Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
what a surprise! gladiator thinks Obama is right on an issue! gladiator, just dont waste your time anymore and only say something if you dont agree with Obama on something, and we'll just assume you agree with him if you dont say anything; i know i know, you wont post anything on the forum then, but i think alot of people could use a break from you.
gladiator, you do realize for debate, there needs to be two sides, if McCain doesnt show up, it isnt a debate, and if Obama shows up, first it gives the impression McCain's time is more valuable then Obama's. 2nd it gives the impression McCain takes the economic problems more seriously, and third it makes Obama seem shallow because he's more concerned with being on TV then helping the country.
Obama saying he called McCain and was talking about a joint statement changes none of this. Obama going to Washington changes none of this.
this view is coming from someone who hates both candidates and looks at neither under rose colored glasses, unlike gladiator.
you should write in "my dick" instead of vote for Colbert, it will be more clever and just as productive.
and it doesnt matter how much you dislike him because he's not going to win. he'll die before his party becomes strong enough, the important part is better competition in the future
> twistedpuppet wrote:
> Avo, that's my point. So mikey trying to play the "he's a racist" card gets canceled out because it doesn't matter, he's running with the black guy, so pointing out the obvious won't do anything but boost Obama for bridging the gap or prejudice. Mikey is doing more to help Obama than he knows. We should all be voting for Steven Colbert instead, you know. He'll put the bears in their place and I'd rather have a guy who sees life and politics as a joke in office than the other two douchebags.
you cant give Obama credit because he did it purely out of greed to become president.
as for voting for colbert. its stupid because nothing is accomplished because Colbert would never win; better to vote for a 3rd party candidate that is actually part of a serious party that will get better federal funding from more votes being cast for them, which could eventually lead to more competition between more parties for president, resulting in better future choices for president.
> twistedpuppet wrote:
> Michael, all of the racist tendacies that Biden has are overridden by the fact that the BLACK GUY picked him for a running mate even after the guy made those statements. Therefore, you don't really have a leg to stand on with this spam topic. Let it go. None of what you are saying matters because the "he's a racist" card can't be played when the guy is the running mate to the BLACK GUY. It cancels out the point you're desperately trying to make. You're just grasping at straws. Try another topic and leave this one be.
oh yeah, because a black guy cant pick a racist. trusting Biden because Obama picked him makes as much sense as trusting oil companies because Bush said they were ok. Obama picked Biden because he thought it was the best political move to make. not because he likes the guy or thinks that guy isnt incompetent or thinks the guy isnt racist. not to mention we dont have the resources to prosecute and jail the numbers of people that would be caught illegally possessing a firearm when we already have 1 in every 32 Americans either in prison or on parole.
> Justinian I wrote:
> Why should we ban guns?
because we will only be able to take guns away from law abiding citizens and the only deaths that will be delayed until natural causes would be idiots accidentally shooting idiots, which prevents idiots from reproducing and is a good thing. not to mention in cities that have outlawed guns, such as Washington D.C. and Chicago, we've seen increases in homicides. we also cant even prevent hundreds of thousands of hispanics from illegally crossing our border, the idea of being able to control the distribution of guns in this country is laughable.
> Elliot Erased wrote:
> "wow, it takes one idiot to reduce the freedoms of all citizens?"
"Its was just a jab at the anti-Freedom croud.....ohh....anti gun crowd."
Those 2 aren't linked. We're free to not having to own a gun to feel protected.
what a coincidence, people in America don't need to own a gun to feel protected either!
but people in America feel the need to have the freedom to increase their family's protection by responsible use of firearms if they so choose to.
wow, it takes one idiot to reduce the freedoms of all citizens?
jeeze guys, do i have to spell everything out for you? when the end of civilization as we know it happens its not like we are all of a sudden going to have to pay our debts. all of our debts is going to be forgotten. infact it is like a 1 in a million chance that we will pay our debts off before that happens.
and we have been investing in our children since the dawn of man; we are whats responsible for us being at the top of the food chain, having easy lives where we can grow old while fat, lazy, and happy. the least they can do is pay off alittle interest on some debts.
there will be an end someday, it could be sooner or later, it is extremely likely we wont have to pay it off.
why does it eventually have to be reversed?
how convenient starts right after many years of depression under a democrat and ends with one of the worst republican presidents in history, your time slot is alittle biased there.
well, it was a radio ad i heard while in my car, so i dont have a internet link to it readily available, do you know anywhere that has a list of political ads or anything i could sift through? I'm 100% sure it said McCain.
lulz, the track record? using purely the last 2 presidents one happened to be president during a huge economic boom, the other during a recession; isnt that a little biased?
both of them want to spend more money of certain programs, republicans want to finance their increased spending by cutting spending on other programs, democrats want to raise taxes, neither gets done and we go in debt because the democrats wont let republicans cut programs and republicans wont let democrats raise taxes.
the republican party has been changing quite abit and it seems like economically they are becoming more and more like democrats. most of the differences between the two are social.
im not sure how new this ad is, but while driving this morning i had the radio on and there was a Obama political ad and it flat out lied. it said McCain is against stem cell research; but in reality he isnt against adult stem cell research.
the republicans are better for the economy, democrats offer handouts to the working class when the economy isnt doing well, so in times of economic trouble, the uneducated masses go to the democrats so they can get their handouts. also, Bush has tarnished the image of republicans quite significantly.
yeah, i mean McCain has never been about Change before Obama was....
> Gladiator wrote:
> Funny, how the candidates you support, McCain and Palin, said EXACTLY what you mentioned above.."protect main street as well as wall street"
AFTER Obama said it..
now tell me, let's say they're both idiots, who's the bigger idiot? the idot who said it? or the idiot who followed the idiot?
yep, whenever they both say something similar, whoever was the 2nd to say it must of been copying what the other one said.
gladiator, i dont think being a good public speaker is a bad thing, i just think its a quality that doesnt make him qualified that has helped him get this far.
also, Hitler would never of been able to accomplish what he did if he wasnt a great public speaker.
i dont support either of them, when i vote for one, it will be to the one that will do the best to increase competition in the future, not because i like the 3rd party.
i dont support either candidate. i support more parties to create more competition to create better choices in the future.
dude whoever keeps giving me tag points, either go big or dont!
no, because i dont support McCain, i dont support republicans. i hate republicans, im not blind to anything they do. you're just blind.
> Justinian I wrote:
> So do a lot of things, but art does not necessarily have to imply a claim with truth-value. Religion asserts claims with truth value, and they are not all metaphysical. God, heaven and hell may be metaphysical, but the story of Jesus is meant to be a historical account. Miracles are also not strictly metaphysical, but a claim meant to describe the truth of real world events with divine intervention. Religion is thus subject to empirical criticism. So too are its metaphysical claims. Though the truth value of God can not be tested, someone using the empirical method can criticize it on the grounds of infinity of like theories. With that justification, why not believe that there are aliens on the moon or in the Spaghetti monster?
ok, well lets look at the physical beliefs that Christians believe in. Christians dont have the belief of miracles as one of their core beliefs miracles make people believe who see them and thats about it a creed that a christian says doesnt include a beleif that Jesus walked on water, or turned water into wine. there was a guy named Jesus, or some Hebrew name for Jesus and he was crucified and he was rose from the dead. thats all that can be subject to empirical criticism . ok, i think the only part of that you can question is the rising from the dead. And we have many cases nowadays of people dieing and then coming back from the dead, so thats not impossible.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.