OMGAKITTY Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Lol' date=' so voting for someone who shares similar political beliefs is racism? Then you must believe that Republicans (who do support civil rights, Isreal, ect ect) are all racists, as well as Democrats (who supported slavery, hate Isreal, ect ect) [b']Lincoln took away several State rights[/b] And getting completely out of Iraq would be a bad idea, due to the fact that if Iran (who does not have the best relations with the US) does anything, then we need to be close by for an easier assault.And you must admit that the standard of living in Iraq has increased quite a bit since the US moved in. Oh man! How could I forget! He took away some state rights! oooh! There seems to be some other stuff he did...gee, what was it....Oh yeah, he led America during the civil war and started the end of slavery. But compared to taking away State rights, you're right, nothing else he did was important. It doesn't matter that half the states were in rebellion anyway, no sirree, we can't be taking away those state rights. Lincoln couldn't care less about ending slavery. All he cared about was keeping the country unionized, and took away state rights to secede from the Union. Everything attributed to him was entirely circumstantial I don't really care about the reasoning behind him freeing slaves. He's still the guy who did it. And why shouldn't he care about keeping the country unionized? That was kind of an important thing. Plus, Britain was on the sidelines lol'ing and waiting for the US to finish itself off, so they could pick up the pieces...If Lincoln had let the states secede, America would have been finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 The World is now in a state of turmoil, we have the credit crunch, rising costs, people who can't run the world properly (except President Obama, i like him :)) and we have journalists throwing shoes at Ex-Presidents and Global Warming Protesters throwing green porriage over ministers. This is the problem. People misplace their trust because they are hasty when placing trust. Lol' date=' so voting for someone who shares similar political beliefs is racism? Then you must believe that Republicans (who do support civil rights, Isreal, ect ect) are all racists, as well as Democrats (who supported slavery, hate Isreal, ect ect) [b']Lincoln took away several State rights[/b] And getting completely out of Iraq would be a bad idea, due to the fact that if Iran (who does not have the best relations with the US) does anything, then we need to be close by for an easier assault.And you must admit that the standard of living in Iraq has increased quite a bit since the US moved in. Oh man! How could I forget! He took away some state rights! oooh! There seems to be some other stuff he did...gee, what was it....Oh yeah, he led America during the civil war and started the end of slavery. But compared to taking away State rights, you're right, nothing else he did was important. It doesn't matter that half the states were in rebellion anyway, no sirree, we can't be taking away those state rights. Lincoln couldn't care less about ending slavery. All he cared about was keeping the country unionized, and took away state rights to secede from the Union. Everything attributed to him was entirely circumstantial I don't really care about the reasoning behind him freeing slaves. He's still the guy who did it. And why shouldn't he care about keeping the country unionized? That was kind of an important thing. Plus, Britain was on the sidelines lol'ing and waiting for the US to finish itself off, so they could pick up the pieces...If Lincoln had let the states secede, America would have been finished. Lincoln was a failure. 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 The World is now in a state of turmoil' date=' we have the credit crunch, rising costs, people who can't run the world properly [b'](except President Obama, i like him :))[/b] and we have journalists throwing shoes at Ex-Presidents and Global Warming Protesters throwing green porriage over ministers. This is the problem. People misplace their trust because they are hasty when placing trust.Or they are extremely missinformed Lol' date=' so voting for someone who shares similar political beliefs is racism? Then you must believe that Republicans (who do support civil rights, Isreal, ect ect) are all racists, as well as Democrats (who supported slavery, hate Isreal, ect ect) [b']Lincoln took away several State rights[/b] And getting completely out of Iraq would be a bad idea, due to the fact that if Iran (who does not have the best relations with the US) does anything, then we need to be close by for an easier assault.And you must admit that the standard of living in Iraq has increased quite a bit since the US moved in. Oh man! How could I forget! He took away some state rights! oooh! There seems to be some other stuff he did...gee, what was it....Oh yeah, he led America during the civil war and started the end of slavery. But compared to taking away State rights, you're right, nothing else he did was important. It doesn't matter that half the states were in rebellion anyway, no sirree, we can't be taking away those state rights. Lincoln couldn't care less about ending slavery. All he cared about was keeping the country unionized, and took away state rights to secede from the Union. Everything attributed to him was entirely circumstantial I don't really care about the reasoning behind him freeing slaves. He's still the guy who did it. And why shouldn't he care about keeping the country unionized? That was kind of an important thing. Plus, Britain was on the sidelines lol'ing and waiting for the US to finish itself off, so they could pick up the pieces...If Lincoln had let the states secede, America would have been finished. Lincoln was a failure. 'nuff said. Civil Rights was only important at the time. Look at Kennedy, had the Civil Rights movement not been going on during his term, he would have never passed any laws.Plus, removing state rights is a gross violation of the US constitution.That is why I bumped him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Kennedy didn't pass any major Civil Rights laws. LBJ did. Back it up with links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator7 Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Since our economy is bad, the world's is most likely to be bad. And Obama is making it worse. He's spending millions of dollars on stupid junk, and he's also spending to much on scools. If he cuts all the spending then maybe the world's economy will get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 You have a faulty understanding of economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezio Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 [align=center]Well of course he does!Otherwise he wouldn't have came out with that load of sh*t![/align] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Legacy Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Since our economy is bad' date=' the world's is most likely to be bad. And Obama is making it worse. He's spending millions of dollars on stupid junk, and he's also spending to much on scools. If he cuts all the spending then maybe the world's economy will get better.[/quote'] Bull Sh*t! You have a faulty understanding of economics. He does indeed =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 The bailout is a bad idea for 2 reasons1) It steals money away from consumers that could have been spent by consumers to buy goods2) The money is going to CEO's who spend it on themselves. Obama is, perhaps, the worst President since FDR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 1) The government already had the money they used for the bailouts...it's not like they created a new tax for it... 2)That was not the intention of the bailout, just what unfortunately happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator7 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I do not have a faulty understaning of economics! I am RIGHT!!! Obama is messing up things with the economy.But he is right about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I do not have a faulty understaning of economics! I am RIGHT!!! Obama is messing up things with the economy.But he is right about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Aw, did you hear your (republican) mommy and daddy talking about how much they hate Obama? Why don't you give me an example of what Obama is doing with the economy that is so wrong, because right now, I think you're just regurgitating what you've heard your parents say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing And how is the government stealing this money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing And how is the government stealing this money? Theft: The taking of another person's property without the person's freely-given consentI bet most of the people who have paid the bailout money didn't really want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing And how is the government stealing this money? Theft: The taking of another person's property without the person's freely-given consentI bet most of the people who have paid the bailout money didn't really want to. You consent to being taxed when you decide to live here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing And how is the government stealing this money? Theft: The taking of another person's property without the person's freely-given consentI bet most of the people who have paid the bailout money didn't really want to. Some things that are really good to know: 1. The government doesn't give a funk2. The government doesn't give a funk and sets laws that makes it illegal for them not to steal from you; thus making it not stealing in their eyes- and, likewise, in the eyes of it's public.3. It's not stealing if the government says it isn't. And if you don't allow them to steal from you, then you are breaking a law that they've set. It's not stealing, because we're part of a governed society. Kind of bittersweet. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing And how is the government stealing this money? Theft: The taking of another person's property without the person's freely-given consentI bet most of the people who have paid the bailout money didn't really want to. Some things that are really good to know: 1. The government doesn't give a f***2. The government doesn't give a f*** and sets laws that makes it illegal for them not to steal from you; thus making it not stealing in their eyes- and' date=' likewise, in the eyes of it's public.3. It's not stealing if the government says it isn't. And if you don't allow them to steal from you, then you are breaking a law that they've set. It's not stealing, because we're part of a governed society. Kind of bittersweet. :/[/quote'] Theft is theft any way you look at it.And the government cannot do this and remain constitutional, which is what our government is based off of.The bailout is something that state legslation needs to be in charge of.And even then I wouldn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing And how is the government stealing this money? Theft: The taking of another person's property without the person's freely-given consentI bet most of the people who have paid the bailout money didn't really want to. Some things that are really good to know: 1. The government doesn't give a f***2. The government doesn't give a f*** and sets laws that makes it illegal for them not to steal from you; thus making it not stealing in their eyes- and' date=' likewise, in the eyes of it's public.3. It's not stealing if the government says it isn't. And if you don't allow them to steal from you, then you are breaking a law that they've set. It's not stealing, because we're part of a governed society. Kind of bittersweet. :/[/quote'] Theft is theft any way you look at it.And the government cannot do this and remain constitutional, which is what our government is based off of.The bailout is something that state legislation needs to be in charge of.And even then I wouldn't like it. Since when has the government done things in a constitutional manner? When you're living in a governed society, theft is only theft if it is from one person to another. The government is our leader, and it's the only reason we have capital in the first place. If they didn't tax us, and we had all the money, nothing would be successful other than big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing And how is the government stealing this money? Theft: The taking of another person's property without the person's freely-given consentI bet most of the people who have paid the bailout money didn't really want to. Some things that are really good to know: 1. The government doesn't give a f***2. The government doesn't give a f*** and sets laws that makes it illegal for them not to steal from you; thus making it not stealing in their eyes- and' date=' likewise, in the eyes of it's public.3. It's not stealing if the government says it isn't. And if you don't allow them to steal from you, then you are breaking a law that they've set. It's not stealing, because we're part of a governed society. Kind of bittersweet. :/[/quote'] Theft is theft any way you look at it.And the government cannot do this and remain constitutional, which is what our government is based off of.The bailout is something that state legislation needs to be in charge of.And even then I wouldn't like it. Since when has the government done things in a constitutional manner? When you're living in a governed society, theft is only theft if it is from one person to another. The government is our leader, and it's the only reason we have capital in the first place. If they didn't tax us, and we had all the money, nothing would be successful other than big business. But the government following the constitution is what the US is found on. It was set because government influence in anything usually makes what ever they influence fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Stealing money and giving it to people who wont use it for the reasons that it has been given to them is still stealing And how is the government stealing this money? Theft: The taking of another person's property without the person's freely-given consentI bet most of the people who have paid the bailout money didn't really want to. Some things that are really good to know: 1. The government doesn't give a f***2. The government doesn't give a f*** and sets laws that makes it illegal for them not to steal from you; thus making it not stealing in their eyes- and' date=' likewise, in the eyes of it's public.3. It's not stealing if the government says it isn't. And if you don't allow them to steal from you, then you are breaking a law that they've set. It's not stealing, because we're part of a governed society. Kind of bittersweet. :/[/quote'] Theft is theft any way you look at it.And the government cannot do this and remain constitutional, which is what our government is based off of.The bailout is something that state legislation needs to be in charge of.And even then I wouldn't like it. Since when has the government done things in a constitutional manner? When you're living in a governed society, theft is only theft if it is from one person to another. The government is our leader, and it's the only reason we have capital in the first place. If they didn't tax us, and we had all the money, nothing would be successful other than big business. But the government following the constitution is what the US is found on. It was set because government influence in anything usually makes what ever they influence fail "Since when has the government done things in a constitutional manner?"It doesn't matter what we were founded on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoDemonX Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Canada rules now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Canada rules now Not really. Maybe rules as ...Diet America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Canada rules now Not really. Maybe rules as ...Diet America. Lol, sigged! Canada is even more socialist than the US!And socialism sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
∮.Ғσяgσттeи.SσℓÐιєя.∮ Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 We need more people throwing shoes at ex-presidents You win this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.