User talk:Bob fregman/Why Democrats Suck

"You feel that being convicted of treason is an infringement on your first amendment rights."
 * This doesn't make sense.. In US law, treason "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". Unless you're implying that Democrats are idiots who think free expression includes warfare... I think it's more likely though that the originator of the quote misunderstands the concept of treason in US law so as to make it something that could potentially, if unreasonably, be confused for Constitutionally-protected free expression. &mdash; Edru / QQ  22:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * Actually, I think the originator was stating that Dems help the enemy (by selling sensitive material for example) and feel they are entitle to do whatever they want. It's similar to the anti-Republican jokes like, "if they'll stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them". Choytw Talk Debates  10:49, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". That being said, you're taking this alot more serious then me, i took that as a joke.Bob fregman 23:42, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * That's because I take everything seriously and jokingly simultaneously. =]. Also, assisting someone that is in a state of warfare with the US is essentially warring against the US one's self. &mdash; Edru / QQ  23:55, 23 February 2008 (EST)

This is loltastic--Goldenstar 23:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Based on this list I'd say that you might think Democrats suck if you don't like using proper grammar. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  23:26, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * That's a perfect democrat retort, it completely ignores the issue and gets right down to something irrelevant and trivial with no bearing on anything at all!!Bob fregman 23:43, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * Too bad I'm not a Democrat then. I'm a registered Independent :P.  The whole idea of party identification is nonsense to be honest.  I tend towards liberalism on some issues, and libertarianism on others.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:00, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * I agree about party identification, although in practice i tend to find i agree alot more with republicans then democrats, with whom i rarely agree at all.Bob fregman 00:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * Lol, Lou Dobbs. That is all. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 01:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)

An overbearing albeit somewhat accurate list. On tuesday when i have about 3 hours off i'll submit my rebutal. --Dark0805 ( Rant /Contributions ) 23:52, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * Let me save you some time. Ahem.
 * No.
 * This is just a list of things Bob doesn't like assigned to a group of people he doesn't like. --71.229 00:16, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * But he assigned incorrect and irrelevant statements ocasionally. no one writes this shit down unles they want to debate it, anyway. --Dark0805 ( Rant /Contributions ) 00:32, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * This is just a list of things Bob doesn't like assigned to a group of people he doesn't like.
 * Reading comprehension, kk? --71.229 00:35, 24 February 2008 (EST)


 * "You cry every May 4th over the four people killed at Kent State, but have never been to the Vietnam Memorial."
 * You don't have to pay a few thousand for plane tickets to cry about Kent State.
 * "You know of the stockpile of biological weapons in Iraq, but think that the US is wrong for not signing the land mines treaty."
 * Wait, we moved ours to Iraq?
 * "You want to know why we don't offer schooling in prisons (hey, isn't that what public schools are for)."
 * I think that if schools have imprisonment instead of education that prisons should have education instead of imprisonment.
 * "You think it is ok for a President to commit perjury on his sex life, but criticize Dan Quayle for spelling potato/potatoe wrong."
 * Better about his sex life than about simulating drowning or illegally suspending the freedoms of citizens. Also, lies are much more acceptable than idiocy among those in power.
 * No freedoms were being suspended, Bill could've unfortunately had sex whenever with whomever he wanted, but we have laws against lying under oath while we don't against mispelling words. Choytw Talk Debates 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "You think the guy who drops out of High School and builds your jeep deserves more money than the doctor who went to college for 10 years and saves your kids life. "
 * I don't get this one, but I think it's a failed attempt to criticize universal healthcare. I think it's more the case that people would rather that the doctor gets money for saving their kids' lives instead of for refusing to save the kid's life.
 * "You've ever said, "We really should call the ACLU about this." "
 * The ACLU support anonymity on the internets, and free speech, and useful things like that. Therefore, they're not too bad.
 * They also seek prosecution for insane reasons. Choytw Talk Debates 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "You ever based an argument on the phrase, "But they can afford a tax hike because..." "
 * They can afford a tax hike, because they're ridiculously overly wealthy. Sure, I'd prefer total absence of class systems, but really, that's not going to happen while retaining the internet, so... let's just make it not in the self-interest of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth. =]
 * Should we be a socialistic government in which we distribute the wealth how we see fit??? Why not let the entrepreneur keep his well-deserved money?  Quit beeing greedy Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "You think Lennon was a brilliant social commentator."
 * He was clearly better at it than the writer of these quotes.
 * "You believe our government must do it because everyone in Europe does."
 * That's just the free market at work. Euro > USD, so people assume that Euro policies > US policies(actually, this explanation was totally ridiculous, but it was moderately amusing).
 * At least you believe the idea of Euro policies > US is ridiculous ;-) Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "Question: What is the difference between Liberalism and Communism?
 * Answer: The Communists admit it."
 * Odd, I thought it was that communist's are at least theoretically not supporters of oppression and capitalism and property.
 * "1. You're not a big fan of those "constitutional rights" everyone's talking about."
 * Wasn't that Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. during the Bush admnistration? Besides, hardly reasonable to mock democrats for supporting the ACLU and then mock them for not being pro-civil-liberty enough.
 * I hope you're not referring to the phone taps? Which rights were removed by tapping phones of 'suspected' terrorists? Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "You are a terrorist or are in any way affiliated with a terrorist group."
 * I think that the KKK, the Weathermen, and most of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups would disagree with you.
 * "The idea of babies being killed on a whim seems perfectly acceptable to you."
 * Whereas the corresponding good reason to vote Republican is that "The idea of a mother dying in childbirth and the combination of the additional mouth to feed and loss of the mother's income causes the whole family to end up starving to death seems much more preferable to the death of a fetus that quite possibly may not have survived for long after birth anyway.
 * 99% of Republicans who are pro-life do not believe that the babies life > the mother's. As for the mouth to feed and the following bs, there is well-fare and adoption to consider. Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * In summary, yeah, Democrats fail, but so do Republicans, and Libertarians(give the guys waving black flags and circle-a's their word back, tbh), and people in general. &mdash; Edru / QQ  00:43, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * True that...Bush seems to be a dem in disguise...only TWO vetoes??? wtf??? Choytw Talk Debates 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * OSHT OWNED &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  20:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

rather than resubmitting the same thing as edru, i'll say this: defiant elements is right. party labels are retarded. edru's right. any points that edru ignored, (i.e. that you originally made) are right. I have one point to make: Bill clinton's marital infadelity(s) have no effect on his ability to govern, nor should he ever have been questioned on them. the fact that republicans nearly jeopradized the country's security by taking up his time on that ridiculous impeachment is despicable. --Dark0805 ( Rant /Contributions ) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)
 * The fact is he could have pleaded the fifth or his lawyer could have said that the question had no bearing on anything relevant...however, he chose to lie and we have laws against that. Choytw Talk Debates 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * "Jeopardized the country's security"? Explain. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (EST)
 * an accute exageration on my part, but, if you read bill clintons autobio, as i recall(i read it a few years ago, so take this with a grain of salt), national policy and general country-leading took a back seat to having to deal with bullshit perpetrated by fatassed old republicans who were prbably jealous they couldnt get a blowjob themselves. watch chris's rock rant about it on his "never scared" special for a better summary, tbh. --Dark0805 ( Rant /Contributions ) 09:17, 26 February 2008 (EST)
 * see my above reply Choytw Talk Debates 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Why Republicans Suck

 * They say that homosexuality is wrong, but there's more gay sex scandals with Republicans/Republican supporters than any other political party.
 * That's because Dems are better at not getting caught ;-)  Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * War isn't good. People die, and that kinda sucks.
 * It is ignorant to think that War isn't good and come to the conclusion that war is wrong. What happens if we don't defend ourselves?...Hitler anyone? Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * What do people have against gay marrige? It doesn't hurt you, so don't bug in.
 * What do you have against polygamy? It doesn't hurt you so don't bug in... it basically, for me, comes down to a moral issue and the cascading effect if it's accepted. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Common sense isn't in the Republican dictionary. Sensual is, though.
 * Yep, the Republicans had a sex scandal in office...wait... ;-) <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * America has suffered the harshest 8 years this nation has almost seen, we don't need a near duplicate taking the seat for another harsh 4-8 years.
 * BS read some of the posters for World War I and II. They talk about only eating what you need so the troops can have food.  Harsh my ass. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * America is not the nation of God. Technically, it would be Israel or somewhere in the middle east (Jesus's birthplace, IDK because I've never read the Bible).
 * True, but this nation was founded on Biblical principles and as a result, can...used to be able to claim that right as well. If you're a Christian, you should have a hard time saying that Israel is currently the chosen nation of God since they rejected, and still reject, his Son. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * "I Am America (And So Can You!)" will always beat a Bible in the coffee table debate in 1v1
 * First one I don't get lol <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Staying in Iraq until it's repaired is good. Setting up a tent and spawn camping there, is not.
 * It is (Small base mind you). It is a deterrent for mass influx of terrorists or people wanting to over-throw the government there.  It is also a strategic spot to launch attacks against middle eastern countries which is also a detterent to them  ;-) <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Using a national disiaster to get your war through isn't good
 * If that was the only reason given then right you are. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * "I'm using Corrupt Government on The White House!"
 * Now that is funny! But really, there have been corrupt administrations and I don't believe this one has approached on any level to those.  While I don't agree with their policies, I don't see corruptness.  Happy to debate that since I'd like to hear your point of view <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Would you want people listening to your pitiful phone sex while they thing that you're really talking about "your big cannon."
 * The Patriot Act only lets them listen to suspected terrorists. Even if it didn't, what right does it impede? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * If you support the draft, then why don't you volunteer yourself and all your family members?
 * Because the draft is used in times when the security of the United States is at risk. And I and my brother did. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to add more. -- Guild of  Deals  19:32, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * You forgot fiscal responsibility, corruption, big government, invasion statutory rape of privacy, and the military/industrial complex. :O --71.229 19:35, 27 February 2008 (EST)


 * The Civil War was worse than 9/11. &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  19:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * Technically, yes it was. The nation was against itself, more people died, etc. --[[image:GoD Sig3.jpg|20px]] Guild of  Deals  19:41, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * They say that homosexuality is wrong, but there's more gay sex scandals with Republicans/Republican supporters than any other political party.


 * And? There have been gay scandals with priests, it doesnt mean christians are pro gay.  Scandals in general are bad, and obviously the republicans dont condone them.  i could say more democrats commit crimes then republicans therefore democrats like criminals.
 * War isn't good. People die, and that kinda sucks.
 * I agree. slavery, fascism, genocide, etc. should go on unopposed.  War is sometimes a necesity, you'd have made a better point if you argued specifically against iraq and not war in general, which is sometime necesary.
 * What do people have against gay marrige? It doesn't hurt you, so don't bug in.
 * Lots of things dont hurt you but are still illegal.
 * Common sense isn't in the Republican dictionary. Sensual is, though.
 * If tax breaks and fair government is against common sense then i agree.
 * America has suffered the harshest 8 years this nation has almost seen, we don't need a near duplicate taking the seat for another harsh 4-8 years.
 * Hardly the harshest 8 years. In fact, it hasnt been nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be.
 * America is not the nation of God. Technically, it would be Israel or somewhere in the middle east (Jesus's birthplace, IDK because I've never read the Bible).
 * well, in god we trust is our national motto. im an aetheist though so i dont care.  If arguing religon, reading the bible would probably be beneficial.
 * Staying in Iraq until it's repaired is good. Setting up a tent and spawn camping there, is not.
 * Spawn camping gets alot more kills with alot less risk
 * Using a national disiaster to get your war through isn't good
 * doing nothing would be better amirite?
 * "I'm using Corrupt Government on The White House!"
 * You're trying to corrupt it? i thought democrats were againt corrupt government.
 * Would you want people listening to your pitiful phone sex while they thing that you're really talking about "your big cannon."
 * What you dont know wont hurt you. i dont see wht the big deal with wire tapping is, if you dont like it, dont have phone sex
 * If you support the draft, then why don't you volunteer yourself and all your family members?
 * Why would i volunteer my family? I dont support the draft, but i wouldnt dodge it either.  I'm a patriot, not a coward.Bob fregman 20:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)

"I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." - Adlai Stevenson.

"Republicans want to punish work and reward wealth; hence the high payroll tax and the low dividend tax. Said one Bush economic adviser, if we can't help wealthy investors and screw working people, what's the point in being a Republican?" - Paul Begala

"By now we should all know that being a conservative means never having to say you're sorry." - Joe Conason

I couldn't resist. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  20:22, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * War is never really necessary. evar. Neither is labeling people by their party. Politics wuz nevar ment to bee party labels and Hairily Clit. <font color="Black">Belgianbronco [[Image:BelgianbroncoMesmerSig.png]] 20:32, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * Do those rose colored glasses come in mens sizes.Bob fregman 20:46, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * ym comes in my size &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  20:48, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Edru already addressed most of the original points you brought up, so unless I have a ton of time to kill later, I'm not gonna go over that again, but I did want to point out some inconsistencies with your rebuttal in this section. So, starting with the first point. GoD's original comment is somewhat inane, but your response is misleading. "And? There have been gay scandals with priests, it doesnt mean christians are pro gay.  Scandals in general are bad, and obviously the republicans dont condone them.  i could say more democrats commit crimes then republicans therefore democrats like criminals." First of all, I'd like to see these statistics that show that Democrats commit more crimes. Second of all, I believe the point being made was that some republicans are hypocrites, not that there's some correlation between scandals and being pro-Gay... That said, the original point makes no real sense, but then again, you were the one who took the actions of an individual or minority as representative of the majority, so you brought this on yourself. Then there's the second point, regarding war. Your response consists of one giant fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. Opposing war is not remotely equivalent to supporting (or even being apathetic) about genocide, fascism, and slavery have absolutely nothing to do with war, even if you're attempting to claim that they can only be stopped via war or something ludicrous like that. In fact, liberals tend to be more involved in humans rights violations (eg. Darfur), while at the same time being opposed to war. Funny how that works, huh? Besides, given the current political climate, I think it's fair to say that GoD's comment was tacitly directed at the War in Iraq. Now, your next one, related to crimes and illegality. You could have responded with some pertinent comment about why you opposed Gay marriage, instead, you tried to be flippant. And it failed. Whether or not a particular action is illegal can, almost without exception, be linked to whether or not that action can be construed as injurious (i.e. it negatively impacts a person -- physically, emotionally, etc. -- property (eg. destruction of), etc). Can you give me an example of something that is not injurious but which is illegal? Now, regarding tax breaks and fair government. Right off the bat, please define "fair government." Fair for whom? What constitutes fair? I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that I could find quite a few people who thought that the current Republican theory of economics is anything but fair. Also, related to tax breaks. You suffer from the mass delusion that tax increases are inherently bad and that tax breaks are inherently good. Yes, in terms of immediate impact, it seems logical to believe that tax breaks are always preferable, but as far as long term impact goes, tax increases can actually be sound economic policy, whereas tax cuts can be very poor in the long run. So, attempting to create a correlation between common sense and tax cuts actually demonstrates a lack of common sense. The next point is a little more borderline. I agree with you that the past 8 years cannot be labeled the harshest; however, I think it's also very dangerous to begin understate the negative impacts of a number of Bush policies (particularly, in my opinion, the rather neo-conservative doctrine of preemptive warfare commonly referred to as the Bush Doctrine). And I think it's particularly dangerous to start placing blame on third party groups (i.e. the media). Speaking of which, you might want to define Republicanism, because in terms of current politics, the term is extremely ambiguous (so much so as to be meaningless). Yes, "In God We Trust" is out motto. That said, separation of Church and State is one of the founding principles of this country as well, and people have a way of confusing religious reasoning with political/social reasoning. And, why should GoD have to read the Bible to argue religion? Conservatives across the country have used Bible passages to support anti-gay rights views while at the same time completely misunderstanding those very same passages. For instance, in the biblical sense, the term "aberration" is meant to indicate a deviance from the orthodoxy. It does not indicate that something is morally wrong. For instance, according to the Bible, wearing clothes of two different fabrics is an aberration. Also, if I may ask, assuming you are in fact opposed to gay marriage and are an atheist, on what grounds do you base your opinion? As for the next point, the entire basis of comparison is ludicrous, so I'll ignore that. On to your next point, you yet again confuse correlation with causation. "Using a national disaster" is correlated with going to war; however, it need not be for the war to have occurred. And your response to the next point is just stupid. It's clear what he meant, but instead of responding to the matter of corruption in government, you tried to be funny by abusing semantics while ignoring the question. And here I was thinking that was a quality you attributed to Democrats. Now your next one... holy crap... So ignorance is bliss? So as long as your not aware of it, your fine with your government throwing caution to the wind and rendering your civil liberties null and void? And here I was thinking that Republicans were in favor of individual rights and constitutional liberties. Guess I was wrong, huh? And as to your last rebuttal, all I can say is that civil disobedience != cowardice. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  23:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * Oh dear god. 75.75.180.0 00:15, 28 February 2008 (EST)
 * :P [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:25, 28 February 2008 (EST)
 * I actually read that; not sure if I win or fail. Anyway, there's not really anything anyone can argue against there, DE.  Again, not sure if that's good or bad; is it still a negative thing that debate might stop even if an undebatable response comes up? Totally off-subject, but w/e. --[[Image:Mafaraxas_sig.jpg|click moar]] <font color="black" face="calibri">Mafaraxas  01:05, 28 February 2008 (EST)

To DE: hypocrites are everywhere, i'd find it hard to beleive that anymore republicans are hypocrites then any other groups. While i dont know specifically if democrats commit more crime, i do know that the types of people that tend to be democrats also tend to be more likely to commit crime, though i wouldnt actually argue that therefore democrats commit more crime. War has always existed as a tool for change. Is it the preffered way to bring about change, no, but sometimes it is the only way. I wouldnt say it's ludicrous to state that slavery, facism and etc. are only solved by warfare, seeing as how that's what history has shown us. there are good reasons to go to war. Preemptive military action may not be a doctrine i particularly agree with, however saddam hussein was a threat, albeit a small one. the larger threat, radical islamic terrorists came to the aid of saddam and the war in iraq has turned into the war against terror. Several leaders of terrorist cells have been killed in the process. I do beleive the war against terror to be a worthwhile cause. I wouldnt say that liberals are more involved in human rights, rather they are more involved in getting others involved in it, via using tax dollars in support of it. I, as many conservatives do, support charity, 100%. but charity is not something the government should force on us. Wellfare, darfur, and whatnot are worhty causes, but not that the public should be forced to pay. If you want to be charitable, then be charitable, but if not, then you shouldnt have to. In addition, why is putting money into the war against terror wrong but putting money and soldiers into darfur ok. People say what saddam did was none of our business, then i certainly dont see how darfur is. When i use republicanism i am generally referring to conservatism and democrats would be liberals, but thats not always so. I'm an aehteist, so religous affairs dont bother me, although as an atheist i thinks its absokute bullshit when people make a big shit about them being offended because someone taught more about jesus then allah in a school. Political correctness in itself is bullshit, in my oppinion. I just find homosexuality wrong, to me it seems unnatural and frankly disgusting. Do i have a particular reason for this that i could verbalize to you, i'm not sure. If i tried hard enough, i probably could, but it never seemed right to me. Seperation of church and state is important, i agree, but the right to bear arms is also in the constitution, and democrats dont have alot of trouble disregarding that, which is a big thing for me as a gun owner and someone who enjoys shooting as a recreation with no intent to ever shoot anyone. What rights are being taken by the government wire tapping my phone? As was seen by the anthrax incident and the terrorist attacks, there is a reason to be concerned about counter intelligence, and while im a supporter of individual liberty, i dont see how eavesdropping on you is a violation of your rights. The only time it ever matters is if you're plotting to commit a crime which you dont have a right to do anyway. Now, if the threat of terrorism dies down and they are still doing taps, i may be concerned, but at the moment i simply dont see what all the fuss is about. I dont feel that theres any problem with corruption in our government. simply stating the government is corrupt and saying nothing else doesnt help an argument, make a few points and i could more specifically discuss them with you.Bob fregman 15:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)
 * I dont feel that theres any problem with corruption in our government.
 * Jesus tittyfucking Christ. I have no words. --71.229 16:02, 28 February 2008 (EST)
 * Read The Prince and you will understand. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey (talk)  16:12, 28 February 2008 (EST)
 * I think this falls under PvX:BAD. <font color="#DD2200">Lord Belar 18:15, 28 February 2008 (EST)

You know... I told myself I wasn't gonna continue posting on this matter, but I feel the need to do so. Right off the bat, I didn't say that Republicans were more prone to hypocrisy than Democrats, please re-read what I actually said. Next, "i do know that the types of people that tend to be democrats also tend to be more likely to commit crime." Based on what statistical evidence? Also, I'd just like to point out that a statement which holds that correlation implies causation is accepted as a fallacious argument, and your statement "I wouldnt say it's ludicrous to state that slavery, facism and etc. are only solved by warfare, seeing as how that's what history has shown us" falls into that category. So, I'm not gonna address that accept to say that "what history has shown us" is a meaningless statement unless you plan to back that up with examples. Next, "the larger threat, radical islamic terrorists came to the aid of saddam and the war in iraq has turned into the war against terror. Several leaders of terrorist cells have been killed in the process." This just makes me want to punch a wall. You can't war against a concept/belief. It is also entirely possible that by pursuing this War, we have generated at least (if not more) of the hatred of "Western" culture which leads people to terrorism. It's a well observed fact that the more you grind at a belief, the stronger the central core of resistance becomes. Besides, if you were even remotely well-informed, you'd know that killing several leaders is meaningless, someone can always take their place; in fact, according to recent reports, the Al-Qaeda hierarchy that we were supposedly weakening is returning to full strength. "I wouldnt say that liberals are more involved in human rights, rather they are more involved in getting others involved in it, via using tax dollars in support of it. I, as many conservatives do, support charity, 100%.  but charity is not something the government should force on us.  Wellfare, darfur, and whatnot are worhty causes, but not that the public should be forced to pay." Honestly... get your fact straight... welfare aside (and I pointedly did not mention welfare in my previous post because I don't agree with it), since when does the government force us to be charitable? Ever looked at a budget report? I doubt you'll see much money (if any) going to Darfur. In fact, on 24 December, the United States Congress rejected Condoleezza Rice's request to restore $50 million in aid to the African Union that human rights groups say had been cut from the budget in November, and at a UN donor conference in Brussels, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer stated that the United States would not fund the AU peacekeeping force past September 2006. This caused consternation amongst the anti-genocide movements in the United States, as the UN peacekeeping force would be deployed at the earliest in January 2007. "in addition, why is putting money into the war against terror wrong but putting money and soldiers into darfur ok. People say what saddam did was none of our business, then i certainly dont see how darfur is." First of all, we had an agenda in Iraq, and I don't know about you, but I happen to believe that preventing blatant genocide is a nobler cause than the War in Iraq which was largely motivated by U.S. interests. Also, "more involved in getting others involved in it" = more involved. I'm not saying that conservatives are anti-charity, that would be dumb, but if the end result is that the conservative method generates x amount of money, and the liberal method generates x + y amount of money, then they've accomplished more. They're actively involved rather than passively involved. "When i use republicanism i am generally referring to conservatism and democrats would be liberals, but thats not always so." Yeah... that clears things up... do you mean Cultural conservatism? Liberal conservatism? Social conservatism? National conservatism? Neoconservatism? Paleoconservatism? Libertarian conservatism? And by liberalism, do you mean American liberalism? Classical liberalism? Conservative liberalism? National liberalism? Economic liberalism? Libertarianism? Neoliberalism? Ordoliberalism? Paleoliberalism? Social liberalism? Cultural liberalism? "I'm an aehteist, so religous affairs dont bother me, although as an atheist i thinks its absokute bullshit when people make a big shit about them being offended because someone taught more about jesus then allah in a school." Erm... yeah... bullshit... that makes sense... I'm an agnostic myself, but I think that if you're gonna teach religion period, then you're duty-bound to teach all religions, gogo Pastafarianism. "I just find homosexuality wrong, to me it seems unnatural and frankly disgusting. Do i have a particular reason for this that i could verbalize to you, i'm not sure.  If i tried hard enough, i probably could, but it never seemed right to me." So... your reasoning amounts to "Eww... it's nasty... so let's deprive them of liberties"? To use your own logic, it's not hurting you, so why should you care? "Seperation of church and state is important, i agree, but the right to bear arms is also in the constitution, and democrats dont have alot of trouble disregarding that, which is a big thing for me as a gun owner and someone who enjoys shooting as a recreation with no intent to ever shoot anyone." Yes, you do have the right to bear arms... assuming your a member of a local militia. I'm not for or against gun control per se... but I find it amusing that no one seems to have actually read the Second Amendment. Separation of Church and State is made painfully clear, the right to bear arms is not. Let's look at the Second Amendment, shall we? Here's the original wording/punctuation as ratified by the states: "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." Notice, there's no comma after "A well regulated militia." What does that mean? It means that the clause "being necessary to the security of a free State" is not a parenthetical, rather it defines a well regulated militia. Thus, using boolean logic, we can state this as: if a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State then (and using this logic, only then) does the clause, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" apply. Separation of Church and State is indisputable. The specific nature of the Second Amendment is. "What rights are being taken by the government wire tapping my phone?  As was seen by the anthrax incident and the terrorist attacks, there is a reason to be concerned about counter intelligence, and while im a supporter of individual liberty, i dont see how eavesdropping on you is a violation of your rights.  The only time it ever matters is if you're plotting to commit a crime which you dont have a right to do anyway.  Now, if the threat of terrorism dies down and they are still doing taps, i may be concerned, but at the moment i simply dont see what all the fuss is about." Two words: Due process (as per the Bill of Rights). And another word: privacy (as inferred from the Bill of Rights by the Supreme Court). By your logic, Japanese internment was perfectly legitimate. National security is not a warrant to throw individual liberties out the window *Cough* Patriot Act *Cough.* And as to corruption in the U.S. Government, I'm not gonna comment directly, but you might wanna take a look at a) the results of a Google search using the keywords U.S Government + Corruption and b) take a look at the sheer number of earmarks in Congress these days. To be perfectly honest though, I've yet to hear a single argument from you based on anything other than your own perceptions/feelings. Come back when you have coherent argument. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  19:05, 28 February 2008 (EST)
 * DE feels the need to constantly define the phrase "wall of text" :) -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:10, 28 February 2008 (EST)
 * Yes, yes I do. Just me doing my duty though.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:12, 28 February 2008 (EST)

According to the Bureau of justice, 64% of inmates were minorities. an estimated 32% of blacks and 17% of hispanic males will enter a state or federal prison in their lifetime as opposed to 5.9% of whites. 57% of inmates are under the age of 45. Local prisons nearly replicate the above statistics. According to common sense and my APS classes, minorities and younger people are more likely to be democrats where as older individuals and whites are more likely to be republican. Like i said, im not stating that therefore democrats are more likely to be criminals then republicans,just pointing out the connection. History showed us in the form of the civil war, WWII, several of the french revolutions, etc. I know correlation is not causation, but there's a little more then correlation between the civil war and the end of slavery in the US. "You can't war against a concept/belief"  i beg to differ. What more is a country then a belief held by many people? Is there really lines in the sand that seperate the us and canada, and are we actually Americans? Of course not, we simply believe ourselves to be and most others acknowledge national borders. The point, the countries themselves only exist as they are because we beleive they do. "when does the government force us to be charitable?" seriously? Sending tax money, which is the citizens money, to darfur is forcing charity. Wellfare is forcing charity. Most if not all social programs are forcing charity by taking tax dollars and giving them to charitiable causes. "blatant genocide is a nobler cause than the War in Iraq which was largely motivated by U.S. interests"  Nobler yes, but there are US interests in iraq and i tend to think that protecting out interests is more practical and important than being the fairytale knight who saves the people in darfur. I'm referring to american conservatism and american liberalism. "then you're duty-bound to teach all religions, gogo Pastafarianism" I disagree. The impact of several religons, notable christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, and hinduism, have had much more profound effects on people and the world and from an education standpoint are more important. The point of the second ammendment is just as much to protect the citizens from the government as it is to protect us from external threat.s What do you define as the militia, by many definitions individuals owning guns could be defined as a militia. I dont agree with japenese internment, since it deprived them of several of their key liberties. The patriot act however, doesnt just round up people for their race and throw them in jail. If you havent noticed, due process take awhile, a really long time, and if there's a ticking timebomb scenario might not have that time. People who fear the patriot act have something to hide. Bob fregman 11:00, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * ... 11:12, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * People who fear the patriot act have something to hide or are worried the government will engage in McCarthy-style "Red" hunts. To be fair, humans make mistakes all the time. Potentially having your human right suspended because someone has a score to settle with you scares the fuck out of some people. Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean that someone isn't going to try and get it out of you. - zomg!  [[Image:panic_sig.png|19px]]  PANIC!  11:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Suspension of Habeus Corpus and denying people the right to a speedy trial is a DIRECT violation of due process, that's the whole point! Good lord... Moving on... "The impact of several religons, notable christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, and hinduism, have had much more profound effects on people and the world and from an education standpoint are more important."  Then they should be teaching ancient Babalonian religions, et al., from which those religions derive their nature.  Besides, I'm speaking in terms of teaching something like Creationism is an alternative theory but not lending credence to creation stories from other religions.  "The point of the second ammendment is just as much to protect the citizens from the government as it is to protect us from external threat.s  What do you define as the militia, by many definitions individuals owning guns could be defined as a militia."  A militia must, by definition, be an organized group.  The origin of the Second Amendment is British Commonlaw which allowed citizens to own guns because there existed no police force and thus militias were necessary.  As to your point about charity, you might want to look at a budget report.  "'You can't war against a concept/belief'   i beg to differ."  What I mean is that you can never eradicate "terrorism."  I can dissolve the U.S. as a country, and after some indeterminent amount of time, people will cease to think of themselves as Americans.  But "terrorism" has always existed and will always exist by its very nature.  I've gotta run... will add more later.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  11:24, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Finally, you don't get my point about correlation and causation. The fact that some wars have ended slavery, etc., proves correlation.  What it does not prove is that war is the only method to end slavery, etc., thus making your statements about wars being "necessary" fallacious.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  18:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * True, Habeus Corpus was suspended for a very brief time for citizens of America, but that was thankfully repealed. However, non-citizens do not have that right.  However, it does seem as if the suspected terrorists being held should have had more progress by now. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  10:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * As for war, it is not the only solution but to argue that it is wrong for all occasions is equally wrong. There is a time and place for war, again, Hitler? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  10:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Before you post anything else, bob, read and understand this, as you won't listen to DE. Particularly numbers 1,4,5,6,8,15,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,27,28,29,31,34,35,37,38,40,41 and 42. <font color="#DD2200">Lord Belar 18:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Fukken saved. --71.229 18:56, 29 February 2008 (EST)


 * Since I haven't read all his posts, where do you think bob is committing fallacies? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 10:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Why Bob fregmans Suck
General coup de grâce additive solidifying the list I've made.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş   19:51, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * His titles use all caps (suck can be lowercase).
 * He makes stupid, uninformed lists like these.
 * He goes on PvXwiki.
 * His titles use all caps (suck can be lowercase). Caps > lowercase


 * He makes stupid, uninformed lists like these. i didnt make the list, i compiled it. Only a democrat would find this stupid and uninformed.  It has many clever little jokes about the flaws of our tree hugging liberal neighbors.
 * He goes on PvXwiki. given.Bob fregman 20:16, 27 February 2008 (EST)


 * no u 75.75.180.0 20:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)


 * It has many clever little jokes about the flaws of our tree hugging liberal neighbors Are you tyring to say they are Kurzicks? :O Selket Shadowdancer 20:25, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * But it's the Luxons that wear red. Commies vs. Liberals?  That's pretty un-American. :O --71.229 20:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)


 * More defensive than earthball.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 22:22, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Why Grinch is Fucking Awesome
See above. &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  19:52, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Why Skakid Thinks Grinch is Fucking Awesome
It's the cake, and the whole "fucking awesome" thing. -- Guild of  Deals  19:55, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * Grinch is the most creative fucking person ever. After like a year he still impresses me with fucking awesome comments every day. &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  19:55, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * ...Isn't that his job? IMO, make a "Grinch Makes Me Hard" fanclub. --[[image:GoD Sig3.jpg|20px]] Guild of  Deals  19:57, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * ...fail. --<font color="Black">Readem 20:45, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Why dictatorship fckn pwnz

 * I would be the dictator.
 * Everybody would do as I tell.
 * People who disagree with me get tortured and killed.
 * I wtfpwn.

Rickyvantof 11:17, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * You clearly dont understand how to be a dictator. You need popular support.  If all you do is kill and toture opposition, then you will get your ass kicked out in 5 seconds.  You need scapegoating and brainwashing to do this.  Choose some people you dont like, rally your people behind you, and take them down.  Then, start Hitler Youth.  You might also want some religious or philosophical justification for your power to solidify it, also.  Then you can be a dictator. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey (talk)  19:12, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Pakistan and Africa disagree. --71.229 19:15, 29 February 2008 (EST) not every dictator is Hitler.
 * And remind me what's happining in Pakistan and Africa? :P <font color="#DD2200">Lord Belar 19:28, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Madness. --71.229 19:30, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Lolz @ you giving a serious answer. Rickyvantof 19:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * For example, if you wanted to become dictator in America, you'd need to acquire Fox "News," the boy/girl scouts and blame everything on arabs, mexicans or both. The torture facilities and oppressive laws come with the existing government. <font color="#DD2200">Lord Belar 19:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * I don't think you'd need to try very hard for Fox, Rupert Murdoch seems like the jackboot type. --71.229 19:25, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * lol u gais r rite amerikkka is the worst. wanna go circle jerk sumtime? --[[Image:Mafaraxas_sig.jpg|click moar]] <font color="black" face="calibri">Mafaraxas  19:41, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Your mockery has been noted. Stay where you are and await collection. ):< --71.229 19:53, 29 February 2008 (EST) but seriously, belar's post is the classic way of jump-starting a dictatorship, and if you think it couldn't ever possibly happen in the US 'cuz it's the land of the free, you're a tool.
 * Unfortunately, you cant become a dictator in America. This is because of the Constitution which is engrained into every childs head as being invincible.  Also, since the majority (whites) is decreasing, race warfare would be horrible and devastating (not like fighting pacifict Jews).  Althoug, the place that could have a very high chance of becoming fascist (which is what I'm describing if you didnt figure that out) is France.  Even though they suck at fighting wars, Napoleon was the third greatest conqueror in history (next to 1:Ghengis Kahn and 2:Hitler).  He also left a great mark of nationalism which is still alive today, and notionalism is essential to fascism.  Also, people are getting pretty annoyed with their socialist system.  If Im not mistaken, in their last election, France elected a far-righter who promised to burn socialism.  If thats the case, they are already making steps towards fascism and may become one in under 10 years. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey (talk)  19:47, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * You obviously haven't been paying attention if you think Americans give a flying fuck about their rights anymore.
 * France? You mean the country that exported democracy to us?  The country that helped us through the Revolutionary War, gave us the Statue of Liberty, aided our legislators and philosophers in their path to making the Constitution?  No, what they're in danger of is getting cockstomped by the huge amount of Muslims that live there.  Sharia law is a nasty thing. --71.229 19:56, 29 February 2008 (EST) in b4 accusations of racism
 * Muslims will = gigantic scapegoat. Political reform comes from distress.  If theyre society is about to die, they will resort to fascism.  Also, the bill or rights can suck my cock for all I care, but there is more to the Constitution than that.  The oter pages of it say NO DICTATORS!!!  That isnt going to change unless there is a super-crisis. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey (talk)  20:00, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Hell of a scapegoat. And we've all seen just how just how seriously people take the Constitution, haven't we?  lol@inalienable rights, amirite? --71.229 20:10, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Inaliable rights can suck my balls once again, and I believe the term "inaliable rights" comes form the Declaration, not the Constitution, but I could be wrong. Anyways, my point was that this country is EXTREMELY anti-dictator (we were mroe anti-communist for a tiem so thats why we supported dictators).  We would never allow thta to happen in this country. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey (talk)  20:14, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Dictatorships are overrated. Why go through all the hassle when you can just pack SCOTUS with your lackeys and totally ignore Congress through an utter corruption of the legislative process? --71.229 20:18, 29 February 2008 (EST) I should warn you that I'm nearing my troll threshold, and if I keep going the way I'm going you can safely ignore anything I say after my next two posts.
 * Fascism is usually revolutionary, so you would have to pwn congress for it to work. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey (talk)  21:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * About 50-80% of your edits are stupid talk page edits. At least you're consistently bad so everyone knows to disregard what you say.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 08:31, 1 March 2008 (EST)

FYI
This pretty much cost your RfBM. Thought you outta know. -- Guild of  Deals  21:18, 1 March 2008 (EST)
 * i had a 20 or 21-5 support to oppose with several current bms supporting and the support actually had reasons, unlike the oppose which had idiots like eloc and shadowsin. If i was going to be a bm, i wouldve been one, this had no effect.  Ironically, this should have no effect on my rfbm since its not in anyway related.  that being said, i dont care.  I hardly play gw, if im playing videogames im on cod4.  I posted this primarily out of amusement and curiosity, to start some controversy, and because democrats(liberals in general) do in fact suck.Bob fregman 22:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)
 * A majority of anything sucks. You can apply that curve to practically every situation in life, where &mu;=suck, and it'll hold true.  It's why PvX is fail, why GW userbase is fail, why democrats are fail, why republicans are fail, etc etc etc.  There's obviously the question of a relative scale, but... I'm too lazy to get into it. --[[Image:Mafaraxas_sig.jpg|click moar]] <font color="black" face="calibri">Mafaraxas  23:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)
 * You're currently 16 for and 12 against, and Grinch, Wizardboy, and Readem are against. GG, I guess. --71.229 00:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)
 * It's hard to win BMship when some of PvX's top people (aka Admins, BM's, etc). --[[image:GoD Sig3.jpg|20px]] Guild of  Deals  08:05, 2 March 2008 (EST)
 * At one point, half of the oppose votes were support. also, i like it how this is considered "wtf omg oppose idiot lolwut" but linking to porno or general QQing on your userpage is fine.Bob fregman 18:48, 3 March 2008 (EST)
 * So fucking pathetic that people can disagree with this list enough to affect your BM. sure, your so conservative it makes me want to spit, but i still hate democrats more than you =). honestly, as long the majority of this site is high schoolers your fucked. its not fun beign a 15 year old having to explain free markets to coeds who want to save the forest, i'd imagine losing your BMship to it sucks as much. lol sucks and coeds in same paragraph --Dark0805  ( Rant /<font color=#ff11aa>Contributions ) 00:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Stereotypes and dichotomies are pathetic too. Just because some of us disagree with some things Bob posted doesn't mean all of us are tree-fucking liberals. --[[Image:Mafaraxas_sig.jpg|click moar]] <font color="black" face="calibri">Mafaraxas  04:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm probably less conservative then you think. It's not that i always agree with what republicans do, it's that i almost always disagree with what democrats do.  They're the masters of pointing out what's wrong, yet they never have any solutions to fix it.  obama is the perfect example, the captain of change, but wtf is change.  He barely elaborates on what he's going to change, or how the hell he's gonna do it.  I also fail to see why my taxes should be paying for someones drug habbit or some illegal aliens schooling and benefits.  Do i think the war in iraq should have been handles differently, yes, especially in hindsight(which is always 20/20), however we cant just cut and run now, we do have to finish what we started.  I also despise the way the media is so liberally biased.  DE may have implied otherwise, but it simply is.  I know several soldiers(all of whom are republican, some of whom are still in iraq) and they all laugh about the stories they here on the news.  The way i look at it is this, republicans dont want to give me anything, but they dont want to take anything away either.  Democrats want take more of my money via taxes and give it to others who didnt earn it, take my gun rights, undermine the value of my education, etc.  Democrats suck.  republicans are not perfect, but at least they dont pussyfoot around.  Bob fregman 19:19, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

good for you Bob. obviously some of the things posted are stereotypes, but he really does have some good points. so get off his back. Takeyourpills55 11:57, 25 March 2008 (EDT) haha bob i love you in a very non-gay way. mind sending your friend code? i'll take you on brawl any day :d Takeyourpills55 21:32, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Mmmmmmmmmm
Politics on PvXwiki is fail...--<font color="99CCFF">R ELYK   <font color="CCCCFF">(Talk  | <font color="99CCFF"> Edits)  20:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Arguing on the internet is like the special Olympics. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, you're still retarded. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey (talk)  20:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That's not an old joke at all. -- Mafaraxas ( talk  &bull;  contribs ) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Whats the last thing to go through Chuck Norris' victims' minds? HIS FOOT!!!  Classics are always good. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]]  Ressmonkey (talk)  20:34, 2 June 2008 (EDT)


 * It ended in a failed RfBM and a ragequit, so I kind of enjoyed it. --71.229 20:11, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Ressmonkey, that fail anti-intellectual sentiment actually counts as an argument on the internet. So are you retarded, too? -- Snakes on a Wii 19:11, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm Still the oddball here...

 * Am I the only one who wants the 1996 version of the Reform Party to take controll of the government? (Note the year, it's before it got all sorts of fubar.).  <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen   former sysop  20:53, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Again this year I'm not happy with the candidates. We need someone new, but I don't think either candidate is the answer.  If only more people would vote for independent...but that individual will probably suck this year too  lol <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  10:18, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

RfBM
I don't know wth it stands for, but why would this cause him to loose it? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 10:20, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Request for Build Master (Status). - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  10:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Surely they were joking about the consideration being revoked?? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 10:30, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Nope. When you post a page this trollish and then refuse to take it down regardless of the amount of drama it's causing, people start to doubt your judgment. --71.229 21:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Wait
you actually believe iraq has/had biolagical weapons? Frans  10:28, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * They did. Look at the inspections (believe it was UN) during the early 90's.  They were told to destroy and give proof.  When we went back in 2000, they said they didn't have them anymore, and produced a 100,000 page document which had no proof of their destruction.  Hence, they either still had them, or had given them away to another, possibly middle-eastern, nation. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  10:30, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Or cooked a bunch of fucking Kurds with them... - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  10:31, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It's a possibility that Iraq sold them to GW...but I believe you are mistaken, the Luxons are who were rightly bombed...weren't you on AB yesterday? If you were, you would've seen their self-righteous asses being pummeled  lmao <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  10:36, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Of course the american gouvernment will make you believe they were actually there, but all they got was sadam houssein who was assigned by America itself. Be more sceptic. Frans  10:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * it wasn't the government deceiving us. It's why the UN started performing inspections because they weren't where they last were and they didn't provide proof of destruction.  Try to be a bit less believing of the media <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  10:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You walk down a hallway and meet a man who tells you there are two people at the end of the hallway who are both liars. You walk to the end and see the two men. They both tell you why they're so great and that the other one is a liar and you shouldn't listen to him. What do you do? Kick them both in the scrotum and go somewhere else. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  10:38, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * We're both wrong and panic is here to prevent us from panic?[[Image:Impossible_Odds.jpg‎|19px]] Frans  10:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm here to kick people in the scrotum tbh. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  10:40, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I haz firewall.[[Image:Impossible_Odds.jpg‎|19px]] Frans  10:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Most of you probably weren't interested in politics when this was going on. Go back and read some news articles or just do some research. Iraq did have WMDs. For more proof, we gave them to him to defend against the Russians (I believe it was the Russians). But, like so many times before, after helping a country, they turn out to be not so friendly at a later date. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 10:46, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Point is I was too young lol.[[Image:Impossible_Odds.jpg‎|19px]] Frans  10:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Point taken :-) Do some research if you like. You'll get some information that will put some things into perspective. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  10:52, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * While your at it, look up the estimates of death tolls caused by Iraqi WMD and compare it to Hiroshima, Nagisaki, and all that napalm and agent orange America dumped on Vietnam. Then look up the estimated death tolls by WWII incendiary bombs. THAT puts things into perspective. And Choytw FFS stop restarting conversations over 2 months old. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  11:05, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Since I wasn't around when this was going on, I think I have every right to get involved - unless there's a rule against it?...didn't think so. Exactly...if they would have used them there would be HUGE death tolls.  This is why they were to be destroyed and so worriesome that they weren't.  I fail to see how that helped your argument out? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

You know what is funny? I hadn't seen Shireen on in a while and so I went to his contributions page to see if all was good. On his page, I see a post he put on here talking about the 1996 party...and started reading and THEN posted. Perhaps you want to get your facts straight before you start making allegations? That would probably help on many areas and not just on PvXwiki related material <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'll save you the trouble of looking...Relyk was the first one who posted and got the ball rolling. His post is dated June 2nd. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  11:16, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * No, it was more the constant ECs (LIKE THOSE). You can beat this dead horse all you like apart from that. And Shireen and Relyk started new sections rather than slot comments all over the place in the old ones. Also, you telling Frans to look up information on Iraq's weapons so he would have "a perspective" would have been one-sided without information about other countries and their retention and use of WMDs and non-WMDs. There is no argument from me apart from that all governments lie. If you want to argue about that then you're nuts. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  11:25, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Did they not have input? Irregardless of where it goes, changes draw people to a page and gives them an opportunity to reply and thus resurrect a discussion.  Besides, it's a freakin talk page!  And, not that he would have a perspective, but it would put things into perspective.  He can still think it's bad all he likes, but at least he'll have a better understanding of why the governments wanted to take action.  It makes all the difference when one knows that there were actually WMDs in Iraq at one time instead of thinking the whole notion is contrived.  This wasn't a discussion about the disarmament of all countries, but what one country did or did not have.  As for you comments about all governments lying, I believe that 100% be it Dem or Rep.  However, that does not mean they lie on every occasion.  To use this argument (well all govs lie and so I'm right!) to justify all arguments apart from fact is lazy and ignorant in the extreme. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  11:36, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Once again, feel free to input all you like. I wasn't telling you that you couldn't, I was musing that you were causing edit conflicts. You can also be semantic but you were telling Frans to look up information on what Iraq has/had so that he would "have a better understanding of why the governments wanted to take action". You surely must be able to admit that countries with hundreds more WMDs telling Iraq they can't have any is a bit silly. You can argue that Iraq was more likely to use them (than Spain, for instance) and they almost certainly were but it's still one-sided to look at the tons of weapons they had without knowing what the rest of the world had. I would rather governments lied 100% of the time; then at least you would know for sure what they are saying is wrong. As it stands, it's pretty difficult to know who's lying and who isn't because governments hold sway even outside their own countries. Also, stop being hostile. I haven't based any arguments on the fact governments lie and implying I'm "lazy and ignorant in the extreme" is uneccesary and a violation of policies. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  11:47, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * So is saying Bob Sucks (don't think it was your post but if one's a violation...) and the comment wasn't directed at you if you don't do that. I.e. people who jump into water with a toaster are stupid.  Actually you said, "FFS stop restarting conversations over 2 months old"...so basically, don't post...am I right?  No, there were no plays on semantics.  Is it true if you are ignorant to the fact that Iraq ever had WMDs you can have false conclusions about the intentions of going over there?  Whether they should or should not have WMDs is a different debate and does not pertain to the idea that "The US made everything up about Iraq having WMDs!!! They are so bad!".  I would rather govs not lied at all.  But, since neither of are going to get what we want, I guess we'll just have to continue researching facts to see if the media actually has it right. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  11:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * And how the hell could I be causing edit conflicts on a dead post?? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 11:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Ok, 1. I didnt say Bob sucks, so why bring it up? Previous NPA violations dont mean you can violate it, too. 2. If the comment wasn't directed at the only other person carrying on a conversation with you, then why bring it up? 3. As I ALREADY SAID TWICE "FFS... blah blah blah" was a hint for you to stop editing the non-active parts of the page and causing ECs. 4. Saying "not that he would have a perspective, but it would put things into perspective" is being semantic. Putting something into perspective for someone means they now have a perspective on it. 5. Yes you can have false conclusions. You can also have false conclusions if you believe that the WMDs that Iraq had were of an incredible size in comparison to other countries. And while whether they should have them or not does not pertain to the idea that you mention, it does pertain to "The US said we should go in and disarm them because they are dangerous." 6. Actually, as I mentioned previously, I'm just going to let them get on with it. I personally have no way to reprimand rogue governments outside of voting and the unfortunate problem is there's no one I want to vote for. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  13:40, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 1. I brought it up because no one seemed to care when there was a real violation. 2. If what I describe applied to you, then you were being lazy and ignorant (neither which is an NPA violation. Ignorant simply means uninformed not stupid) since it didn't, the comments didn't apply.  3. Still not sure how they would cause editing conflicts - maybe I should've made this plain earlier, but I'm not disagreeing with  you, I just don't know how it would cause them SO PLEASE INFORM or drop.  4. Again you're wrong.  Putting things into perspective means getting new information which simply casts light on facts.  You could have had a perspective before but it is changed slightly by newer information.  5.  It didn't matter how many they had, but that they had them.  It also doesn't matter how many 'stable' governments have them.  I was combatting the idea that the US made up the information that Iraq ever had WMDs...so how does that not apply?  lol  6. I'm in the same boat.  I think McCain is another dem in disguise and I don't agree with hardly anything Obama stands for (although he hasn't said much...how'd he get the nomination??)...so we'll see I guess when the debates happen. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  14:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 1. You weren't here. There may have been bans and warnings, etc. You wouldn't know. 2. If it doesn't apply, then avoid bringing it into the conversation. It may cause confusion. 3. If you edit the page after making an edit that someone is likely to respond to, then by finishing your edit first and saving the page you will cause a conflict when the other person tries to save. 4. Changing someone's perspective is the same as giving them a new one. Hence the phrase "a new perspective/outlook on the situation" but once again, we're being semantic about it so let's just disagree on that and drop it. 5. Fair enough if you want to combat that, but calling America 'stable' isn't strictly true. There's a fight for the seat of power every 4 years and the second someone blew up two buildings, America ran off to war and carpet bombed a third-world country. They've also waged a war without UN sanction. 6. Seriously. Who the fuck saw the black guy with minimal experience and thought, "He's the perfect candidate!" And god help us if he wins. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  14:17, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I doubt it, unless someone can say otherwise? 2. It could've applied because you didn't clarify.  Either way, it wasn't a breach of NPA.  3. I've had that happen to me many many times.  However, since the last post had been 3 days ago, and I was replying to certain people, I didn't think the chances were too awful high at all.  4. I don't disagree, it does give them a new one, but you said that they didn't have one before, and that's not true.  If you'll look at my above post I said exactly what you just said (not word for word obviously).  5. Thanks for the first part.  And it is stable.  You ignore that candidates are elected by the same people year after year and these people (senate/congress) act as the checks and balances for the president who in turns acts as a check for the other governing bodies.  'America' did not rush to war, for one, it was over a year later.  Second, it was not unilateral but with the help of many natios.  As for the UN, that's a another ball of wax I'd be happy to get in with you.  6. I know...at the beginning of the year I was nervous about Hillary because she seemed the shoe-in...didn't even consider Barrack.  Now that he's on the table, he is scarry indeed.  Unfortunately the Rep party doesn't have a good candidate up so he just might win (I won't even discuss the independent...he/she will never win unfortunately). <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  14:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 1. Still doesn't mean you can do it. 2. I said all governments lie. That applies to all. America could have lied about them having them, Iraq could have lied about not having them. I didn't clarify because I'm not taking sides. 3. That's why I told you that you were doing it. Sorry for not being clearer. 4. I never said that. 5. Lots of voters die in 4 years and a lot of people become voters in those 4 years. Also, the checks and balances are fluid aswell. Senators and Congressmen change pretty often, too. The Supreme Court is appointed by the president and serve out their terms for life. So often we end up with systems where the Supereme court, Congress, and the President all represent different voters and power moves back and forth. There's economic dips and surges. Also, countries with treaties and commitments to the US helping them out is not an excuse. The majority of people in the UK were against the war and they STILL aided the US. Double Also, fuck the UN imo. 6. And Hillary's gone now. Ups. Will America choose the war hero or the black guy. Tune in next week. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  14:51, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

(resetting indent) 1. I didn't ;-) 2. "I said all governments lie. That applies to all" - granted but again, all governments lie != all governments (or even some) lie all the time.  "American could have lied about them having them" - THE UN FOUND THEM, NOT THE US hope that clears it up some.  "Iraq could have lied about not having them" - true, but if he did lie, he still did have them and so was in violation of the UN sanctions which meant they were to be taken from him.  4. Actually you said that, "Putting something into perspective for someone means they now have a perspective on it." ex. I now have a bowl of ice cream - means I didn't a bit ago.  5. Voters die and new voters are introduced, but you're ignoring demographics.  When a voter dies, more often than not, he is replaced by someone who represents similar ideas.  Even if this isn't the case, a candidate is chosen by the people because of the agenda that he/she puts out. They now represent their constituents wishes. If he fails to do so, they eject him and elect someone new. This is to ensure that the government always represents the will of the people. True, congressmen/senators are changed out, but they are elected on the afore-mentioned system and so still represent the people. As for the supreme court, the reason why they have long terms, imo, is because the cases that they work on are not over and done with in a few days or a month. There are many many things that would have to be taught to the new guy if they had elections every 4 years. And, to boot, these people have to be qualified since they interpret the laws that everyone else lives by - so I don't see a problem with their long stays. 6. If our allies are helping, then they would be just as guilty if anything 'illegal' took place. The, "we went to war because the US did" would not hold up as an excuse for being over there. Honestly, I think we waited almost two years before invading Iraq. In that entire time, the bureaucratics in the UN could get NOTHING accomplished. And I thought it took forever to get anything done in our government!! lol. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 15:27, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 2. I know who found them. I never said America did nor did I say they claimed they did. I said that America could have lied about Iraq having them when they decided to invade. could have. Not that they did. Also, equally, Iraq could have lied. We'll probably never know because no one found any and they didn't find any documents, etc, saying that they'd been destroyed, sold, used, hidden, etc. And since there's a lack of evidence, I won't be taking sides. 3. You're knit-picking and putting words in my mouth. Regardless of whether they had one to begin with or not, if you put something into perspective for someone, they now have a perspective. 5. I know the system, thankyouverymuch. You've missed the point that changes in the white house, congress, and the supreme court do not coincide, therefore it is possible (and very common) to have conflicting branches of government. 6. Assume that the nations involve did do something illegal. Who the fuck would stop them and how? These nations are the world's leading super powers. And Tony Blair has said penly that he ordered troops into Iraq based on American intelligence and urging from George Bush. Also, the US invaded Afgahnistan in 2001. Not two years after the attacks. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  15:52, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * PS, Thanks for another EC. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  15:52, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 2. You said that, "America could have lied about them having them (WMDs)", didn't mention when they invaded hence the confusion. Besides, the UN had been performing inspections for about a year and a half (remember when the would call in advance on a surprise inspection?  what a joke), so I don't believe the US was lying since the UN would have said something.  They love to nip our collective ass in the bud.  May not take sides, but he was ordered to despose.  Since he couldn't/wouldn't provide proof, the governing world (some of it) decided to make sure.  They considered him that big of a threat to the region.  3.  Not putting words in your mouth, my example simply showed how I took what you wrote.  I think if you'll take a step back and look, you can see pretty easily how I took it the way I did.  5. I'm sure you know it to an extent, but since I don't know how well, I'm trying to explain as I go along.  As for dissenting, that usually doesn't happen unless a majority changes.  And even then, they usually can work out a bill (if it's important) that represents a compromise between all involved.  What I absolutely can't stand is the practice that they'll add pork to the bills for their consituents knowing tha the bill has to be passed - anyway, that's again, another ball of wax  lol.  You also need to remember the whips (I think that's how you spell their name for the dude) in which they go through and talk to members of their party to try to get a bill passed.  You often have discention between the two parties, but that's going to happen in any governing body which has more than one party.  I much prefer that to a system in which one person has the majority of control.  6. Usually you judge how a nation regards another by how their governments treat each other.  In the case of Britain, you guys seem to back us pretty well (and I'm pretty sure it was you or the French who said they were tied to Al'Queda).  Remember we're talking about Iraq and not Afgahnistan so yes, we invaded Afgahnistan in 2001 but I said we waited almost two years to invade Iraq ;-). <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  16:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm sorry about the EC...What I've been doing is hitting the back button and then refreshing (or sometimes I copy before submitting). In any case, it's annoying and I feel your pain  lol <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  16:27, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * gonna wrap this up now because of an overdose of semantics. but: 2. Why would I be talking about any other time? We were talking about America and it's disarmament of Iraq. 3. I can only see you knit-picking tbh. 5. I'm sorry, but it's not uncommon to have different branches dominated by opposing parties. You can't argue against that. And parties have different agendas. Dissent happens very often. 6. No, if you recall I said "towers boom - > rushed off to war" and you said it was over a year later before war. then two years. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  17:27, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually now that I think about it again, there wasn't any confusion. You are hypothesizing that the US might've lied about Iraq not having WMDs (i.e. they said they didn't have them when they actually did)...that would be absolutely idiotic!  Why are they taking flack right now regarding Iraq?  Because the media says that Iraq didn't have WMDs and so the administration lied about the whole thing.  Don't you think that it would have been in their best interests to show the WMDs.  Another point, let's say they did lie in order to go over and invade (although finding them and Hussein not relinquishing would have warranted invasion also...so...), they would've shown them by now to show everyone that they were right.  It makes absolutely no sense what you're proposing.  So, the facts seem to be that they had them in 1990 - the US gave the WMDs to them for crying out loud and they were documented by the UN - The UN then went back, after the 9/11 attacks and finally followed up to see if they were disposed of - Hussein couldn't / wouldn't provide proof (although he did give a 100,000 page document which he said was proof but wasn't) - we invade with other countries to ensure that they aren't there and try to find out where they did go. 3) wasn't knit-picking...I gave you an example to show you how I took what you wrote.  I can't believe you were opposed to me putting things into perspective for him...all I did was lay out some facts that are almost always glossed over in the news.  5) but we still get things done...amazing.  6) go back and check what I wrote.  I said it was almost two years before we invaded Iraq...you may've been talking about Afgahnistan...but since the entire conversation had been revolving around Iraq, that's the way I took it.  <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:24, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "America could have lied about them having them, Iraq could have lied about not having them." is exactly what I said so that whole rant of yours just made no sense. 3. Facts out of context are misleading. 5. Iraq got things done, too. 6. "'America' did not rush to war, for one, it was over a year later. Second, it was not unilateral but with the help of many natios. As for the UN, that's a another ball of wax I'd be happy to get in with you." was your exact response to "and the second someone blew up two buildings, America ran off to war and carpet bombed a third-world country." You didn't mention Iraq until the post after. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  09:43, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes it does. I said it would make absolutely no sense for America (or the UN) to have lied.  True, Iraq could have lied about not having them - but I don't think that's very likely either since invasion was dependent on turning them over.  3) They are not out of context! lol  All I said was that Iraq had documented WMDs in the early 90's which was a direct response to him asking something like, "Wait, you think they have/had WMDs?".  You can't win this one.  5) They did but it was a regime which almost always has the people being oppressed.  6) We had been talking about Iraq.  Your comment about us rushing off and bombing a 3rd world country can just as easily be seen as Iraq instead of Afgahnistan - especially since the whole conversation had be regarding Iraq.  It's misleading you put my response before your statement about the 3rd world country. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  10:42, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Your rant actually seems to be about America saying "Iraq didn't have WMDs" rather than what I actually said. 3. You told him that knowing Iraq had WMDs at some point in the 90s would put things in perspective. I said that knowing what other countries had WMDs and how many would actually put perspective on the matter. 5. The rights of a country's citizens has very little to do with how developed a country is or how efficiently they put their governmental plans into action. China, for example, despite their human rights issues are going through a massive economic boom at record pace. 6. I was talking about the ways in which America was unstable under point 6, actually, and you thinking I meant the Iraq war is purely on you. Was the Iraq War started immediately after the 9/11 attacks and in response to the attack? No? Then that's probably not the war I meant, huh? - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  11:00, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

(reset) No lol  you said that America could've lied, and I showed that that possibility can't be true for several reasons. 3) Listen I've said this before but apparently it needs said again. For those that think there never were WMDs in Iraq, they will have a different perspective when they learn there actually were WMDs there.  The issue about disarmament is a seperate issue, I was simiply replying to his question "did I believe they have/had WMDs"...I don't see what's not to get.  I answered a freakin question  lol.  5) I don't disagree...but I think that Iraq is considered a 3rd world no because of their level of development...since that's how 3rd world status is assigned. 6) wait...we're on point 6 but you'r referencing point 6...The reason for the confusion, I'm guessing, is that nearly everyone says we rushed into war with Iraq, yes? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 11:12, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes. Could have lied about Iraq having WMDs. Your rant started out "You are hypothesizing that the US might've lied about Iraq not having WMDs (i.e. they said they didn't have them when they actually did)" and continues on that basis. 3. I already answered you in my previous post. 5. We weren't talking about 3rd world countries. We were talking about stability. 6. I guess? You're the one who thought I meant the Iraq War. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  11:22, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Right...I argued from your perspective and told you how it is impossible that it's true. 3) Let me try it this way...I'm arguing to put into perspective the US saying they had WMDs...you're arguing to put into perspective countries demanding Iraq disarm when they themselves have WMDs...we're both trying to put different things into perspective. The idea that the US made up the whole idea about Iraq ever having WMDs is separate from the issue if the ever should have asked them to in the first place.  They each have their merit, but try to accomplish different things.  5) I think you've gotten your numbers mixed up...or I have  lol - please state your current argument 6) Next time please try to be less ambiguous and name the country in question lol. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  11:32, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I understand the confusion now...you said Iraq got things done, I said that their people were repressed, you said that the repression of a people (or their rights) has no bearing on developed and so on....that was not my point. My point is that Iraq may have gotten stuff done, but it also oppressed its people.  So your example was not a fitting one. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  11:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Your reading comprehension makes me sad. For about the 1000th time, my perspective is that the US could have lied about Iraq having WMDs. I never said that America lied about Iraq NOT having WMDs. Seriously WTF? 3. They aren't different. My suggestion is a more complete picture. 5. Already did. See previous post. 6. How can I be less ambiguous than "The country that blew up two buildings and was soon after carpet bombed by the US?" - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  11:42, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * My point was that the US was unstable. You said that they still got things done. I said that Iraq also got things done. You said they repressed their people. I said that people repression(?) has nothing to do with getting things done. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  11:42, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Seriously. I'm done now. I shouldn't have to do bullshit like this ^. The whole conversation is RIGHT ABOVE US for you to review and there's even numbered points so you can't get lost in the three simultaneous conversations we're having. FFS. - PANIC!  [[Image:Panic_sig4.png|50px|18px]] <font color="#D70000"> sexiness!  11:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I can throw that insult right back at you, I've already said that it was documented that Iraq did have WMDs in 1990. If you mean that they had them in 02/03, then I still don't think so.  I think it was British intelligence that said they still had WMDs.  Even if they didn't currently have them, I said before, that you have to find out where they did go (Iran anyone?).  3) For the love of...yes they are.  My concerns someone thinking the US lied yours concerns the ethics / concept of disarmament.  5) I said that your example was a very poor one...not sure how your comment applies.  6) Because there was intelligence saying that Iraq had a hand in it.  Since the entire conversation had been about Iraq, and you did not mention Afgan, that's how  lol. Oh, and as for reading comprehension, I scored very highly on my SAT (granted it was about 10 years ago) I'm just busy juggling TMs, Data Reports, Product Flow Times, with the occasional peak at PvX to make it all bearable  ;-) <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  11:59, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

DE...Tax Breaks and Such
I think the idea is that tax increases cause more foreclosures and such with all things being equal. Tax breaks causes more money to be put into the consumer's hand and as a result, the government reaps more money back through the taxes on businesses which is where the extra consumer money goes. Now there's always exceptions, like the high cost of wars driving the benefits down, but during peace-time, this works wonders - i.e. the golden years of Reagan. True, you can tax the shit out of people and the government will prosper, but this takes liquidity from corporate America by tying up money in the government and its programs. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 11:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Reagan's "golden years" are more accurately an example of the military overcutting the consumer and an economic downturn resulting. Your entire good point is destroyed by referring to Reagan's years as prosperous and peacetime, of which they were neither. Regardless of Reagan, though, you make good points. The main problem with the current tax cuts is that the government spending acts as though its speaker of the house was karl marx. the republicans have lately lost site of the fact that they cant fund pork, a war, and adhere to their beliefs. thats why i support social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. what little money the government should be taking should be spent on the right things, namely, healthcare, infastructure sending lobbyists to concentration camps, etc. however, in a time of war and economic downturn, the balancing act is much harder. --Dark0805 ( Rant /<font color=#ff11aa>Contributions ) 12:06, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Should have said can drive the benefits down. It is his fiscal policy being referred to when people talk about the golden years on the news.  And I agree with the current administrations spending...only two vetos I think the entire 8 years and this last one was voted over.  I personally do not support universal healthcare, I basically don't support most all-including federal programs.  It is the state's responsibility to provide certain services and the fed is stepping in and taking over.  Very bad idea. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  12:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Agreed totally on the state vs. fed. i think almost half (abortion, capital punishment, etc.)
 * the controversial issues should be state decided. and regarding health care, i dont want outright free medicine. the government depending on your tax bracket should cover from 80-10% of your insurance, forcing the consumer, and the companies, to remain competetive. i also support, though, some sort of federal insurance bank for those with expensive illnesses (some sort of 100k coverage thing for people with like, multiple cancers and no income). --Dark0805 ( Rant /<font color=#ff11aa>Contributions ) 12:17, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * (I'm continuing this discussion above the epic trolling from my less savory friends so it can go on untouched). I forgot to mention something, if you care. I agree with the administrations spending as well, (i never said i didnt). What i disagree with, and something you may have misunderstood, is congress's spending. be it pre-06 or post-06, congress is a shitstorm disaster. also, to quibble over somethign else you said:
 * (in regards to gay marriage)"What do you have against polygamy? It doesn't hurt you so don't bug in... it basically, for me, comes down to a moral issue and the cascading effect if it's accepted."
 * I may be reading this wrong, but are you stating that morally, gay is fine but will lead to polygamy, which, "isnt" fine? Who gave you the right to bestow legitimacy or freedom on one lifestyle but not another, and worse, call one more immoral than the other? Hell, much as i dont care about how people fuck, polygamy is still 10000x more natural than homosexuality. Honestly, that statement was a bit insulting. --Dark0805 ( Rant /<font color=#ff11aa>Contributions ) 19:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Americans, you're all bad basically. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:20, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3, 2, 1 &mdash;  Skakid  12:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * In irl. Everyone sucks at gw now. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:23, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * We may all be bad, but we're twice as good as the euros ;-) <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  12:30, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Lol wall street crash &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * No worries, I just knocked on some wood for you lol <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  12:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Euros have Hitler pz the fck out &mdash;  Skakid  12:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Its pretty hard for britain to have a crash since our banks arent gambling idiots and we don't have 8000 different banks. Plus we know what bailing out is. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:37, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It's not that our banks are gambling idiots, it's that they are greedy. They put these variable rates on the sub-prime mortages so they can keep people in them forever and reap huge profits...only thing is that it backfired on them - all at once.  Doesn't matter how many different banks you have if they all adhere to the lending system.  What I don't like is how money is created when one bank lends to another.  They're basically counting their chickens before they hatch by treating the interest as if it were already garnered.  <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  12:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually it was because they put all the money in the stock market, and when people wanted to withdraw then the banks had no money to pay them with as it had all gone. Stuff in place to stop that now, but meh. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:44, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

K, this arguement is endless as the whole world hates americans and vice versa. We have france while you have more fat people than a chinese buffet. I know i started it, but stop nao ;o &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:44, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You were honestly saying that all Americans were bad?? I thought it was just a joke.  And the whole world does not hate Americans.  Maybe France and another (think it was Germany?...or maybe Britain...) does because we screwed over their multi-billion dollar oil deal they had with Iraq, but the 'entire' world does not hate America.  Even if they do, what does it matter if we are following sound policy?  I'm tired of hearing people say that they want to rectify a perceived hatred from the rest of the world instead of focusing on why some do hate us.  And I'll continue this discussion until Bob asks for the discussion to be ended.  If you've lost interest, that can't be helped but I'm still game <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  12:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It was a joke, I like some americans. Its just America has some of the most detestable people ever as well, alongside probably the funniest govermential system there is atm. And yes, I can't think of a country off the top of my head that actually likes america - and it has nothing to do with the Iraq war. Its mainly to do with the fact that it can't mind its own business. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, since I'm not a delegate ambassador to any country, I can't name countries, but I could probably start with the countries helping in Iraq right now. Every country has people who are just as detestable.  You can find some in your own - to not think so is elitist and guilty of the same attitude you dress America with.  Can't mind our own business...like what for example? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  12:58, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * euro trash --[[Image:Ibreaktoilets_Signature.jpg|User:Ibreaktoilets|20px]]<font color="Black">Tab  <font color="Black">Moo  13:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, Britain has gone massively downhill and now just copies america, so I can't really talk about how you can't mind your own business since Labour has lost its original concept and now just bums Bush. Every country has them, ya, but America has the most obvious and numerous :P. There is just a feeling you get from certain countries i meant by that, for example in Germany everyone is amazingly friendly and will go out of their way to help you while in France you get sworn at and/or knifed for asking where something is. Tab, go back to africa. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 13:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You're basically describing the North and South (not respectively). The south is known for bending over backwards to help someone while the North has the reputation for being assholes.  Like I said, every country has them and to generalize based on popular views is frankly elitist and guilty of what you seemingly despise.  But this is a conversation that would never end and is based solely on one person's views (hence the biasness)...and can never be overcome without that person first experiencing a bit more...of life perhaps? <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  13:06, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I said stop, i believe. The arguement would never end since all the arguement is is personal views; its impossible to prove a country better than another. (Central africa is attractive if getting shot is your thing) &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 13:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Feel free not to respond. I'm not trying to prove one country is better than another (although since I'm pretty patriotic, I believe I live in the best country), but I 'am' trying to combat the idea that America is bad as a whole. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  13:11, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I'm patriotic but its alot more of a regional rather than national thing (different word but patriotic for that?). Bad as a whole was a joke, I just mean a fair few things aren't exactly brilliant. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 13:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Not to sure if there's another name...I think I've just always heard the identifier added with patriotic (like state patriotism and such). I agree, there are things in the US which aren't brilliant, like any other.  I would disagree that it's more prevalent simply because of our checks and balances...but unfortunately there is no perfect government - hence all the failed utopias. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  13:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I prefer governments that are more socialist like ours rly. And i just remembered one of the things that really gets on my nerves about americans, which is the we saved you in ww2 bs. =D &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 13:23, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not following you...(as a disclaimer, I don't like history much) <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 13:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm Mafaraxas and I'm here to ask you a question: Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... the Internet. -- Mafaraxas ( talk  &bull;  contribs ) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That is an awesome quote. Rapture...  14:36, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Dark...I just saw your post about the Reagan years not being prosperous...I have to disagree. This is why Bush Senior said he would never raise taxes ("read my lips") because it worked so well for the Reagan years. Also, it wasn't peaceful....which war were we involved in? To the best of my recollection, we didn't enter war again until Bush Senior with Desert Shield / Storm. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates 11:42, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Usually the reagan years (Atleast to my knowledge) are seen as not prosperous because reagan eseentially outspent the USSR on military terms, whihc put massive strain on the economy. had the military not been in the picture, things may have turned out differently. --Dark0805 ( Rant /<font color=#ff11aa>Contributions ) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Ahhh, you're talking about the Cold War. I believe you're mistaken, if you weren't, everytime a Republican would reference his domestic plan against the "Golden Years of Reagan", the dem would step up and say exactly what you have.  Now granted, since I was born in 81, I didn't have a huge interest in politics so don't have first-hand knowledge about what I'm saying, but everything I've read has said that Reagan's Presidency was very prosperous.  And, to be more accurate, since fiscal changes don't revolutionize the economy immediately, it wasn't until his second term and the first part of Bush Senior's where the economy really blossomed. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * And although it was a war, it wasn't a war in which we sent vast amounts of resources to an area like you do when you are fighting a physical war so the drain on monetary resources was not an issue like it is now. So, my comment about the Reagan years being a good example of tax breaks outside of a war, are still pretty accurate.  True, we spent more money than we would've if not trying to outpace the Russians, but it wasn't a drain like a full out war. <font color="Blue">Choytw Talk Debates  09:48, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It seemed prosperous because of deficit spending. False prosperity. --71.229 19:14, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Honestly, I don't believe you're correct (source please?) but even if you are, it doesn't apply. We're talking about the benefits of tax breaks (I think...this convo is a bit old) not a president's spending policy.  To make it a bit more clear, even if a president authorized spending 10 times more than revenue from taxes, it doesn't change whether or not increasing the tax base returne more or less money than other policies.   € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   13:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Defiant Elements
Not only is he completely right this this is an ignorant piece of bullshit, but he wins for using XKCD as a reason for his essays Kurotou Shadestryke 05:08, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * awesome, now just move your timestamp back 3 years and ittl be all perfect. Gringo 05:53, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * XKCD transcends time, making this comment relevant to the overall discussion... either that, or I have too much time and found this page linked from Relyk's page, read about 1/10 of it, saw the XKCD reference, and lol'd Kurotou Shadestryke 07:04, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * the only way to find this is through my page lol--[[Image:Relyk chtistmas2.jpg|20px]] Christmas Relyk  07:52, December 12, 2009 (UTC)