Obama wins

[the lost shinobi]

He is the projected winner of the 08 election. Discuss. Plus the senate is democratic and the house is also projected to be democratic. Next four years will be interesting

[DesecratioN]

To be quite honest I felt that both of these years candidates were of the choice of evils...

I had some gripes particularly with Obama's saying of "spreading the wealth" to me that sounds quite... well socialist and quite frankly I am against socialism.

Due to circumstances I did not opt to choose a president on this election and rather voted for other political officlas this year as I didn't like either candidate.

I agree with you however shall be an interesting turn to see a democratic house as my political views are for the most part neutral (though on some issues I can say I am more conservative but for the most part neutral)

[Arty]

Cant wait to have my views changed.

[weltell]

I think it will take longer than 4 years for anything to really change one way or the other.

[the lost shinobi]

To be quite honest I felt that both of these years candidates were of the choice of evils...

I had some gripes particularly with Obama's saying of "spreading the wealth" to me that sounds quite... well socialist and quite frankly I am against socialism.

Due to circumstances I did not opt to choose a president on this election and rather voted for other political officlas this year as I didn't like either candidate.

I agree with you however shall be an interesting turn to see a democratic house as my political views are for the most part neutral (though on some issues I can say I am more conservative but for the most part neutral)

I agree. I don't feel like I connect to either candidate much, but I voted for Obama because I really disliked McCain and his association with Bush and his god forsaken choice of a VP. And yes he does embody some socialist principles in his legislation.

[Fool Of Doom]

To be quite honest I felt that both of these years candidates were of the choice of evils...

I had some gripes particularly with Obama's saying of "spreading the wealth" to me that sounds quite... well socialist and quite frankly I am against socialism.

Due to circumstances I did not opt to choose a president on this election and rather voted for other political officlas this year as I didn't like either candidate.

I agree with you however shall be an interesting turn to see a democratic house as my political views are for the most part neutral (though on some issues I can say I am more conservative but for the most part neutral)

Quite agreed.

Obama was the lesser of two evils.

But hey! Our government is pretty much all democratic now, maybe we can get some legalization on weed :)

[Arty]

I miss Bush already...

He wasnt such a bad person :( Just misplaced and badly treated.

[KageNaruto]

Didn't like either, though hated McCain and Palin, so I'm happy. I, however, have absolutely no problem with some socialism. I do not see it as this evil source everyone in the US refers to it as. I believe you need a mix of capitalism and socialism, and also I don't see Obama as being that socialist, the other campaign overhyped that factor waaay too much.

[DesecratioN]

Didn't like either, though hated McCain and Palin, so I'm happy. I, however, have absolutely no problem with some socialism. I do not see it as this evil source everyone in the US refers to it as. I believe you need a mix of capitalism and socialism, and also I don't see Obama as being that socialist, the other campaign overhyped that factor waaay too much.

True to an extent however I am simply against socialism for my own reasons. I just feel it is just too similar in theory to communism. No I am not saying there is this communist threat or presence about just my own views.

That and I am not one to spread wealth, My hard earned money should be taxed to further development or construction not to pay off some bum who doesn't want to get a job.

[KageNaruto]

Communism will work as soon as they assign a robot to monitor everything rather than people.

If you earn 250,000 + a year increased taxes won't kill you. Besides, if there's an inflation, you bump taxes. Standard economy. However, if you don't want to kill a whole bunch of poor people, this solution seems to be the next best thing.

[papfles]

I had some gripes particularly with Obama's saying of "spreading the wealth" to me that sounds quite... well socialist and quite frankly I am against socialism.

Didn't CNN facts-checking prove that Obama never ever said those words? They were words placed in his mouth by the other ticket.

About socialism:

People who have a problem with that, and connect it to communism: sorry, but you're idiots. Most of you don't even know what socialism entails in Western Europe and we can all agree that our welfare states work a whole lot better than what the US does in certain areas. Read up on how Western Europe uses this so-called "socialism", instead of pointing at the word, going "communism" and rejecting it from the get-go, which many americans seem to do.

[DesecratioN]

Didn't CNN facts-checking prove that Obama never ever said those words? They were words placed in his mouth by the other ticket.

About socialism:

People who have a problem with that, and connect it to communism: sorry, but you're idiots. Most of you don't even know what socialism entails in Western Europe and we can all agree that our welfare states work a whole lot better than what the US does in certain areas. Read up on how Western Europe uses this so-called "socialism", instead of pointing at the word, going "communism" and rejecting it from the get-go, which many americans seem to do.



I'm not rejecting I am just selfish haha.

I am not the type to wish to spread money to the citizens who are lower class and do not wish to move themselves out of this class. I understand the fundamental ideas of socialism and yeah it isn't anything bad just rather against my views. If you truly seek to you can exit the lower class and move toward the middle and upper granted it is harder for some rather than others.

Like for instance myself... I had nothing special... In fact I didnt have a DIME for any form of education given to me instead I just used the government and did what we int he business call free riding. I filled out the right forms and talked to the right people and here I am going through any form of college education completely and 100% paid for by others which I am now trying to extend to room and board haha (which I will problaby also get some way to justified it getting paid by the government) See? the options are there just people often are too lazy to look and get off their asses and find work or ways to get work or things paid for like schooling ot get work.

[KageNaruto]

citizens who are lower class and do not wish to move themselves out of this class

Say byebye to teachers, firefighters, police, and the rest of the things that keep society alive.

Also, it seems that you should love socialism, since your free ride is sponsored by this...

I just used the government






(which I will problaby also get some way to justified it getting paid by the government)

Government intervening to help you. Socialism. So why do you hate the thing that is making you get a free ride?

[papfles]

I'll just bring up education, since you did too:

The fact that higher education for example is "basically" free (over here) is something that is beneficial to a society. Our rank of higher educated people is admirable, our level of education is way higher (researched fact) and we make that available to everyone - because everyone chips in from their taxes. More people get a good education, more people get somewhere in life, more people get to participate in the society. That's the biggest UP (imho) of this "socialism".

I'll just quote Carlin: "first it was -head start-, now it's -no child left behind-. Does someone get the feeling we're going backwards?"

(+ what kagenaruto said :))

[DesecratioN]

I'll just bring up education, since you did too:

The fact that higher education for example is "basically" free (over here) is something that is beneficial to a society. Our rank of higher educated people is admirable, our level of education is way higher (researched fact) and we make that available to everyone - because everyone chips in from their taxes. More people get a good education, more people get somewhere in life, more people get to participate in the society. That's the biggest UP (imho) of this "socialism".

I'll just quote Carlin: "first it was -head start-, now it's -no child left behind-. Does someone get the feeling we're going backwards?"

(+ what kagenaruto said :))

Not denying this truth for the most part the education system here blows. Still I am not one to aid others in such a fashion again I attribute this to my selfish nature.

also kage I am an oppurtunist if I am given the oppurtunity to free ride you better believe I am going to do so. The difference is people have to dig it up here it is available just as I mentioned most are just way too lazy to do some research or get off their asses and go look. Not just a program that is taxing me of my earned money so some scrub can get some basics covered by the government instead of earning such things.

Also I left out some parts where I had some organizations outside of govt giving me grants for reasosn here and there its a mix of private organizations and govt. I digress though as I just used myself as an example of people who can get out of ther holes.

I do not work to be middle or low the way I am heading is I am heading to upper middle and beyond class income once I am done with my line of studies and yeah this would def hit me pretty nicely tax wise to be in a socailist esque govt.

[KageNaruto]

Not just a program that is taxing me of my earned money so some scrub can get some basics covered by the government instead of earning such things.


And taxing us so people like you can get a free ride to get an education.

And so some scrub children can at least be moderately educated after graduating high school.

And so somebody is actually looking for murderers and stolen cars and whatnot.

And so those houses on fire can be put out.

And so the survivors of natural disasters won't die on the streets.

To classify everybody who needs help as lazyasses who don't try actually makes it rather useless to even argue against your point...

I understrand your view, it benefits you. However, your views should be excluded completely on issues like this, because a president tries to better the ENTIRE COUNTRY, and not just one man.

[Kumo]

Socialism may sound like a good idea, but putting everyone at the same level of wealth will just bring that middle line down, there's just too many people and not enough cash. That's how it's always been, and with 6.5 billion humans in the world and a few hundred milllion in this country (i think). that's hardly likely to change anytime soon.

Didn't CNN facts-checking prove that Obama never ever said those words? They were words placed in his mouth by the other ticket.
Here's the link... about 4:44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

About socialism:

People who have a problem with that, and connect it to communism: sorry, but you're idiots. Most of you don't even know what socialism entails in Western Europe and we can all agree that our welfare states work a whole lot better than what the US does in certain areas. Read up on how Western Europe uses this so-called "socialism", instead of pointing at the word, going "communism" and rejecting it from the get-go, which many americans seem to do.

And yet no one pays attention to the fact that a lot of places run by democrats for extended periods of time are cesspools. (Detroit)

Oh, and one more thing: One major problem with Obama's plan is that 30% of people don't pay taxes anyway. >.> So basically he would give 30% of people money for no reason >.>

[Arty]

The difference in these arguements and Michaels for socialistic tax is a sign of something.

Subjective Reasoning.

Its something every soicialistic fangirl seems to jump on when it comes to a hard-earners crying counter-attack : Its my money , not some bums booze supply.

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 dollars - In an argument these values are the same for all individuals , claiming that the ownership of more dollars equals lesser value of each dollar is a contradiction and a logical fallacy.

Papfles.

Western europe... i am curious of what countries you are reffering to.

Sweden is a good example of a working socialistic shift , i am going to assume you are reffering to it.

Still , the socialistic movement in Sweden was the governments "Save the industry" plan. It was not ment as a perm policy change , - infact today Sweden is slowly shifting back to a more capitalistic place , - For obvious reasons as a large number of the nations wealthiest just moved out of the country when socialism hit the fans.

---

To the rest : Why are you talking like capitalism doesnt give tax income? Harvard just released a good essay of the opposit.

[kiroisenko]

history made check mate.

[Thistle]

Obama being the next president looks to me like it is going to be the lesser of two evils. But as a european i expect things to get worse in some ways, at least one could bet on the Bush government stubbornly going its own way and forgetting about its allies. Obama will demand more support, more soldiers, more money, and every tax payer in my home country will have to bear it.

About socialism...some of its ideas sound very alluring, and at times i think that we should all read Karl Marx again for we are slowly marching back to where we were in the 19th century...but then i see the extra taxes that i still have to pay for the "rebuild" of the eastern parts of my homecountry that were ruined after 40 years of socialist rule. But then...aren`t we all currently seeing the bad sides of our capitalist systems? The swedish model seemed to have worked well as far as i can tell...taking some ideas from socialism doesn`t sound to be that bad.

I do think that a community has to support its weaker elements, i see how the number of students is going down here after the government introduced a fee of 500 Euro per term, and how this will hurt the economy in the long term. That was a really stupid idea...

[papfles]

Socialism may sound like a good idea, but putting everyone at the same level of wealth will just bring that middle line down, there's just too many people and not enough cash. That's how it's always been, and with 6.5 billion humans in the world and a few hundred milllion in this country (i think). that's hardly likely to change anytime soon.

@ kumo: and that is merely put out of context as if he would give everyone the same amount of money. It is merely "giving those that have it hard, or that cannot afford to, a better way of living their life".

And the US is (in some aspects) about the bottom of the barrel worldwide. In one particular issue (can't remember which one), they rank even below Botswana, for god's sake. And that for the country that prides itself on being "the example for the free world".
Anything that smells of socialism is usually smothered to death because of some illogical "THE RUSSIANS ARE BACK"-fear.
Look at other countries, see what they do right, see if it can be implemented and just do that.

And yet no one pays attention to the fact that a lot of places run by democrats for extended periods of time are cesspools. (Detroit)


uhu yeah, sure, and the country (run by republicans the past 8 years) is better off huh? One example doesn't prove anything.

One major problem with Obama's plan is that 30% of people don't pay taxes anyway. >.> So basically he would give 30% of people money for no reason >.>

And McCain's tax cuts wouldn't have given that 30% (or part of those) "money for nothing" either? O_o

Papfles.

Western europe... i am curious of what countries you are reffering to.


The care-states that I'm referring to: Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, and the more you go north, the better they usually take care of their own citizens.

[Arty]

Diaberg or what his name was said that Socialism was ideal to reconstruct the industry and/or prevent a revolution ;)

Everyone should start on the same ground with the same rules.

Thats capitalistism , not social/communism.

Papfles :

Lux is just there for the luls, - Its a place where the rich dump their money and create international banks - none of the people who have money are taxed there ,-

Someone said the economical "interest" creates a circle for the social , capital , communism.

[Thistle]

I have to disagree...everyone starting on the same ground with the same rules is simply not reality in capitalism.

And usually socialism is the result of a revolution :p

[Arty]

Well Thistle..

Sharing your ground is also capitalism... Dont misunderstand this -

In reality it means that everyone is responsable for creating their own ground , with the same suppliment as the rest.

[Anthony Uchiha]

Obama being the next president looks to me like it is going to be the lesser of two evils. But as a european i expect things to get worse in some ways, at least one could bet on the Bush government stubbornly going its own way and forgetting about its allies. Obama will demand more support, more soldiers, more money, and every tax payer in my home country will have to bear it.

I totally agree with this point Obama will need reinforcements to fight against his enemies. Otherwise he will probably stop every war he is in and leave the europeans to handle things and this is what worries me. Actually I miss Bush's stubbornity and how he won every battle using only his men. However I think that Obama will demand support because after all we Europeans are also suffering from terrorism.

[Thistle]

In reality it means that everyone is responsable for creating their own ground , with the same suppliment as the rest.

Letting the economy create its own rules is capitalism in my understanding and that automatically seems to prevent what you call an equal ground...equal ground is a nice idea, but simply not reality i`d say.

[Karin<3]

Well at least now NBC will be amusing to watch because of all the sniping attempts :D

[Arty]

Thistle , you are misunderstanding.

I am not saying everyone literally shares the same ground in that sense...

Rich parents will give their kids money.

Rich parents will see to that their kids learn how to make money.

Kids whom have rich parents will always have a strong support.

Kids whom have rich parents will have connections that are more valuable in a "economic" sense than normal people.

This is all cause their parents / friends choose to share the ground they have risen to with them.

Creating your ground by making the right friends , taking the right choices , profiting from having the freedom to share what you have aquired.

These are your resonsabilities as an idividual whom wants to make money and this is the ground/rule and world we all live in , something we all share...

Capitalism doesnt "make" rules , it just gives the people freedom to put their fortunes and wealth into whatever form there is.+

Obama will demand more support, more soldiers, more money, and every tax payer in my home country will have to bear it.

War = Business.

Business = Good.

Obama = Pro towards gaming

Obama = Win ;)

[papfles]

Actually I miss Bush's stubbornity and how he won every battle using only his men.

Won?.... LOL

[Bitey]

I used to be of the, "It's my money, I should be able to keep it" policy, but you know what, for one, try living on the other side of the fence, if you go from upper middle class to lower middle class, guess what happens to all the debts you had when you were in the upper middle class, well they get about ten times worse. I don't make as much money as some people and neither do my parents, so why don't I get to keep my money? Why do people who make much more money than me get these huge tax breaks? I don't get it, in this current tax plan lower middle class and below people suffer, some people say it is laziness, some people say it is ignorance, well that may be true for some, but there are others who work their asses off and get paid minimum wage and barely scuffle by. So before you think you got it all figured out Mr. "free ride" please take the opportunity to live some one else's life for a bit and tell me how "easy" it is to get out of it.

For the record I did not vote for Obama, I did not vote at all, because I couldn't make a decision on either candidate because I liked policies from both of them, what is so sad is the some people voted for Obama in this country thinking that his policies were McCains and vice-versa, ignorance and people not doing real research is what we should be worried about in this country, people voting on emotion rather than logical reasons...

[Thistle]

Creating your ground by making the right friends , taking the right choices , profiting from having the freedom to share what you have aquired.

These are your resonsabilities as an idividual whom wants to make money and this is the ground/rule and world we all live in , something we all share...

Capitalism doesnt "make" rules , it just gives the people freedom to put their fortunes and wealth into whatever form there is.

Hm...hopefully i have grasped your point of view better now than before...

Sure, everyone should be allowed to create his own grounds the way you describe it, but it isn`t reality. Society got the duty to give equal chances to everyone, and i was thinking more in terms of the economy of nations, not individuals.

And in my opinion capitalism is indeed creating rules, if that is intentionally or not. It is just claiming that it does so far less than socialism.

War = Business.

Business = Good.

Obama = Pro towards gaming

Obama = Win ;)

Oh my...that is quite the cynical point of view...O_O

[Bitey]

Bah now no one is going to see my post!

Dammit Thistle you meany...

[Arty]

Bitey , - how are the upper class getting tax cuts?

And Thistle , it seems my bad english and limited ability to put my thoughts into words today is preventing me to get this through...

Society is not obligated to give everyone the same chance by robbing money from the rich and pumping it into the poor. Thats Robin hood only <.<

Society / the government is to see to that the public/people are capable of creating those chances...

( thats my understanding of the concept )

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Ha since Arty mentioned my views of socialist taxation I suppose I should outline them.

My belief is that some cost are a necessity, and should not be viewed as part of an individuals income. So, if you look at a person who makes 20k a year, and 15k is spent on necessities, this person can be viewed as making 5k a year. Someone making 50k still only has basically the same amount of necessities to pay. So the per cent of their income that is luxury gain is greater for higher earners. So, higher earners should be taxed higher, since I believe only surplus earnings should be taxed. This results in a scaling tax system like that introduced by Teddy Roosevelt.

Besides this, tax cuts on lower and middle income are better for the economy since the lower and middle income are the purchasing classes, where as high earners are more likely to keep money invested in savings. It has been shown that if you give more money to the rich, they save more money. You give more money to the poor and middle class, they spend more money.

Now I also believe in socialism. This is not communism.

Communism is the theory that all members of society should be at the same level.

Socialism is the theory that all members of society should contribute to maintaining at least a base standards for the lowest members.

I believe in socialist principles of creating equal opportunity, through universal health care and free education, as well as social security and government pensions for the elderly. Tax credits for families with children, and other such social programs. From a pragmatic standpoint the socialistic tax system is the only way to effectively achieve this without crippling an economy.

Now this means I'm also way more left than Obama so don't fear him. He's an American so he'll cut taxes and increase spending, thus increasing the debt and putting the us more into the hole.

I'm also a democratic socialist with social libertarian views advocating legalization of suicide, drugs, and keeping the government's power in check when it comes to human rights.

[Hidden Ninja]

there is just one problem with supporting those on the bottom like that. Americans are known to be the laziest and those that have no motivation to work, won't and will continue to stay on the bottom just wanting a payout.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

there is just one problem with supporting those on the bottom like that. Americans are known to be the laziest and those that have no motivation to work, won't and will continue to stay on the bottom just wanting a payout.

All I can give you for that are the words of the Catholic philosopher Ms. Ascombe "Is it good to boil even one baby to save a 1000 soldiers", but reverse the logic is it worth helping 5 lazy people just to help 1 person who really deserves it.

[Hidden Ninja]

....that doesn't make me feel any better lol. i would say yes it is good to help people but financially the US cannot handle it. especially with all the other spending he has planned.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

....that doesn't make me feel any better lol. i would say yes it is good to help people but financially the US cannot handle it. especially with all the other spending he has planned.

He isn't even talking about any increases in that way though, all he wants is to remove the tax cuts in place for the higher incomes and give more tax cuts to middle class and low income earners. (although it's a superficial argument for the low income since they likely won't benefit very much, but the lower middle class will benefit).

[DesecratioN]

Sucess a semi intelligent debate all sparked from a few words of mine carry on folks

[NarutoNineTails]

Man last night was awesome...finally...finally! Pure euphoria! There is some major challenges ahead but I'm still celebrating. ;)

[partlink1]

True to an extent however I am simply against socialism for my own reasons. I just feel it is just too similar in theory to communism. No I am not saying there is this communist threat or presence about just my own views.

That and I am not one to spread wealth, My hard earned money should be taxed to further development or construction not to pay off some bum who doesn't want to get a job.
haven't read the other 3 pages yet but

the socialist party's candidate stated that Obama is the furthest thing from a socialist, he is not a Marxist and he is Muslim, and he is not Islamic.

had to bring those other points up because a kid in my school went

"oh ho dude hi five americas screwed we now have a terrible socialist president"

me-"wait where are you basing these facts off of?"

"I wrote a paper on it don't question me"

me - "tell me is he really Islamic?"

"yeah"

me - "oh so sorry the correct answer is no. please tell me who your source was so I know if i ever come upon it I can quickly discredit them"



--------------------------------


anyways happy that Obama won, I just hope that he isn't taken out before hand by some racist hick.

[papfles]

there is just one problem with supporting those on the bottom like that. Americans are known to be the laziest and those that have no motivation to work, won't and will continue to stay on the bottom just wanting a payout.

Then you implement what we have here: You get unemployment money (only after you have already worked a number of years or if you have not been employed straight out of school for 9 months). This money goes down after time, encouraging you to find a job, since you will earn less and less until you find a job - which will always pay better. If you still cannot find a job, someone will help you find one. If you refuse to go to the interviews / accept the job that is offered, you will not get money.

[partlink1]

Then you implement what we have here: You get unemployment money (only after you have already worked a number of years or if you have not been employed straight out of school for 9 months). This money goes down after time, encouraging you to find a job, since you will earn less and less until you find a job - which will always pay better. If you still cannot find a job, someone will help you find one. If you refuse to go to the interviews / accept the job that is offered, you will not get money.
I firmly agree with this just do you know the rate at which it goes down??

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Unemployment insurance is different from welfare.

Welfare is given to people no matter what if they have no job, and it is a small amount of money, barely enough to live on. This is incentive enough to get a job.

Unemployment insurance is a higher amount given after you lose a long held job so that you don't lose your house while looking for a new job.

Edit: And you pay into unemployment insurance directly from your pay check in most places.

[papfles]

No, I have no idea, sorry, I'm not in that situation ^^

but this just ties in with what I've said earlier: The US (and any other country for that matter) should look at other countries, see what they do better, and take that and adapt it to a system that would work for them.

If they said "you have 6 months", then so be it, but at least they have given that person 6 months' worth of "participating in the economy" while he looks for a job

(although personally, I'd focus on "free education" instead of "6 months of unemployment", since many people apparently work quite some time to pay off their loans... which is ridiculous imho. That's money they cannot spend into the economy.)

Unemployment insurance is different from welfare.

Welfare is given to people no matter what if they have no job, and it is a small amount of money, barely enough to live on. This is incentive enough to get a job.

It's basically the same thing over here (unemployment = welfare) if you are just out of school.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

No, I have no idea, sorry, I'm not in that situation ^^

but this just ties in with what I've said earlier: The US (and any other country for that matter) should look at other countries, see what they do better, and take that and adapt it to a system that would work for them.

If they said "you have 6 months", then so be it, but at least they have given that person 6 months' worth of "participating in the economy" while he looks for a job

(although personally, I'd focus on "free education" instead of "6 months of unemployment", since many people apparently work quite some time to pay off their loans... which is ridiculous imho. That's money they cannot spend into the economy.)



It's basically the same thing over here (unemployment = welfare) if you are just out of school.

Haha, well they already have unemployment insurance in the states, they have more socialist programs than they realize.

I think universal healthcare is more attainable in the US at the moment than free post-secondary education.

[papfles]

I think universal healthcare is more attainable in the US at the moment than free post-secondary education.

I hope at least one of those gets implemented. I'd like to see them complain about "socialism" when they actually benefit from the system ^^

[Bitey]

http://waternoice.com/wp-content/uploads/obamastaxplan.gif

The tax plans of the two of them, McCain gives everyone a tax break, rich people get the largest decrease in taxes and it gets less and less from there. Obama, increases the taxes for the rich, your making over 2.87 million dollars 700K is a lot of money for me, but for a person making 2.87 million a year, its not that big of a deal, if your giving money to the government it makes it so poor people don't have to give near as much. Then he gives big tax breaks to the lower class people, studies show that upper middle class lands at about 250K / year, so that is the middle ground. Below that everyone gets tax breaks, the government is not "GIVING" the poor money it is taxing the rich more to even out the tax load. Your 700k is still not equal to my 700 I pay for my 2500 I make per year, but thats the point.

[DesecratioN]

I hope at least one of those gets implemented. I'd like to see them complain about "socialism" when they actually benefit from the system ^^


For the most only would affect the lower classes.

Again my gripe lies with the whole way it taxes higher income severely. It is not so big an issue for myself personal now but it will be for me in a few years ahead.

Again I am just looking for what will benefit me the most.

[Kumo]

@ kumo: and that is merely put out of context as if he would give everyone the same amount of money. It is merely "giving those that have it hard, or that cannot afford to, a better way of living their life".He said he'd raise taxes for above 250,000 and give people with less than 250,000 income a tax break.





uhu yeah, sure, and the country (run by republicans the past 8 years) is better off huh? One example doesn't prove anything.Yes, it's better off than detroit.

Second, do you think i'm stupid enough to bother mentioning it if it was JUST detroit? Detorit's just the only one i could think of at the time.

Third, the country was mostly stable until two years ago, when democrats got control of congress.


And McCain's tax cuts wouldn't have given that 30% (or part of those) "money for nothing" either? O_oThey would. What's your point?

[Arty]

your making over 2.87 million dollars 700K is a lot of money for me, but for a person making 2.87 million a year, its not that big of a deal

Subjective reasoning.

[papfles]

Third, the country was mostly stable until two years ago, when democrats got control of congress.

If you're comparing to previous sessions. The country is WAY worse off than under the Clinton administration, but then republicans took over.

They would. What's your point?

The point is that if you agree that McCain's policy would also give that 30% money, then it's a moot point to bring up against Obama.

He said he'd raise taxes for above 250,000 and give people with less than 250,000 income a tax break.


And in that link you gave, he also said one would be taxed for the part up until 250k like any other american, and that the part above the 250k would be taxed 3% more. So that's not spreading the wealth, it's actually making sure that what Desecration did (use federal money to get through school) remains possible and enlarge that for other people.

For the most only would affect the lower classes.

Again my gripe lies with the whole way it taxes higher income severely. It is not so big an issue for myself personal now but it will be for me in a few years ahead.

Again I am just looking for what will benefit me the most.

Then I hope you never get into any position of power. And the fact that you use (well, considering your own position, let's call it "abuse" :)) the system, but cannot stand it when someone else does it too if it affects you, makes you a bit of a hypocrite.

The thing that is part of the American Dream (being able to make more money in "the best land of the world"), one that you're aiming for: mo' money mo' money mo' money, is that you give back to the land that enabled you to do such a thing.

And what if (god forbid) you have a serious accident now before you manage to get into the higher income brackets? What if the procedures are that expensive and multiple that it drains your money? What if you cannot work until you are completely healed?
Now imagine having no insurance, having no healthcare? Welcome to Africa?

[Kumo]

If you're comparing to previous sessions. The country is WAY worse off than under the Clinton administration
As a direct result of things that occured DURING the clinton administration. >.>


And what if (god forbid) you have a serious accident now before you manage to get into the higher income brackets? What if the procedures are that expensive and multiple that it drains your money? What if you cannot work until you are completely healed?
Now imagine having no insurance, having no healthcare? Welcome to Africa?So, what, you should get paid for doing nothing? What about the person that's paying you? That's draining their pocket for no reason.

The problem with united healthcare is... well, two problems actually.

One, (and this is already being done) is going to the ER for things that aren't even close to an emergency. It's got nothing to do with what you just said, but it's still a problem. One of my brother's friends spent twenty minutes before getting into the ER for major surgery, which wouldn't have bothered me if the people ahead had emergencies too.

There was a guy in there with a freaking cold.

Two is, it would be controlled by the government -.- and they already screw everything up, why should healthcare be any different>

And in that link you gave, he also said one would be taxed for the part up until 250k like any other american, and that the part above the 250k would be taxed 3% more. So that's not spreading the wealth, it's actually making sure that what Desecration did (use federal money to get through school) remains possible and enlarge that for other people.Not by itself, but where do you think that tax break comes from? You can't just give them back their own money, or you might as well just remove taxes.

[papfles]

So, what, you should get paid for doing nothing? What about the person that's paying you? That's draining their pocket for no reason.

The problem with united healthcare is... well, two problems actually.

One, (and this is already being done) is going to the ER for things that aren't even close to an emergency. It's got nothing to do with what you just said, but it's still a problem. One of my brother's friends spent twenty minutes before getting into the ER for major surgery, which wouldn't have bothered me if the people ahead had emergencies too.

There was a guy in there with a freaking cold.

Two is, it would be controlled by the government -.- and they already screw everything up, why should healthcare be any different>


You only have the view of a country that hasn't got it and cannot fathom what it is like if you would have it. The "problem" you bring up, rarely exists here, and we have a perfect health care system. If that hospital takes 20 minutes before treating someone needing major surgery, then that's a problem of that hospital. It's not a problem with universal health care.

So, what, you should get paid for doing nothing? What about the person that's paying you? That's draining their pocket for no reason.

You do know that you are paying for it your entire life just in case something happens, right? It's not as if you do nothing to support your own possible injuries and setbacks. And people who cannot afford it (and it's not as if everyone who can't afford it, is just some lazy ass bum who refuses to work - because that's an argument that many people who oppose universal health care make) can be helped too.

A society is judged by the way it treats its sick / its poor / its prisoners / (whatever else the quote can stand for) and the US is failing pretty much ever category.

Two is, it would be controlled by the government -.-

Boo frickety hoo :-/ We have several instances controlled by our government, and I live in the "second best region to live in worldwide". Problem being?

Government-controlled issues do not HAVE to form a problem, you're just making it out to be for each and every thing that you do not like. (apparently universal health care is one of those).

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

As a direct result of things that occured DURING the clinton administration. >.>

How so, under Clinton the US government was running a surplus and was paying off debt. Then Bush took power and gave the rich tax cuts and let the US economy collapse because he didn't interfere in what was clearly bad business practice by the mortgage companies. There is a reason why the WTO released a report saying Canada's banks were now the strongest and most stable in the world, because the Canadian government passed legislation forbidding Canadian banks to buy or trade debt.

Also I would like to point out that it was the Democrats winning the senate and congress that stopped Bush's plan to invest the social security payments of the US citizens into the stock market, if that had gone through there wouldn't even be a social security net for the US people today.

[Mousie]

Sleepy is right. Clinton did provide the U.S. with a surplus.
Anywhoo...

So CRTwenty called me two days ago saying how happy he was that his guy won. I told him that it was only the day before that I realized the historical value of this years candidacy. A black president or a female vice president. (Hey...I'm a busy person right now if you guys read my haven =/.)

Even though I feel that any particular president we get is potentially the anti-christ, I do feel this should be interesting. I am looking forward to seeing how the U.S. and it's territories react racism. Rather it stays the same as it is now or changes, even in the slightest way. (Thinking about KKK that still exists today.)

What I am not looking forward to is the fact that Obama is too liberal. Democrats basically give give give while Republicans say you work for your sh*t. Seeing as how where I live, people here take too much advantage of the giving factor, I can't help but wonder if it's just going to get worse.

[papfles]

@ Mousie:

I think (and hope) Obama is more for the "create and protect" instead of the "give (away".

[NarutoNineTails]

As a direct result of things that occured DURING the clinton administration. >.>


ROFL...try backing up this statement. I can't wait for your response...lol.

What's happening now is a direct result of the Clinton administration????????

WTH you talking about? Imo, the biggest reason we are in this economic/financial mess is due to so much of our resources going into Iraq and the deregulation promoted and passed by the 8 years of the Bush administration and republican congress. Deregulation and small government has been one of the central themes of the republican party beginning with the Regan era and was made rampant by the bush and republican congress of the past 8 years.

Now I'm NOT saying that Clinton administration played no influence in the current economic mess but to say that the current mess can be more attributed to what happened 16 to 8 years ago than the past 8 years is literally laughable.

[Arty]

People should look into factual evidence befor they talk about the cost of war.

The cost of maintaining the army is but a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny percentage of the income.

The Art of War had a really good formula where it showed how a little conflict is enough to fuel a war economically.

Another interesting thing is Germany after the world war.

[NarutoNineTails]

So give us some facts then Arty. Interested in looking at them.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

People should look into factual evidence befor they talk about the cost of war.

The cost of maintaining the army is but a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny percentage of the income.

The Art of War had a really good formula where it showed how a little conflict is enough to fuel a war economically.

Another interesting thing is Germany after the world war.

The Iraq war has cost several billion dollars though lol.

[Bitey]

Subjective reasoning.

Sorry I forgot you have to pay for your million dollar house, and your 10 car payments, my bad.

[Arty]

Facts ?

Lol , dont make me laugh- The World Economy Crisis is the cause of mass loaning web by the US Financial Banks.

Im not sure you know but the Government is not the private sector.

- Am to lazy to google , but really i dont have to as it was the private sector that caused the economy crisis and the private sector was fed by war money -

[NarutoNineTails]

lol...u misinterpreted my post. The US government should have had better regulation to stop the bad loans that was being lent. And the Iraq war was the top priority for the Bush administration thus they fell asleep at the switch that could have at least minimized the impact of this financial mess. Iraq war is definitely a key component to lot of the mess that is happening in the US right now.

Edit:
and u r the one who mentioned these so called facts. So it would help if you actually used facts to support your statement...that's what's really funny Arty. ;)

[Arty]

Ohh...

Well War creates both jobs and industries... Countries like America that domestically fuel their Army and War with private sectors will profit insanely from the mass money flow War starts within the country.

The Art of War states a well executed War is the best long time investment in the world - seeing why is easy.

[NarutoNineTails]

And would you consider the Iraq war as a "well executed War"?

[the lost shinobi]

The problem with united healthcare is... well, two problems actually.

One, (and this is already being done) is going to the ER for things that aren't even close to an emergency. It's got nothing to do with what you just said, but it's still a problem. One of my brother's friends spent twenty minutes before getting into the ER for major surgery, which wouldn't have bothered me if the people ahead had emergencies too.

There was a guy in there with a freaking cold.

Two is, it would be controlled by the government -.- and they already screw everything up, why should healthcare be any different



what the hell bro are you serious. Universal Healthcare is not what put someone in an ER. Thats not even what Universal Healthcare is. If we had UH in this country there wouldn't be anyone in an ER for a cold. People go to ERs because they are usually low income immigrant families without any insurance. Some families are citizens and have no insurance because it's too expensive. If there was UH no one would be afraid of going to a physician because of the huge bill they get later, which is why most people go to ERs. SO don't blame what happened on UH, balme it on the lack of it. What happened to your friend is horrible no doubt, but it is in no way the fault of UH.

Yes it will be controlled by the government. SO WHAT? Do you want the corporations controlling it? Look at how we're doing now. Look at UH all over Europe. Their governments control UH, they're quite the healthy and uncomplaining bunch.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

In Canada you would probably go to a clinic for a cold, unless you're retarded.

You'd wait like 7 hours to be seen by a doctor with a cold in an ER.

They rank you by priority. If you're bleeding or dying you're seen immediately. If you just don't feel well you wait until people of higher priority have been seen.

Everyone sees a triage nurse immediately after entering.

[the lost shinobi]

In Canada you would probably go to a clinic for a cold, unless you're retarded.

You'd wait like 7 hours to be seen by a doctor with a cold in an ER.

They rank you by priority. If you're bleeding or dying you're seen immediately. If you just don't feel well you wait until people of higher priority have been seen.

Everyone sees a triage nurse immediately after entering.

but in many places like in New York City, we have a large lower class population. Most of them are immigrants who speak no ENglish and usually have no insurance. They can't afford a doctor. So instead they go to ER rooms and flood them with minor cases. It causes a backlog. What makes matters worse is that many of the clinics are old, understaffed and not equipped well and crowded as hell everyday. Healthcare in America is shit even for people in the middle class. UH would go a long way to fixing some of these issues.

[NarutoNineTails]

The problem is that too many people in the US are getting medical care only through emergency rooms. They do this because they have no insurance and they can't afford the ridiculous high cost of medical care without insurance here. With UH such practices will be drastically reduced because people will get medical treatment way before it becomes an emergency! Health cost goes down and ER gets to be used for its intended purpose. What a novel idea!

[Erotique]

In terms of measuring one's progress (especially in terms of Presidency), we honestly cannot judge their works in terms of now, but it has to be re-evaluated on the long run. Many have done the necessary evils and even crossed the boundaries to do "what's good for the country in the long run" and it's only the later we found out that what they did was indeed necessary, or unnecessary...

Bill Clinton is a good example actually. With him, our economy strived a bit. Unlike Bush administration now, we had surpluses back then. However, besides the Monica Lewinskey business, Clinton did spoon-fed 5 billion dollars to North Korea for the economic sanction (AND building them the new nuclear power plant). This move was actually to do a good deed and to quell the hunger and animosity between the North and South Korea; however, because of this, the North Korea's 50+ year preparation for war with South have switched their target to U.S. instead.

[Thistle]

Bitey , - how are the upper class getting tax cuts?

And Thistle , it seems my bad english and limited ability to put my thoughts into words today is preventing me to get this through...

Society is not obligated to give everyone the same chance by robbing money from the rich and pumping it into the poor. Thats Robin hood only <.<

Society / the government is to see to that the public/people are capable of creating those chances...

( thats my understanding of the concept )

Sorry for the late reply...

Blame my lack of intellect for not getting what you meant :p

But i have to say that i can`t completely share your opinion. Well we don`t need Robin Hood either but it seems to me like it is human nature to collect even more and not share with others so the government has to use what meagre influence it has (people usually expect the government to do more than it can really achieve) to support the weaker elements of society.

I guess it was Winston Churchill who once said "democracy is a really bad form of government but i know no better one". And in a democracy weaker elements of society usually get support. That there are then side effects of people abusing the system can`t be completely avoided. But what are the alternatives?

Bah now no one is going to see my post!

Dammit Thistle you meany...

i am sorry...i saw your post! :)

[Kumo]

How so

The current crises are economic, foreign, and border, as far as i can tell. Lemme know if i missed any.

Economic: This one was a direct result of the housing crisis. The housing crisis occured because the clinton administration passed a bill that made it much easier for banks to give out risky loans. Then, of course, people started taking advantage of this, and requested loans and mortgages that they couldn't pay back. The banks lost a ton of money, a house remained unsold, and the person's credit score was hurt badly. Everyone ends up worse than before.

Foreign: The war in iraq occured for two... well, two good reasons. One: america was getting information (false, but still info from around the world) that iraq had chemical weapons. Two: Saddam Hussein broke treaties made under, loe and behold, President Bill Clinton.

Border: Well, ok, Bill didn't cause this one, but it's been a problem for at least three decades, so you can't blame it on bush either.

what the hell bro are you serious. Universal Healthcare is not what put someone in an ER. Thats not even what Universal Healthcare is. If we had UH in this country there wouldn't be anyone in an ER for a cold. People go to ERs because they are usually low income immigrant families without any insurance. Some families are citizens and have no insurance because it's too expensive. If there was UH no one would be afraid of going to a physician because of the huge bill they get later, which is why most people go to ERs. SO don't blame what happened on UH, balme it on the lack of it. What happened to your friend is horrible no doubt, but it is in no way the fault of UH.Ok, i admit, that was a stupid example. My bad, got this issue mixed up with another one...

Yes it will be controlled by the government. SO WHAT? Do you want the corporations controlling it?Well, at least they'd have the issue of customer satisfaction >.>

Jokes aside, Corporations aren't evil. Monopolies are. Anyway, that's hardly the point.

Everything we put into the government's hands just turns to s***. (i've got examples) Why? Mostly because they have too much to look after to actually look after anything effectively. The government is here to protect, not provide.

[NarutoNineTails]

The only thing going for Bush is people actually feeling sympathy for him because he can't go any lower in terms of approval ratings.

And yes North Korea played Clinton but that's also the case for Bush. It was during Bush's administration that NK developed and tested a nuclear bomb.

[Kumo]

One thing i forgot to add... one other thing that caused the economic crisis was too much spending. (One example: A several million dollar test was conducted on the effects heat has on... ICE.)

[NarutoNineTails]

Economic: This one was a direct result of the housing crisis. The housing crisis occured because the clinton administration passed a bill that made it much easier for banks to give out risky loans. Then, of course, people started taking advantage of this, and requested loans and mortgages that they couldn't pay back. The banks lost a ton of money, a house remained unsold, and the person's credit score was hurt badly. Everyone ends up worse than before.

It was more so that the corporations took advantage, not the people. The real problem was that banks were allowed to package these loans and to sell it to one another. Does that sound like sound business practice for you? The lenders know better than the borrowers (especially the sub-prime borrowers) that these riskier borrowers can't afford these payments but lenders still did this because it was giving them profits at the time. Again we need regulation for this crap not deregulation which is one of the principles of the Regan politics that Bush and Mccain love so much. Corporate greed is the much bigger culprit than the American people who just wanted their piece of the American dream.

I do agree that these type of loans became much more available during the Clinton administration but the real important thing to consider is that Bush embraced this move of Clinton saying how home ownership is higher than ever during his term. So if Bush didn't embrace this Clinton initiative THEN you have a point Kumo but it was during Bush's term that the financial melt down occurred. Bush should have actually monitored how this well intended program which he used to tout his record, was being abused by corporate greed. Ultimately Bush administration failed us with their mantra of deregulation being better for the country. ;)

So on this example yes Clinton did play a role but no where near as big as the current administration.


Foreign: The war in iraq occured for two... well, two good reasons. One: america was getting information (false, but still info from around the world) that iraq had chemical weapons. Two: Saddam Hussein broke treaties made under, loe and behold, President Bill Clinton.

And Bill Clinton is responsible for breaking that treaty??? ROFL. I don't even think it was a treaty...wasn't it a UN mandate?

It was Bush that that ultimately decided to invade Iraq. This is one of the reasons BUSH used to invade Iraq not the other way around...lol.

Blaming this to Clinton is too funny.


Everything we put into the government's hands just turns to s***. (i've got examples) Why? Mostly because they have too much to look after to actually look after anything effectively. The government is here to protect, not provide.

Depends on how well it is run. And SURE~~~...the current health care system is doing well under the corporations.

Current American health care system is laughed at by other developed nations.

[the lost shinobi]

Foreign: The war in iraq occured for two... well, two good reasons. One: america was getting information (false, but still info from around the world) that iraq had chemical weapons. Two: Saddam Hussein broke treaties made under, loe and behold, President Bill Clinton.
This argument would hold more water if this is what Bush told us before he went to war. No what he said was that Bin Laden adn Hussein were in league with each other. He lied. no two way about it. The U.S. did get false info, that's true. For this I re-write an older post of mine.
He didn't WMDs and even if he did, he'd need an ICBM(Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) to attach the WMD warhead onto so that it could even reach America. ICBMs are only available in a few countries. Russia, America, China, Britain, France, India, North Korea and I'm not sure if Iran's missiles are classified as ICBM because their distance isn't long enough. ICBMS are classified as ballistic missiles with a distance greater than 5500 km 3500 miles. Iran's is about 2000 km, not even half of the required distance.

Anyway, notice the distinct lack of Iraq here guys. Iraq couldn't hit us with a WMD even if they tried because their only viable options would be to fly a long range bomber to the US undetected and drop it on us. Or to launch a WMD from a naval platform, which they again didn't possess. Iraq was a sitting duck.

Now my last question to you is this. Why don't we invade other countries that have WMDs? Egypt has chemical weapons. It's pretty close to Iraq. We might as well as long as we're in the neighborhood.

As for your second reason. Israel has broken treaties. Let's invade them. Every country breaks treaties, even ours. We attacked Iraq on our own even though per the U.N. treaty, we couldn't do that because we had invaded with a coalition force in the Gulf War and could not legally invade again without the same coalition. And if you don't mind my asking, which treaties did Iraq break because I really don't know

Ok, i admit, that was a stupid example. My bad, got this issue mixed up with another one...
It's cool I figured as much anyway.

Well, at least they'd have the issue of customer satisfaction >.>

Jokes aside, Corporations aren't evil. Monopolies are. Anyway, that's hardly the point.
LOL Oil corporations aren't a monopoly but they sure seem like one

Everything we put into the government's hands just turns to s***. (i've got examples) Why? Mostly because they have too much to look after to actually look after anything effectively. The government is here to protect, not provide.
That's why the government forms seperate departments for certain tasks. SO that each department takes care of it's little niche and does it well. The government is here to protect but it's also here to provide. It provides us with services from the money WE pay them. The government is nothing more than a large overglorified accountant handling our tax money and putting to use as we see fit. So the governemnt does provide. Protection as in war is only possible with our money. Protection is a part of their Providing. They provide us protection because we pay the money. UH is nothing more than another civil service we have to pay for. Which is why this inflation has to be fixed so we can raise taxes and implement some form of UH.


I responded in the bold

[papfles]

Everything we put into the government's hands just turns to s***. (i've got examples) Why? Mostly because they have too much to look after to actually look after anything effectively. The government is here to protect, not provide.

The government is there to protect? Then they need to protect its citizens against disease for example? :)

Well, at least they'd have the issue of customer satisfaction >.>


Well, the government has to satisfy an entire nation and make sure that that nation gets by, and UH for example is a way to assure such a notion.

Jokes aside, Corporations aren't evil.

No, probably not, but their main goal is "money, we need to earn more money". That's what every corporation is looking for. They couldn't care less about your health and things like that, as long as they get your money, and have to spend as little as possible.
The government however needs to make sure that the people (as many as possible) get what they need (basic health care for example, good education, ...).

That's why UH by the government and "free" education are better left in the hands of something like a government than in the hands of corporations for example.
Or they have to have HEAVY influence to make sure that everything happens FOR the people. "for the people, by the people, of the people" will never be the motto of a corporation ;)

Foreign: The war in iraq occured for two... well, two good reasons. One: america was getting information (false, but still info from around the world) that iraq had chemical weapons. Two: Saddam Hussein broke treaties made under, loe and behold, President Bill Clinton.

You sure are trying to pin as much as possible on Clinton...he consistently ranks in the better half of the "good presidents"-list though ^^

And the Iraq war was a mistake from start to finish :) Going in on false accusations, going in without assistance from NATO (and don't blame that one on them, because when push came to shove, they were right to wait), ...

[Kumo]

This argument would hold more water if this is what Bush told us before he went to war. No what he said was that Bin Laden adn Hussein were in league with each other. He lied. no two way about it. The U.S. did get false info, that's true. For this I re-write an older post of mine.
He didn't WMDs and even if he did, he'd need an ICBM(Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) to attach the WMD warhead onto so that it could even reach America. ICBMs are only available in a few countries. Russia, America, China, Britain, France, India, North Korea and I'm not sure if Iran's missiles are classified as ICBM because their distance isn't long enough. ICBMS are classified as ballistic missiles with a distance greater than 5500 km 3500 miles. Iran's is about 2000 km, not even half of the required distance.

Which we knew. We also knew that making chemical weapons didn't make sense if he had no way to use it on us, which left four options.

One: The info is faulty
Two: The chemical weapons are to be used on other countries.
Three: They have an ICBM that we don't know about.
Four: They can be carried across.

Now, which one of those four was the most dangerous, and preventable?

Admittingly the first was true, but you can't just assume that when the other three are that dangerous.

Anyway, notice the distinct lack of Iraq here guys. Iraq couldn't hit us with a WMD even if they tried because their only viable options would be to fly a long range bomber to the US undetected and drop it on us. Or to launch a WMD from a naval platform, which they again didn't possess. Iraq was a sitting duck.Two words. Anthrax letters.


Now my last question to you is this. Why don't we invade other countries that have WMDs? Egypt has chemical weapons. It's pretty close to Iraq. We might as well as long as we're in the neighborhood.Cuz we're already at war with a country (actually two), and having wars with anymore with make us look even more totalitarian than we already do (like we need that >.>)

As for your second reason. Israel has broken treaties. Let's invade them.We can't because we're allied...

OH WHO THE HELL AM I KIDDING?! The reason we aren't invading israel is simply because everybody's let political correctness get to their heads. If a person so much as sneezes in isreal's direction, they're labeled anti-semeta... whatever that word is that means you don't like them.

(Speaking of which, who DID israel break treaties with? Never really hear that part. And if it's the usa, people want us out of their hair anyway, no need to make it an even longer struggle.)

A country that has a treaty broken basically has the right to stop following the treaty themselves. The Iraq treaty was basically "If you do this, we leave and don't come back until some other crisis pops up", right?

Every country breaks treaties, even ours. We attacked Iraq on our own even though per the U.N. treaty, we couldn't do that because we had invaded with a coalition force in the Gulf War and could not legally invade again without the same coalition.The treaty, if i remember correctly, basically was "You give us this information, we leave." He witheld info, so we went back.

And if you don't mind my asking, which treaties did Iraq break because I really don't knowi was born about the same time it 'ended', i couldn't really tell ya.

[Peppercat]

Sometimes I think Kumo is bloody brilliant, and sometimes I think he's the most retarded person on this forum. I can't tell which is true.

[Kumo]

The government is there to protect? Then they need to protect its citizens against disease for example? :) So they're the research, by that logic? Cuz doctors are the ones that provide the aid.



Well, the government has to satisfy an entire nation and make sure that that nation gets by, and UH for example is a way to assure such a notion.Not really.



No, probably not, but their main goal is "money, we need to earn more money". That's what every corporation is looking for. They couldn't care less about your health and things like that, as long as they get your money, and have to spend as little as possible.Hence, customer satisfaction.
The government however needs to make sure that the people (as many as possible) get what they need (basic health care for example, good education, ...).You're forgetting that the ones in charge are politicians. Even worse than corporations in my book, because there's no one that's supposed to be above them.

That's why UH by the government and "free" education are better left in the hands of something like a government than in the hands of corporations for example.Wow. Put MORE education in the hands of the government, when the current educational level in "free" education is one of the worst in western civilization. I'd say "the world" but i'm not really sure about that.
Or they have to have HEAVY influence to make sure that everything happens FOR the people. "for the people, by the people, of the people" will never be the motto of a corporation ;)A corporation's motto is "Please the customer and he'll come back again."

A politician's motto is, "Do whatever it takes to be powerful."



You sure are trying to pin as much as possible on Clinton...he consistently ranks in the better half of the "good presidents"-list though ^^Why not? He's one of the only three president's i've lived under, and i've already made it clear i don't hate bush >.>

And the Iraq war was a mistake from start to finish :) Going in on false accusations, going in without assistance from NATO (and don't blame that one on them, because when push came to shove, they were right to wait), ...Even Obama's admitted that we're currently winning in Iraq. >.>

Sometimes I think Kumo is bloody brilliant, and sometimes I think he's the most retarded person on this forum. I can't tell which is true.Actually, i'm highly intelligent, brain-wise. I just never stop to think for longer than a few seconds.

[NarutoNineTails]

Which we knew. We also knew that making chemical weapons didn't make sense if he had no way to use it on us, which left four options.

One: The info is faulty
Two: The chemical weapons are to be used on other countries.
Three: They have an ICBM that we don't know about.
Four: They can be carried across.

Now, which one of those four was the most dangerous, and preventable?

Admittingly the first was true, but you can't just assume that when the other three are that dangerous.

Two words. Anthrax letters.


Cuz we're already at war with a country (actually two), and having wars with anymore with make us look even more totalitarian than we already do (like we need that >.>)

We can't because we're allied...

OH WHO THE HELL AM I KIDDING?! The reason we aren't invading israel is simply because everybody's let political correctness get to their heads. If a person so much as sneezes in isreal's direction, they're labeled anti-semeta... whatever that word is that means you don't like them.

(Speaking of which, who DID israel break treaties with? Never really hear that part. And if it's the usa, people want us out of their hair anyway, no need to make it an even longer struggle.)

A country that has a treaty broken basically has the right to stop following the treaty themselves. The Iraq treaty was basically "If you do this, we leave and don't come back until some other crisis pops up", right?

The treaty, if i remember correctly, basically was "You give us this information, we leave." He witheld info, so we went back.

i was born about the same time it 'ended', i couldn't really tell ya.

What does all this got anything to do w/ your main point of Clinton being bigger factor in causing the Iraq war than Bush? rofl

edit:
Sounds more and more like Bush's "lies" about going to war. ;)

[Peppercat]

What does all this got anything to do w/ your main point of Clinton being bigger factor in causing the Iraq war than Bush? rofl

Well, I wouldn't say either of them "caused" it. However it is arguable that Clinton being a pansy and ignoring the situation caused Bush to have to deal with it. Or, it would be the right thing for him to deal with it.

[NarutoNineTails]

Deal w/ what? The fearful WMD arsenal of Iraq...Bush's major premise for invading Iraq? lol.

On that premise North Korea was much bigger threat.

[papfles]

Sorry Kumo but I'm starting to think you're not even willing to look outside the box you've created in your mind about politics - government - the US and such...

I'll just retort this one statement, since it's utter crap ;)

Wow. Put MORE education in the hands of the government, when the current educational level in "free" education is one of the worst in western civilization. I'd say "the world" but i'm not really sure about that.

My region has free education and we rank among the top5 in the world considering education.

And talking about education in the US. Like many other problems the country faces, the conflict between states and the US government do not help resolve these issues.

It's not because the US has handled several issues the wrong way, that the way an issue CAN be handled should immediately be dismissed.
"Free" education does work (like any other thing: IF done right).

That's why the US (like I said before) should look at other nations, see how they do it, adapt it for their own nation and run with it, instead of this idiotic "watch it, that's socialism", "watch it, the government wants your money to give to lazy bastards" and such. It's this kind of mccarthy-istic scare-shouting that the US is getting nowhere.
The US shouldn't care less whether it's an idea by Iran, by Germany or by North-Korea. If it works, USE IT!

However it is arguable that Clinton being a pansy and ignoring the situation caused Bush to have to deal with it.

Then if we're pointing the blame:

Don't forget it was daddy bush that invaded Iraq first and then decided "nah, let's leave Saddam in power, he's a good guy" ...

Even Obama's admitted that we're currently winning in Iraq. >.>

Yay, and what did that get you? Mass debt, shunned by the majority of the world because of it, many casualties and a war that still rages on and for which you probably won't see the end for quite some time. Good for you that you're winning now... Tell that to the parents of the children who died after being sent to a war based on false accusations...

[the lost shinobi]

Which we knew. We also knew that making chemical weapons didn't make sense if he had no way to use it on us, which left four options.

One: The info is faulty
Two: The chemical weapons are to be used on other countries.
Three: They have an ICBM that we don't know about.
Four: They can be carried across.

Now, which one of those four was the most dangerous, and preventable?
Look at the list of ICBM capable countries. They are all countries with strong infrastructure and with no large economic sanctions placed on them. ICBMs are amazingly difficult to engineer. There was no way Iraq could have one. Plus even if they did, it wouldn't be a large amount, and thus the Navy could see them miles away and shoot them down. There would be no point in launching them at the US. What other countries would these be used on? Iran? those two had just finished a war and both were suffering from shit economies and large scale destruction of both countries infrastructures. War would be stupid. Carried across? what do you mean, they bring them into a country physically without a missile delivery system? that's just amazingly stupid. If that is what you meant...

Two words. Anthrax letters.
You mean the ones that were mostly sent by rogue U.S. scientists? Which is why no air or sea ports ever reported finding large scale infiltration of our ports with Anthrax.

Cuz we're already at war with a country (actually two), and having wars with anymore with make us look even more totalitarian than we already do (like we need that >.>)

We can't because we're allied...

OH WHO THE HELL AM I KIDDING?! The reason we aren't invading israel is simply because everybody's let political correctness get to their heads. If a person so much as sneezes in isreal's direction, they're labeled anti-semeta... whatever that word is that means you don't like them.
very true
(Speaking of which, who DID israel break treaties with? Never really hear that part. And if it's the usa, people want us out of their hair anyway, no need to make it an even longer struggle.)
They broke a couple of UN treaties by building a defense wall that went deep into Palastinian territory, about 6 miles. They also deny prisoners their right to habeus corpus for years on end. All of these are UN treaties and parts of international law.

A country that has a treaty broken basically has the right to stop following the treaty themselves. The Iraq treaty was basically "If you do this, we leave and don't come back until some other crisis pops up", right?

The treaty, if i remember correctly, basically was "You give us this information, we leave." He witheld info, so we went back.
No that's not what happened. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and NATO plus other countries invaded. The U.N. and NATO eventually pressured Iraq back into it's territory. The treaty was that the U.S. or any other country could never invade Iraq again without full support of the same coalition that entered it the first time. Kicking out Nuclear inspectors was one of the things Hussein did that violated the treaty. How this would be an offense punishable by war boggles the mind. Either way the U.S. used this as an excuse to invade Iraq, even though it wasn't the real reason we went in.

i was born about the same time it 'ended', i couldn't really tell ya.

This argument about Iraq is getting quite ridiculous.

[Peppercat]

Deal w/ what? The fearful WMD arsenal of Iraq...Bush's major premise for invading Iraq? lol.

On that premise North Korea was much bigger threat.
would you be fine with invading North Korea?


Don't forget it was daddy bush that invaded Iraq first and then decided "nah, let's leave Saddam in power, he's a good guy" ...

good point. However, I don't think it's fair that W. takes the heat for cleaning up the mess caused by past presidents.

[the lost shinobi]

would you be fine with invading North Korea?


good point. However, I don't think it's fair that W. takes the heat for cleaning up the mess caused by past presidents.

I don't blame Bush for everything. That's just blatant stupidity. I blame him for what he did. It's just that his shortcomings are much bigger than his predecessors.

[papfles]

good point. However, I don't think it's fair that W. takes the heat for cleaning up the mess caused by past presidents.

He shouldn't have invaded on the "information" he had. Simple as that. He had no proof and no actual reasons to invade the country. Whether you blame him or the staff, he is the representation of that staff and therefore takes the blame. He is also the one who has to declare the war, meaning he probably backed it completely, otherwise he wouldn't do it. He took the step and it completely backfired. Simple as that.

Working together with NATO and his allies would probably gotten him way further, but we'll never know that now.

[Peppercat]

He shouldn't have invaded on the "information" he had. Simple as that. He had no proof and no actual reasons to invade the country. Whether you blame him or the staff, he is the representation of that staff and therefore takes the blame. He is also the one who has to declare the war, meaning he probably backed it completely, otherwise he wouldn't do it. He took the step and it completely backfired. Simple as that.

Working together with NATO and his allies would probably gotten him way further, but we'll never know that now.

Assuming he didn't just want to overthrow a crazy dictator, etc.

highly debatable. I don't have the info to support any argument on this right now.

[NarutoNineTails]

would you be fine with invading North Korea?


obviously not for personal reasons but the point is that using Bush's logic, he should have invaded North Korea instead...not Iraq. Again showing how flawed Bush's policies were when invading Iraq.

Good luck trying to defend the idea that ANYONE else is more responsible for the Iraq war then Bush...that notion is truly amazing...lol.

[the lost shinobi]

Good luck trying to defend the idea that ANYONE else is more responsible for the Iraq war then Bush...that notion is truly amazing...lol.

it's also utterly impossible to do.

[Peppercat]

obviously not for personal reasons but the point is that using Bush's logic, he should have invaded North Korea instead...not Iraq. Again showing how flawed Bush's policies were when invading Iraq.

Good luck trying to defend the idea that ANYONE else is more responsible for the Iraq war then Bush...that notion is truly amazing...lol.
I'm certainly NOT saying he's not responsible. He is very much responsible.

it's also utterly impossible to do.

indeed.

[NarutoNineTails]

I'm certainly NOT saying he's not responsible. He is very much responsible.



indeed.

Well lets ask Kumo then? ;)

[Peppercat]

Well lets ask Kumo then? ;)

I think this thread would come along much better if you didn't attack and insult individual members, actually.

[NarutoNineTails]

I really think Kumo's notion is funny. I can't express that in a public forum?

Ok ok...I guess I can tone down the sarcasm but it wasn't trying to attack her(?) personally. I'm rebutting her argument with the usage of sarcasm and that's more than fair thing to do in a public forum.

But I get your point. I can and will tone it down since you mentioned it. ;)

[papfles]

afaik Kumo is a male >_>

[the lost shinobi]

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/11/obama-south-par.html?%3F

[NarutoNineTails]

afaik Kumo is a male >_>

thanks for correcting me.

I do give Kumo credit for trying to argue w/ the people that was in this thread the last 3 or 4 pages. Usually not a good sign if that happens. :)

[Nova]

My belief is that some cost are a necessity, and should not be viewed as part of an individuals income. So, if you look at a person who makes 20k a year, and 15k is spent on necessities, this person can be viewed as making 5k a year. Someone making 50k still only has basically the same amount of necessities to pay. So the per cent of their income that is luxury gain is greater for higher earners. So, higher earners should be taxed higher, since I believe only surplus earnings should be taxed. This results in a scaling tax system like that introduced by Teddy Roosevelt.


Greatest president ever. With Coolidge following suit in my book.

And on the subject. Obama will not change anything. Congress is congress. The men that get into politics are usually those interested in money and recognition. That will not change no matter what any one man does. Congress will simply be, Congress-ian?

EDIT: I know many congressmen/senators don't get giant paychecks. I meant that lobbying will always be present, and in a sense America will continue to be controlled by private industries.

[Kumo]

My region has free education and we rank among the top5 in the world considering education.I meant america's education, not free education

[papfles]

I meant america's education, not free education

Ah, that's mainly because of other reasons though.

1) states <=> government issues
2) location-bound schools unless you have money to get your child in somewhere else
3) some teachings which are uhm... let's just say "questionable"
4) teaching methods that are vastly different
5) many more

It's not like you guys have a good system to begin with, so complaining about "free" education is not really an issue.

Start by sorting out the system, then move on to making it available for everyone (and everything for everyone, not "you live there, therefore you go there, unless you can pay for private school or something")

[the lost shinobi]

Greatest president ever. With Coolidge following suit in my book.

And on the subject. Obama will not change anything. Congress is congress. The men that get into politics are usually those interested in money and recognition. That will not change no matter what any one man does. Congress will simply be, Congress-ian?

EDIT: I know many congressmen/senators don't get giant paychecks. I meant that lobbying will always be present, and in a sense America will continue to be controlled by private industries.


The word is congressional lol.

[Nova]

The word is congressional lol.

Never mind...I guess that little word joke was above you.

[the lost shinobi]

Never mind...I guess that little word joke was above you.

no i got the joke lol, i just thought maybe you really didn't know the word and so decided to make a joke.

[Nova]

no i got the joke lol, i just thought maybe you really didn't know the word and so decided to make a joke.

No. I know what they do is congressional. Their work is considered "congressional." But I was talking about the way they act. You know, it's "Congress-ian," like Grecian or something of the sort?

[the lost shinobi]

yes. congressional would also be the correct word there

[Kumo]

Ok, this is something i typed up a while ago that has little to do with where the convo currently is. I thought i'd posted it before my last comment back there.This argument about Iraq is getting quite ridiculous.That's cuz i'm here ^^



Sorry Kumo but I'm starting to think you're not even willing to look outside the box you've created in your mind about politics - government - the US and such... I used to think the USA was as close to a utopia as human beings have ever come, except maybe Atlantis, assuming it existed >.> Next question.

I'll just retort this one statement, since it's utter crap ;)



My region has free education and we rank among the top5 in the world considering education.

And talking about education in the US. Like many other problems the country faces, the conflict between states and the US government do not help resolve these issues.

It's not because the US has handled several issues the wrong way, that the way an issue CAN be handled should immediately be dismissed.
"Free" education does work (like any other thing: IF done right).I'm saying it's risky, particularly with the way the american government runs things.

That's why the US (like I said before) should look at other nations, see how they do it, adapt it for their own nation and run with it, instead of this idiotic "watch it, that's socialism", "watch it, the government wants your money to give to lazy bastards" and such. It's this kind of mccarthy-istic scare-shouting that the US is getting nowhere.
The US shouldn't care less whether it's an idea by Iran, by Germany or by North-Korea. If it works, USE IT!*shrug* if the government gave a crap, they'd do it. They have the power AND the knowledge.

Yay, and what did that get you? Mass debt, shunned by the majority of the world because of it, many casualties and a war that still rages on and for which you probably won't see the end for quite some time. Good for you that you're winning now... Tell that to the parents of the children who died after being sent to a war based on false accusations...Oh yeah, pulling out is SOOOO much more likely to bringing back their lives.

What does all this got anything to do w/ your main point of Clinton being bigger factor in causing the Iraq war than Bush? rofl

edit:
Sounds more and more like Bush's "lies" about going to war. ;)

Ok, fine, i'll try going back to that...

The war started out badly because of huge military budget cuts under clinton, so when we DID go to war, we had little to no up-to-date equipment, so of course we needed to take out loans for it. It wasn't until recently that we actually managed to get anything good over there to the troops.

It's not like you guys have a good system to begin with, so complaining about "free" education is not really an issue.

Start by sorting out the system, then move on to making it available for everyone (and everything for everyone, not "you live there, therefore you go there, unless you can pay for private school or something")true, all true. So why did you, basically, say free education was the solution?

And my point still stands, it may work for other countries, but it won't work in america atm.

[papfles]

Oh yeah, pulling out is SOOOO much more likely to bringing back their lives.

Not saying that. You guys can't pull out without making it worse for yourself. You guys never should've invaded in the first place.

And my point still stands, it may work for other countries, but it won't work in america atm.

That's why I said they should "look, learn and adapt for their own use" :) not "deny, refuse, put blindfolds on"

The war started out badly because of huge military budget cuts under clinton, so when we DID go to war, we had little to no up-to-date equipment

Absolutely lousy excuse. The US army is the most advanced army out there, even with all the budget that Clinton may have cut, the amount of money poured into the US military is HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE and far outweighs that of basically every other nation (probably several nations combined...)

THAT is what is causing problems in Iraq? No. The fact that the way it was handled, was not the right way, is what caused the problems + the fact that guerilla warfare (hit-run-bomb-run-suicide-run tactics) is extremely difficult to fight against, even with SUPAHDUPAHMAGICALFLYINGMISSILE 4.0 instead of version 2.5 available.

*shrug* if the government gave a crap, they'd do it. They have the power AND the knowledge.

The virtual standstill the US is at most of the time because of whining democrats <=> whining republicans isn't helping much.

[thenightarcher]

Everybody who actually follows politics knows that gas prices and the War in Iraq are in the back of politicians heads right now. What's on the front of the agenda is what to do about the unemployment rate, wages, the economic bailout on wallstreet, and the near-fatality that could occur in the stock market on any given day. Working on getting the dollar back to the highest form of currency in the world should be a huge priority.

There were these guys back in the day called "muckrakers"...could use a few of 'em right about now IMO.

[NarutoNineTails]

kumo,

Your views about government is actually not surprising since we've been through one of the worst run government in the history of the US. So your reservations are understandable and that's one of main reasons why FINALLY the majority of Americans decided to throw out many of the bums that led to this. I guess we will see in the next 4 to 8 years if the new administration lives up to the hype. I can't imagine it being worse than now...lol.

[Erotique]

The only thing going for Bush is people actually feeling sympathy for him because he can't go any lower in terms of approval ratings.

First off, my apologies for the late post.

And secondly, I do agree with you that Bush Administration had quite ups and downs (mostly downs, yes.); however, I wouldn't put the blame entirely on Bush's shoulder for most of Presidential works are delegated. I myself personally don't like Bush at all (no pun intended); however, there are several presidents in the past who had the similar notoriety, yet proven in the end that what they did was indeed "necessary" (not entirely righteous, but necessary regardless). Now, we would probably not realize this now, but possibly in the future (or not, like Vietnam War). The reason why America is spending billions of dollars is because of, quite obviously, the "War on Terrorism."

Now, speaking of this so called "War on Terrorism" is it actually a war waged against terrorist? If you think about "immediate threat," North Korea was more of an immediate threat than Saddam Hussein; however, U.S. never even stopped by for a visit, or sniping the fat ass. I, personally believe, that it's more of a "War on Dollar."

For several decades, American dollar had power over other currency. Why? Because of the oil. It was during the Nixon Administration back in the 70's that OPEC nation agreed to sell the oils to other nations via dollar and dollar only. This is the main reason why American dollar had such power because all the other nation had to buy the oil via dollar. Not to mention, dollar costs next to nothing to produce; hence, U.S. has been enjoying all the goods and services from other nations, basically for free (because they all need dollars to buy the oil). This is also the reason why America had so much deficits but never worried about it like other European nations. It was only recently (quite coincidentally in early 90's) that many Middle Eastern nations wanted to switch to Euro because it was deemed more "profitable". It was no other than Saddam Hussein who decided to switch from dollar to euro during the early 90's and thus earned the wrath of U.S. on the process.

Bush Sr. and Jr. may be seen as "incompetent" and the things they've done may not be justified now. But will America see them as now in the future? It is quite possible that what they did than and now, may actually become something that Nixon have done in the 70s (to secure the America's economic growth/development). I do not approve of what they've done; however, America's politics is just as dirty and corrupted as any other foreign politics. What they done is shrewed and manipulative; however, they "might" have done it to secure the America's industry.

*shrugs* Or maybe Bush Jr. might have done it for a personal vendetta against Hussein who knows? It's just that in terms of Presidency, we shouldn't be jumping in the water to judge what they did, for some things... we just have to wait and see.

And yes North Korea played Clinton but that's also the case for Bush. It was during Bush's administration that NK developed and tested a nuclear bomb.

North Korea was on a process of developing an enriched uranium (hence NB) during the 90s and it was Clinton who offered to build them a new nuclear power plant in exchange of whole-sale banning of NB production in NK. During that time however, NK had built quite a bit of war arsenals other than NB (5-men mini-sub built via Russia's technology, along with other arsenals via China); not for the purpose of attacking the U.S. but to deliver the final stroke to South Korea. It was because of Clinton that their "purpose" was shifted to U.S. and are now trying to "bully" the U.S. to give them more money...

So all in all, I believe it's an issue of "necessary evil" to save themselves from crumbling I think...

[Peppercat]

kumo,

Your views about government is actually not surprising since we've been through one of the worst run government in the history of the US.

If i remember correctly, the US government has always been the same government. It changed leaders, we didn't change governments.

[NarutoNineTails]

Are you saying then the administration does not play a huge role in running the government? That's what I meant by that. :P

[Peppercat]

Are you saying then the administration does not play a huge role in running the government? That's what I meant by that. :P

No. I'm saying the administration runs the government. However, the administration is not the government.

[NarutoNineTails]

and i said it was was one of the worst RUN government. What's there that led to your confusion?

[Peppercat]

and i said it was was one of the worst RUN government. What's there that led to your confusion?

because you said government, not runners of the government


"... Subject: We , Verb : have been through..."

we have been through, what? "government"

"one of the worst run" is a form of adjective, describing government. Therefore, in short, you said "We've been through government". Not, We've been through runners (leaders)"

"runners of the government" =/= "the government"

[papfles]

Remz, aren't you getting a bit technical for no reason? NNT's post (albeit lousily constructed) was clear enough imho.

[NarutoNineTails]

because you said government, not runners of the government


"... Subject: We , Verb : have been through..."

we have been through, what? "government"

"one of the worst run" is a form of adjective, describing government. Therefore, in short, you said "We've been through government". Not, We've been through runners (leaders)"

"runners of the government" =/= "the government"

WTH you talking about...lol. It is the same meaning if I had used words like managed or controlled. Only thing I probably messed up is the tense.

one of the worst managed/controlled government = one of the worst ran government.

Where the hell did "We've been through government" BS come from??? lol.

Like pap mentioned it wasn't a hard sentence to get the jist of. You trying to be my grammar teacher or something...rofl.

[Peppercat]

Remz, aren't you getting a bit technical for no reason? NNT's post (albeit lousily constructed) was clear enough imho.
I am. Purposefully. I know what he meant. I feel if he wants to insult other member's logic, he should at least write as if he's passed an elementary school English class.


Where the hell did "We've been through government" BS come from??? lol.

Like pap mentioned it wasn't a hard sentence to get the jist of. You trying to be my grammar teacher or something...rofl.

You said it...

I know what you meant. I was merely making a display.

[NarutoNineTails]

I am SO sorry for getting the tense wrong in a forum posting. Please grammar teach don't fail me...lol. As if forum postings are flawless in terms of spelling or grammar. This isn't the place for writing a thesis.

"We've been through government" BS you tried to pull off was what was far fetched not the common grammar error in a forum post. ;)

[Peppercat]

we've been through one of the worst run government in the history of the US.

I am SO sorry for getting the tense wrong in a forum posting. Please grammar teach don't fail me...lol. As if forum postings are flawless in terms of spelling or grammar. This isn't the place for writing a thesis.

"We've been through government" BS you tried to pull off was what was far fetched not the common grammar error in a forum post. ;)

Don't call it BS as if it's a lie.

[NarutoNineTails]

Oh common remz you agreed you knew what I was getting at thus it was either BS or did you pull "We've been through government" out of your own ass?

I guess pretty much the same...lol. ;)

[Peppercat]

If you don't understand where I got "We've been through government" from at this point, there's no point in arguing with you.

You've only really proved my point...

[thenightarcher]

Remz just wants to tiitb NNT. I suggest you satisfy his needs.

[NarutoNineTails]

If you don't understand where I got "We've been through government" from at this point, there's no point in arguing with you.

You've only really proved my point...

lol...only thing you proved (and admitted) is that you went out of your way to try to make me look bad using a frivolous grammar mistake...whoop dee doo.

Now if that's all u r going to do I would recommend you leave it be now. Hint hint*** ;)

[Kumo]

*rolls his eyes* i leave for a day or two, and... geez, does every arguement on this forum turn into questions about who wants to buttrape who?!

[thenightarcher]

*rolls his eyes* i leave for a day or two, and... geez, does every arguement on this forum turn into questions about who wants to buttrape who?!

You mad cause some of us piitv?

[Arty]

HARDCORE CHAOS MEMBERS DONT NEED WOMEN!

I cant believe this quote still exists...

[Kumo]

[/COLOR][/B]

I cant believe this quote still exists...Technically, men don't need women and women don't need men >.> The human race as a whole just needs sex between the two.

[Erotique]

Technically, men don't need women and women don't need men >.> The human race as a whole just needs sex between the two.

So you're basically saying that we are indeed in "need" of each other.

[Kumo]

So you're basically saying that we are indeed in "need" of each other.Not really >.> The human race needs sex, doesn't mean you need relationships.

[partlink1]

Not really >.> The human race needs sex, doesn't mean you need relationships.
But you do need sexual RELATIONS

also can't wait till Febtobor

[KageNaruto]

Technically, men don't need women and women don't need men >.> The human race as a whole just needs sex between the two.

Wrong. We can make test tube babies. No need for 2 genders or actual sex.

On topic, I recieved a great message in youtube a few hours ago:

Titled: Obama ur Momma

ur the one thats ignorant...u just probably support obama cuz hes black..who gives a shit if hes black. he has no morals. he is against America. you cant go to a church for 20yrs and not be Anti-American and Anti-white America. its just not possible. how can he be the leader of our country when he doesnt even salute the flag or support our military?

thats IGNORANCE

[Kumo]

Wrong. We can make test tube babies. No need for 2 genders or actual sex.

On topic, I recieved a great message in youtube a few hours ago:

Titled: Obama ur Momma

ur the one thats ignorant...u just probably support obama cuz hes black..who gives a shit if hes black. he has no morals. he is against America. you cant go to a church for 20yrs and not be Anti-American and Anti-white America. its just not possible. how can he be the leader of our country when he doesnt even salute the flag or support our military?

thats IGNORANCE.... or just the absolute worst sentence structure in the history of political arguements >.>

[Named]

Wrong. We can make test tube babies. No need for 2 genders or actual sex.

On topic, I recieved a great message in youtube a few hours ago:

Titled: Obama ur Momma

ur the one thats ignorant...u just probably support obama cuz hes black..who gives a shit if hes black. he has no morals. he is against America. you cant go to a church for 20yrs and not be Anti-American and Anti-white America. its just not possible. how can he be the leader of our country when he doesnt even salute the flag or support our military?

thats IGNORANCE

Our technology isn't that advanced yet. We can create humans but not necessarily viable humans. We can't replicate genetic variability yet and it's doubtful we ever will. You