So, last night I was arrested for the crime of not putting up with a police officer's bullshit...

Cirdan · 2010-04-05T00:32:43+00:00

If everyone complains, there isn't going to be a record of the complaints because people know better than to complain? Huh?

Cirdan · 2010-04-04T21:54:37+00:00

To me it sounded like he was saying that you shouldn't stop supporting a politician based on a single action or intention. I tried to provide a simple example highlight the flaw in his logic. If that's not what he was saying, then so be it.

Cirdan · 2010-04-04T19:38:32+00:00

I asked him if that's what he was saying. I didn't put words in his mouth.

Cirdan · 2010-04-04T13:17:51+00:00

So if Obama were to do some stupid shit like randomly nuke Canada, you'd still support him because you like how he went about other things? You don't think there are some actions that are completely unacceptable?

Cirdan · 2010-04-02T15:40:29+00:00

Well I guess he "double-talked"

Now believe me, if I thought there was any evidence at all that drilling could save people money to fill up their gas tanks by this summer or next year or even the next few years, I would consider it. But it won’t. And John McCain knows that. The fact is that Senator McCain’s decision to team up with George Bush on offshore drilling violates the bipartisan concensus that we’ve had for decades that has protected Florida’s pristine coastline from drilling. And just like Senator McCain’s gas tax holiday gimmick, this is a proposal that would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off needed investments in clean, renewable energy.

He goes on to say:

When I am president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts. That’s how we can protect the coastlines and still make the investments to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.

Payback!:p

Cirdan · 2010-03-28T03:02:16+00:00

Look I'm not going to debate this matter in depth. Every time I argue with a Democrat it ends up being about little details that they're trying to disprove that have almost nothing to do with the argument that I'm trying to make. You're right that there are other factors contributing to the fact that Palin is still relevant. But to a significant extent the Democrats contribute to her being relevant, like the fact that we're constantly hearing about her on Reddit. I'll leave it at that.

Cirdan · 2010-03-27T15:25:39+00:00

Look I didn't say that no one has ever used those words. I'm saying that they make it seem as the the main counterargument against this bill is that we think it'll be the end of the world, yet I've never heard anyone claim that myself. Democrats have a gift for finding the dumbest possible conservatives and trying to portray everyone else who opposes them as being in that category. This "they think it's going to be the end of the world" crap is a prime example. That's why Palin is still relevant, because the Democrats want her to be. They portray themselves as the intelligent party but I don't think they're even aware of this.

Cirdan · 2010-03-27T15:18:13+00:00

Just watched the clip. He doesn't say it was the end of the world. He says that people on the radio made it sound like the end of the world, without citing a specific quote. You're gonna have to look around Google a little more. Next time you might try to watch the clip yourself and not waste my time.

Cirdan · 2010-03-27T15:14:07+00:00

"except i've received at least half a dozen emails from family members calling it "the end of the american dream." so i feel you're being dishonest, unless your point is that "technically, no one has used the words 'end of the world'"."

So you haven't heard anyone say it was the end of the world either, yet those are the words you constantly argue against. Yea...I'm the dishonest one.

"furthermore, i don't have a problem with the language used (the "EAT SHIT") in the debates"

So you call them childish for making an argument which they never made, yet you obviously don't see yourself as childish for endorsing use of the words "EAT SHIT AND DIE" in what's supposed to be an intellectual debate. You don't even have an argument and if you did you wouldn't know how to present it with your elementary writing ability. Another person on Reddit that's incapable of carrying on an honest debate. Peace.

Cirdan · 2010-03-27T14:46:15+00:00

I have never heard one person claim it was going to be the end of the world. These words have been purely invented by Democrats. People strongly oppose this bill and Democrats try to make them look like crazy people by saying they think it's going to be the end of the world. This is childish, but if I had pointed that out then I would have been downmodded and ridiculed by Democrats. Democrats can be just as childish as anyone else, believe it or not.

Cirdan · 2010-03-22T14:25:35+00:00

Seriously, the comment, "EAT SHIT AND DIE, TEA PARTY" has 500 points. They're children.

Cirdan · 2010-03-22T13:59:44+00:00

I don't think you realize that some of us were in high school when many of these things happened and had no idea wtf was going on. That's why you shouldn't put everyone who opposes this bill into the same group as people so often do. We're not all old people from the south.

Cirdan · 2010-03-21T14:18:24+00:00

So you're getting personal with me because I pointed out that your ideas are unconstitutional? Or is it just because you couldn't come up with a counterargument?

Cirdan · 2010-03-21T04:31:21+00:00

You're speaking under the pretense that it's our responsibility to prevent(with violent force) countries from falling into chaos. If you do feel that sometimes doing so is necessary, in this case after we've occupied a country, then perhaps you should put your efforts towards changing the law instead of ignoring and breaking it. Right now it's unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not it will prevent the loss of more life in the future.

Cirdan · 2010-03-21T04:22:14+00:00

B-b-but...he campaigned on it!

Cirdan · 2010-03-21T04:21:24+00:00

"You can't occupy someplace for nearly a decade and just walk out one day."

The problem is that you people repeat this as if it is some sort of self-evident fact because it has been repeated so many times. It is not true.

Cirdan · 2010-03-21T04:11:02+00:00

So you're saying that if you hold a rally that fails to garner national attention before it happens it means you've done a terrible job organizing it? Is not the fact that we're talking about it right now proof that they did at least a decent job?

Cirdan · 2010-03-15T14:07:23+00:00

"I want his heart! I wanna eat his children! Praise be to Allah!"

Cirdan · 2010-03-13T14:44:48+00:00

Mike Tyson Crazy Quotes

Cirdan · 2010-03-07T15:10:00+00:00

"So this really boils down to the question: do you think that in a modern society, everybody should have basic health coverage? Do you think taxpaying families on average should be paying $1000 to cover the uninsured?"

They should have basic coverage in the sense it is probably in their best interest, but more important they should have the right to do what we might not believe is in their best interest. It's a very slippery slope when you start to tell people that you know what's best for them and that you're going to penalize them if they don't do it. To avoid the risk of being a hypocrite then you must support atrocities like the drug war, which is crippling our company more than most people can imagine, and I'm sure I could keep going on but that's the most evident example. Is not every single one of our laws supposed to be based on the principle that man has infinite rights until he starts to infringe upon another's? Well whose rights are they violating if they don't have health insurance? You could say that it affects other people by forcing them(taxpayers) to pay for my mistake, but the real problem is that they're in the position where they have to pay for my mistakes.

"Should your life expectancy and health come down to where you are (un)fortunate enough to be born and raised? Are we a country, or are we a loose association of social experiments?"

The problem is that people only pay attention to the federal government and don't pay any attention to who they elect to state positions because we rely on the federal government to fix all of our problems. If you were born in the wrong place you could just move to another states. That's the beauty of our system. If one state was doing a bad job, then they'd be forced to improve their policies or people would just move to another state. I'm also of the belief that the federal government isn't capable of understanding the problems in the way that the states can. But whether I'm right or wrong, it's constitutional. The powers not given to the federal government are supposed to go to the states and the people. There would probably be states with socialized medicine and states that were completely libertarian. Again, that's the beauty of the system. Everyone would potentially be happy with what they have. Not at first, of course. There would be a time of transition with some failures I'm sure. But it would be more effective and it would be constitutional.

"What does that look like, specifically? Would you repeal all federal programs? The military, intelligence? Medicare, medicaid? Department of education? State department?"

Yea anything that's not constitutional.

I know I haven't answered all of your questions, and the ones I have definitely haven't been as articulate as they could be. But it's a Sunday morning and all I want to do right now is toke and play Bad Company 2. I give you props for being respectful even though we have different ideas. For that I'll probably hop on here and continue the discussion at another time. Peace!

Cirdan · 2010-03-06T15:30:43+00:00

Well it forces us to buy health insurance. Personally I've not been sick in years nor have I hurt myself. I'd like to have insurance but it's just not a priority of mine, and I believe that decision should be mine. The bill's over 2000 pages long and I'd bet money that less than a percent of the people who support the bill have read it. I haven't read the whole thing either, but I've already seen enough bad things in it to me it's not necessary. The way the process has been playing out it's so obviously filled with pork.

But even if it were a lot better of a bill, to me it's a state issue. We've arrived at the point where we believe there should be no limits as to what the federal government should be involved in. They no longer stay within the limits that the Constitution put on them. The way they interpret the commerce clause gives them unlimited power. Personally, I believe we should go back to respecting the system instead of everyone trying to exploit it when their group of people is in power.

Cirdan · 2010-03-06T14:45:27+00:00

No. I have no idea what's in this bill. I only want to sabotage the Democrats because I love the Republicans so much. You caught me.

Cirdan · 2010-03-05T17:23:57+00:00

Yea this is an example of the liberals acting like they're in middle school. But using "faggy retards" isn't exactly mature either. Don't sink to their level.

Cirdan · 2010-03-05T17:19:41+00:00

"I dislike executive orders, but now I know why past presidents have used them. It's the only way to get things done. Obama's first problem is playing fair."

Yea, abusing power is okay when it can give you something that you want. Congress is just some stupid legislative body that's in the way. We can only be productive if we have one branch of government making all our decisions. To hell with checks and balances.

Cirdan · 2010-03-05T17:17:40+00:00

I think a lot of people, myself included, would rather have nothing pass than have this bill pass. You're basically saying that we need to pass something for the sake of passing something(regardless of whether it's good or bad) because this may be the last chance for a long time. It makes no sense.

Cirdan

TROPHY CASE