|
|
Post by Geekthras (The Gizmo of Yore) on Jan 26, 2010 19:10:44 GMT -5
The government will have the right to determine who can and can't receive avatars. What the Democratic party calls an avatar is not something that sets well with me anyway. s dead. (After the 1rst of Feb. I will choose one for you if you don't fix it....) -_- |
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Jan 26, 2010 22:38:34 GMT -5
If I were in charge I would write an Executive Order that Congress is to take a 'Permanent Paid Vacation' from the day they're elected until they're voted out. It would be cheaper, me thinks!  *** Possum, you need to get a new avatar. Your link is dead. (After the 1rst of Feb. I will choose one for you if you don't fix it....) Permanent paid vacation? In other words you'd pay them to not work? Where are you going with that? You said you wanted term limits, but wouldn't this defeat the purpose if they're not serving a purpose anyway? By the way, don't let a lack of avatar bother you, it's no big deal.  |
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Jan 26, 2010 22:48:51 GMT -5
Geekthras is busting upon me a little. I have never heard the Democrats or the Republicans take a stand on avatars. My concern was health care.
The Democrats do place high taxes upon small businesses too that's something my dad always complained about and now my two older brothers who run that business now have the same mention. There's less you can deduct in taxation as well as increases here and there that make for more expense and overhead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Jan 26, 2010 23:40:48 GMT -5
Geekthras is busting upon me a little. I have never heard the Democrats or the Republicans take a stand on avatars. My concern was health care. The Democrats do place high taxes upon small businesses too that's something my dad always complained about and now my two older brothers who run that business now have the same mention. There's less you can deduct in taxation as well as increases here and there that make for more expense and overhead. Soap box time! I'd rather not get into it, but I will anyway. Health care isn't good the way it is, it sucks, and I've never heard a straight answer out of anybody here what a better suggestion might be to fix it so people don't wipe out all their money if something goes wrong. I think both parties are acting childish and only trash talk the other side instead of finding something they agree on, even sort of. Things would get done if things were compromised on somewhat. I'm not seeing the crappy situation changing and I'm afraid these days it doesn't matter who runs the country. All I want is somebody who can fix things an acceptable amount and the government to stop butting into people's personal business and pissing money away. Yes ( some of you prepare to be horrified  I think Mahnarch will pee his pants when he reads this) I voted for Obama, he seemed to me at the time like the least worst of the two choices. As it turns out, he's not doing much. Gotta take a chance on somebody right? McCain might not have been bad, but he panicked and picked the worst choice for a running mate he could find. Sorry, I hate that woman. As a woman I can't vote for somebody who's values are questionable and who appears to have double standards on what she says, but wants to dictate what women can and can't do with themselves. I think it sucks that instead of doing what they personally think is right, people want to look good for the rest of the party they belong to and sell out to things they may not have agreed with before. It's so stupid. That's a good share of the reason we're in such deep crap now. |
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Jan 27, 2010 1:58:59 GMT -5
That is a good share of the reason. A plan that takes care of some basic health issues might not be a bad idea either. But what does it include?
What constitutes cosmetic surgery? Having the right to turn life support off, to fund things that are not life and death issues. I don't even mean life and death in the literal sense I mean strongly important.
I would rather see such a plan operated by a medical group that is not political though. I would rather not see it sponsored by the government.
There also should be a standard as where this plan would cover expenses to reset a broken nose for proper breathing but if you want it cosmetically shortened or reshaped that comes from a healthcare plan that you would have to pay for.
I honestly don't care who you voted for that's your business but I voted for McCain as like most Catholic men I don't see the democrats having the stances that my upbringing could allow me to support. Its that more than tax issues and government run projects but I have told you how I feel about those things too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Jan 27, 2010 7:49:09 GMT -5
That is a good share of the reason. A plan that takes care of some basic health issues might not be a bad idea either. But what does it include? What constitutes cosmetic surgery? Having the right to turn life support off, to fund things that are not life and death issues. I don't even mean life and death in the literal sense I mean strongly important. I would rather see such a plan operated by a medical group that is not political though. I would rather not see it sponsored by the government. There also should be a standard as where this plan would cover expenses to reset a broken nose for proper breathing but if you want it cosmetically shortened or reshaped that comes from a healthcare plan that you would have to pay for. I honestly don't care who you voted for that's your business but I voted for McCain as like most Catholic men I don't see the democrats having the stances that my upbringing could allow me to support. Its that more than tax issues and government run projects but I have told you how I feel about those things too. Somebody needs to figure out what that includes then. Cosmetic surgery like celebrities think they need is not something that should be covered, unless it's to fix something that's actually not right. I'm definately with you on that one. Well, if you're Catholic or whatever, that's good. Like Mahnarch proved though, you don't need to be religious in any sense to have good values. Many people who claim to be so holy are far from it. Religion shouldn't mix with government, it causes more drama. I don't agree with government butting into people's lives at every turn, but some businesses are so bad somebody has to crack the whip. I think there should be some sort of laws that don't allow people at the top to waste the money on themselves, but rather use it to whatever might be good for the company, like useful stuff. I don't like how they're getting greedier and the people who do the hard work are being screwed. It's f*cked up and completely wrong. The trading in of cars and appliances for ones better for the environment is a nice thought, but an expensive one that won't work. It's wasteful, and who has the money to buy fancy new things these days at the drop of a hat? Any way you look at it, it's a mess and nothing is helping because of bad ideas and people who think it has to be all or nothing their way. |
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on Jan 27, 2010 16:17:58 GMT -5
I think it's time I stepped into the debate and offered a viewpoint on how I feel about politics and the current issues. A few questions have been asked and points have been raised, so I am going to answer some of the questions from my own point of view and contest some of the points I may or may not agree with. Health care isn't good the way it is, it sucks, and I've never heard a straight answer out of anybody here what a better suggestion might be to fix it so people don't wipe out all their money if something goes wrong. Health care in America is the best in the entire world. Unfortunately, the cost of having the best healthcare one can possibly find falls on the consumer, specifically through health insurance. Since our capitalist economic strategy (innovation and brainpower through personal motivation) gave birth to the miracle that is modern medicine, there is cost associated with it. In order to get access to healthcare, there are two roads to take. The hardest one is securing a job with good benefits and pay, which can afford a working individual access to healthcare through the purchase of health insurance. Health insurance is expensive. There's no getting around that because the quality of U.S. medicine is unprecedented. We have come a very long way from the past, where a simple cut could spell your doom due to infection or childbed fever killed about two out of every seven women after childbirth. The other road is to maintain a freelance status of riding the waves of the handout system the government has set up for minorities and illegal immigrants. The current policy (my mother was a nurse for 20 years) is that insurance or not, if someone walks into the emergency room with a gunshot wound for example, that hospital is required, by law, to treat that individual on the spot. The taxpayers pick up the tab. The bottom line is that those without health insurance, as Obama and the Democrats constantly decry as being underpriveleged, already have free health care. The reason why it is so expensive for the rest of us who have the will to work and pay for it, is because of the free care given out to those that cannot afford it, for whatever reason is unique to them. It's taken out of our taxes, and as medicine gets more and more advanced, those taxes go up. This is the reason the system is flawed and expensive. The free handouts. Imagine the size of the taxes if everybody in America gets "free" healthcare. The Democrats can call it whatever they like, but free healthcare is never free. All one would have to do is look at their yearly taxes to see just how much socialized medicine truly costs everyone that cares to work for a living. One might say the logical solution is to stop the handouts. But that solution isn't just morally wrong, it would cause riots. No, I've come up with a way to right the sinking healthcare ship. It is to permit the insurance companies to compete in the free market, and do that through government incentives. "Who can secure the most new policies in one year with the lowest costs?" It's very simple. By having them compete, the health insurance companies will seek to attract the most new customers. The best method? Lower prices and appeal to the American wallet. The government prize for the most efficient health insurance company? Sponsorships, grants, and rights to future and ongoing medicine development. It's the same thing as your schoolyard competition, just with big business. And for the losing companies? Reductions in grants and monetary bailouts they already get from the taxpayers. Effective until they get with the program. It's like giving cookies and milk to the kid that gets his homework done right and on time, and taking the sweets away from the kids that do not. Taking away the sweet stuff gives the other kids, or businesses in this case, the incentive to try harder next time. I believe this would get more and more Americans on board with health insurance, and in the end it would pour more money into further medicine development. At the very minimum it would break even with our current development pace. Obama wants to sacrifice quality medicine in the name of fairness, and force socialized medicine down our throats in the name of it. Instead of seeking more government control over healthcare, I would seek to hold a competition "sponsored by the U.S. government". ;)Winner gets the sweet stuff, meaning grants and rights. I voted for Obama, he seemed to me at the time like the least worst of the two choices. As it turns out, he's not doing much. Gotta take a chance on somebody right? McCain might not have been bad, but he panicked and picked the worst choice for a running mate he could find. Sorry, I hate that woman. As a woman I can't vote for somebody who's values are questionable and who appears to have double standards on what she says, but wants to dictate what women can and can't do with themselves. A lot of Americans took that same chance without looking into the past history of this guy first. If enough Americans had done this, they would have seen his radical connections (such as Rev. Wright and the Weather Underground), collectively crapped their pants, and Obama never would have been elected. Last November you saw his message of "hope" and "change" and thought that maybe this guy had something more to offer after President Bush was to leave office. I was not a big fan of President Bush, mostly because he was a strawman liberal-conservative who pandered to a Congress that swung enormously to the left, in an effort to save some of his policies through (poorly) attempted compromise. His pandering did not work in the least, because the Democrats in congress knew that if they kept him down and made him a lame duck, they would likely sweep in 2008. And they did. Nobody will ever know how justified the Iraq war was. Afghanistan was absolutely necessary, but the way it was handled was almost completely ineffectual. Yes, the Taliban were routed within weeks, but there are reasons as to why we still battle them to this day. If anyone wants to see why, just check out the current U.S. military rules of engagement. The political correctness and pandering to those that wish to harm us came close to making me throw up in disgust and outrage. Bush failed in most respects due to political correctness, and his handling of those two wars spelled the sour end for his presidency and the Democrat sweep of Congress and the White House. John McCain would not have been my first choice for President, but I voted for him because I had thoroughly researched Obama and judged him by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin and the words that rolled out of his mouth. I must disagree with your feelings on Sarah Palin. McCain took a huge chance in selecting her to run for vice president. Some believe he did it to try and rope in disappointed female voters after Hillary conceded to Obama. I believe he did it to set up a system similar to one George Bush had. Dick Cheney is a true conservative and went to bat on many of the issues Bush knew would never get past Congress. Bush thought he would be able to appear more as a moderate, but kept a true hard hitting conservative behind him to help him out. It did not work as well as it could have. I believe McCain wanted to try a similar strategy. The reason why the Sarah Palin selection failed for McCain was because he had not counted on how brutally she would be attacked by the biased media. I have no reason to doubt Sarah Palin and her beliefs. She never came across as a flip flopper on anything, and in my opinion would make a great Senator. I don't believe she would have the experience for the presidency, and despite the weirdness of this last election I don't see the American people electing the first female president. I was, however, extremely pissed off at the way she was treated by the mainstream media. They acted like she was as tabloid worthy as Jessica Simpson. It was a liberally biased attack and frankly it pissed me off. What made me even more annoyed was when people did not take what the tabloids were saying with a grain of salt, and believed the stories that made her seem like some kind of monster. People need to learn to read between the lines with everything, whether its coming from the tabloids or the government itself. That's how responsible decisions get made and true opinions are formed. More later. I need to go to class right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on Jan 27, 2010 20:39:21 GMT -5
Back from classes and dinner. Continuing on... Somebody needs to figure out what that includes then. Cosmetic surgery like celebrities think they need is not something that should be covered, unless it's to fix something that's actually not right. I'm definately with you on that one. Health insurance was never intended to fix the things that people perceive to be "wrongs" or "not good enoughs". There are too many people that are fake in this country, and the blame for that lies squarely on the media and television. Constantly shoving the images of the perfect, skinny, hairless body is intended to make people insecure. It's an excellent, money-making strategy that takes advantage of people and their insecurities. That's why it's so successful and the cosmetics industry is a multi-billion dollar one. But as far as health insurance covering it? Nope. Not what it's there for. Unless the defect is risking the person's health, insurance should not have any reason to cover their insecurity. Health insurance coverage is there for people to fall back on should something go wrong, such as a broken arm or a heart attack. It is not intended for people to cry to a doctor about their nose having a mole on it, and have the insurance company pay for cosmetic surgery in order to make it go away. Either pony up the cash out of pocket to get it done right there, save up for it, or live with the mole. Simple. I don't agree with government butting into people's lives at every turn, but some businesses are so bad somebody has to crack the whip. I think there should be some sort of laws that don't allow people at the top to waste the money on themselves, but rather use it to whatever might be good for the company, like useful stuff. I don't like how they're getting greedier and the people who do the hard work are being screwed. It's f*cked up and completely wrong. I'm glad to see you don't agree with the government controlling people's lives. That's called socialism. As far as businesses being bad, it should never be up to any single government entity to "crack the whip" and snap them back in line. Again, government involvement and regulation in free market business is more socialism. Keeping tabs on the businesses (and keeping them in line) was the original responsibility of labor unions. They were meant to give the workers a voice in the business affairs, along with the ability to strike and literally shut down a factory (or in my mothers case, a hospital) when they are treated unfairly. Their inception was during and after the Industrial Revolution, when the so-called "robber barons" were creating monopolies and making boatloads of money off the backs of workers. Boss Tweed from New York controlled the Democratic Political machine and made a sh*tload of money doing it. Cornelius Vanderbilt controlled the railroads, John Rockefeller had the Standard Oil monopoly, and on and on. The labor unions were there to put a check on the big business "fat cats" and give the workers a voice. And they did, until they became too powerful in later years. Many unions are authoritarian over their members, and in many instances get themselves involved with the left wing as it promises benefits to common people. Unions these days attempt to squeeze as much money out of their respective corporations, while doing as little work as possible. Many employers have turned to hiring illegal immigrants and outsourcing overseas due to this very reason. One guy I saw on TV said why he preferred hiring illegals over Americans: "American workers expect high pay for little work. Migrant workers work hard for whatever they can get and never complain. The reason is clear. Hiring Americans is a joke." Don't take this to mean I'm anti-union. I'm not. I only have a problem when they attempt to extort their respective businesses for more cash and benefits while sitting around on their asses. A true example of this can be found here. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575650,00.html That union is nothing but scum. God forbid somebody else is allowed to do work and earn some money, be it a boy scout or not. Well, if you're Catholic or whatever, that's good. Like Mahnarch proved though, you don't need to be religious in any sense to have good values. Religion shouldn't mix with government, it causes more drama. Religion hasn't mixed with the government in the U.S. for this very reason. That is the result from the seperation of "Church and State" proposal many years back during the founding of our country. Catholic values, Buddhist values, what have you can all be good, positive things for a country. Just so long as it stays out of the government. When religion and government is combined, and aspects/values of that religion are inserted into that government and its foreign policy, you tend to get trouble. Look at the Islamic government of Iran for proof of that kind of trouble. They like to cite religious reasons as excuses to hate other countries and declare religious wars on them. That's what makes the religious part of it suck. Many people who claim to be so holy are far from it. ...Obama? Couldn't resist.  The trading in of cars and appliances for ones better for the environment is a nice thought, but an expensive one that won't work. It's wasteful, and who has the money to buy fancy new things these days at the drop of a hat? Yes, it is a nice thought, but like you said most people don't even have the money to do this. Believe me, I've heard some things about hybrid cars. Like the cost for repairs on the braking system. Any way you look at it, it's a mess and nothing is helping because of bad ideas and people who think it has to be all or nothing their way. Yes, it's very easy to see just how much of a mess it actually is. I'm a conservative, but if one wants to be true to their party one must admit there are those with radical ideas on both sides. Some left wingers would love to bring communism to the United States. Some right wingers would love to see seccession from the Union happen once more. These are the people that consider it all or nothing, their way or the highway. Regular people like you and me would like to see change happen, which is why I think regular people, not politicians looking to fill their coffers or sit on the senate for 40+ years, should run the country. I have a feeling we are inching up on the day when a bunch of average Joes take control of this country and correct a lot of years of bad behavior. In the meantime, conservatives like me, Mahnarch and Phil will look forward to giving radical Obama and 70% of Congress a fat ol' butt boot, one this November and the other not soon enough.  By the way, I hope this isn't taken as an attack on anyone. I love answering questions and debating points. |
|
|
|
Post by Bartleby, the Scrivener on Jan 27, 2010 22:26:11 GMT -5
Health care in America is the best in the entire world. That's where I stopped reading |
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on Jan 28, 2010 0:00:03 GMT -5
Health care in America is the best in the entire world. That's where I stopped reading Oh? And that's where you stuck your fingers in your ears, closed your eyes, and went "LA LA LA IM NOT LISTENING LA LA LA", amirite? And I will say it once more, just so I can imagine you doing that again. American healthcare is the best in the world. Why do you think Canadians cross the border to come here for cancer treatment? Ours is better than theirs, since it is not rationed (yet) under a similar socialized system like they have up there. They are often unable to complete treatment because it gets to a point where their government informs them they have gone overbudget and they are pulling the plug. If you think that sorry excuse for a healthcare system is in any way fair with regards to human life, I'll commence with hitting myself in the head with a frying pan. And if that's truly where you stopped reading, arguing with you is just as pointless and exhausting as it is arguing with any typical liberal that feels their opinion is made of gold, their sh*t don't stink, and everyone else can just kiss their collective asses. Point? I have no idea why I'm bothering with it. This is the reason why I rarely post my political opinion anywhere. I usually wind up having to post something like this in response to someone saying something ridiculous.  |
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Jan 28, 2010 2:21:57 GMT -5
This has turned out to be quite the discussion.
Possum Jenkins, I know you do not like conservative politicians, I also know you do not overly fond of me or my relatives or friends from the other boards as well as the boards at Lewasite. That's ok. You are never overly rude and you have no otherwise obligation to us and you have access to the forum as long as that stays this way. I'm fine with it and I am sure that everybody else is too.
Obviously I have conservative viewpoints as do so many of my internet friends. Blastgirl obviously is my wife, but board members like Jersey Life, Phil and Mahnarch who have tended to share my views are not agreeable to the views you share.
Its also obvious I did not vote for Obama but Demona at least explains why she did vote Obama. Whenever these discussions come up you either say "That's where I stopped reading," Once or twice you've even said things like "The Blasts and their cronies hate Democrats." That's not a full truth but I can see that implied in some posts.
I would rather read what you like about the Obama administration or what you like about the Obama health care than tell us how we're just democrat bashers or "this is where I stopped reading."
If you do decide to discuss this this way please avoid vague answers like "Its better than nothing."
I do agree with Jersey that much of free health care is provided already.
I would be interested in reading some more ideas though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahnarch on Jan 28, 2010 3:18:17 GMT -5
Choose or Perish! **** Demona, Demona, Demona. I bet you're suffering from "buyers remorse", aren't you? Though he's "done nothing" (0-4, so far), it's the fact that he's gunning against the U.S. citizen that's the problem. -Higher tax proposals -Higher taxes passed. (SCHIP, for one)* -Higher Corporate tax proposals. -Re-distribution of wealth. -Quadupling the National Debt in one year. -Spending more taxpayer money in less than 9 months than any President ever spend from George Washington to George Bush - combined. -Losing the Olympics (because he showed up). -Getting a Nobel Peace Prize for being.....elected...(?) Demona!! You are no longer welcome at my home..... unless you sweep my driveway after the snow melts! ![]() i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif![]() ...and then,,,, you must sing for me! ..hmmm.... Gretchen Wilson's "Here for the Party". Yeah, that'll work. ;D *** I stand behind Jersey 100% (I don't seem to have this quotes available at the moment). I also stand, 100% behind Classic, Phil, Blastgirl and Maven.....who I should kick in the butt for voting for Prince Barry, the Annointed One. Maven has buyer's remorse, as well. *taxing 55 year old people to cover 5 year olds....
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahnarch on Jan 28, 2010 3:24:48 GMT -5
If I were in charge I would write an Executive Order that Congress is to take a 'Permanent Paid Vacation' from the day they're elected until they're voted out. It would be cheaper, me thinks! *** Possum, you need to get a new avatar. Your link is dead. (After the 1rst of Feb. I will choose one for you if you don't fix it....) Permanent paid vacation? In other words you'd pay them to not work? Where are you going with that? You said you wanted term limits, but wouldn't this defeat the purpose if they're not serving a purpose anyway? By the way, don't let a lack of avatar bother you, it's no big deal. Paying 100 Senators and four hundred and some odd Representives a salary to do nothing forever....would be cheaper than passing a single bill (Stimulus = $878Billion). Paying them to do nothing is like giving waitress a $20 bill so she doesn't spit on your meal.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mahnarch on Jan 28, 2010 3:48:38 GMT -5
Sorry to triple post but.....I'm going to because I have a large, firmly built, former baseball player standing right behind me swinging a 2x4 with a nail in it, just looking for a place to make holes.  Possum: I may have differing views from you - and I know you're in your teens - so, I'm going to try to understand where you're coming from. -You're a liberal. No harm. No foul. You want everyone to help everyone who "can't help themselves". But, there's a saying: "If you're 20 and you DON'T have Socialist feelings, you don't have a heart." "If you're 30 and you STILL have Socialist feelings, you don't have a brain." - Winston Churchill. Listen, giving is great. Helping is great. Just, do it with your own money and (AND!!!) recognize when to stop helping!! If you give a chronic shopper $100 for a dress, you're basically giving a drunk a drink. A smoker a cigarette. A heroin addict an injection. A lotto player a dollar. You can give all that you want (with other people's money) but, you have to draw the line somewhere and make people stand up and take charge of their own lives. [All of this is on speculation. I'm trying to get you to expand on your "arguments", instead of: "This is where I stopped reading." What? No counter point? No reasons? No clues? No free fries with our order? "You don't agree with my view, therefore you are wrong but, I'm not going to tell you why"? ****Before I say that this is, "typical Liberal behaviour", let is be..............holy crap!!!....
I looked up examples from Lieberman, Pelosi, Hillary, Dodd, Reid, White, etc that I fell over and pee'd my pants.
Andrew Weiner, John Kerry, [/b][/u] ....I'm naming names, here. Look them up. |
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Jan 28, 2010 6:34:49 GMT -5
Wow, um too much posted to be able to quote and reply to it all. No problem with Jersey debating things, hey at least you do it the proper way, unlike some immature people. Yes Mahnarch, if you want to call it buyers remorse I reckon that fits the description, lol. Like I said, it was a gamble and didn't work out. No I'm not going to embarrass myself on Youtube though, NEVAR! The driveway thing I can do possibly....We'll see, lol. I know who he had ties to and found it disturbing he'd be friends with someone like that, but I figured it was like this: Sometimes the friends you make aren't such great people, even if you're better, there's a reputation that comes with it that shouldn't always. In this case I still don't know what to make of it, either it was a huge warning sign, or exactly what I said above. I'm more of a centerist if that's what you call it. I come from a house where having an opinion even a little different is seen as wrong on these things. At least from my mom, she's a liberal. She says all conservatives care about just rich people and don't give a rat's hind end about anyone else. She also brought home on the day of, this voting guideline paper that I took one look at and said a few things I didn't agree on. She was horrified and my dad told her to just let me do what I will, as if she could have changed my mind. ; As far as his opinion on things, I might agree more with him, but he doesn't talk about it really so I'm not sure. I just worry about myself. I see the point where he's too liberal, like the things listed. You'd be right. I don't like the fact that money is being wasted and illegals and other people are getting handouts and taking jobs away from us. It really pisses me off to hear the way wrong reasoning that certain jobs are what Americans think they're took good for, when it's what we did long ago. If I was desperate for a job I'd be down with picking fruit on a farm or whatever, as long as conditions were safe and things like that. In fact, I think those jobs should hire kids in or who've graduated high school, or people with no work experience to give them some. It may not be glamorous, but it's a start. I have a friend on disability who's seen people walk out of the courthouse or wherever he went for it, stuffing walkers and canes into trunks and magically normally into their cars to drive off with money they don't deserve. It made him so mad, and I can see why. They're also the ones who use bridge cards to pay for lobster tails and filet mignon at the grocery store, he's seen it happen. They should be punished. Jersey, I know that relgion and government are seperate, but can and do mix when you have people dissing other cultures and beliefs and acting like their way is the only way. I've seen polls taken of people saying we should only have a Christian president, and that's so wrong. We aren't a backwards country, so why have backwards opinions and be afraid of something not so mainstream? About the cosmetic surgery thing, the "wrong" not being having a mole, big nose, or being overweight, but like something deformed or actually needing correction to funtion properly. I think the media is disgusting too for portraying anyone not thin and flawless enough as not worthy. I mean back in high school boys would only base choices in girlfriends on thinness and popularity, regardless of personality. You know, stuck up preppy b*tches. Hospitals having to treat people on the spot in emergencies such as being shot, well it's the right thing to do, in my opinion. Just letting someone die in a crowded waiting room while suffering doesn't give the system brownie points you know, and isn't morally right either. Anyway! As far as Sarah Palin goes, some things could be just stories, some might not be. I found it disturbing when I read (forgot where) that she considered having an abortion herself even after all she says about being against the subject. A thing that I think should remain legal, but more controlled as in you can't just have one to get off the hook. Again, an example where the all or nothing deal doesn't work, there are always exceptions. Besides, after everybody slammed Obama for not having experience, look at her. She might qualify as a senator or something, but should not run the country or be one step away if it came down to it. That picture made me laugh by the way, because unfortunately people think sunshine comes out of his butt. That's not true of anyone of course. It's also the reason he was given the peace price that he did nothing for. Just because someone saw "potential" for him to do something so awesome it would prove them right. I'd think of more to type, but I just can't think of it right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Bartleby, the Scrivener on Jan 28, 2010 22:28:53 GMT -5
Oh my, you people need to stop taking me so seriously, let me try and diffuse this situation.
Classic: You, your wife, and Kimm seem to be very nice people. You have managed to run this site smoothly, for many years. I do not hate any of you and I'm sorry if I made you feel that way.
Damn, I sound like pansy...
Jersey: I like to make people go on rants, please don't take offense to it. That's just me. Read what I read below too.
Manarch: You'll never believe me but, in real life, I'm actually a moderate more or less. As I said above, I like to make people go on rants, and I say things like that to get a reaction. It still amazes me that I can say 5 words and what I end up with is what appears to be a bunch of long, seemingly well thought out replies. I'm sorry but that's a little funny that you, and some other people take the internet so freaking seriously.
If you really want to know what I think, message me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Jan 29, 2010 1:57:48 GMT -5
That was a lot of reading.
I might pause to say that this is much more stimulating to have it discussed this way.
I didn't think you hated me Possum but I think sometimes my viewpoints disappoint you. I also think sometimes you toss out some salt to see who's eyes you can burn once in a while, too.
I don't mind that though. This is a discussion board and we're all here to discuss I'm happy enough with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin on Jan 29, 2010 9:20:22 GMT -5
Possum has a point. I enjoy all the 'sperging going on in this thread. I can't wait for a long winded response that will have no effect on any of my views whatsoever.
|
|
