Maybe he's just waiting for you to lower your guard a little more and then...bam! El presidente takes over the US and Canada?Specineff wrote:Let me just say (and I know) that the president of Mexico running North America is just as impossible as 1+1=7.
Read again.I read what he was planning to do, he want the country to be another leftest Socialist country which he can try to get power for the rest of his life.
.)Not a good day for socialism, but a great day for Venezuelan democracy.Thank goodness the voters said no to that bullshit.
So he:JoshF wrote:Read again.
Good, keep it up Venezuelan voters.Not a good day for socialism, but a great day for Venezuelan democracy.
But they started it with blowing out our buildings.GaijinPunch wrote:If Bush was a real Christian, we wouldn't be killing so many brown people.
It's true. You can avoid most of it by not watching TV.djvinc wrote:I think we live in a...mediacracy.
It's call getting the white vote. A lot of African Americans are voting for Obama while Hillary is getting most of the white votes. Not all Democrats like the idea of a black president with a Muslim name. Simply things like this can affect people's votes.szycag wrote:How superficial could someone get to judge him primarily by his name? A person's name is about identity and family, Barack's mother obviously was crucial in making him the person he became. If he changed his name just to avoid stigmas about his bloodline, I'd have less respect for him. A person is the sum of the choices they make.
You have to remember one thing: America is a very pious nation.BulletMagnet wrote:If he was a "real Christian" he (and all the rest) wouldn't be involved in politics at all, considering that Jesus outright refused to get into it, even when people tried to force him. The whole idea of Christianity is rule directly under God's standards (heck, you're Jewish - remember what God said when the people kept begging Samuel for a king?) - the whole concept of religious politics, especially when it comes to Christianity, is an enormous sham - his name is the least of my concerns in that area.
What does Mrs. Clinton has?Do you offer equal credence to the accusation against Clinton that she's "too established?" if so, then what amount of "experience" makes you worth voting for? Granted, there are plenty of things about both candidates that I don't like, but their amount of time in politics, as far as I'm concerned, is hardly worth mentioning.
They're not at a societal disadvantage. They think they are, but they're not. It's all about the mindset.Once again, how do these two comments gel? They've already given up, yet they're hoping to hit it big in the NBA? Obviously they're willing to work plenty hard when it comes to that dream - why is it that most of them don't consider academic work a doable avenue for them? Because they're inherently less capable in that area, or because they're at a societal disadvantage from the start, and discouraged to pursue those goals more and more as they progress through the schools?
Mind you I live in Florida for years. There are no barriers, but people continue to think that they're barriers around them. Talk to some African Americans and they prefer to live in an area with their own kind. It's the same with the Jews in Brooklyn, Chinese in Chinatown, and etc. Lucky there's no people where I live with that mindset. In my street we have so many different type of people it's hard to say all of them.Yeah, the Jim Crow laws are (technically) gone, but the "barriers" go a lot deeper than that - that's a whole other topic, and one that I've already commented about on here in the past.
There's a long list for the liberal media, it's every single thing that comes out their mouths. I tried listening to some liberal radio programs in the pass. I shut it off after a few minutes because I couldn't stand their BS.You're ignoring my question - why should we assume that just because something more popular it's also got more inherent worth than something else? I certainly hope you perused the list of Limbaugh-isms I linked to in my previous post...and I challenge you to find a "media liberal" with a list that long.
I expect them to lean liberal, because they are liberals (Fox News is not one of them). MSNBC is NBC and Microsoft (Bill Gates is while a good person he's a liberal).I don't know how else to put this - what in heaven's name have you been doing, living under a rock? Have you heard anything about the backlash which finally emerged from the left against Chris Matthews, after he'd been making insulting, sexist, and downright false statements about Democrats for YEARS? Russert, in particular, isn't much better...get into Keith Olbermann and Jim Abrams and then I might agree (to a point), but the VAST majority of the voices on cable news (and network news and in print, while we're at it) are anything BUT liberal. Seriously, Fighter, the whole thing is owned by corporate interests - do you honestly expect them to lean liberal? Especially to the point where a joke like Fox News can label itself a "balance" to them?
OK, but I don't watch TV news. Last time I watched Hardball it was so full of liberal BS I just start laughing. There was this one crazy lady who was very liberal saying the Constitution has religion laws. Religion laws, can you say the First Amendment you idiot!!??You've apparently never seen him talk about McCain or Giuliani. And no one with a penchant for "liberal" guests could ever stomach inviting total wastes of space like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson on as often as he does.
I forgot about that part where it's okay to pillage a nation as long as you didn't start it. That was in the Gospel of Mark, right?But they started it with blowing out our buildings.
We kill plenty of non-Arab brown people too, though, so no, I can't.Seriously you can use a different term than brown, use Arab.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
That's true.GaijinPunch wrote:I forgot about that part where it's okay to pillage a nation as long as you didn't start it. That was in the Gospel of Mark, right?
Dude, you're ignoring my point again - if America truly was a "pious" nation, they'd abandon politics altogether. Trying to inject Christianity into politics is the mother of all shams.Fighter17 wrote:You have to remember one thing: America is a very pious nation.
How are either of these disadvantages? On the first point, Hillary can at least say that she isn't the cheater, which is more than can be said of a good Christian like Giuliani (or Rush or Newt for that matter...I know McCain's not on his first wife either, but offhand I don't know why/how). On the "using a spouse to get votes," news flash - all of them do that. As for the "one term" thing, as I said, as far as I'm concerned the "experience" issue is bunk, but there's at least an argument there.* Wife of a cheater.
* Using her husband to get votes.
Conservatives have gotten on this tic quite rapidly since Hillary started running...funny that the "dynasty" thing certainly didn't bother them in 2000 or 2004...The reason why I'm not voting for her is because her policies are not my taste (and her last name does bug me a bit, I mean, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton again!!??).
Fighter, they were deliberately and officially marginalized, to a greater extent than any other race, for centuries in this country - do you honestly think that it's all completely better now? Once again, you're Jewish - the Holocaust's over, but do you think that anti-Semitic sentiment has completely vanished from within society (and I'm not talking just the total kooks either)? If so, what do we need the ADL for? We're all equal now, right?They're not at a societal disadvantage. They think they are, but they're not. It's all about the mindset.
I'd love a specific example or two, especially compared with the likes of the right-wing talkers. And once again you ignored my point about Rush's popularity versus whether or not he's worth listening to.There's a long list for the liberal media, it's every single thing that comes out their mouths. I tried listening to some liberal radio programs in the pass. I shut it off after a few minutes because I couldn't stand their BS.
I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this...if you're somehow under the impression that the corporate billionaires (especially NBC...Jack Freakin Welch, liberal?) who own these networks would use them to spread messages that go contrary to their interests, methinks you're beyond the threshold where debating you has a point.I expect them to lean liberal, because they are liberals (Fox News is not one of them). MSNBC is NBC and Microsoft (Bill Gates is while a good person he's a liberal).
Except Fox, right?So much BS in ALL channels.
What do you mean by "religion laws?" If you're insinuating that progressives are trying to outlaw religious practices or something, you're farther off the deep end than I thought.There was this one crazy lady who was very liberal saying the Constitution has religion laws. Religion laws, can you say the First Amendment you idiot!!??
The president would be subject to recall at any time, and with a larger number of people given direct access to government it could actually happen unlike with the US's "one day every two years" concept of democracy. Also, please don't respond to my posts if you're not going to read it's contents.By abolishing term limits he can stay in power forever (makes it harder for change).
By...giving more people more opportunity to be involved with their own lives and determining their own well-being?Being more involved in people's lives with socialist programs.
I'll have to read about this again, but it doesn't sound any different than any other country in the "Free World" (hell, in the UK the fucking queen can declare a state of emergency.) Most likely this is in preparation of a possible US invasion or if the CIA decides to step up their game (they've already found huge stockpiles of US made weapons and ammo.)Declare state of emergency's anytime he wants for any reason.
Ruling class oil monarchs are given plenty of freedom to express their opinions. On the other hand I don't see the barrios being well represented in the private media (it only makes up 80% of the population.) Where else could you find a newscaster calling a president Satan incarnate with a sex fetish for another leader? Keith Olbermann aint got nothin' on Globovision. The problem happens when you disobey the constitution by funding and sponsoring illegal covert operations against democratically elected officials along with the CIA. It was hilarious how they refused to broadcast any information after the coup had failed, classic fair and balance news.Also because he controls the TV stations he didn't give no airtime to his rivals. Only airtime to himself.
No it's not. It was a joke. I know you don't follow the New Testament, but GW (in theory) does. Christ taught forgiveness, not revenge. The crusades were completely unjustified as well, and IMHO is a major contribution to scaring many people away from Christianity. While there's much less decapitation, the Christian Church is known to smother those that aren't of their faith.Fighter17 wrote:That's true.GaijinPunch wrote:I forgot about that part where it's okay to pillage a nation as long as you didn't start it. That was in the Gospel of Mark, right?
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
I meant something else my bad.GaijinPunch wrote:No it's not. It was a joke. I know you don't follow the New Testament, but GW (in theory) does. Christ taught forgiveness, not revenge. The crusades were completely unjustified as well, and IMHO is a major contribution to scaring many people away from Christianity. While there's much less decapitation, the Christian Church is known to smother those that aren't of their faith.
When I ignore your point it means I don't agree with it. I don't like repeating myself over and over (you can make fun of me about this, but yeah most of your comments to me are BS).BulletMagnet wrote:Dude, you're ignoring my point again - if America truly was a "pious" nation, they'd abandon politics altogether. Trying to inject Christianity into politics is the mother of all shams.
If I was Hillary I would leave his ass at the moment of that BJ. And using Bill to get votes, hahahahahaha. Using the person who cheated on her, funnest thing in years.How are either of these disadvantages? On the first point, Hillary can at least say that she isn't the cheater, which is more than can be said of a good Christian like Giuliani (or Rush or Newt for that matter...I know McCain's not on his first wife either, but offhand I don't know why/how). On the "using a spouse to get votes," news flash - all of them do that. As for the "one term" thing, as I said, as far as I'm concerned the "experience" issue is bunk, but there's at least an argument there.
Of course they're Anti-Semitic sentiment in the world, but that doesn't affect me on bit. And who cares about the ADL. Someone calling me ike doesn't stop me from getting a education, getting a good paying job, and etc.Fighter, they were deliberately and officially marginalized, to a greater extent than any other race, for centuries in this country - do you honestly think that it's all completely better now? Once again, you're Jewish - the Holocaust's over, but do you think that anti-Semitic sentiment has completely vanished from within society (and I'm not talking just the total kooks either)? If so, what do we need the ADL for? We're all equal now, right?
Air America, and Al Franken. Listing to him for ten freaking minutes was a nightmare of liberal BS. Once again I ignored your point because I disagree with it.I'd love a specific example or two, especially compared with the likes of the right-wing talkers. And once again you ignored my point about Rush's popularity versus whether or not he's worth listening to.
You're beyond the threshold where debating you has a point.I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this...if you're somehow under the impression that the corporate billionaires (especially NBC...Jack Freakin Welch, liberal?) who own these networks would use them to spread messages that go contrary to their interests, methinks you're beyond the threshold where debating you has a point.
ALL fucking channels (including Fox). Do you understand what ALL is?So much BS in ALL channels.
The lady said on Hardball that they're "Religion Laws" laws. She tried not to say the First Amendment as much as she can. I totally forgot why.What do you mean by "religion laws?" If you're insinuating that progressives are trying to outlaw religious practices or something, you're farther off the deep end than I thought.
Dude, it's not going to give more power to the people. It's going to give the thug more power for himself.JoshF wrote:The president would be subject to recall at any time, and with a larger number of people given direct access to government it could actually happen unlike with the US's "one day every two years" concept of democracy. Also, please don't respond to my posts if you're not going to read it's contents.
No, by making the government more involved in people's lives.By...giving more people more opportunity to be involved with their own lives and determining their own well-being?
You believe the US want to invade Venezuela?I'll have to read about this again, but it doesn't sound any different than any other country in the "Free World" (hell, in the UK the fucking queen can declare a state of emergency.) Most likely this is in preparation of a possible US invasion or if the CIA decides to step up their game (they've already found huge stockpiles of US made weapons and ammo.)
I'm not even going to reply to this. I'm just laughing at amazing (I'm serious).Ruling class oil monarchs are given plenty of freedom to express their opinions. On the other hand I don't see the barrios being well represented in the private media (it only makes up 80% of the population.) Where else could you find a newscaster calling a president Satan incarnate with a sex fetish for another leader? Keith Olbermann aint got nothin' on Globovision. The problem happens when you disobey the constitution by funding and sponsoring illegal covert operations against democratically elected officials along with the CIA. It was hilarious how they refused to broadcast any information after the coup had failed, classic fair and balance news.
Full of Chavez supporters with no airtime from the other parties. Government establish it = government owns it.In addition to state media the government has established citizen media that is quickly required to become self-reliant, but I know your buddies Rush and Hannity have told you all about that.
See, here's the root of your problem - if you disagree with something, fine, but when you're speaking in favor of your viewpoint to someone and said viewpoint is challenged, you're expected to defend it - otherwise, what can the other person assume except that you're either unable to do so or that it's not important enough to you for you to bother? Also, not everything that we're discussing here is a matter of opinion to begin with - some things are either True or False, and that's the end of it. If you think that a candidate's experience is an issue, and I disagree, those are opinions. However, if I say that Christianity, according to the Bible, involves a rejection of secular politics altogether, and you "disagree", it doesn't matter - it's a FACT. You can look it up yourself - nothing that you might believe or say (or ignore) makes your position any more valid.Fighter17 wrote:When I ignore your point it means I don't agree with it.
I've got nothing personal against you either, but I'm trying to speak to you as an adult here, something I figured you'd appreciate - for the most part, however, I haven't gotten the same courtesy in return. "I don't agree with that, so I won't address it" tells me that you don't see much value in the effort I've put forth to present you with this various information - and I'm not talking about the fact that we're on different ideological wavelengths here. I mean that, despite the fact that I "disagree" with them, I value your opinions enough to take the time to thoroughly address them - you don't seem willing to give me that same courtesy.Now Bullet, just because I'm screaming (LOL) at you doesn't mean I want to kill you.
If you really want to convince him, reiterate. Don't just leave it at that. Would you be compelled to "do a search" if you were him?BulletMagnet wrote:As I said, I've spoken at length about this before - do a search if you're interested.
Now you get it!BulletMagnet wrote:I mean that, despite the fact that I "disagree" with them, I value your opinions enough to take the time to thoroughly address them - you don't seem willing to give me that same courtesy.
Fighter17 wrote:Government establish it = government owns it.
Wow. You win dude. Citizen media is citizen funded. Naturally, you're going to hear different things coming out of a barrio than a mansión.JoshF wrote:quickly required to become self-reliant
America hasn't invaded Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Nicaragua, Cuba, or Bolivia either. Of course, no damage is being done behind the curtains.But hey Josh, if you want to believe America want to invade Venezuela, be my guess.
moar liek barack hussein osama amirite?hilary and barack r bad cuz presidents arent black or womans
What are you referring to exactly? “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s"?BulletMagnet wrote:If he was a "real Christian" he (and all the rest) wouldn't be involved in politics at all, considering that Jesus outright refused to get into it, even when people tried to force him.
You know BM, I'm not too sure about that one - I mean he might have swayed from politics in words, but his actions had surely a political weight (at least political consequences) as everything has, from a certain viewpoint. He criticized the Temple as a "den of thieves". And after all he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword...BulletMagnet wrote:The whole idea of Christianity is rule directly under God's standards (heck, you're Jewish - remember what God said when the people kept begging Samuel for a king?) - the whole concept of religious politics, especially when it comes to Christianity, is an enormous sham
[...] if America truly was a "pious" nation, they'd abandon politics altogether. Trying to inject Christianity into politics is the mother of all shams.
I think it's fallacious to talk about things that happened millenia ago because of religion, for the sake of justifying/milding what's happening at the very second you read this post, and for economic reasons.Fighter17 wrote:That's true.GaijinPunch wrote:I forgot about that part where it's okay to pillage a nation as long as you didn't start it. That was in the Gospel of Mark, right?
I knew you were going to bring up the crusades (or that's what I thought you meant), but remember what happen before the crusades:
* Muslims and Christians fighting in Spain (Muslims invaded Spain first, Christians later got it back).
* In 1009 wal-Hakim bi-Amr Allah and his men destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (it was later rebuild, but it piss off so many Christians in Europe).
* Seljuk Turks were invading Christian lands (Byzantine Empire aka Eastern Roman Empire) and killing Christians.
Can't blame everything on Christians, Muslims started their own shit too.
. Well her husband make her look like a fool to the whole world.MathU wrote:Honestly now... Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate because she didn't divorce her husband after he had an affair? Is it so hard to believe that people can reconcile? People can forgive. Barack Obama is a bad candidate because he won't stoop low enough to change his name to get more Christian votes? Do you even believe what you're typing?
Look, you still haven't answer why liberal radio stations failed when Rush is still number one after 20 years?BulletMagnet wrote:See, here's the root of your problem - if you disagree with something, fine, but when you're speaking in favor of your viewpoint to someone and said viewpoint is challenged, you're expected to defend it - otherwise, what can the other person assume except that you're either unable to do so or that it's not important enough to you for you to bother? Also, not everything that we're discussing here is a matter of opinion to begin with - some things are either True or False, and that's the end of it. If you think that a candidate's experience is an issue, and I disagree, those are opinions. However, if I say that Christianity, according to the Bible, involves a rejection of secular politics altogether, and you "disagree", it doesn't matter - it's a FACT. You can look it up yourself - nothing that you might believe or say (or ignore) makes your position any more valid.
I do too but some things that come out of your mouth I just want to scream.I've got nothing personal against you either, but I'm trying to speak to you as an adult here, something I figured you'd appreciate - for the most part, however, I haven't gotten the same courtesy in return. "I don't agree with that, so I won't address it" tells me that you don't see much value in the effort I've put forth to present you with this various information - and I'm not talking about the fact that we're on different ideological wavelengths here. I mean that, despite the fact that I "disagree" with them, I value your opinions enough to take the time to thoroughly address them
So pretty much if you believe in God you're a uneducated idiot.CIT wrote:b) A belief argument whereby someone presupposes his position to be derived from a supreme truth (e.g. god, historical dialectic, racial superiority, etc), thus automatically invalidating all opposing views. Empirically proven facts therefore need to be distorted or ignored in order to uphold the overlying belief structure and to mask its inherent contradictions. This is the favored way of arguing of radicals, such as Adolf Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama Bin Laden, Jerry Falwell and Fighter17.
You forgot one thing, I listen to all the liberal viewpoints trying to find a reason to say it's true. Most of them I 100% disagree (I even do my own research). I just don't say anything without a reason.a) A rational/empirical argument, whereby people analyze facts in order to defend a position or allow themselves to become convinced of a different position. Aristotle, Rousseau, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc, were all big fans of this type of argument, as are most people in the US congress and most members of shmups.com.
I'm not intolerate.The dangerous thing with radicals is of course that they are allowed to spout their often dangerous beliefs freely in a society that values freedom of expression. Therefore I think it is important not to tolerate intolerance, and to simply ignore people like Fighter17 when it comes to political/social debates. It is because he does not value the opinions of others, that I do not value his. Once I realized this about him, I decided not to engage him any longer.
Bullet still hasn't answer why liberal stations can't even come close to Rush with ratings.djvinc wrote:Fighter17, you say that you disagree with what is said here, but the problem is (I think) you have an understanding problem with what you read. The gap between what you quote and your answers is semantically too large.
Maybe you have some friends who know how to explain things to you, let them help you on this.
(no offense, this is for the sake of the debate)
look who's talkingFighter17 wrote:Bullet still hasn't answer why liberal stations can't even come close to Rush with ratings.djvinc wrote:Fighter17, you say that you disagree with what is said here, but the problem is (I think) you have an understanding problem with what you read. The gap between what you quote and your answers is semantically too large.
Maybe you have some friends who know how to explain things to you, let them help you on this.
(no offense, this is for the sake of the debate)
