Fuck conservative bullshit.

I can't seem to buy into American politics myself... annoy:

[quote="Old Reliable":f7e85]I can't seem to buy into American politics myself... annoy:[/quote:f7e85]

Join the club. It's a large organization. happy:

No Im saying most pro war people are conservatives.

and most liberals are jobless fucks who protest all day because theyre on the wrong side of the power spectrum

NO one in america cares what you left wing vaginas up in canada thinks, youre country has less authority then a kidergarden teacher.

Damnit, someoen explain to me What Liberal, conservitive, and democrat parties are about!?

me for PM!!11

It seems as though our friend chango lurks in the shadows of the forums and only comes out to take a bash at me. Where are you the rest of the time?

The Democrats and Republicans are 2 parties in the US. Their pretty much the only two. There's the independents, but they only get a fraction of the vote historically.

Democrats = Liberals (Left on the Political Spectrum)
Republicans = Conservatives (Right on the Political Spectrum)

http://literacyproject.org/Charboneau/t ... tinuum.htm

If you study the politcal spectrum enough you will see that its more of a semi circular with ends instead of the full loop. Because if you look at communist totalitarian governments (Stalin), and facisty ones (Hitler), youll see while still maintaining to hate eachother, they have because almost the same. And the farther away from the middle which is a moderatethey will get very differnt such as liberals and conservatives but as you reach the ends facists and communists youll see that the oppressive governments subjected to the people are so close in laws in rule that they could almost be the same oOo:

Political science is weird and you can only learn more by learning the history of it and looking at what it has become today.

And no one anywhere cares what a pretentious know-it-all teenager thinks.

I'm saying that just because someone doesn't agree with one thing that conservatives agree with, it doesn't make them liberal. So using only one example where more "liberal" ideas are presented wouldn't accurately show whether most on this board are liberal or conservative.

Hell, I haven't even posted anything on war or Bush other than the "President" thread, So why do you assume that i'm a liberal? (Actually if you look back far enough, I actually supported the war.)

And dispite how many times you restate it, I'm not Canadian, you stereotyping prick.

Don't flatter yourself, I only "come out of the shadows" when there's a good or seemingly intelligent debate going on or when someone posts something that I disagree with enough to bother posting. Why would I want to bother with the rest of the mindless spam that gets posted?

I'm intrested in knowing where you got your information? I've never seen anything saying that there are more "conservatives" then "liberals." Just because bill says it dosen't mean its true.

In fact, bill's show is very "conservative" biased, and so should be taken with a grain of salt, just as any liberal media should be taken with a grain of salt.

In fact the very existence of shows such as bill's and limbaugh's prove that the media isn't as liberal as you think...

Everyone knows that Fox News is biased toward the right, didn't say they weren't. That still places them in the minority.

As far as the information backing my statement, go do a Google search on California's Proposition 22 and check out the percentages. Don't forget California is considered to be a "liberal stronghold."

And just in case you don't feel like Google searching:

http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm

what does this have to do with being liberal or conservative? you can't infer that california has more conservatives then liberal's because more people voted for prop 22 then against. your bending numbers here trying to make them seem like something they aren't.


In addition... your saying that this thread isn't about gay marriage, but the information your using to support your argument is from an anti-gay marriage organization. That dosen't make any sense.

I wasnt talking about you being canadian, I damn well know youre not and that certainly was directed at you so youre just getting your panties all up in a bunch for nothing. Are stereo types not often correct for the most part? Think about any stereo type and then youll see that more often than not theres a reason for a stero typembeing developed.

So what If I pretend to know it all? How fun would this arguement be if I knew nothing about polictics.

Where did I call you a democrat? I certainly dont remember this.

It's a single example of voting trends, which are a more accurate definition of whether the populus leans left or right than the number of registered Republicans/Democrats. Just go research propositions in your own state and look at the trends of the majority.

Just because gay marriage is one of the points I use, does not make the thread about gay marriage. I am trying to avoid people fixating on a very narrow topic inside a much larger one, which is the forming of law and policy against the majority.

And it's you're. As in, you're still the man with the rifle, Minor rock:

I also think that the liberal/conservative thing is too broad,
take me for example:
I am pro gun, think murderers and rapists should fry, support funding for a powerful military, and don't believe in giving lazy "refugees" from Cuba my money as welfare;
however I am also pro-choice, dislike religion in general, don't really care about government buggering into people's private lives with "morality" (gay marriage is an example)and think that we should spend more Federal money on education and science (even if it means raising taxes, especially on the upper class)

as you see I have opinions that are both stereotypical "conservative" and stereotypical "liberal" opinions.

[quote="Sgt Stryker":ca8e9]I also think that the liberal/conservative thing is too broad,
take me for example:
I am pro gun, think murderers and rapists should fry, support funding for a powerful military, and don't believe in giving lazy "refugees" from Cuba my money as welfare;
however I am also pro-choice, dislike religion in general, don't really care about government buggering into people's private lives with "morality" (gay marriage is an example)and think that we should spend more Federal money on education and science (even if it means raising taxes, especially on the upper class)

as you see I have opinions that are both stereotypical "conservative" and stereotypical "liberal" opinions.[/quote:ca8e9]

Fuck raising taxes on the upper class. Basically "upper class" means if you make six digits. I for one spent seven years in college to make that much money and have a lot of student loan debt. So why punish people who work hard to become successful and let many people who decided not to work hard or made poor choices get more of a tax break than they already have?
Fuck welfare except in cases where people were born with disabilities or became truley disabled. No welfare for people who would rather do drugs or have 5 kids they can't afford. Have these fuckers take responsibility for their choices. They made poor choices so tuff shit. If you want to save money, cut many of our elected officals over the top expense accounts and salaries. Have an entertainment tax on sporting events and concerts(would also drive down the outrageous salaries of these celebrities). The idea is to tax luxery items not punish people who worked hard to become successful.
Your post had a point about using the term liberal and conservative, but raising taxes on the upper middle and upper class is the same dead horse the democrats beat every four years:(

I hardly call six-digits upper class,
you still have to work to make that.
I mean folks like George W. Bush, who basically was born rich and his income comes from investments, not work.

[quote:c267d]The idea is to tax luxery items not punish people who worked hard to become successful. [/quote:c267d]
bad idea, all this would do is deter spending and promote investment,
overinvestment and underspending is exactly what caused the recent problems.

[quote:c267d]No welfare for people who would rather do drugs or have 5 kids they can't afford. Have these fuckers take responsibility for their choices.[/quote:c267d]

damn straight!
to add to that, we also need to do something about the justice system,
so that stupid people can't fuck up and then sue companies or the government for their personal stupidity. It's time to drop the nanny state and have people think for themselves (I always have been a bit of a Darwinist biggrin: )

w,,,tfk??*

well you and I may not consider that upper class but the tax code does.
So when a politician says that, it makes me cringe.

Maybe the luxery tax wasn't the most phenomenal idea ,but there are other areas to take from ( not just from the so called upper class). Maybe an annual millionair tax or something based upon a scale.

Good to see someone against our current welfare system. We need to get people off their asses and into work. ( less people with free time would probable mean less crime).

I am generally considered a rebublican but the going to mars thing is oOo:
What a waste of money. As you said earlier, put something into the educational system. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GET OUT OF NAFTA to keep jobs here.