Carson hate
-
I asked you for examples and got an anti Fox and old testament rant?
WSS
-
and here's an example for you. The Cuban missile crisis had less lasting damaging effects on the Russians then the installation of communism.
WSS
-
and here's an example for you. The Cuban missile crisis had less lasting damaging effects on the Russians then the installation of communism.
WSS
and here's an example for you. The Cuban missile crisis had less lasting damaging effects on the Russians then the installation of communism.
WSS
you're comparing the Cuban missile crisis to 9.11? I was about to ask how but I really don't want to hear it, it's gonna be too much nonsense for me to handle in one sitting I can already tell. So we'll just agree to disagree.
-
and here's an example for you. The Cuban missile crisis had less lasting damaging effects on the Russians then the installation of communism.
WSS
you're comparing the Cuban missile crisis to 9.11? I was about to ask how but I really don't want to hear it, it's gonna be too much nonsense for me to handle in one sitting I can already tell. So we'll just agree to disagree.
you're comparing the Cuban missile crisis to 9.11? I was about to ask how but I really don't want to hear it, it's gonna be too much nonsense for me to handle in one sitting I can already tell. So we'll just agree to disagree.
A man's got to know his limitations.
WSS
-
you're comparing the Cuban missile crisis to 9.11? I was about to ask how but I really don't want to hear it, it's gonna be too much nonsense for me to handle in one sitting I can already tell. So we'll just agree to disagree.
A man's got to know his limitations.
WSS
A man's got to know his limitations.
WSS
c'mon man you can't srsly be comparing the two. The missile crisis was two nations pulling their dicks out. People actually died on 9.11 and it changed the course of our foreign policy for "at least" a century if not more. It's going to be multiple chapters in some future textbooks.
-
A man's got to know his limitations.
WSS
c'mon man you can't srsly be comparing the two. The missile crisis was two nations pulling their dicks out. People actually died on 9.11 and it changed the course of our foreign policy for "at least" a century if not more. It's going to be multiple chapters in some future textbooks.
Maybe try to read the whole thing again and focus on short term adjustments to a long-term adjustments?c'mon man you can't srsly be comparing the two. The missile crisis was two nations pulling their dicks out. People actually died on 9.11 and it changed the course of our foreign policy for "at least" a century if not more. It's going to be multiple chapters in some future textbooks.
How many similar incidents were there to 911 including perpetrators? What are the long lasting results?
Now what are the far-reaching and long lasting results of a giant step toward socialized medicine?
Especially any ever-present growth of social programs beginning with the New Deal and continuing to the Great Society?
WSS
-
Have Democrats Pulled Too Far Left?
AMONG liberals, it’s almost universally assumed that of the two major parties, it’s the Republicans who have become more extreme over the years. That’s a self-flattering but false narrative. This is not to say the Republican Party hasn’t become a more conservative party. It has. But in the last two decades the Democratic Party has moved substantially further to the left than the Republican Party has shifted to the right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/opinion/have-democrats-pulled-too-far-left.html
Obama has taken the democratic party further to the left on issues like welfare, law enforcement, climate change, illegal immigration, gay rights, abortion, Obamacare and record spending.
"In some respects, like gay rights, the nation is more liberal than it was two decades ago. On the other hand, it is more conservative today than it was in the mid-1990s. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that Republicans have opened substantial leads over Democrats on dealing with terrorism, foreign policy and taxes. They’re competitive on the economy, and a good deal more competitive than in the past on traditional liberal issues like immigration and health care. Self-identified conservatives significantly outnumber self-identified liberals."
Have Democrats Pulled Too Far Left?
AMONG liberals, it’s almost universally assumed that of the two major parties, it’s the Republicans who have become more extreme over the years. That’s a self-flattering but false narrative. This is not to say the Republican Party hasn’t become a more conservative party. It has. But in the last two decades the Democratic Party has moved substantially further to the left than the Republican Party has shifted to the right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/opinion/have-democrats-pulled-too-far-left.html
Obama has taken the democratic party further to the left on issues like welfare, law enforcement, climate change, illegal immigration, gay rights, abortion, Obamacare and record spending.
"In some respects, like gay rights, the nation is more liberal than it was two decades ago. On the other hand, it is more conservative today than it was in the mid-1990s. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that Republicans have opened substantial leads over Democrats on dealing with terrorism, foreign policy and taxes. They’re competitive on the economy, and a good deal more competitive than in the past on traditional liberal issues like immigration and health care. Self-identified conservatives significantly outnumber self-identified liberals."
Well, that NY Times article is an opinion piece (though I am just stating an opinion as well). Again, the creation of the Tea Party seems like the main piece of evidence.
I also don't see how thinking there is man made climate change or that gays should be allowed to get married are crazy left wing ideal. The majority of people in the country are pro gay marriage. How is keeping the same idea on climate change and gay marriage moving further to the left?
I don't see how self identified conservatives outnumbering self identified liberals is a good thing. I'd rather people be more moderate and look at each issue on a case by case basis overall. If anything, more people identifying as conservative would stand to support my point from earlier.
-
The mental disability of liberals, is that they fail to learn
that their fringe causes are way left, but that they
call it "middle ground" because they want to be
accepted into the mainstream.
Just wishing doesn't make it so.
And most Americans - that was about 51-53 percent.
Now it's less. So, according to Pew, it is no longer
a majority of Americans.
But that won't stop you from spouting it endlessly.
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/23/why_does_a_new_poll_show_gay_marriage_support_dropping/
and, man made goober warning? hahahaha.
Most Americans are seeing that it isn't a crisis, nor a fact:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
-
The Daily Caller didn't even read the article they quoted. The Pew Research says plainly that 61% of people polled believe in global warming. Of that 61%, 18% believe it is a natural warming and not man made.
So either the Daily Caller didn't read the poll or are trying to be intentionally deceptive.
-
There is warming. Then there's cooling. The subject is man made global warming.
That is the controversy - accruing way too much power over people's activities and
their MONEY as well as companies' money because the left says "man made global
warming is a crisis"
That is the problem with the left. They change definitions any time it gives them an
emotional/political advantage. It used to be "man made global warming", then "global warming"
and now it's "climate change".
To the left it is all the same - a tool to get more control over other people especially financially,
then they can get the ultimate control over people - wanton dependency on gov.
When the media hypes the liberal global warming hysteria, that is pretty influencial to
emotional voters.
I'd like to see a poll where they ask "do you believe that global warming is a man made crisis and that
you should be taxed into poverty for every single activity you do, like have pets or run lawn mowers,
drive cars, go on vacation greater than 50 miles away from your home, and put farmers out of business
because they drive their farm tractors and other machinery a lot?
I'm pretty sure that would be a lot smaller percentage than the poll's 42 percent of those polled believing
that global warming is man made.
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/045005_global_warming_climate_change_greenhouse_effect.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/041981_global_warming_computer_models_cooling.html
and, in conclusion, at least for now, we get back to the original political drive behind the UN's
"war" on "man made climate change" - they cherry pick data, for the UN's benefit.
What benefit?
The redistribution of wealth from rich countries around the world, to the poor countries.
Don't believe me? Okay, read on:
http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/
-
oh and Hillary's an idiot too for the record before any of you go the higgardly card on me. I can't stand her. "BUT", compared to these guys getting rolled out on the right she's George Washington. You guys think letting clowns like Trump, Cruz and this Carson guy somehow helps define the eventual winner. It doesn't. It makes normal people think that the republican party is a far far worse danger than the democrats could ever be. You let people in the party get away with saying shit like pregnancy can't happen from rape cause the woman has some magic rune defense against getting pregnant in case of non consentual sex.
oh and Hillary's an idiot too for the record before any of you go the higgardly card on me. I can't stand her. "BUT", compared to these guys getting rolled out on the right she's George Washington.
No need to read on.
Your out of your freakin liberal mind...actually, your mind is lock step with liberal extremism thought.
Hillary is George Washington compared to nobody, except perhaps for the likes of Idi Amin or Stalin.
George Washington said "I cannot tell a lie". And Hillary?
Hillary is a bald faced liar, a charlatan, a deceiver. You may disagree with the other candidates but at least they shoot from the hip.
Yeah, yeah, I know the George Washington chopping the cherry tree story may be a myth, but so what.
-
Look at how, now, the pot is calling the kettle black.
-
I will just continue to side with 99% of the scientific community who aren't some monolithic block who have to agree with each other but all came to the same conclusions.
That said, where I disagree is that I don't think there is jack shit we can do. India and China could give a fuck less if their people hotbox toxic fumes all day and drink poisoned water. I doubt they are going to make any efforts to stop their activities unless solar and/or some other form of a cheaper alternative comes along.
-
oh god not this global warming again, why do you right wing nutjobs keep bringing it up in every thread NOT related to the subject? That debate has long passed you by, it's over.
-
Maybe try to read the whole thing again and focus on short term adjustments to a long-term adjustments?c'mon man you can't srsly be comparing the two. The missile crisis was two nations pulling their dicks out. People actually died on 9.11 and it changed the course of our foreign policy for "at least" a century if not more. It's going to be multiple chapters in some future textbooks.
How many similar incidents were there to 911 including perpetrators? What are the long lasting results?
Now what are the far-reaching and long lasting results of a giant step toward socialized medicine?
Especially any ever-present growth of social programs beginning with the New Deal and continuing to the Great Society?
WSS
Maybe try to read the whole thing again and focus on short term adjustments to a long-term adjustments?
How many similar incidents were there to 911 including perpetrators? What are the long lasting results?
Now what are the far-reaching and long lasting results of a giant step toward socialized medicine?
Especially any ever-present growth of social programs beginning with the New Deal and continuing to the Great Society?
WSS
Do you realize how many other countries have had some form of socialized medicine for decades now? This sky is falling down mentality about Obama care is a narrative that has been secretly programmed into your psyche and you don't realize it. Every country that has a social medicine program also has a private network where people of greater means can go through and get preferential treatment. Obama care will ALWAYS be for the margins. Maybe some people who consider themselves uber healthy and don't need expensive private insurance will opt to stay on Obama care, but that's a good thing right? Healthy people don't draw out the reserves. It's literally for the poorest people among us. For now at least i'm ok with it. I know people who were making 6 figures as engineers and architects but when the economy torped they lost their jobs but still had to carry health insurance for their family. I directly and personally know two people, both republicans btw which is super galling, who went on Obama care for a year or two to keep their families covered. Now that the housing mkt came back they're both making big money again and private insurance it is.
and of course now they're back to critiquing obama care. All of you would get on it with your backs up against the wall.
-
Big changes from our system towards socialism are more dramatic and invasive than ramping up security.
(And that is the point of the discussion)
WSS
-
Big changes from our system towards socialism are more dramatic and invasive than ramping up security.
(And that is the point of the discussion)
WSS
Big changes from our system towards socialism are more dramatic and invasive than ramping up security.
(And that is the point of the discussion)
WSS
but of course it's been more than just "ramping up" security. That statement just furthers my point that you don't understand the vast ramifications that 9.11 had on us.....and neither does Ben Carson which is why he won't be president. Even republicans when they get wind of that statement are gonna cringe, which is why he won't sniff the nomination. They need to run someone who's serious this time.
-
Big changes from our system towards socialism are more dramatic and invasive than ramping up security.
(And that is the point of the discussion)
WSS
but of course it's been more than just "ramping up" security. That statement just furthers my point that you don't understand the vast ramifications that 9.11 had on us.....and neither does Ben Carson which is why he won't be president. Even republicans when they get wind of that statement are gonna cringe, which is why he won't sniff the nomination. They need to run someone who's serious this time.
but of course it's been more than just "ramping up" security. That statement just furthers my point that you don't understand the vast ramifications that 9.11 had on us.....and neither does Ben Carson which is why he won't be president. Even republicans when they get wind of that statement are gonna cringe, which is why he won't sniff the nomination. They need to run someone who's serious this time.
Again you avoid the apparently simple task of providing examples I asked for multiple posts back. Switching to socialism, steadily increasing the percentage of citizens that depend on government, is a bigger deal than spending a little more on security.
Again you dodged the point.
WSS
-
but of course it's been more than just "ramping up" security. That statement just furthers my point that you don't understand the vast ramifications that 9.11 had on us.....and neither does Ben Carson which is why he won't be president. Even republicans when they get wind of that statement are gonna cringe, which is why he won't sniff the nomination. They need to run someone who's serious this time.
Again you avoid the apparently simple task of providing examples I asked for multiple posts back. Switching to socialism, steadily increasing the percentage of citizens that depend on government, is a bigger deal than spending a little more on security.
Again you dodged the point.
WSS
than spending a little more on security.
I mean that right there tells me you're never going to get it. Poor people getting healthcare vs the explosion of our surveillance state, that's what it boils down to. I'm not saying the ACA can't cause problems, i'm sure it will. But in the end 9.11 will have profoundly changed us more than giving poor people medical coverage. I'm mean jesus Christ. I'm going to bring this up the next time you complain about Obama pulling troops out of Iraq too soon. Who cares now cause Obama care is way way way worse than any of these Isis or Al Quida fucks. Talked yourself into one there Steve.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login