Mattemuse is the kind of person who would suck at debating because he would just insult the opponent continuously.
I’m sorry to do this to you, CatzEyes93, but :facepalm:
Don’t let yourself get roped into Republican talking points that have no basis in fact. There is no ‘worship’ of Obama and no one claimed that he was anything close to something resembling a “messiah”.
Hell, you could call me a far-left liberal…and I’m extremely angry and disappointed in what Obama’s done (and hasn’t done) so far. I knew that he would be a centrist; I just didn’t know how far he’d bend over backwards for the right who would just as soon slap him the face as look at him.
Again, there is no worship of Obama…except from the gross caricature that the Right paints of the left.
Its true, and it’s something I need to work on - because insults are no way to convince someone of the truth. But on the other hand, observe how the people I’m “debating” up front state that they “hate liberals” and are totally unwilling ( and unable ) to defend any of their assertions about how liberals are ruining the country. Observe that I’ve never stereotyped anyone or declared my hatred for any group of people. How exactly am I expected to respond to aggressive, unsubstantiated attacks on my political beliefs, other than pointing it out as the nonsense that it is? How can I respond in a substantive way to assertions that have no substance?
Like I said, I’ll work on it. But notice on the other hand I don’t see anyone saying I’m wrong.
edit- damn, I had a really elaborate response to CatzEyes93, but I experienced a Browser fail and lost it. Short edition - I don’t care what your ideology is, teaching your kids to hate their fellow Americans and to hate their country is indoctrination, and it is wrong. That’s not intolerance, it’s basic human decency.
The PROBLEM, is the actual existance of the party system. Our government is more interesting in arguing with it’s self to make any descisions. George Washington warned us not to start parties in the white house. Now the only way to get into office is to be well known. Advertizing = Money. Parties have the money. The only way to get them to sponsor you is to be an far right or far left. The only solution is to somehow put this point into the heads of them all.
Of course not having a party system creates its own problems as people are voted into office with less than a majority of votes.
Plus, I think that even if the current parties were completely dissolved and allegiances wiped from peoples minds, we would fairly quickly return to a two party system as candidates start banding together to have a better chance of election.
There are many ways to see the difference between right and wrong. You should spend time thinking about this situations. People don’t worship Obama, they needed a leader and then Obama came. Yes, he didn’t change the things very much. But I think he was the best choice. Let me ask you something.
There is a war between “country A” and “country B”.
A wants to live peacefully, while B wants to conquer A’s lands.
B attacks A but kills no civilians, keeps it clean.
After that A attacks B and kills all civilians& children.
Who is Right?, Who is wrong?
Obviously both are wrong.
this this this this this~! Everyone says play nice, but no one wants to be the first. I saw it first hand when my husband ran for public office. Its disgusting. The focus is not where it should be.
And I live in Denver Colorado where it really IS unsafe to state you are a republican. The moment folks hear that, they assume you were raised by wolves and have been in the dark ages for the past 30 years. I have since changed my cocktail party conversation to simply not engage. “Politics and religion always turn heated… but that dress Martha has on is rather fiery don’t you think! I can’t take my eyes off of it it is so delicious!”
EVERYONE LISTEN![/SIZE]
Actually there is no answer. Everybody gives a different answer. Everybody thinks they are right. This is why we all need a leader who can unite his/her people. Human kind can disagree on almost everything. There 's something that we don’t understand: “We are all god-damn motherfucking humans.” We are the intelligent life on this planet. We are superior to most of the animals. So when there isn’t an enemy to fight, we chose each other as opponents. We don’t have a difference, all the humans on the world are same. If there is a God I’m sure he’s facepalming right now. Or if the Aliens are watching us right now, They are probably laughing their ass off. We need a leader that will unite his/her people but secretly will do the right things to do. We can discuss this forever. But We will become intelligent, when we put aside our differences and unite.
We have potential , the problem is we are very stupid to understand it.
If you are offended by my post, Please GTFO![/SIZE]
This is what I don’t understand about deficit doomsayers. What is this terrible calamity that you think is going to happen if the deficit isn’t dropped down to $0 tomorrow?
What’s wrong with paying down the debt over 10-20 years by reducing federal spending and increasing federal revenue and GDP? It’s worked in the past, and it’s worked for other countries with much larger debt-to-GDP ratios.
This is a common misconception, for some reason. If two sides are arguing two positions and they both think they are right, it doesn’t logically follow that neither side is right, or the correct position is 50% between the two sides. If you look at facts, evidence, and history, one side is right and one side is wrong. That’s it. There’s no magical halfway position that everyone can accept. Some people are wrong, full stop.
And we aren’t the only country in the trillions of dollars of debt, here. If anything, we are nearly equal with everyone else (save for Canada…DAMN YOU!).
Plus, we’ve been in debt for a while now, and I think the country’s still here. Let me check…
…Yep, we’re still here.
You are right but what’s the point of arguing if both sides are stubborn? We can still discuss. But i am complaining about arguing causing humans to seperate from each other, as if we are different creatures
People who believe strongly enough to argue for their preferred position are always going to be a minority. What allowing the argument to play out achieves, even if there is never reconciliation between the two sides, is that the silent majority (that don’t have a strong enough position to debate) get to see which position makes a stronger case.
This is probably why you see those with controversial views in this thread simply declare their position as fact and then refuse to defend it when questioned. By sidestepping the argument entirely, they avoid allowing the majority to judge whether or not they have any facts on their side.
It’s not worth defending. Arguing politics is pointless because people cling to their beliefs like a religion.
^This. There are times when I’m not sure whats worse: arguing politics, religion, or mac vs. pc. danielsangeo seems to debate all of these, though. :fffuuu:
Thanks! :retard:
Mac vs PC, or any other dumb fanboy argument, is worse, because at least Politics is worth arguing about.
Humans are unfit to govern themselves.
This is why we need Combine
Or…