Thread: McCain Passes Obama In Official Gallup Poll

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, they shouldn't have gotten them in the first place. That war was as stupid as Vietnam.

Huh????? How should the Nazis have been handled once they took over an enormous part of Europe and were on their way to taking over the rest of the world? What should have been done? I am looking very forward to reading your answer to that.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

So you agree that Iraq was for revenge?

Do I really need to post the list of reasons yet again?

Originally Posted by aceofspades

Yah and more and more are being recruited and killing our soldiers.

And last time i checked its hard to capture flies

And its not the guys in iraq. The guys in iraq aren't al queda they are just iraquis who want us out.

You are just flat out incorrect on that. Look at the facts.

If the insurgents really just wanted us out, they would just quit being insurgents. They know that is all it would take. Thus, they are pushing for something else, which is the prevention of democracy. Read what they have to say about democracy.

Originally Posted by aceofspades

And they shouldn't have asked him about adultery. You can't just go fishing for stuff like that just to push your own agenda. Thus whether or not he lied about his adultery is irrelevant. I would much rather have a president who screws girls than screws our country.

It was relevant to the case.

Originally Posted by aceofspades

No we shouldn't have given guns to these people or Iraq. Remember guy we are the ones who gave chemical weapons to sadam and weapons to sadam and al queda.

I agree, but saying that in 2003 would have done nothing to change the situation. Right?????

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Huh????? How should the Nazis have been handled once they took over an enormous part of Europe and were on their way to taking over the rest of the world? What should have been done? I am looking very forward to reading your answer to that.

My discussion was about the USSR, not Nazi Germany. The USSR never planned to rule the world. If they had then they would have joined the Nazis in WWII. They invaded weak countries that they said needed help or had brutal leaders. Yes, even though it sounds like I'm talking about the USA in Iraq, I'm really talking about the USSR in Afghanistan.

No, your brainwashed list of reasons has been seen many times.
WMAs - there were none
Terrorism - no links to Al Qaeda before we went there
Revenge - oops, can't say that
Money for Haloburden - oops, can't say that either
Oil - actually not that much oil in Iraq
Liberation of oppressed people - central Africa is much worse
Protection from future attacks - North Korea is far more violative
Protection for the region - Iran actually has WMDs and a crazy leader
Flex your muscles, dare the world to stop you - sounds more like Russia

Take your pick

Originally Posted by ninja9578

My discussion was about the USSR, not Nazi Germany. The USSR never planned to rule the world. If they had then they would have joined the Nazis in WWII. They invaded weak countries that they said needed help or had brutal leaders. Yes, even though it sounds like I'm talking about the USA in Iraq, I'm really talking about the USSR in Afghanistan.

The U.S.S.R. did plan to rule the world, and they saw the Nazis as a threat to their world rule. They did not want a Nazi world rule. They wanted a Soviet world rule.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, your brainwashed list of reasons has been seen many times.
WMAs - there were none
Terrorism - no links to Al Qaeda before we went there
Revenge - oops, can't say that
Money for Haloburden - oops, can't say that either
Oil - actually not that much oil in Iraq
Liberation of oppressed people - central Africa is much worse
Protection from future attacks - North Korea is far more violative
Protection for the region - Iran actually has WMDs and a crazy leader
Flex your muscles, dare the world to stop you - sounds more like Russia

Take your pick

Now you finally recognize the list, although that is not the real version of it. We have argued it into the ground. Just stop pretending like the list doesn't exist. It exists.

The war is about all of the reasons.. together... at once... in one big picture. You keep committing the fallacy of assuming we are saying that any one reason alone would have been justification. Please stop committing that strawman. Thanks.

When and where did Stalin say that?


But every one of those reasons is wrong. Adding them together doesn't somehow make it right.

You say we're going into Iraq because of WMDs, terrorism, and liberation of the people. I say that there are no WMDs, no links to Al Qaeda, and much worse cases of oppression. How does yours become right just because you put a bunch of bad statements together?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

When and where did Stalin say that?

No telling when and where he said it flat out since he would never do it publicly, but his actions and the actions of the later leaders said a great deal.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

But every one of those reasons is wrong. Adding them together doesn't somehow make it right.

We have not set up a terrorist magnet? Democracy and capitalism don't advance civilizations? We did not have WMD intelligence from several governments, factions of our own government, and the CLINTON Administration? Yes, your hero Clinton said the stuff before Bush even had national fame. Yep. The Hussein regime did not violate the provisions of our 1991 ceasefire with them? The Hussein regime was not a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism? Overthrowing Islamofascist governments does not give ANY Islamofascists a reason not to come here and attack us? Democracy and the ending of genocide are not good things? I thought you were for at least women's rights. Khaddaffi did not end his WMD program right after we overthrew the Hussein regime? No Islamofascist governments are now deterred from starting WMD programs?

I hope you realize just how extreme of a statement you made.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You say we're going into Iraq because of WMDs, terrorism, and liberation of the people. I say that there are no WMDs, no links to Al Qaeda, and much worse cases of oppression. How does yours become right just because you put a bunch of bad statements together?

The list is much longer than that.

Not finding something does not prove that it never existed. Please explain why you think it does. I very much want to understand this. Don't forget.

We acted on WMD intelligence from many sources. Even if you could somehow know there were no WMD's, which you of course can't, it does not negate the fact that we were acting on very serious intelligence. Show some open-mindedness.

The Hussein regime did have meetings with Al Qaeda, and they did harbor Zarqawi. Look at the place of that in the much bigger picture. Think really hard about it. Really hard.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No telling when and where he said it flat out since he would never do it publicly, but his actions and the actions of the later leaders said a great deal.

They spread communism because they thought it was better. Did the USA do any different?

We have not set up a terrorist magnet? Democracy and capitalism don't advance civilizations? We did not have WMD intelligence from several governments, factions of our own government, and the CLINTON Administration? Yes, your hero Clinton said the stuff before Bush even had national fame. Yep. The Hussein regime did not violate the provisions of our 1991 ceasefire with them? The Hussein regime was not a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism? Overthrowing Islamofascist governments does not give ANY Islamofascists a reason not to come here and attack us? Democracy and the ending of genocide are not good things? I thought you were for at least women's rights. Khaddaffi did not end his WMD program right after we overthrew the Hussein regime? No Islamofascist governments are now deterred from starting WMD programs?

I thought the war of terrorism was supposed to be Afghanistan? During the Clinton administration the Iraqis DID have WMDS (they used them,) but they took them apart under the watch of the UN. Is the USA not a terrorist government by the same means, you can't have double standards. I'm very for women's rights, but I'm also for the rights of religions.

Democracy isn't democracy if it's forced and the genocide of Kuwait ended a long time ago. Rwanda and Darfur, however are still going strong.

The list is much longer than that.

Not finding something does not prove that it never existed. Please explain why you think it does. I very much want to understand this. Don't forget.

We acted on WMD intelligence from many sources. Even if you could somehow know there were no WMD's, which you of course can't, it does not negate the fact that we were acting on very serious intelligence. Show some open-mindedness.

There was very little evidence, people who read the reports voted against the war. We know that they had them. We also know that they were taken apart. The UN was there when they did it.

The Hussein regime did have meetings with Al Qaeda, and they did harbor Zarqawi. Look at the place of that in the much bigger picture. Think really hard about it. Really hard.

Nope. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

Originally Posted by ninja9578

They spread communism because they thought it was better. Did the USA do any different?

Yes, spreading democracy is good and spreading communism is evil. If you are ever forced to give up all of your positions and take a job that the government forces you to take, you will agree with me.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I thought the war of terrorism was supposed to be Afghanistan? During the Clinton administration the Iraqis DID have WMDS (they used them,) but they took them apart under the watch of the UN. Is the USA not a terrorist government by the same means, you can't have double standards. I'm very for women's rights, but I'm also for the rights of religions.

They did not take all of them apart under the watch of the U.N. That was a big part of the problem.

The war on terror is not limited to Afghanistan. I have no idea where you got that.

I value women's rights and do not at all believe in any right of anybody to oppress a woman against her will on the basis of religion. Do you believe men have a right to beat women on the basis of Christianity?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Democracy isn't democracy if it's forced and the genocide of Kuwait ended a long time ago. Rwanda and Darfur, however are still going strong.

I am talking about the genocide of the Iraqis, I am all for liberating Rwanda and Darfur, and (once again) genocide alone was never claimed to be the justification for the liberation of Iraq.

Democracy is a right all innocent people are entitled to. Period.

Do you think we should liberate Rwanda and Darfur?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

There was very little evidence, people who read the reports voted against the war. We know that they had them. We also know that they were taken apart. The UN was there when they did it.

Not all of them. Not all of them.

Are you accusing Hillary Clinton and John Kerry of not reading the reports? What about Bill Clinton and Al Gore?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Nope. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

That article agrees with me. I said "meetings", not "collaborative relationship".


By the way, why are we arguing about the Iraq war again? I was refuting your recurring point that the war was for "no reason". Don't you agree now that it was not for "no reason" and was instead for reasons you just don't agree with?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, spreading democracy is good and spreading communism is evil. If you are ever forced to give up all of your positions and take a job that the government forces you to take, you will agree with me.

That's not communism. China is communist, I have friends who are chinese. and have plenty of things and chose to be doctors (2 of them), mechanical engineer, and a teacher.

They did not take all of them apart under the watch of the U.N. That was a big part of the problem.

The Iraqis dismantled them all in front of the UN, then booted the UN out. When the UN threatened military action they were let back in and inspected the sites to make sure that they were taken down. Which they were.

The war on terror is not limited to Afghanistan. I have no idea where you got that.

True, but there were no links to Al Qaeda in Iraq. That article I posted wans't an editorial by a liberal, it was about the 911 Commission Report.

I value women's rights and do not at all believe in any right of anybody to oppress a woman against her will on the basis of religion. Do you believe men have a right to beat women on the basis of Christianity?

Where in the bible does it say that? Despite not being a christian, I'm well read and have read the bible. Women are not oppressed under good Islamic rule, tearing down a government doesn't fix that. Diplomacy does.

I am talking about the genocide of the Iraqis, I am all for liberating Rwanda and Darfur, and (once again) genocide alone was never claimed to be the justification for the liberation of Iraq.

Democracy is a right all innocent people are entitled to. Period.

Do you think we should liberate Rwanda and Darfur?

Not through invasion. I believe in liberation through diplomacy. Who did more in the middle east: George W Bush, or Jimmy Carter?

Are you accusing Hillary Clinton and John Kerry of not reading the reports? What about Bill Clinton and Al Gore?

Neither Al Gore or Bill Clinton are Senators and didn't have access to the real data, they were fed the same crap that the media was (remember, Iraq was popular once before the deceit of the Bush administration came out. No, Neither Hillary or Kerry read the thing, they read the crap that was put fed to the media. Obama and Ron Paul did and they voted against it. The only thing Ron Paul has done right.

By the way, why are we arguing about the Iraq war again? I was refuting your recurring point that the war was for "no reason". Don't you agree now that it was not for "no reason" and was instead for reasons you just don't agree with?

I never said it was for no reason. It was for revenge, I've known that the whole time. If 911 didn't happen we would still be in Iraq right now.

Technically, the Taliban and the Reagan administration had collaborative relationship. Iraq didn't harbour them or provide financial backing. Most of the countries in that area supported the work of Osama, they didn't fund them. They still hate us you know, bombing them doesn't seem to be working.

This is annoying. Does anyone mind if I lock these threads and put all debate on the same issues into one thread?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

That's not communism. China is communist, I have friends who are chinese. and have plenty of things and chose to be doctors (2 of them), mechanical engineer, and a teacher.

I know you know about the control the Chinese government has over its citizens.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The Iraqis dismantled them all in front of the UN, then booted the UN out. When the UN threatened military action they were let back in and inspected the sites to make sure that they were taken down. Which they were.

No no no... NOT all of them. That was the problem.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

True, but there were no links to Al Qaeda in Iraq. That article I posted wans't an editorial by a liberal, it was about the 911 Commission Report.

Meetings are links.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Where in the bible does it say that? Despite not being a christian, I'm well read and have read the bible. Women are not oppressed under good Islamic rule, tearing down a government doesn't fix that. Diplomacy does.

First of all, it is irrlevant because I was talking about a hypothetical. However, the Bible does say the man should be dominant in a relationship and all kinds of things about allowing the sexual slavery of women. How do you feel about that?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Not through invasion. I believe in liberation through diplomacy. Who did more in the middle east: George W Bush, or Jimmy Carter?

You are going to end genocide with diplomacy? Lots of luck with that one.

Bush, by far. Are you serious?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Neither Al Gore or Bill Clinton are Senators and didn't have access to the real data, they were fed the same crap that the media was (remember, Iraq was popular once before the deceit of the Bush administration came out. No, Neither Hillary or Kerry read the thing, they read the crap that was put fed to the media. Obama and Ron Paul did and they voted against it. The only thing Ron Paul has done right.

So... Yes. We had tons of intelligence, even if there were dissenting reports.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I never said it was for no reason. It was for revenge, I've known that the whole time. If 911 didn't happen we would still be in Iraq right now.

You did say it was for "no reason", and you used those exact words in this very thread. Feel free to answer the many questions I asked about what I believe to be reasons.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Technically, the Taliban and the Reagan administration had collaborative relationship. Iraq didn't harbour them or provide financial backing. Most of the countries in that area supported the work of Osama, they didn't fund them. They still hate us you know, bombing them doesn't seem to be working.

The Taliban was not a terrorist organization at the time, so your point is completely irrelevant.

We have not been attacked by foreign terrorists since 9/11.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know you know about the control the Chinese government has over its citizens.

Communism is an economic system, not a government. They have an elitist government which I disagree with. The problem is their language, not their government. People are easy to control because their language is so hard that only the best educated can read or write.

First of all, it is irrlevant because I was talking about a hypothetical. However, the Bible does say the man should be dominant in a relationship and all kinds of things about allowing the sexual slavery of women. How do you feel about that?

I feel strongly against all religion. Part of the reason that I hate Bush.

You are going to end genocide with diplomacy? Lots of luck with that one.

Bush, by far. Are you serious?

So adding violence to the region is better than cooling it? Peace > war. I wait for Bush's peace prize for his involvement in Iraq.

You did say it was for "no reason", and you used those exact words in this very thread. Feel free to answer the many questions I asked about what I believe to be reasons.

I mean "no good reason." And I did, your reasons were the same as the president's and they've all been either wrong or illogical.

The Taliban was not a terrorist organization at the time, so your point is completely irrelevant.

We have not been attacked by foreign terrorists since 9/11.

They were always an Islamo-facist group. I have a stone that keeps tigers away.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Communism is an economic system, not a government. They have an elitist government which I disagree with. The problem is their language, not their government. People are easy to control because their language is so hard that only the best educated can read or write.

A government becomes too oppressive when it has too much power. You seemed to agree with that when you were talking about Bush.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I feel strongly against all religion. Part of the reason that I hate Bush.

That is not what you said about women's rights in Islamofascist countries.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

So adding violence to the region is better than cooling it? Peace > war. I wait for Bush's peace prize for his involvement in Iraq.

Adding liberty to the region is better. They did not have peace before, and sometimes war is the only way to long term peace. How bad do you want peace for the region?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I mean "no good reason." And I did, your reasons were the same as the president's and they've all been either wrong or illogical.

Then your answer to all of my questions from earlier on the topic is, "Yes." I think you are a billion light years from reality on that.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

They were always an Islamo-facist group. I have a stone that keeps tigers away.

I don't see the connection between a stone and repelling tigers. I know you see the connections I brought up earlier.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A government becomes too oppressive when it has too much power. You seemed to agree with that when you were talking about Bush.

So why do you support the patriot act?

That is not what you said about women's rights in Islamofascist countries.

I meant in general. I also support the rights of sovereign states so long as genocide or illegal acts doesn't take place.

Adding liberty to the region is better. They did not have peace before, and sometimes war is the only way to long term peace. How bad do you want peace for the region?

War in that region does not lead to peace. Education does, education happens when diplomats convince other diplomats that it will help their country.

I don't see the connection between a stone and repelling tigers. I know you see the connections I brought up earlier.

You said that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 911. I said that I have a stone that repels tigers. I haven't seen any tigers in quiet some time either.

In response to the other thread:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If he were changed, he would repent.

No, he believe that the government had gotten abusive and action needed to be taken against it (which is why I brought up the 2nd amendment earlier.) Not right in my mind, but is in his.

I agree with your point about continuation, but that does not refute my point. The need for militias is a justification, not a limitation. It does not say anything about limitation to militias.

Did the founding fathers complain at all that people who were not in militias had guns after the ratification of the Constitution? Find me some juice on that, please.

I'm not saying anything about this amendment limiting guns, I'm saying that it doesn't apply to them in any situation other than the security of the state. It does not guarantee the right for people to have guns (except for a militia,) but it doesn't say otherwise either. I never said that it said that people couldn't have guns, it's just not a constitutional right. I don't want to take your hunting rifles or hand guns away (assuming you've never been convicted of a crime.)

No, but they were used for defense against Indians and for hunting. They didn't have machine guns, those weren't invented until the civil war. Native Americans are now peaceful towards the US and machine guns are not used for hunting.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

So why do you support the patriot act?

Are you really reading my posts????? I am not in full agreement with the Patriot Act. I told you that. Bill of Rights first... for U.S. citizens.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I meant in general. I also support the rights of sovereign states so long as genocide or illegal acts doesn't take place.

You meant what in general? I do not support any right of a sovereign state to oppress the Hell out of its women or other citizens.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

War in that region does not lead to peace. Education does, education happens when diplomats convince other diplomats that it will help their country.

It wasn't happening, and education does not overthrow genocidal terrorists any way. Watch Schindler's List some time and try to explain how education could have jumped in and saved the day instead of the U.S. military.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You said that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 911. I said that I have a stone that repels tigers. I haven't seen any tigers in quiet some time either.

And I said your stone has not connection to tigers' being repelled though the things I listed do have connections to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, he believe that the government had gotten abusive and action needed to be taken against it (which is why I brought up the 2nd amendment earlier.) Not right in my mind, but is in his.

How does that make him repentant?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I'm not saying anything about this amendment limiting guns, I'm saying that it doesn't apply to them in any situation other than the security of the state. It does not guarantee the right for people to have guns (except for a militia,) but it doesn't say otherwise either. I never said that it said that people couldn't have guns, it's just not a constitutional right. I don't want to take your hunting rifles or hand guns away (assuming you've never been convicted of a crime.)

The internet usability being necessary for the ability to achieve optimal modern eduation, the right to use Dream Views shall not be infringed.

Does that spell out that Dream Views can only be used for educational purposes or that there is a reason for allowing people to use Dream Views period?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, but they were used for defense against Indians and for hunting. They didn't have machine guns, those weren't invented until the civil war. Native Americans are now peaceful towards the US and machine guns are not used for hunting.

Then the founding fathers did not limit the right to bear amrs to militia members.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You meant what in general? I do not support any right of a sovereign state to oppress the Hell out of its women or other citizens.

I'm not happy about it, but countries can make their own decisions. Diplomacy is how you change their minds about things like that, not force.

It wasn't happening, and education does not overthrow genocidal terrorists any way. Watch Schindler's List some time and try to explain how education could have jumped in and saved the day instead of the U.S. military.

Because there were more pressing issues. Carter helped get cease-fires signed and a little bit of understanding between jews and arabs in the region. Israel has a great education system (compared to the region.) They were never as nuts as some of their arab counterparts, but they weren't great.

And I said your stone has not connection to tigers' being repelled though the things I listed do have connections to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil.

Invading their land brought more people to their extremist causes, it's only a matter of time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How does that make him repentant?

It doesn't, in his mind he was right. How does that make his 30 years of public service, teaching, and charity work not matter?

The internet usability being necessary for the ability to achieve optimal modern eduation, the right to use Dream Views shall not be infringed.

Does that spell out that Dream Views can only be used for educational purposes or that there is a reason for allowing people to use Dream Views period?

According to the way that you wrote that, it guarantees the right to use DV for education purposes, but says nothing about it for uses other than education. It doesn't mean that you can't, it's just not guaranteed.



I looked something up that you might find interesting. You say the Obama's economic and political policies will weaken the US. Well there are many states that have very similar systems to the one he wants on a local level. Some of those include Maryland, Massachusetts (which already has universal health care,) New Jersey, and California. There are also a lot of states that have similar state and local systems to the one that McCain wants. Some of these include Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and New Mexico.

The poorest state in the country is Mississippi, the wealthiest is Maryland (for household incomes.) If you include corporate values the wealthiest state is California. California is, in fact, so wealthy that if it was it's own country, it would be the 5th richest country on earth.

California is following MA in pushing universal health care, there is a bill in their legislature right now. I'm not sure if it's part of the general election or something internal within their state congress, but it's probably going to be passed.

This is from the 2006 census.

The actual language of the 2nd Amendment is as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As you can see, the language does use the word "militia", but in a very vague way. And there can be some dispute as to whether the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is referring to all citizens or only citizens enlisted in militias.

However, we can all agree that the right to bear arms is a natural right, that is, if you were stranded on a desert island with a gun, you would have the right to carry the gun. So all a government can do is attempt take away the natural right. In fact, the 2nd Amendment was, in its spirit, an attempt to prevent said stripping of not only this right, but all natural rights. Therefore, taking into account the spirit of the document, I personally see no way for the "militia" interpretation to be correct.

No, grammatically speaking it gives the right to bear arms when part of a militia. The capital A in Arms and the comma after State show that.

It doesn't say one way or the other about arms for other reasons. I hope you see that now, it doesn't say that you can't have one, it just doesn't say.

I've said it before. I do not believe that the ability to have a gun is a right (and grammatically the Bill of Rights says the same,) but I am not against gun ownership for family or property protection or hunting so long as they pass a background check.

I don't think anyone other than the extremists believe that people should be able to get a gun without a background check.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I'm not happy about it, but countries can make their own decisions. Diplomacy is how you change their minds about things like that, not force.

So diplomacy could have stopped the Nazis in their tracks? We could have overthrown the Hussein regime or made them good through diplomacy? Of course not. And I do not agree that governments have a right through sovereignty to be oppressive any more than households do.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Because there were more pressing issues. Carter helped get cease-fires signed and a little bit of understanding between jews and arabs in the region. Israel has a great education system (compared to the region.) They were never as nuts as some of their arab counterparts, but they weren't great.

How did those ceasefires end up working out?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Invading their land brought more people to their extremist causes, it's only a matter of time.

Then why has Iraq improved so much?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It doesn't, in his mind he was right. How does that make his 30 years of public service, teaching, and charity work not matter?

The stuff about teaching and charity is irrelevant to whether or not he is an unrepentant terrorist. Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. That is a fact.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

According to the way that you wrote that, it guarantees the right to use DV for education purposes, but says nothing about it for uses other than education. It doesn't mean that you can't, it's just not guaranteed.

No, it gave a justification and then a general rule. The right to use Dream Views shall not be infringed, period, and that is because of the stated justification. Because women need jobs, women have a right to work. That does not mean that only women who need jobs can work. Women who just like to work yet have plenty of money can work too (except in Islamofascist countries).

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I looked something up that you might find interesting. You say the Obama's economic and political policies will weaken the US. Well there are many states that have very similar systems to the one he wants on a local level. Some of those include Maryland, Massachusetts (which already has universal health care,) New Jersey, and California. There are also a lot of states that have similar state and local systems to the one that McCain wants. Some of these include Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and New Mexico.

The poorest state in the country is Mississippi, the wealthiest is Maryland (for household incomes.) If you include corporate values the wealthiest state is California. California is, in fact, so wealthy that if it was it's own country, it would be the 5th richest country on earth.

California is following MA in pushing universal health care, there is a bill in their legislature right now. I'm not sure if it's part of the general election or something internal within their state congress, but it's probably going to be passed.

This is from the 2006 census.

McCain sucks. Obama sucks more. Wealthy areas can afford to screw around with more socialistic policies, though they would be better off not doing it. Don't think for two seconds Obama has announced just how far he wants to go with his plans. He is not a trustworthy person.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So diplomacy could have stopped the Nazis in their tracks? We could have overthrown the Hussein regime or made them good through diplomacy? Of course not. And I do not agree that governments have a right through sovereignty to be oppressive any more than households do.

No, sometimes force is required. I've never said that I don't support force when it's needed. Certain things like education can be fixed through diplomacy.

How did those ceasefires end up working out?

They were still working until Bush added fuel to the fire by invading Iraq.

Then why has Iraq improved so much?

Because we are there instead of fighting terrorists. Al Qaeda is stronger than any time since 911 now and it's because of Iraq. It brings people to their cause and lets them work because they are not in Iraq.

The stuff about teaching and charity is irrelevant to whether or not he is an unrepentant terrorist. Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. That is a fact.

He's devoted his life to education and charity, that is a fact.

No, it gave a justification and then a general rule. The right to use Dream Views shall not be infringed, period, and that is because of the stated justification.

Then that should have been it's own sentence or separated via a semicolon.

McCain sucks. Obama sucks more. Wealthy areas can afford to screw around with more socialistic policies, though they would be better off not doing it. Don't think for two seconds Obama has announced just how far he wants to go with his plans. He is not a trustworthy person.

so it's coincidence that the liberal areas are also the wealthiest areas? You really think it has nothing to do with policies. Obama has never lied. McCain said thrice that Obama voted for raising taxes on everyone who makes more than $42,000. No one can collaborate that, and McCain won't say where he got that information. Voting records and bills are public information. He is not a trustworthy person. I've seen that people in politics do things to make their campaign contributers happy. Obama's money came from citizens, McCains came from oil and pharmecutical companies.

Good dog.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, grammatically speaking it gives the right to bear arms when part of a militia. The capital A in Arms and the comma after State show that.

How so?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It doesn't say one way or the other about arms for other reasons. I hope you see that now, it doesn't say that you can't have one, it just doesn't say.

It doesn't say you can't have one, but it does say you can.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I've said it before. I do not believe that the ability to have a gun is a right

I'm not sure if you understand what a natural right is. Sure, having a gun isn't a right, but choosing to purchase one sure is.

I mean, what you're saying is, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention the right to purchase DVDs, ergo people don't have the right to purchase DVDs. But it doesn't work that way. People have the natural right to buy whatever they want so long as it doesn't interfere with the natural rights of others. In fact, if you look at any serious list of natural rights, you will see that they are compatible, and if you try to add a new one, like a natural "right to good health", it starts to conflict. But the right to buy guns doesn't conflict with other rights, like the right to self-determination (liberty) or property.

Now, you might be talking about legal rights, but I'm not. I don't give a shit about legal rights. They're arbitrary and far removed from reality.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I don't think anyone other than the extremists believe that people should be able to get a gun without a background check.

It doesn't matter what people believe. The gun sellers decide that. Some require background checks because they believe the benefits (being the legal right to advertise, essentially) outweigh the costs (losing customers), yet others, like street thugs and arms dealers, choose not to require background checks.

Hopefully you're seeing a pattern here. The government can try to restrict or curtail natural rights all they want, but whenever a natural right is legally restricted, a so-called "black" element of society arises as it continues to exercise the right that the government thinks it took away. So that's why we have black markets for drugs, guns and prostitution.

Now, do you want to get into a discussion of the moral right to own a gun?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

They were still working until Bush added fuel to the fire by invading Iraq.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Because we are there instead of fighting terrorists. Al Qaeda is stronger than any time since 911 now and it's because of Iraq. It brings people to their cause and lets them work because they are not in Iraq.

We turned Iraq into an Al Qaeda magnet, and we eat them for lunch every day. Al Qaeda is much weaker now, and very distracted by what we set up.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

He's devoted his life to education and charity, that is a fact.

I don't give a happy fuck.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Then that should have been it's own sentence or separated via a semicolon.

It was not necessary. You can have one group as a reason for making a broad rule for them and other groups.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

so it's coincidence that the liberal areas are also the wealthiest areas? You really think it has nothing to do with policies. Obama has never lied. McCain said thrice that Obama voted for raising taxes on everyone who makes more than $42,000. No one can collaborate that, and McCain won't say where he got that information. Voting records and bills are public information. He is not a trustworthy person. I've seen that people in politics do things to make their campaign contributers happy. Obama's money came from citizens, McCains came from oil and pharmecutical companies.

THE liberal areas, or like two that you mentioned? How is the Soviet Union coming along? What about Cuba?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

so it's coincidence that the liberal areas are also the wealthiest areas? You really think it has nothing to do with policies. Obama has never lied. McCain said thrice that Obama voted for raising taxes on everyone who makes more than $42,000. No one can collaborate that, and McCain won't say where he got that information. Voting records and bills are public information. He is not a trustworthy person. I've seen that people in politics do things to make their campaign contributers happy. Obama's money came from citizens, McCains came from oil and pharmecutical companies.

Obama has lied his ass off about his associations... his very strong associations with very terrible anti-Americans.