Convince me to be a Democrat...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firestreak said:
I spoked pot in high school.
Click to expand...

Haha this is priceless...I think I'll add it to my sig :twisted:
 
<3 Firestreak, man thanks...I was having a bad day too! You made me laugh!!

/hugs :wink:
 
Mattaru said:
vang said:
Nah dude, democrats are just weak and cowardly, that's all....i'm not a big fan of either. No need to get all heated about it, even though you're not even old enough to vote yet. Thus, your opinion is null and void to me.

But you can keep posting everything you learned in Social studies class today. I must admit, you're very well spoken ^^
Click to expand...

Seeing as today in my History class I read about Populism it probably doesn't apply. Vang I've done debate for four years, including national and foreign extemporaneous speaking, it has been an invaluable tool in gaining a world view and policy view. I haven't been spoon fed to spew this by anyone, at least give me that credit.

Well, I hope it is encouraging to you to know a 17 year old that can't vote is managing to poke holes in everything you have brought up.

So about Populism since you seem interested. Basically, it is a movement by rural farmers of the midwest and south that felt disenfranchised by corporate farms and eastern monopoly's. On the national level they didn't amount to much yet, in the midwest and southern legislatures they had alot of strength. Their main failing was their lack of incorporating labor reform movements into their party.
Click to expand...

What have you managed to "poke holes" into? I said Democrats are whiny, wimpy pacifists, and anti-Bush, anti- Republicans do nothing but complain but never vote ..that's it. (Oh yea, and poor people aren't real people.) How have you made any convincing points that they are not?

You can bring up your "debates" and seeing further into things as much as you like, you still have not managed to effectively "poke holes" into my little blurb about Anti - Republicans or democrats.

Furthermore, declaring you have also seems to me as you consider yourself victorious in YOUR debate. This is foolish saying "I won" (or bringing up your "debate credentials" which you earned at Bay City high or some school very close to San Fran-sissy-co im sure^^) in a roundabout way as I never tried to debate anything, just pointing out the obvious. You, like most democrats, erm I mean 17 year olds who want to vote Democrat, decided to take it to that level and debate something is nothing more than factual.
 
vang said:
What have you managed to "poke holes" into? I said Democrats are whiny, wimpy pacifists, and anti-Bush, anti- Republicans do nothing but complain but never vote ..that's it. (Oh yea, and poor people aren't real people.) How have you made any convincing points that they are not?

You can bring up your "debates" and seeing further into things as much as you like, you still have not managed to effectively "poke holes" into my little blurb about Anti - Republicans or democrats.

Furthermore, declaring you have also seems to me as you consider yourself victorious in YOUR debate. This is foolish saying "I won" (or bringing up your "debate credentials" which you earned at Bay City high or some school very close to San Fran-sissy-co im sure^^) in a roundabout way as I never tried to debate anything, just pointing out the obvious. You, like most democrats, erm I mean 17 year olds who want to vote Democrat, decided to take it to that level and debate something is nothing more than factual.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly Vang, I don't really plan on cut and pasting all of my posts that I've made previously again and walking them through it because you can not discern it for yourself.

I live in Littleton outside of Denver, fairly Republican really. I'm not telling you what high school I go to.

The "obvious" you pointed out I showed was not so obvious, but obviously I didn't make it obvious enough for you \(^.^)/.

You say you haven't debated me, I agree, you've done nothing but post baseless dribble.

You only say I haven't you haven't shown that I haven't. You haven't shown anything besides you base everything off preconceived notions. Espescially, when its you who are asserting.

I only brought up "my credentials" because you decided to go ad hominem (vangs fallacy #2) and say I was being fed this in my social studies class or some bullshit. I told you what I learned in history and it was nothing of the sort.

Its hard to win something Vang that hasn't been a challenge.
 
The current Social Security system is to take peoples wealth and redistribute it. Bushes system is to invest it in companies that the government chooses to invest in. How about the government let me keep my money and let me invest it the way I see fit, and if I don’t then that is my fault and I will have to keep working until I die or live on the streets.

In my view on going to school, it doesn’t entitle you to any certain salary. School isn’t considering hard work, but simple an exercise of personal reasonability.

My sister in law who is a republican just finished her second doctorate and is upset that the highest paying job she has been offered is 72,000 a year. Mind you she has never worked a day in her life. When I asked why she was upset with 72,000 a year, her answer was she was ENTITLED to at least 200,000 a year, which is what her husband makes, who has worked his way from the bottom to the head of there English Department. Her justification on why she should make as much as him, is that she had two doctorates where he only has one, so she worked harder for it.

That isn’t hard work; Hard Work is starting at the bottom of your chosen profession and working your way to the top. Earning the salary you get.

Bigboy said:
I got one...

Don't determine what someone said and spin it to make them sound bad. I wont share my political views, but just taking someone's non-filtered opinion and declaring them to be for a totalitarian government... dumb.
Click to expand...

Definition of a Totalitarian Government
Characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control;

If a government deported or silenced everyone that disagreed with it, then it would be by definition a totalitarian government. I have had Republicans actually take it a step further than Vang and say everyone who doesn’t share there view should be killed.

Yes the Extreme Left Wing Democrats are just as bad, but rather than deport everyone, they just want to pass laws to make any disagreement with them illegal.

Just like Vang I call it the way I see it, and I think he can respect that.



What I am curious about is if everyone in the US was Republican who would they fight with?
 
Mattaru said:
[
You only say I haven't you haven't shown that I haven't. You haven't shown anything besides you base everything off preconceived notions. Espescially, when its you who are asserting.
Click to expand...

Fuck I feel like Faulkner, let me rephrase. You only say I haven't shown you any holes, yet you have not shwon that I have not, you have not took what I have written and shown why it doesn't apply. If you do not want to play that game, fine, but don't go around asserting you are right if you can not prove it. Step up to the plate, or shut up.
 
CubsWoo said:
lorelaiy said:
He is the President of the United States of America. If he says we have a reason to go to war and watch our peers die due to a cause, then it better damn well be a legitimate reason.

Did Roosevelt fabricate a reason to enter WWII? I don't believe he did.

I'm sorry. This is a subject I feel very passionate about, as do a lot of other Americans, I'm sure. I lost my best friend to said war, and that makes it worse. The loss of someone close to you for "weapons of mass destruction" that do not exist makes you wonder what your friend died for. Was it for regime change, or for the elimination of Saddam? I wish the President could have been a little more honest, and perhaps that would set me at ease a little more.

Blah, I honestly did not want to drag the death of my best friend into this, but it seems like this topic always leads me back to thinking about him. I apologize.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the loss of your friend - the death of anyone, in any war, is a tragedy.

When it comes to the whole 'reason' to go to war, yes, WMD was a big reason... but it wasn't just Bush that thought that way. I've posted this before, but here it is again:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


"I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people."
Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 13. 2003
Click to expand...

If Bush 'lied,' then he planted those seeds years before we took the fight to Saddam, and got nearly every high-ranking Democrat in on the action. If you're going to say he lied, then so did basically every American politician since the end of Operation Desert Storm.
Click to expand...
Your forgetting the French, German, and U.N. intelligence reports which were also reporting the same things about Sadahm and his weapons. Ontop of this, does anyone even fucking rember the reason for desert storm? Um.. aperntly not!
The reason being, Sadahm tested weapons out on his own people then went and invaded another country with said weapons. And when we ran his ass out of there, he blew every oil well he could find sky high, along with anything else that could be of use. You rember that? Seems some peoples selective memory has kicked in. Also seems no one really rember old Uncle teddy Keneddy getting drunk driveing a car off a peir and killing the young lady in the car with him. Oh wait the Keneddy's made sure that was all real hush hush now didn't they. Would exsplain why Uncle Teddy never made a run at president. But back to topic. You can jump to conclusions and scream liar all you fucking want when shit doesn't pan out imediatly. Thats normal human nature. Just rember how much of dipshit your going to look like when your proven wrong!
 
Mattaru said:
vang said:
What have you managed to "poke holes" into? I said Democrats are whiny, wimpy pacifists, and anti-Bush, anti- Republicans do nothing but complain but never vote ..that's it. (Oh yea, and poor people aren't real people.) How have you made any convincing points that they are not?

You can bring up your "debates" and seeing further into things as much as you like, you still have not managed to effectively "poke holes" into my little blurb about Anti - Republicans or democrats.

Furthermore, declaring you have also seems to me as you consider yourself victorious in YOUR debate. This is foolish saying "I won" (or bringing up your "debate credentials" which you earned at Bay City high or some school very close to San Fran-sissy-co im sure^^) in a roundabout way as I never tried to debate anything, just pointing out the obvious. You, like most democrats, erm I mean 17 year olds who want to vote Democrat, decided to take it to that level and debate something is nothing more than factual.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly Vang, I don't really plan on cut and pasting all of my posts that I've made previously again and walking them through it because you can not discern it for yourself.

I live in Littleton outside of Denver, fairly Republican really. I'm not telling you what high school I go to.

The "obvious" you pointed out I showed was not so obvious, but obviously I didn't make it obvious enough for you \(^.^)/.

You say you haven't debated me, I agree, you've done nothing but post baseless dribble.

You only say I haven't you haven't shown that I haven't. You haven't shown anything besides you base everything off preconceived notions. Espescially, when its you who are asserting.

I only brought up "my credentials" because you decided to go ad hominem (vangs fallacy #2) and say I was being fed this in my social studies class or some bullshit. I told you what I learned in history and it was nothing of the sort.

Its hard to win something Vang that hasn't been a challenge.
Click to expand...

And yet you keep acting as if we are in a debate or a "challenge". Your in debate that does not exist my friend. You say these are "notions" I say they are facts. Are we clear on that one yet? You are trying so hard to prove me wrong on my thoughts of non republicans which in itself is pretty silly, so now not only are you a democrat that has never voted, but also a silly goose :P

3 strikes and you're out.
 
vang said:
And yet you keep acting as if we are in a debate or a "challenge". Your in debate that does not exist my friend. You say these are "notions" I say they are facts. Are we clear on that one yet? You are trying so hard to prove me wrong on my thoughts of non republicans which in itself is pretty silly, so now not only are you a democrat that has never voted, but also a silly goose :P

3 strikes and you're out.
Click to expand...

It's as simple as you asserting something, I said you are wrong for such and such reasons, you say "well no, I'm right" and thats about it. I'm trying to have a discussion. You are just being a douche, plain and simple.

You say alot of things Vang, for instance these so called "facts", that really are just generalizations. You remember that post right?

Trying hard haha, this is just me taking a break from writing my essay between paragraphs.

I've never voted, what is your point, I'm 17. I can't vote. I haven't ever bought dry ice either, because I'm not 18. This means nothing, of course thats become quite typical.

Its hard to strike out when you have never thrown a pitch.

Geese aren't silly, if you have bread they can get way vicious and hiss and shit.
 
Geese aren't silly, if you have bread they can get way vicious and hiss and shit.
Click to expand...


I concede whatever we were doing simply because of this comment. Touche' old dog, touche'

Mattaru - 1
Vang - 0
 
vang said:
Geese aren't silly, if you have bread they can get way vicious and hiss and shit.
Click to expand...


I concede whatever we were doing simply because of this comment. Touche' old dog, touche'

Mattaru - 1
Vang - 0
Click to expand...

Lol Vang I'm down. Seriously though I've been bitten by geese.
 
Mattaru said:
Lol Vang I'm down. Seriously though I've been bitten by geese.
Click to expand...

Ditto..mean ass'd mutha fuckas
 
Looks way too much like Kate Moss.

EAT A MEAL DAMN
 
Yoshindor said:
Your forgetting the French, German, and U.N. intelligence reports which were also reporting the same things about Sadahm and his weapons. Ontop of this, does anyone even fucking rember the reason for desert storm? Um.. aperntly not!
The reason being, Sadahm tested weapons out on his own people then went and invaded another country with said weapons. And when we ran his ass out of there, he blew every oil well he could find sky high, along with anything else that could be of use. You rember that? Seems some peoples selective memory has kicked in. Also seems no one really rember old Uncle teddy Keneddy getting drunk driveing a car off a peir and killing the young lady in the car with him. Oh wait the Keneddy's made sure that was all real hush hush now didn't they. Would exsplain why Uncle Teddy never made a run at president. But back to topic. You can jump to conclusions and scream liar all you fucking want when shit doesn't pan out imediatly. Thats normal human nature. Just rember how much of dipshit your going to look like when your proven wrong!
Click to expand...

Difference is Kuwait who had been attacked, requested our help this placed Desert Storm with in International Law. Laws that we helped create. The UN then passed a resolution declaring military action again Iraq. The US chose to join that UN coalition, rather than enter Desert Storm as an independent country. Making Desert Storm a UN Operation not a US Operation. At the time Bush Sr. wanted to over throw Saddam then and was told no by the UN. Because it was a UN Operation, we had to back out of Iraq. This places the cease-fire and all following resolutions and conditions under the UN’s justification to enforce not the US.

For the current war to be lawful under International Law, evidence must show that Iraq posed a threat by means and planning to attack the sovereignty of US. There was no evidence showing that, even if he had WMD it still must show he planned to attack the US with them.

I don’t like Bush because he led us into an unlawful war, and I don’t like Kerry because he gave Bush a blank ticket to do it.

As for Saddam blowing up Oil Wells, I’m not sure what you are getting at. Infrastructures are valid military targets, no different than us blowing up bridges.
 
Neyla said:
alanon said:
It is the democrats who want the goverment to have a finger in every aspect of society.
Click to expand...

Funny, I seem to recall that Defense of Marriage joke being a Republican notion.
Click to expand...

For every one example of a republican "notion" you can give me, Ill give you 10 example of democratic implementation.


Yes Pascal, I do see why you feel the way you do. You make an intelligent, yet unemotional discussion. Which is why I keep poking my head into this thread. Your view of how to handle SS sounds decidedly republican to me. Almost Vang-ish. :P
 
I won't disagree with you. Democats are socialists, plain and simple. But the government and its powers have done nothing by grow under Republican rule. I don't believe either one of the major parties is interested in a smaller government with less say in matters it has no business being involved with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top