Well thanks America, you've done it again...

This may be off-topic, but how does OT plan on dealing with the near-infinite avalanche of

[whoever] Won! W00t!

[whoever] was robbed!

America has dropped 10 IQ points

Can't believe this

WTF guys

and

I'm officially moving to [not U.S]

topics?

A sticky, more locks than a really bad hair day? (This analogy sucks).

I'm just curious.

[QUOTE="johnnyv2003"]considering you're talking about america in the third person, I'm guessing you're not from the US. So therefore I could care less what you have to say about who we vote for president. Just as much as you probably care about who i would want to see lead your countryStumpt25

I would care if my votes were significantly effecting people's lives other than my own

unfortunately i dont have the luxury of caring about the other people. My vote would go to what's going to help the nation i belong in become stronger. Not that I think McCain will make us stronger, but the whole "Europe loves Obama" trend is ridiculous. Why do I care if Germany loves Obama. What is their people's support going to do to help America? Americans need to do what's best for America, just like other nation's people need to do what's best for their people, simple as that

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

where do i begin with this one? ok.

1) Strawman. How much you get taxed has nothing to do with the state of the economy.

The_Ish

Incorrect... more taxes means less disposable income... less disposabe income means less money going into the market.

2) 2011 isn't soon enough. Not just that, but Mccain has a much more agressive stance on Iran than Obama does.

Stumpt25

If by soon enough, you mean "now", then that will not work. Iraq has finally reached a state of peace, and we owe it to their country to strengthen it.

Also, McCain can rant and fume all he wants... he won't be able to do anything about Iran.

3) When you go down with cancer and you have to pay huge medical bills that you find extraordinarily difficult to pay, say that again.

Stumpt25

You seem to think that the poor can't get health-care... that's an incorrect assumption. The poor already receive socialized health-care in the form of medicaid. Technically, I am poor, and eligible for healthcare, so I won't be getting any bills if I am hospitalized.

Now if I made a middle class income or higher... it's no one's fault but my own for not buying health insurance.

4) She is pro-abortion in the case of rape. She believes that dinosaurs were on earth 4000 years ago. She was for and against the bridge to nowhere.

Stumpt25

Abortion is a pretty minor issue. So are her religious beliefs (not that I have ever heard of her actually believing that). And she switched stances on something she was wrong on... what is wrong with that? Much better than being obstinate.

5) nothing wrong with depending on oil? Oh other than the fact it's the number one reason the icecaps are melting.

Stumpt25

Global Warming can't be proved.

6) Ugh, too tired to argue over this last point.

p.s. i went to dinner so this took a while to reply...

Stumpt25

So am I. At least return the favor by arguing against my point.

1. Obama taxes less for the majority of people in the USA (not just in gamespot, as you said)
2. If you think Iraq has reached a state of peace then you are sadly mistaken. Things will get progressivly better in Iraq once people leave. The USA is wasting billions on a completely pointless war.
3. That's just plain wrong. I'm not going to even argue with that point.
4. Firstly it's not that her opinions are going to directly affect people, but rather, her way of thinking is seriously screwed up. With plenty of creationists trying to get into schools, she's likely to sympathise. Secondly, the problem is not changing her opinion, the problem is she is totally lying about being "the hero" of the situation when she was actually for it.

5. Despite the fact that ALL the evidence points us towards seeing that Global Warming is happening. I'll play along with your game:

Here are the options:

We don't prepare for global warming and there isn't global warming = we are all winners.
We don't prepare for global warming and there is global warming = Death, destruction, Economic issues etc. etc. etc.
We prepare for global warming and there is global warming = Economic setbacks, We stop ourselves from dying
We prepare for global warming and there isn't global warming = Economic setback.

By preparing, the worst that can happen to us is that there are economic setbacks.
By not preparing, the worst that can happen is death, destruction etc.etc.etc.

6. Fair enough. My point is that Mccain is getting into the silly season of politics, picking out Obama on "lipstick on a pig" remarks and everything. The entire republican convention consisted of attacking obama. Whatever Obama may be doing in regards to his campaigning ethics, Mccain has taken it to a new level.

As far as im concerned america can implode and disappear into the stinkhole it has become over the years, it has become apparent they dont give a dam about anyone or anything thats not america so i say leave em to it, let em live in the cess pit they've created.

A new president wont change the way america views the rest of the world, they'll still be highly ignorant, greedy and self righteous and have no problem with stealing the worlds resources for their own greedy ends no matter what the cost to the world.

The only solution to the problem that is america is to wipe it out and start again from scratch.

Your opinion is not necessarily the right opinion. It's just your opinion dude.LJS9502_basic

If everyone had that attitude, nobody would debate over anything.

I think that my opinion is the right opinion, that's why I made this topic. It would be stupid for me to go "i can't put up this topic, because John Mccain might be better i don't know!" Otherwise, what the hell is the point in having an opinion in the first place?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Your opinion is not necessarily the right opinion. It's just your opinion dude.Stumpt25

If everyone had that attitude, nobody would debate over anything.

I think that my opinion is the right opinion, that's why I made this topic. It would be stupid for me to go "i can't put up this topic, because John Mccain might be better i don't know!" Otherwise, what the hell is the point in having an opinion in the first place?

Obama is dangerous. He's too socialist.....his campaign is mere catchphrases that make great sound bites but don't actually say a thing.

I don't find either candidate to be a good choice but the difference is when you elect Obama he has his party in majoirty in the house and senate. Thus, lot's of damage can be done. McCain can't do much of anything with a minority party....so wait out the four years and HOPE we get a good choice in four.

With Obama....that might be too late.

1. Obama taxes less for the majority of people in the USA (not just in gamespot, as you said)

Stumpt25

Also untrue. Look at his policies - all of which are basically more government madates and regulations. Even if he didn't outline how he would support these madates and regulations, there can only be one source: taxes. Especially corporate tax. On the other hand, McCain has always voted for less taxes.

2. If you think Iraq has reached a state of peace then you are sadly mistaken. Things will get progressivly better in Iraq once people leave. The USA is wasting billions on a completely pointless war.

Stumpt25

Yes, it was pointless to go there in the first place...but to assume that Iraq is a lost cause would make you wrong. If you have read the news, you would see that Iraq has been getting safer and safer ever since the war ended, and has reached a level of safety where troop withdrawal can begin.

3. That's just plain wrong. I'm not going to even argue with that point.

Stumpt25

What's plain wrong? Having the option to not pay for health-care in any way or medicaid?

4. Firstly it's not that her opinions are going to directly affect people, but rather, her way of thinking is seriously screwed up. With plenty of creationists trying to get into schools, she's likely to sympathise. Secondly, the problem is not changing her opinion, the problem is she is totally lying about being "the hero" of the situation when she was actually for it.

Stumpt25

Creationism isn't going to flourish in American public schools, especially if she tries to bring it to the Federal level, because the Supreme Court will shoot it the **** down.

And I've never seen her try to call herself the "hero" in that regard.

5. Despite the fact that ALL the evidence points us towards seeing that Global Warming is happening.

Stumpt25

Like it did in the 60's and 70's when they said that Global cooling would bring in a new ice age by now?

It's a very bold claim to say that global warming is occuring when there is not real evidence pointing to it. If there is, I'd like to see it.

I'll play along with your game:

Here are the options:

We don't prepare for global warming and there isn't global warming = we are all winners.
We don't prepare for global warming and there is global warming = Death, destruction, Economic issues etc. etc. etc.
We prepare for global warming and there is global warming = Economic setbacks, We stop ourselves from dying
We prepare for global warming and there isn't global warming = Economic setback.

By preparing, the worst that can happen to us is that there are economic setbacks.
By not preparing, the worst that can happen is death, destruction etc.etc.etc.

Stumpt25

I could have made the same arguments about Global Cooling 30 years ago, hell, I could make the same argument about giant asteroids. Problem is, there is no evidence pointing out that this is not a natural occurance.

6. Fair enough. My point is that Mccain is getting into the silly season of politics, picking out Obama on "lipstick on a pig" remarks and everything. The entire republican convention consisted of attacking obama. Whatever Obama may be doing in regards to his campaigning ethics, Mccain has taken it to a new level.

Stumpt25

Which, as I said earlier, is irrelevent. Both are guilty of doing the same to each other, and if you're going to decide which politician to pick, chose him/her based on fiscal and political policies, not who screams "I am awesome! The other guy sucks!" more often.

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Your opinion is not necessarily the right opinion. It's just your opinion dude.LJS9502_basic

If everyone had that attitude, nobody would debate over anything.

I think that my opinion is the right opinion, that's why I made this topic. It would be stupid for me to go "i can't put up this topic, because John Mccain might be better i don't know!" Otherwise, what the hell is the point in having an opinion in the first place?

Obama is dangerous. He's too socialist.....his campaign is mere catchphrases that make great sound bites but don't actually say a thing.

I don't find either candidate to be a good choice but the difference is when you elect Obama he has his party in majoirty in the house and senate. Thus, lot's of damage can be done. McCain can't do much of anything with a minority party....so wait out the four years and HOPE we get a good choice in four.

With Obama....that might be too late.

exactly right. What people fail to realize is that the domination of a party in the US government is rarely a good thing. The reason we saw good times under Clinton, is because there was a republican controlled senate to counter the executive branch. Then when Bush took hold, the republicans still controlled the senate and now look where we are. If Obama gets the presidential position, the same thing will happen only in a different direction. Total control of the US government is never a good thing

Secondly, please tell us what changes Obama has in store in great detail. He says all this stuff about change but doesn't tell us what he's going to do. (besides giving free money to lazy poor people and healthcare to everyone, even people who are drug addicts or alcholics...tell me how they deserve free healthcare?).

Vuurk

Yet another example of the american mind state:roll:

Everyone no matter what their status should be entitled to free health care not just the rich that can afford it, i hope one day ur in a poition where the shoe is on the other foot and u become a victim of ur own anti free healthcare attitude.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

Secondly, please tell us what changes Obama has in store in great detail. He says all this stuff about change but doesn't tell us what he's going to do. (besides giving free money to lazy poor people and healthcare to everyone, even people who are drug addicts or alcholics...tell me how they deserve free healthcare?).

l34052

Yet another example of the american mind state:roll:

Everyone no matter what their status should be entitled to free health care not just the rich that can afford it, i hope one day ur in a poition where the shoe is on the other foot and u become a victim of ur own anti free healthcare attitude.

i'm not rich by any means. I only make around $12,000/year and I have health care. Obtaining health care is much easier than democrats let on in their speeches.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

Secondly, please tell us what changes Obama has in store in great detail. He says all this stuff about change but doesn't tell us what he's going to do. (besides giving free money to lazy poor people and healthcare to everyone, even people who are drug addicts or alcholics...tell me how they deserve free healthcare?).

l34052

Yet another example of the american mind state:roll:

Everyone no matter what their status should be entitled to free health care not just the rich that can afford it, i hope one day ur in a poition where the shoe is on the other foot and u become a victim of ur own anti free healthcare attitude.

Yet another example of the american mind state:roll:

Everyone no matter what their status should be entitled to free health care not just the rich that can afford it, i hope one day ur in a poition where the shoe is on the other foot and u become a victim of ur own anti free healthcare attitude.

l34052

Why is everyone entitled to free health-care? Because technically, in the US government, the only ones entitled to free healthcare are the poor. :|

[QUOTE="l34052"]

Yet another example of the american mind state:roll:

Everyone no matter what their status should be entitled to free health care not just the rich that can afford it, i hope one day ur in a poition where the shoe is on the other foot and u become a victim of ur own anti free healthcare attitude.

The_Ish

Why is everyone entitled to free health-care?

If u need that explaining to u then theres no point in even tryin to:roll:

If u need that explaining to u then theres no point in even tryin to:roll:

l34052

Really, why? I don't understand, it sounds completely stupid.

[QUOTE="l34052"]

If u need that explaining to u then theres no point in even tryin to:roll:

The_Ish

Really, why? I don't understand, it sounds completely stupid.

Some believe that the nation's government should be obligated to take care of it's citizens with proper means. Human rights are always relative, and some believe that this is as basic a right as freedom of speech...

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="l34052"]

If u need that explaining to u then theres no point in even tryin to:roll:

jointed

Really, why? I don't understand, it sounds completely stupid.

Some believe that the nation's government should be obligated to take care of it's citizens with proper means. Human rights are always relative, and some believe that this is as basic a right as freedom of speech...

the role of the government as stated in the constitution "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

it doesn't say anything about giving people these freedoms, just that it protects their rights to obtain them

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="l34052"]

If u need that explaining to u then theres no point in even tryin to:roll:

johnnyv2003

Really, why? I don't understand, it sounds completely stupid.

Some believe that the nation's government should be obligated to take care of it's citizens with proper means. Human rights are always relative, and some believe that this is as basic a right as freedom of speech...

the role of the government as stated in the constitution "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

it doesn't say anything about giving people these freedoms, just that it protects their rights to obtain them

True, it doesn't mention roads and highways either. I guess they're unconstitutional too...let's destroy them.

[QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="l34052"]

If u need that explaining to u then theres no point in even tryin to:roll:

jointed

Really, why? I don't understand, it sounds completely stupid.

Some believe that the nation's government should be obligated to take care of it's citizens with proper means. Human rights are always relative, and some believe that this is as basic a right as freedom of speech...

the role of the government as stated in the constitution "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

it doesn't say anything about giving people these freedoms, just that it protects their rights to obtain them

True, it doesn't mention roads and highways either. I guess they're unconstitutional too...let's destroy them.

oh, im sorry i should have said the role of the "federal government". While there is some funding for highways and roads, most of that is handled by state governments, just like healthcare

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="l34052"]

If u need that explaining to u then theres no point in even tryin to:roll:

johnnyv2003

Really, why? I don't understand, it sounds completely stupid.

Some believe that the nation's government should be obligated to take care of it's citizens with proper means. Human rights are always relative, and some believe that this is as basic a right as freedom of speech...

the role of the government as stated in the constitution "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

it doesn't say anything about giving people these freedoms, just that it protects their rights to obtain them

True, it doesn't mention roads and highways either. I guess they're unconstitutional too...let's destroy them.

oh, im sorry i should have said the role of the "federal government". While there is some funding for highways and roads, most of that is handled by state governments, just like healthcare

They're still "governments" and arefunded by tax dollars.

[QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="l34052"]

If u need that explaining to u then theres no point in even tryin to:roll:

jointed

Really, why? I don't understand, it sounds completely stupid.

Some believe that the nation's government should be obligated to take care of it's citizens with proper means. Human rights are always relative, and some believe that this is as basic a right as freedom of speech...

the role of the government as stated in the constitution "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

it doesn't say anything about giving people these freedoms, just that it protects their rights to obtain them

True, it doesn't mention roads and highways either. I guess they're unconstitutional too...let's destroy them.

oh, im sorry i should have said the role of the "federal government". While there is some funding for highways and roads, most of that is handled by state governments, just like healthcare

They're still "governments" and arefunded by tax dollars.

yes they are, and it's not like there isn't a massive amount of tax dollars spent on healthcare already. I just don't think we need anymore government involvement than there already is.

They're still "governments" and arefunded by tax dollars.

jointed

They are state governments, whose people chose representatives to build highways and roads using tax dollars. Universal healthcare is something the Federal government cannot impose on the states, since it is not considered a Constitutional right, just like building highways or roads. Both are handled by state governments.