Ever been to Ireland? Very Capitalist and very prosper. Maybe it has more to do with the size than the economic make up.
As well, I guess you believe that there are no rich Jews, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc.
I mean, if that were true, you'd be onto something.
I love what most of your argument is based on, cause it sucks so bad.
anyway, racism, corruption, and police brutality are all flaws of the government. Sure, it seeps it's way into the economic status, but converting from capitalism to socialism isn't somehow going to make these government issues better. It seems that all of YOUR problems with Capitalism are just based on YOUR problems with people and government.
sure, there is unfairness, but giving government more power isn't going to solve our problems.
In all actuality, either justice doesn't exist or the means for obtaining justice doesn't exist.
Democracy is not a means of obtaining justice. We put the fate of everyone's lives into the majority's hands. And guess what, the majority is retarded.
1. Let me go over police protocol:
First of all, in order to make anything credible in court, a police officer would have to establish probable cause. A cop can't just search anyone based off of his intuition, despite what movies might say. If a cop felt that he could get drugs off of a black, he would need probable cause to search him in the first place. If not, EVERYTHING is thrown out of court. PC would be something like "DUI" or "when he opened his window a bunch of marijuana smoke hit me in the face".
Second, to approach someone at all he would need AT LEAST "reasonable situation" which must be presented in court or else that will be thrown out as well. Reasonable suspicion would be something like "hanging out behind a Wal-Mart at 3 AM".
Third, the "stop" i was referring to was a traffic stop. This is because most individual drug busts are made on traffic stops because it's usually easiest to know if they are holding or not. What happens is an officer will often become a lot more aware of his suspect if the suspect is rude or not (experience from ride alongs). pertaining to 4, it's not from racism, it's from experience.
2. Canadian Pot vs. Cocaine and Heroin all the way from Columbia going through the Mexican border... hmm. I do understand that border enforcement is needed in Canada as well, but this does not mean that Mexico needs less.
3. Your first stats compared black drop outs to white drop outs. WTF did I say about that in the first place, pertaining to if that is the case. I already rebutted the stats before they were even presented.
1. I've worked with cops for 4 years and suspicion of people is based on the attitude of the suspect. If blacks are suspected more than whites, this is because the blacks that are stopped have much ruder attitudes towards cops (I know, I've seen it first hand).
2. Drug trafficking, prostitute smuggling and even some diseases are coming MUCH MORE often through the Southern border than through the Northern border. Immigration is one of many issues when it comes to enforcing borders.
3. With the fact that African Americans have a 50% high school drop out rate, I find it very hard to believe that those who do make it through High School find it harder to get a job than a white who doesn't get a high school degree at all. This I need some kind of study done (credible, of course). If so, there could be a correlation, but correlation does not prove causation. And 1 out of so many other reasons for not being able to get a job hardly helps at all, either.
Life is built on attitude. It is safe to say that Whites have a much different presentation of respect towards another. You also have to consider environmental factors. Most white, high school drop outs live in the south where jobs are more spread out than in areas where many black drop outs live (Southern living creates many more jobs than industrial poor areas). If a Southerner drops out of high school, he can still basically work at any of the motel, hotels, inns, convenient stores, or even as a helper at a house (painter, carpenter, no one cares about credentials in the South). In ghettos and projects, it's more demanding of qualifications. Whites, as well as blacks, find it much harder to get a job in these areas if they don't have the right education for it. Plus, most jobs in industrial areas require education. And, since blacks take up only 13% of the population even less of them are going to have jobs.
So basically, once minorities can get their shit together white people will no longer be racist?
That's... retarded.
If you fail at life, it is YOUR fault. Don't try and justify yourself just because you have a different skin color.
I'm glad you brought out these statistics,though. I used to get labeled as a racist for pointing out that African Americans have a 50% high school drop out rate.
Well, the race card has always been a retarded ploy to try and suggest that black people are never at fault.
But at least they can't blame the man. Well, those like Feracon and the Black Panthers will try to say that Obama doesn't have any real power or that he's only half black; but for most, it's really hard to blame "the man" when "the man" is black.
Actually, yes, Fox News runs Obamacare ads MORE than anti-obamacare ads. In fact, I don't ever remember seeing an anti-obamacare ad on Fox News... but there's bound to be a couple...
I don't know about ABC, but NBC is very well known for rejecting ads that they find Right Leaning. Hell, they refused to air an ad that suggested that we should send aid to the troops because it "might be considered a Political Ad". Right, because NBC is soooo not into politics.
Fox is about money and ratings, which is why they always air opposition; they don't give a fuck, as long as they got money Which is what makes them so awesome ;)
Under your description, it's NOT anarchy... you basically described Marx's dream.
Anarchy is elimination of State, authority, and government. Basically, any structure of laws or authority would be anti-anarchy.
This does not guarantee the elimination of Capitalism. If we talk about Laissez Faire Capitalism, all it is is unregulated business. Under Anarchy, this is most possible. This would mean that anyone can run their own business... they just have to keep safe from thieves and random jackasses with bombs who do hate business.
Anarchy works in the sense that everyone is left to themselves. You protect your own shit, there's no government to protect you. No contracts either, that's only under "Anarcho-Capitalism". Basically, nothing to enforce anything but yourself. All's fair, but all sucks. But, it's completely fair and can basically work. No one's discriminated against because there is no authority to discriminate.
Anarchy's only bad if you wish to have order...
No, not more regulation. The fact was, corporations were already regulated. In fact, the overseers to the financial businesses were ENCOURAGING bad loans, which caused the major failure in most of our economy. Bad loans are bad for business. What government needs to focus on is placing their goals more on making the business stronger, instead of trying to help people who are too poor to afford a home.
What we need is oversight with corporatist intention instead of socialist intention.
Capitalism with Corporate oversight would be better.
It's pretty close to what we have now, except what we had WAS regulated capitalism... and it caused the Recession.
What we need is government, if they're going to overseer Capitalism, is do it with Corporatist intent. That is, making sure Corporations make decisions that keep them going. Of course, this being Corporations as major as the banks. Car companies... screw them.
well, in the non-pacifist sense, is it winnable?
Like, we won WW2 even though we lost soldiers. That way. Is it winnable?
Militarily, it surely is (that's actually why I said "militarily". Because there's always something that gets fucked up).
Militarily they surely are. The problem is that our main goal (Iraqi Freedom) is very hard to accomplish, especially with the limited amount of troops that we have. Too many people in reserve, not enough on the battlefield. Also, there seems to be a lack of focus on attacking the main al-Qaeda leaders. We also need to focus on educating the Iraqi people. It's good that we give them care packages, but we also need to educate them and possibly eliminate most of their media services (since all they do is show films like Redacted and Fahrenheit 9/11 and quote people in America who say we're a torture nation as recruitment tools). We need to get the CIA more involved (if they aren't already, technically, we can't know about shit like that).
But as I said, militarily it's pretty easy. In fact, having both Iraq and Afghanistan gives us a major advantage if we ever go into Iran. And, it'll be good if we declared a World War. That way, we'll fix the economy while completely obliterating the enemy.
mainly because you act as if the amount of that we expel really are enough to automatically create warming. That somehow trees and plants stop doing their job. That, in fact, us humans are doing more than nature has EVER done in natural history.
and i forgot to say who said that:
Dr. Takeda Kunihiko who's the vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
Doubt is actually very reasonable, especially when someone is willing to put more hysteria into an idea than they would into a well known fact where people are starving and dying in gutters.
Sorry if i got bigger problems.
the consensus is still valid and shouldn't just be dismissed because the independent scientists weren't part of some organization.
The points are simple. I don't care about which party believes in what. I disagree with Republicans on many things, and sometimes even think that they care more about corporations than they do about our lives. But the science behind global warming doesn't support that much that HUMANS are behind it. So why should there be so many unnecessary regulations and restrictions that only hurt us if we got bigger problems, like, failing banks and housing market.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
I understand that it is a legitimate debate, and I don't claim to know everything about it.
My main problem is that other people seem to think that it is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO HAPPEN TO US SINCE GLOBAL COOLING!!!
the hysteria over it has always been my problem. I just feel we should focus more on something that we DO know is a major problem right now instead of something that is still in debate.
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 370,000 dead. In addition, millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were expected.
According to the mass majority of figures done casualties would have been much larger on BOTH SIDES if we had invaded instead.
So... the bombings saved millions of more lives than an invasion would have.
Actually, in order to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE in our effect on the environment would mean to eliminate ALL uses of carbon emissions. Eliminate ALL uses of paper and plastic. Eliminate ALL uses of any type of oil. Eliminate ALL uses of filtered water (because really, who needs clean water?).
In order for US to make a POSSIBLE difference, it would basically mean to eliminate most of everything that we use EVERY MINUTE.
Simply making hybrid cars and recycling won't do shit.
Not to mention that humans have been through much worse shit than POSSIBLE global warming. What we need to focus on is what we DO KNOW is true. We DID KNOW that Hitler was killing innocent Jews and political prisoners. To me, that's enough. But, unfortunately, the same attitude existed then that exists now "we don't need an unnecessary war". In fact, we didn't fight Hitler until we were attacked by the Japs. Just how we didn't fight Saddam until we were attacked by al-Qaeda. We knew that Saddam was threatening us with nuclear weapons and we knew that he mentioned plenty of times before that he was restarting his nuclear program, but we didn't pay much attention because it would have been considered an unnecessary war. Plus, all the citizens he murdered for shit reasons didn't matter enough either. What it took was an attack from a random enemy who's related somehow. We would have never fought Hitler were it not for Pearl Harbor... Whoa... off topic. But anyway, we knew the bad shit he WAS doing, so it doesn't relate to Global Warming, which still has many different theories.
that's interesting and all, but your mass extinction theory hasn't been proven to the point that WE'RE responsible for it or what direction it's actually going. after all, over the past 100 years the climate has gone up and down.
what we do know for sure is that the economy is currently fucked and needs some major patching up.
the environment can wait till later. or, until some new theory comes up (first global cooling, then global warming, in 20 years we can hope for global time rifts).
When one or two corporations go out of business, i'm totally cool with that. It's social Darwinism in a Capitalist world.
But when banks and health insurance companies are failing and the housing market plummets, millions of people are screwed over by that no matter what. We need to stop that NOW, and focus on environmental issues later.
that's a toughy. I don't give a fuck about Global Warming, but I do think that if we became energy independent it would make life so much easier.
It would also probably help our economy as well.
But since the other side says environment specifically, I find fixing the economy more important. Lets face it, it could always use MORE help. What we need is a Progressive Corporate Capitalist system. I know, the name is long but that's the only hybrid system that I could produce in my head that would WORK and continue our acceleration that Capitalism has successfully done for us so far.
Actually, the incineration of the atmosphere was considered ALMOST impossible, but many scientists were still scared about it happening. Plus, they also felt it likely that the entire state of New Mexico would be destroyed.
Yeah, I forgot to say that it was the test where they thought the destruction would destroy the atmosphere. but they still weren't sure what would happen. and the effects afterward, they had no idea when they dropped it on Nagasaki. They figured there would be some fallout, but nothing like what ended up happening.
And they never even tested their initial bomb, Little Boy, which they just went with because they were pretty sure it would explode.
Nuclear weapons have never been used because all the major nations have them.
When people like Mahmoud and Saddam are threatening to make nuclear weapons, it's hard to stop them when all we have a pea-shooters. Plus, many nations try to do it secretly. Imagine how fucked we'd all be if a nation created the only nuclear weapon (especially a lunatic like Kim Jong Il).
listen, i wasn't calling it evil or stupid shit like that. The fact is, that is part of fascist philosophy whether you like it or not.
That's really what makes up Fascist economics.
and who even suggested that Fascism is evil? it's not Nazism or Communism.
Since they are the ones running the entire business, I find nothing wrong with them deciding how much money they're entitled to.
Minimum Wage to me is a necessary regulation, but lets not get ridiculous here and start controlling all wages. that's fascism.
as Lal said, the increase in minimum wage is a big contributor of inflation. When minimum wage goes up, corporations increase their prices in order to continue paying for that low-level employee. Either that, or they cut back (which ends up ruining a corporation, causing them to go bankrupt which causes thousands of people to lose their jobs...).
an increase EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE is okay, but that is certainly not what happened just before the recession. Congress had passed a bill which was going to cause the minimum wage to increase 3 times in 3 years. that's outrageous. It defeats the purpose of a stable economy.
I sort of agree with you. I think the main problem with minimum wage is that it is constantly being raised. Hell, minimum wage went up 3 times just before the Recession.
But, I still think it wouldn't be right if there was no standard at all. Odds are, some people will get paid practically nothing. Who knows, but a reasonable minimum wage doesn't hurt. The main problem, as stated, is the constant rise of it.
I actually make it my hobby to understand sick people like pedophiles. in a way, they are victims of their desires, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fucking up little kids.
and OJ was never convicted of murder but we can all agree that he is a murderer.
and the worst thing i've ever said? I guess you don't read all of my posts.
wow... I guess you don't know what a joke is... but okay. Jokes don't have to make complete sense, just make a point... the point being that he was a child molester.
and here's the (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/
How will students learn about Evolution and theories on the origin of life?
despite it's controversy, evolution is still the closest to accurate theory on life.
And what creates the truly smart children is the ability and passion to debate such issues. Religious fanatics shouldn't be suing teachers just because they say that Evolution is a valid theory. As long as they don't say that God doesn't exist or shit like that.
I don't think libertarianism is the best mentality. only in certain situations. economically, I'm more of a Corporate Capitalist (which is definitely not Libertarian).
and even so, presenting what a random economist had to say doesn't do much.
i actually agree that middle class deserve more tax cuts than the higher class, but this is because I want more spending for the things Reagan actually DID spend taxes on. I just want to spend even more on it. So that money has to come from the rich. but to improve the economy, the Middle Class need more tax breaks.
In order to have a good credit America has to have a certain amount of debt. I don't know enough about Reagan's spending, though, in order to know if he did it efficiently, though. But debt is good.
But, less government spending is usually good (although, I believe in big government spending for science, education and military).
O RLY? an economist said something about how tax cuts are bad?
let me mention another economist who says that not only are tax cuts good, but Laissez Faire capitalism is the best. In fact, he's one of the most prestige and well known economists of all time. Adam Smith.
Paul Krugman is openly liberal and believes that liberal mentality is the only right mentality. Think of Rush Limbaugh, but as a liberal... you'd get Paul Krugman (with a radio show).
I don't mind what you have to say (slam Reaganomics) but the way you did it was kind of... eh. Like I said, economists all have different views on the economy. We should look more to experience. Reagan's era was a great one for the market. It's possible that he just got lucky, and anyone can argue that forever, but to say that certain economists are against tax cuts makes Reaganomics wrong just kind of ruins the whole debate.
actually, the argument came from scientists with PhDs and Nobel Prizes. And a shit load of them as well.
I know, I don't have the list. Sparsely had it, and I guess I should have bookmarked it, but I didn't...
So i'm left at your mercy to remember Sparsely's post from a long time ago.
no, majority of people are that fuckin' stupid.
at least in politics, politicians are stupid, yes, but they also no the importance of leadership and the POSSIBLE greater good. They know how to analyze their surroundings and use it correctly.
People, in general, or ideological morons. I know, it pains me to admit that people like Obama are not ideologues. On the other hand, those who don't like to play the game (Nader) are ideologues... but luckily they don't get voted in.
Actually, those who win do it from getting the audience (voters) on their side. Plato pointed this problem out. That the people vote for the candidate who they just "like" more (Obama) and not for the more qualified person (McCain).
Hell, even Hitler (the most brilliant politician until Obama) stressed the importance of speech giving and personality. It doesn't matter if you want to extend socialism (Universal Healthcare) while still saying that you believe in private property. As long as you can Doublthink the shit out of your audience.
Also, there's the fact that everyone hated Bush and was definitely not going to vote Republican. So no matter how good McCain could possibly be, it was a given to Obama.
That is how elections work.
But, is Obama that bad? Not really. And neither are any presidents. We see that not EVERYONE can be Reagan, Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, and most people would have made the same decision as the other president. In the presidency, you learn a lot of new things. This is why Obama no longer wants to pull out of Iraq just yet. He sees what Bush saw, and it's a real cluster fuck.
With a lottery, we're stuck with people who are TRUE ideologues and they'll live by their promise no matter what. Someone who actually would pull out of Iraq and fuck everything up for the military.
Yes, Obama has done some things like restrict tobacco, close Gitmo, and been apathetic to the situation in Iran, but these are little things compared to the bigger picture. In that, the bigger picture will almost be ALWAYS the same.
The Earth has gone through stages of hot and cold for billions of years now, I don't think the dawn of factories is really what's causing Global Warming. The most close to home hypothesis is that we MIGHT be speeding it up by a few years.
Now, if we are able to CUT DOWN (because we can never eliminate most carbon emissions) it still won't change the fact that most of it will be coming from other nations. So... we won't make a difference, and our lives will be much more inconvenient (refer to descriptions in article).
I do believe in alternative energy mainly because we do need to become independent. But regulating our lives for something that won't do shit is ridiculous and Authoritarian.
Paine was a deist, but he did use Christian propaganda (so did Hitler).
There's no point in having an official language in a FREE country. I think we have to start remembering that America is different from all the other countries. We shouldn't have a structure like everyone else. We're supposed to be rebellious and have limited government. It's what America was born to be. Not just another country with a "pride" in it's culture or religion. We should be proud to JUST be America. We should be proud to be free.
Yeah, there was the whole thing about him molesting children, and that will always be remembered. But when it comes to Michael Jackson, I think his music will be even more remembered.
Really, the HIStory and Thriller albums were awesome as fuck and he truly was the King of Pop.
You know, when Fera Faucett died she went to heaven and God asked her what she wanted. She said for all the children to be safe.
So God killed Michael Jackson.
Than that is wrong. Especially since PBS is now banning anything religious from their programming. Just shows exactly what their bias is. I mean, I don't care, because I don't watch PBS, but why is my money going to them, then?
It's bad either way.
And I am, in fact, against the FCC. It's against the first amendment.
1. The point is that once we start funding it won't stop for quite some time. It's either corrupt or a waste of money.
2. Fox News still has plenty of regular reporting, though. And in the middle of all of those debates you see, there is regular unbiased reporting.
Because of Fox News's ability to gather so many people, they also get people into regular news.
You have to understand the Geographical opportunities Iraq has given us against Iran.
I understand where you're coming from, but hear me out, friend.
We have Iran in a military choke hold. The Sunni and Shiite issue could have gone many different ways, but it in no way would have given us an advantage for very long. No matter what, radicals dominated the Middle East. I see what you mean by them having the problems with each other, but they still had problems with us and Israel. No one knows how it all could have played out. It could have been very likely that they would find us as a mutual fiend, or one would succeed and then press on towards us. With our control of both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is surrounded and stands no chance to spread any power or his forces. The gun is loaded and well aimed, all we have to do is pull the trigger.
Iraq could have been handled differently, I understand, but what I was talking about was that we should try and look at what we CAN do with the current situation instead of trying to force this idea that all is lost and we have failed. I did it and many other strategists have. Militarily, we have a major advantage. All we need is for Israel to strike first (which they've been wanting to do for so long) and hopefully we'll follow them in. With two great military forces against Iran along with allies already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not too unrealistic to presume that our allies will fight in Iran as well. It is the same war.
1. Independent watchdogs that no one listens to? Most people become apathetic to things like this.
2. Greed creates an incentive to tell people what they want and NEED to hear. This is how editorials and columns came to life in the first place. People wanted heated debates on issues, not just reporting on the issue.
as for your Fox analogy, i don't really want this to become another debate on Fox News, but Fox makes its money by appealing to most Americans. MSNBC and CNN have pundits and debates as well, but Fox seems to portray points of views in ways that Americans want it more... since Obama won by a land slide, the majority of the country is obviously not Right Wing... so i wonder why the majority of the country still watches Fox News, since it's supposedly so Right Wing.
hmm.
the fact is, Fox News cares much more about money than it does about ideology. This is why New York Post is better than the New York Times and why Fox News beats the other Cable News combined. MSNBC is just a cest pool of Conservative bashing and CNN always has their reporters give opinions during reports. Fox News separates the reporting from the punditry between their journalists. the people have spoken.
Hopefully Israel will finally get involved.
Militarily, it would be great for us to take over Iran. Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq are the three headed dragon of the Middle East. If we end the regime in Iran, we would have complete control of the Middle East, making this fight against Insurgents, the Taliban and most importantly, al-Qaeda, much much easier.
But the invasion of Iraq (which gave us a great advantage over Iran in the first place) has left America in turmoil. The War itself isn't the problem, it's the people who oppose it so much that they fail to see the military advantage we have right now. Yes, looking back there are other ways we could have handled Iraq, but looking at the present we see our opportunity and the people are too afraid to take it.
I can only hope for strong encouragement from military Generals and strategists on Obama. Especially if Israel makes the initial attacks, it might be easier to get America and everyone else on board.
If there is no government involvement, how do we know that there is no possible bias? It's not a computer running the system, it's people, and people tend to not just follow the chain that they're supposed to follow.
Greed takes away the want for ideological bias. If someone isn't making anymore or any less money, it's actually EASIER for them to become bias.
the FREE press has worked for us just fine.
To me it's gonna be terrorism for a while. It seems that when we were afraid of Communism that's when we were the most safe and most happy (Eisenhower, Reagan, JFK).
Maybe if we defeat al-Qaeda and just be afraid of Russia again, we would be able to worry more about internal issues.
The problem with this is that it's not very likely that we could just be "responsible" about the government running the media because civilians (those effected by what's put on the media) have no idea what the government is doing. It's very easy to be corrupt, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of the stories on the BBC were altered.
It's not good to give the government this much power. America was created for the exact opposite.
This just makes it easier to have a corrupt media. People used to joke about Fox News being controlled by the White House, and now people joke about how MSNBC and CNN are controlled by the White House. The fact was, they were controlled by CEOs.
With a system like this, all the news truly is controlled by the government. Say what you want about who's running it, the government still decides on who SHOULD run it. This is exactly apart of the Totalitarian regime that anti-Communists and anti-Fascists fear.
Control the Media.
Control the Churches (or even better, destroy them).
Take away any means to fight back.
Control the Family (so that children get raised to love the government more than their parents).
Control all business.
Control events in the past and present.
So far America has been keen to try and prevent these, so lets keep it that way.
and eventually, control our thoughts.
1. Bush has responded recently in defense of his policies. Not an attack, just a defense from Obama's constant blaming of Bush in the past 5 months. The fact is, though, that he hasn't been attacking Obama on what he's doing. Cheney is, but he's a VP... so who cares? Plus, Cheney has been talking about "cereal" issues such as defense...
2. He talks about issues in the world. Entertainment happens to be a part of it. He even says "i don't really care about this, but the people seem to love this". Keep in mind, Fox News cares more about ratings than ideology (which is what has made them so successful).
3. If we enforce the system on how it should be we won't lose troops. We can't just go to the other extreme. Don't Ask Don't Tell was made as a middle ground to the issue of gays in the military. "Don't be a flamer and we won't bother you about it". There are people taking advantage of the system, and they must be held accountable.
4. Hatred towards anyone is common in the world. That's all human beings do. They always want to hate someone. Hell, I hate attention whores. This little bitch in the boy scouts is one of them.
5. yeah, the hysteria is ridiculous. I'm not going to get into a debate on the complexity of climate change, but the hype that has been put into it is almost like a new religion.
I'll start by saying that law is a shitty thing... it's always either black or white and never considers a gray area.
1. Illegal immigrants can be good for cheap labor. So the illegals already here who do not apply for a green card can provide a necessary service.
2. No one should be obligated to speak English when coming hear. But, no one should be obligated to serve or help someone who they do not understand.
3. Borders should be enforced mainly because drug dealers and terrorists get through those borders as well. Also, we still have to enforce the law for basic reasons. It's easier to keep track of people when they're legal.
4. Any immigrant who commits a crime must first, serve their time and second, be deported.
5. Lets try to remember that as long as you're illegal, you're breaking the law. You should not expect any American rights except for a fair trial. You are not American. Just remember. And, if one comes here illegally, it should not be impossible to obtain a green card or citizenship.
6. Anyone who comes here legally should be treated fairly. And when they become citizens, should be considered full on Americans and nothing less.
6 basic, logical principles on immigration that should make things much easier.
1. Bush has been silent about Obama's presidency. On a plus note, Bush does not have Alzheimer's.
2. I don't see the Spears family having to do with politics...
3. So O'Reilly wants people to not talk about sexual lifestyle. It's not like he's saying "don't answer questions". he's saying "don't talk ALL THE TIME about it, especially with children". I don't agree with O'Reilly, but that's his view. nuff said.
Military: i understand that the system is corrupt and improper use of the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy must be punished. This doesn't meant that we must get rid of it all together.
4. As I said, all attention whores are bad. The only difference is that this kid didn't need to say anything at all but he wanted attention, so he did say something. He got kicked out, and the media covered it. The religious nuts are bad in a different way, in that they're annoying. Plus, every issue to them always has to resort to their religion, as if it matters.
Dane Cook was mainly attacking how the guy unnecessarily pointed out he was an Atheist as if it mattered. Hatred towards attention whores is common in the Comedy world.
5. No, they were pretty accurate there as well. They didn't say it was a hoax, they basically just bashed the hysteria that has resulted from it.
1. I'm pretty sure Jimmy Carter has Alzheimer's.
2. The difference is that he's less focused on the politics of the issue and more focused on the true grit of the issue. which is what makes his show way different from anything else you can find on Cable News.
3. Basically, he's telling people to not talk about their sexual lifestyle if it's unnecessary. In the military most who join are the Southern Conservative homophobes... if people are openly gay in the military, that will cause more animosity than is necessary. (any animosity in a fighting force is unnecessary). Now, I do believe that the military has not done their part in the don't ask, don't tell policy, but this doesn't mean that military should be open about their sexual lifestyle because of some pseudo-principal. A fighting force should be kept to be the best, not the most "open minded".
Also, why talk about your sexual lifestlye in front of kids? I can't wait for to be a swinger so i can talk about the orgy i had last week at the next scouts meeting. Bill wants animosity to be prevented between the gays and straights... sounds reasonable.
4. Yes, anyone who brings up that they're an atheist during a pledge in a scouts meeting is an attention whore. Attention whores in general piss me off. This does include the people who wear Christianity t-shirts that say stupid shit like "Satan is a dork" or "God is awesome".
The atheist kid, even though i party agree with his non-religious views (i'm agnostic), and others like him piss me off. I hate the Christian channels. and Atheism is pretty common on TV (Comedy Central, MSBNC, Adult Swim, and any other channel that I watch). Hell, Bill Maher devotes most of his show to bashing any religion that exists. Although, Bill Maher is attacking other religions based on THEIR beliefs, so he's not being an attention whore. But if you're just at a routine pledge and someone has you site a pledge and you just decide to blurt out "Lulz, i'm an atheist" you're just being an attention whore. You're trying to be the outcast and everyone should pay attention to you because you have some rebellious belief.
I say I'm an agnostic when i'm ASKED about my religious views. Mainly because that's the ONLY TIME when religious talk is appropriate.
5. This is because South Park is accurate on every issue ever to occur.
Price varies on the individual and how much HE'S willing to save his own life.
to me? a complete stranger is worth zero dollars. Good friends are worth a couple of hundred dollars and family goes up pretty high.
the government should focus on stopping death. this means paying for critical medical circumstances (car accident, surgery, etc.) and paying for a police force to protect us (which includes FBI and homeland security).
through that, I am paying for that... but, they service me just the same, so it's not a total loss.
Well, in order to do it without impending on MY rights:
- Make it so that minors don't need parent consent for getting an abortion. keep in mind, the parents must be conformed AFTER the procedure is done, but before it no one needs to know.
- Keep it completely legal up to 6 months. after that there has to be a good reason... and good reason can even mean rape. This is because late term abortions include the drilling of holes into the baby's head in order to kill it.
- Mandatory sex education. Fuck religious zealot faggots.
- As for contraceptives and morning after pill... it should be COMPLETELY available as long as the government does NOT pay for them. Mainly because that means that I'M paying for it. 4th amendment, illegal search and seizure. If you're taking my money just to pay for condoms, I consider that illegal seizure of my property.
He's criticized Bush on the handling of the war as well, but he was referring more to the people who bring nothing new to the debate. Just critics to be critics. He's also attacked advocates of the death penalty and plenty of corrupt CEOs. He is, as well, an environmentalist.
seriously... do you actually watch his show?
as for the shut up comments, i don't know about 1 or 3 but the atheist was just a little attention whore. He was in the middle of a Boyscouts pledge and in that there's a mentioning of serving God and country and the kid said "o, i'm an atheist". big fuckin' deal kid, it's a pledge not a sign in blood. He just wanted attention and he got it. Refer to Dane Cook on Atheist Attention Whores.
no, you still don't seem to understand what i'm saying. The joke wasn't about Bristol (the one who got pregnant). It was about the 14 year old girl who went to the baseball game. She was never in the media and never got pregnant.
anyway, Dave finally made a huge apology saying that what he said was wrong and that he truly is sorry to the Palin family.
Predators are not behaving immorally because they lack the intellectual capacity for morals.
With that argument, is it that immoral to kill a creature that doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand anything other than Mate Feed Kill Repeat?
O snap, I didn't know you were on their show...
well, since you have experience there then i guess i can't refute you.
I've only seen O'Reilly cut a mic one time since i've been watching him, and it was completely necessary to do so. The guy was yelling about shit that made no sense at all and had completely changed the subject. In fact, the Black Panther leader that was on later who was saying that Michelle Malkin was a political whore didn't even get his mic cut when on the factor, because he STAYED ON TOPIC. The point is to keep control of the show. It's the No Spin Zone. Bill doesn't have time to listen to bullshit that has been said on 30 other programs; he wants straight answers and doesn't want the usual political bullshit mexican hat dance that we see all the time. Yeah, Bill's an aggressive douche, but that's the only way to get things done.
he was referring to an event of the past where he says "why didn't you just shut up?" or for the talking points, he's not speaking to anyone's face in the first place. He's just saying that certain people need to shut up. Sorry he's not formal like the tight ass conservatives on Fox News. He started as just some guy who was pissed off all the time... that's how he is now.
I disagree with him most of the time, but what i like about him is that he's not an ideologue. He couldn't give two shits if someone was a Republican or a Liberal, he just cares about if they're doing what he feels is the right thing to do. Something that's hard to find nowadays.
1. Government workers do not get promotions and major pay raises for finding a way to save the company millions of dollars. that's what i meant by progress.
2. First of all, most of the time he won't necessarily need my help, and I would just tell him "you fail at walking faggot". But, if he breaks something, sure, I would help him up. The thing is, though, helping him up does not deprive me of my property... so it's not the same as wealth redistribution.
3. so... they suck then...
I think Donnie Darko can rap this up a bit. It's pointless to care about the death of an animal.
Yes, when torture of an animal occurs it's wrong because it's prolonged pain of a living creature. But just to kill it (for food, vanity or sport) is part of what makes us human. We dominate.
Obama's daughters are also public figures because i see them on TV all the time and Obama constantly has them on interviews with him... are they fair game? as much fair game as Bristol (she was 17 when the jokes started).
Letterman still made fun of the 14 year old, nothing else to say about that. he didn't even say Bristol, and when he apologized a bit later all he said was "i don't advocate rape of underage children". he didn't even apologize... but he also wanted people to think that his joke was okay, but, he wanted to say that it wasn't what made it funny.
ya see, rape of a 14 year old is funny. Letterman knew that talking about how she got impregnated by A-Rod would be "edgy". Now he regrets it (cause he's a faggot).
If Letterman were to just say "it was a joke and fuck all of you" i would at least respect him (he's not funny though). but he took the douchiest way out of this.
No, Catholicism where I am isn't that big. It's mainly the Protestants and other stuff. They all volunteer at the church or sing in the choir and shit like that. And they love having a "relationship" with Jesus. They are also generally happy. It isn't the cheery stuff you probably see in small towns, it's more of just people who look they found something that really makes them happy.
For Bill, he never told them to shut up WHILE they were speaking except for one guest, and that guy was ranting.
the other times he was saying "Why didn't you just shut up?"...
As for Bill cutting the mic, yes, those fuckers were insane. Most of the time he lets them bullshit until time's up, but when it goes out of line he cuts the mic. Even though i disagree with Bill most of the time, I found it perfectly acceptable. w/e, highest rated Cable News show, so i can't be the only one.
as for Beck, yep, made it all up cause he only had one other witness. Please, even the ACORN member in DC (or somewhere) says that most of ACORN is pretty shady. Beck had a full interview with this guy and all he did was dance around the questions. Maybe by the time they reached that point Beck was tired of it.
1. Lern Eggnlish pleez. Also, that didn't refute anything.
2. I guess individualism = assholism. and what gay friends are you hanging with? That's how dudes are with each other... well, not the older crowd but definitely the younger crowd. eh, my dad used (and still does) think the modern culture has gone insane. But, i'm considered one of the friendliest people of my friends... they always call me the nice one. So w/e.
3. They make sense though and you haven't refuted them.
yea, screw Pew Research.
well, he told one guy to out right shut up while he was speaking... all the other times were just suggestions... like "why didn't you just shut up?" he wasn't telling him to do it at the time... so all those other times wouldn't count.
as for the last clip, someone interrupted him while he was speaking so he told him to shut up... which is a natural reaction. forgive him for being human.
watch out dude, personal stories are for some reason irrelevant to this debate. I mean, it is about the capability of people... what's better than a true story?
also, if he wants to be logical, than logic would propose that we simply let them die off (natural Selection is the most logical approach).
1. Under socialism you can not progress. you will always be at the position that you are best "fit" for.
2. Maybe he can help his own self up. And yeah, I would probably say something like that... welcome to individualism.
3. you started the analogy... so it's fair game to argue on.
According the Pew Research (i'm guessing this is where you got your stats from) Rush Limbaugh listeners know the most about certain news stories. Do you recommend i listen to him all the time?
O'Reilly Factor is pretty high up there (which i do watch) along with Colbert Report and Daily Show (which i watch as well).
I watch CNN and MSNBC. I watch local news and read Time Magazine and New York Post. I don't only watch Fox News...
on the answer of a deity, they are actually more agnostic. They just believe that "it is what it is". They believe in Karma and Darma, though, which I don't believe in (since it insights that we're being watched or something).
As for the other religions... most people who are very religious (that i meet at least) are very happy... you should probably stop hanging out with such depressed people.
did you ever actually see the situations where Bill cut someone's mic? these people were insane. on the rare occasions that he did it, it was very necessary. you would be begging for him to do it because these people were insane. It's basically so that he doesn't lose control of the show.
Beck just makes fun of the guy... big deal, the guy was being a moron and dancing around the question. and lying... Beck caught this immediately and decided to fuck with his head. The guy later says "you just don't like blacks" and Beck kicks him off the show.
