@pain:
To make alcohol, you only need yeast (or luck) and juice (or fruit) and a basket. Thats easier still. Alcohol is hard drug and more addictive. Why do you compare it to weed?

Anywayz, back to topic, I'm just pointing out the difficulties with your plan. I'm not saying alcohol is good or weed should be banned. Just saying its not easy to illegalise alcohol.

@pain:
The problem with banning alcohol is that alcohol is easy to make as long as you got juice or fruit or any other of the many many sources. It would be even harder to maintain a total block as long as Mexico or Canada allow it. Also it wouldn't be accepted by the general public. Those are 3 problems in your scenario you have to face.

lol

hey zarf, I did not see any reply at first sight. If you already answered, let me know, I'll search for it. Otherwise, take your time.

lol arf

lol@drax
wouldn't be a very profitable game now would it? Post it in idea's, you never know.

Only 4 people dare to state their opinion?
Or only 4 people have one?...If so it tells a lot about the candidates.

"You took something I posted in response to Dpenguins and assumed it was a response to you. It wasn't."
I Knew when I cut it out of your reply to Dpenguins.

"I was responding to Dpenguins  when I said "No point in providing sources", and it was in reference to the statement immediately following it. Re-read it again."
You stated there was no point in finding a source to prove "the cost of the Iraq War was not included in GWB's deficit due to some accounting trick that was done away with during the current administration."
Then I said, and I still think this is correct, that it would provide you with an additional argument against my claim.

As my English is very bad, its possible I misunderstood some part, but then you'll have to explain or I won't understand.

"You claimed Obama had a larger share of the debt than Bush, without citing any source."
true. You proly won't accept wikipedia or I already did. But I will search for one if you want to.

"I cited a source with information to the contrary of your claim."
That is where we differ opinion.

"You claim the source is flawed without explanation,"
These were my arguments (they may even turn out to be false eventually but are an explanation none the less.)
1.) The date (only till end of july)
2.) Source is questionable

"and then try to change your claim to include a per-year or per-term argument."
No, I said "has a bigger part in it" and still stick to that. I never said total amount or absolute quantity. We should have agreed to a definition first. I should have done so first, I admit thats my mistake.

In my opinion if person A borrows 6 and person B borrows 4 afterwards, the last 4 makes it more impossible to pay back the debt then the first 6.
Added bush borrowed at a lower rate when estimates where better.
third, the debt he made is far more expensive ever to pay back.

"That is dishonest. You can't debate a dishonest person."
I'm sorry you feel that way HDB but it still doesn't matter in this debate and I cannot change it anyhow. I have the feeling its more of a misunderstanding then a real cheating but I can never prove that now can I?

"The great thing about being skeptical is I can accept any claim proven to be true with evidence, I am not a part of any political party or movement that I have to defend with religious fervor."
same counts for me. I also do not like any presidential candidate so I hope the best option of those failures wins.

" You are taken statements responding to Dpenguins as though they are responding to you. Reading comprehension fail."
I commented on something you posted. This is a political discussion forum after all?

Yet again you did not reply to the very content nor provide a new argument. I take it you do not wish to debate at all?

@hotdogbun:
"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
I disagree. The facts are with me, even in your source.

"Published: July 28"
If you also post a link with the debt made after july 28 you'll find out its not as pretty as it once looked.

"$5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008" Bush (5 trillion for 8 years)
$10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011 (3,5 trillion for not even 4 years, that makes 7 for 8 years, but its bound to be more)

If necessary I'll explain myself more but I guess there's no need.

4-nobody

Sure as hell I won't vote any of those if I lived in the US.