Scratch

If you can't provide evidence to support your own examples, both of these apply to you.
1. You're probably wrong.
2. You are in no position to demand evidence from others.

@Separation of church and state discussion:
To me, the religious binding in the country is offensive. By no means should one religious group be able to enforce their beliefs over those who don't share those beliefs.
Cases of this include: Contraception/Abortion, Marraige Equality, and more. If you think these are wrong, don't use them. Heck, if you want, try to convince others not to either. But it is wrong to enforce your beliefs over others who don't want them.
I can't take people seriously when they say that the nation isn't Christian, when the oath of office includes "so help me god" and "god bless America" is something that is basically assumed as the ending of any presidential speech and is printed on the currency. Personally I don't have a problem with this, but nobody can convince me that the nation is not tied to a religion.

Last edited by 16Skittles (2012-10-09 20:02:21)

in b4 flame war
(this topic is a flame war just waiting to happen)

CN12 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

Romney lies about how Obama has signed no free trade agreements, Obama has actually signed six.
[Source]

Romney lies about lots of stuff.

Oh really? Give me 5 examples.

I'll give 3 here. I don't have much time right now.
1. He lied about Obama saying people didn't build their businesses. Obama actually said people didn't build stuff like roads and public resources.
2. He said that he will "save the middle class". I didn't know that taxing them more while giving tax breaks to the rich would save them...
3. He said his plan to cut PBS is better than Obama's to cut tax breaks from big oil companies. However, a little math shows that cutting $4M is a little less than gaining $4B.

CN12 wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

CN12 wrote:

I got one thing that the media went nuts over that the Republicans said: Mitt Romney mentioned cutting PBS, and later that week I was at a Jasons Deli and on the news on the tv, the headline was "Big cuts to Big Bird". I'm sure that if Obama had said that, no one would care.

Your argument is completely invalid and based off of assumptions. It is a part of Mitt Romney's economic plan to cut funding to PBS, 0.01% of the federal budget, and what the Pentagon spends every six hours. [source]
You can't make an assumption about that, because Obama DIDN'T say something stupid like that. Come back when you have a valid case of something a democrat has said (recently) that was ignored by the media.
PBS is a program that people learn from, use, and benefit from every day. Why cut that when we could cut wars in Afghanistan,or some other things on this list and save BILLIONS of dollars each year? For example, the Joint Strike Fighter program is basically an inferior version of the F-22 Raptor, being developed at the same time and using over ten billion dollars each year. And that's small change compared to the wars we're actually fighting - Operation Iraqi Freedom cost over 800 billion dollars. I'm not a big fan of the F-35/F-22, basically a plan to replace the best jets in the world with newer, more expensive best jets in the world, but I wouldn't be opposed to continuing research and development if we were saving that much money from stopping the wars in the middle east. Go after the big programs that aren't important, not the little programs that are actually used.

I give up. I'm not going to try to argue with a Democrat.

There are a couple ways I can take that.
1. I'm a good debater and you can't beat me. - Thanks.
2. My arguments are wrong and it's useless arguing with them. - Read everything I've said and think again.
3. I argue with logic and you don't, so you can't possibly win. - Yep.

In other words, that was a kind of rude and unnecessary comment.

Last edited by jvvg (2012-10-09 21:09:04)

16Skittles wrote:

If you can't provide evidence to support your own examples, both of these apply to you.
1. You're probably wrong.
2. You are in no position to demand evidence from others.

@Separation of church and state discussion:
To me, the religious binding in the country is offensive. By no means should one religious group be able to enforce their beliefs over those who don't share those beliefs.
Cases of this include: Contraception/Abortion, Marraige Equality, and more. If you think these are wrong, don't use them. Heck, if you want, try to convince others not to either. But it is wrong to enforce your beliefs over others who don't want them.
I can't take people seriously when they say that the nation isn't Christian, when the oath of office includes "so help me god" and "god bless America" is something that is basically assumed as the ending of any presidential speech and is printed on the currency. Personally I don't have a problem with this, but nobody can convince me that the nation is not tied to a religion.

I actually do have a problem with that because I'm Jewish (and proud of it).
The oath of office shouldn't say it, the pledge people sometimes have to say at school shouldn't have the words "under god" in it, and Congress shouldn't start with a prayer each day. I am also extremely offended when people get mad about how teachers aren't allowed to lead prayers at school. They are mad that they aren't allowed to force their religion on others. -_-

CN12 wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

CN12 wrote:

I got one thing that the media went nuts over that the Republicans said: Mitt Romney mentioned cutting PBS, and later that week I was at a Jasons Deli and on the news on the tv, the headline was "Big cuts to Big Bird". I'm sure that if Obama had said that, no one would care.

Your argument is completely invalid and based off of assumptions. It is a part of Mitt Romney's economic plan to cut funding to PBS, 0.01% of the federal budget, and what the Pentagon spends every six hours. [source]
You can't make an assumption about that, because Obama DIDN'T say something stupid like that. Come back when you have a valid case of something a democrat has said (recently) that was ignored by the media.
PBS is a program that people learn from, use, and benefit from every day. Why cut that when we could cut wars in Afghanistan,or some other things on this list and save BILLIONS of dollars each year? For example, the Joint Strike Fighter program is basically an inferior version of the F-22 Raptor, being developed at the same time and using over ten billion dollars each year. And that's small change compared to the wars we're actually fighting - Operation Iraqi Freedom cost over 800 billion dollars. I'm not a big fan of the F-35/F-22, basically a plan to replace the best jets in the world with newer, more expensive best jets in the world, but I wouldn't be opposed to continuing research and development if we were saving that much money from stopping the wars in the middle east. Go after the big programs that aren't important, not the little programs that are actually used.

I give up. I'm not going to try to argue with a Democrat.

THERE WE GO AGAIN

Okay get this into your head: Political stances and parties do not directly correlate to intelligence and cannot be used as an insult

16Skittles wrote:

jvvg wrote:

There are a couple ways I can take that.
1. I'm a good debater and you can't beat me. - Thanks.
2. My arguments are wrong and it's useless arguing with them. - Read everything I've said and think again.
3. I argue with logic and you don't, so you can't possibly win. - Yep.

In other words, that was a kind of rude and unnecessary comment.

I'm sorry, are,you 16skittles? Nice to meet you. 

Typing on some sort of mobile device, I see.

jslomba wrote:

jukyter wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

Would these dogs be kept on the roof of the car?

Just because they like fresh air gosh!! >.>
/s

"it's like a bresh of freth air" -john mccain

freth air ith beth air

jvvg wrote:

CheeseMunchy wrote:

jvvg wrote:

There are a couple ways I can take that.
1. I'm a good debater and you can't beat me. - Thanks.
2. My arguments are wrong and it's useless arguing with them. - Read everything I've said and think again.
3. I argue with logic and you don't, so you can't possibly win. - Yep.

In other words, that was a kind of rude and unnecessary comment.

I suck at arguments. 
-----------------------------------
But how was that rude? And I wouldn't call it unnecessary.

It was rude because a lot of people say you can't argue with Democrats because they make everything up.
That is a lie, and actually, pretty much everything I've said here was completely true.

Sorry. By the way, I recomend taking that as no. 1. You are a good debater.

If any of you find any of these posts too offensive or flame-y, please flag them. It's worth nothing to debate about the state of the nation if we can't keep it civil.

-----

As a few people have cited above, the occasions where Mr. Romney has streched or edited facts are some of the real reasons that I oppose him. Not being an economist, I can't tell you for certain what th policies of either candidate will do, but I do know that I'd love to have a Commander in Chief that acknowledges the facts instead of weaving around them.

However, "lieing" may be streching the point; that implies both knowing the facts and then telling a mistruth, which Mr. Romney doesn't always do.

-----

The Constitution also doesn't explicitly guarantee the Supreme Court the power to overturn "unconstitutional" laws, yet they do it anyways. To me, seperation of Church and State are much the same; as a longstanding, largely unquestioned, unwritten rule, and both still apply.

16Skittles wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

I'm sorry, are,you 16skittles? Nice to meet you. 

Typing on some sort of mobile device, I see.

I'm typing on Steve right now. 

dude

votee green party

soupoftomato wrote:

Anyone seen the O'Reilly vs Stewart debate?

i thought 'O'Reilly' died in 1937?