to start a new cold war or even worse, a new world war.
However it seems they updated the story, and turns out Obama made "no commitment to plans for a missile defense in Poland". I wouldn't get my hopes up though.
Advertisement
Post Reply
I only want Obama to win because I saw him in a car (lol), but Sarah Palin is hot for a middle aged woman, it has to be said 
We really know nothing about the guy, besides he used to have a drug addiction and resides in Chicago. Sure McCain is like Bush, but Bush was only a bad WAR TIME president. He would have been great for peace time. The war is almost over so McCain should be fine. Plus he has lots of heart trouble and such, so Palin is most likely going to end up president if McCain is elected, besides the fact it would be cool to have an attractive president, I support Palin because she has not been in jerk off washington very much. So Palin will support the small guy more than anyone I beleive.
Edited by the Author.
Ill vote McCain too 
