823 Forum Posts by "karasz"
If college students are so Liberal how was the presidential vote 54-45 Kerry.
I don't know if you guys know this or not but George W. Bush is not a liberal, yet got 45% of college students, so i think the claim is baseless now.
And as for Liberal professors cramming their thinking down students throats.... BULLSHIT. Im in college, we have ?? professors, 1 liberal that is the advisor for both the college dems and republicans (and if you think they are fake republicans go to google and type in Roger Williams University College Republicans)
and she is the nicest teacher on the planet, she openly admits shes liberal but she still gives both sides to the issue.
a conservative prof that gives both sides to the issue, he's more about law then politics...
and one that loves nothing more then to disagree with whatever you say which is probably the most fun.
then 3 international political science teachers, and they teach based on the facts of the class..
At 7/7/04 01:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Well the KKK was one of the groups I was thinking about...
I agree, not all of the KKK was christian, but a lot of their ideas were based on the cleansing of their religion.
yeah but saying the KKK represents christianity is like saying Al Qaeda represents islam...
twisting the words of god to inspire fear and hatred is not what religion is about
It just so happens to be that most of the people who oppose homosexual marriage are christian.
wrong... most people oppose homosexual marriage are RELIGIOUS, ask muslims, and jews... they are against it too
I'm not saying that these are horrible christians or horrible people, I'm just saying that in many cases, the people who try to oppress others happen to be christian.
Taliban, Saddam, Slobodan Milosevic, Stalin, China, Castro-- all of these oppressors are not christian, they are either islamic (taliban) or secular (stalin, china, saddam, castro)
true the CRUSADES was Christians VS Muslims
and Hitler blamed the jews based on the bible... but none of these people are the best representatives OF any true religion...
I don't think it's because they're christian.
its because they are CRAZY...
and on my personal religious beliefs... i have absolutely NO idea what i think about it...
if the child does something wrong he needs to be punished... and if being sent to your room, being put on time out, having privileges taken away from you doesnt work...
hit the little bastard...
i mean its one thing to slap a kid for talking back... its another thing to slap him enough that you are being abusive...
just beacuse you got hit doesnt mean your going to be abusive to your kid
At 7/7/04 01:10 AM, Slimyguy wrote: When it comes to christianity having an influence on out politics, then yes, it is ruining our country. That can be said about any religion however. The religion itself isn't the problem. It's the idiots who seem to think that religion and government are the same thing. Leave religion to practice, not politics.
so what your saying is its more teh WRONG PEOPLE using religion than it is christianity...
i wanna know why christianity was used and not some other religion, like jahovah witnesses since they go door to door OR ya know, ISLAM since the ISLAMIC religion has a large amount of the terrorists int he world... (i mean sorry to say it but its true... you dont hear about FATHER MIKE O'CONNOR strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing something up, {now if the sex with children thing comes up let me say i feel as though we should kill those that are guilty... and by kill i mean strap them to a wall and connect their genitals to car batteries...})
At 7/7/04 01:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't think christianity is ruining our nation, I think it's the stupid backward people who do not realize that all people are people...
bingo cama.... you have it 110% correct...
It's just some odd concidence that a lot of these people are christian.
and you had to ruin it with this... where are these 'horrible christians?' show me evidence
I guess Christianity, when improperly used, provides moral justification for the bad thoughts and deeds these people wish to do.
ANYTHING IMPROPERLY USED provides moral justification for the bad thoughts and deeds any people wish to do...
ISLAMIC TERRORISM is based on this sole purpose... how do you think osama and his crew get so many people... he can 'justify' it with the right quotes from the koran...
along with the KKK (following certain passages of the old testament in the bible... AKA the TORAH the jewish holy book)
At 7/7/04 01:03 AM, Michelleann wrote: I believe that everone has the right to express themselves, to an extent. But its seems christians believe entirely diffrently.
based on what do you think this?
Whenever some group of people seem to supressed, the christians are right behind it. People also seem to always take the christians side because of the majority.
umm... like who... show me some sources,
They do not leave anyone alone that does not believe exactlly what they believe. And they also seem to become violent if you do not give your soul for their sake.
again i want sources... ive never seen a priest beat someone up (except in fight club and that was HI-LARIOUS)
Why can't christain's be accepting of differences. I'd as soon debate on their side as I would any other religion, but they have to burn anything that does not totally fit withen their very narrow minds.
... seriously, i want sources and proof of this...
only then will i destroy your arguement
Can some christian please come up and argue with these cases?
By the way, i'm a collective pagan.
i want proof before im ripping your arguement up...
hell there is more likely to be a fight between a SUPER liberal and a SUPER conservative, and i think the fringes will ruin the nation before any ONE religion does
actually i think you could... as long as you understand a few things
1) there will be no more than about 10 people in it...
2) if you arent careful and let even the SLIGHTEST thing bother you, a flame war will break out and cause the politics forum to be not only divided but probably destroyed...
3) there will be about 15 parties... AT LEAST...
4) there is no real reason to have them... what are you going to run for?
5) just about every discussion has turned into moronic chat so even if you wanted to accomplish anything it would be damn near impossible...
6) people are too anti-stuff OR pro-stuff that a real compromise is probably impossible...
7) there is no reason for anyone to really try to compromise since nobody votes...
hmm... actually you know what, this is the worst idea since someone said vote for nader...
Because if we dont waste the brain power how are we suppose to improve our brain power.
Being able to think is the greatest asset humans have. without it we are in the trees with monkeys. And by debating things if the group is good at it, all sides should come to a higher level of thinking.
And to everyone that hates the debates falling into the void of moronic response, dont accept it. If the debate is a worthy one, continue it until either you win OR get disgusted by the lack of intelligence...
Well this does bring up a good point though...
next time you hear people wanting to ban something... maybe you should think of what happened when we banned alcohol...
well does anyone know where you can find a REAL debate on politics?
without it turning into a flame war?
hey all...
in case any of you forgot or dont know me i used to be a regular like a year ago... but then the politics forum just got in my opinion really pathetic and childish...
ive checked back and found that nothing has changed... but i dont have anyone to talk about politics with...
and one more question... where have all the GOOD debates gone??
At 6/21/04 02:34 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:
The thing is, their lives are totally bent over a fictionnal race/event/objects/technologie and whatnot. People who live for something fake have absolutely no productive goal in life. So you can speak Klingon. Big fucking wow, who is it going to help you in real life? How does this enrich your culture, how does this make you a better person?
well, heres a crazy question that nobody has brought up yet. How does bitching about people that do nothing help enrich culture? How does bitching about the fake Klingons help YOU become better?
People who obsess over Fictionnal characters have no use whatsoever to society, except as consumers. But hey, aren't we all?
Well by that logic what about the homeless? they are even worse than the fake-klingons due to their lack of money to purchase things as consumers.
AND lets not forget ive never seen a homeless trekkie before... so perhaps there is some sort of correlation between being a trekkie and being homeless...
and finally
SAVE THE FUCKING POLITICS FOR POLITICAL CONVERSATIONS...
hell even CURRENT EVENTS is fine... but leave the petty bitching about trekkies in general where it fucking belongs...
when did the Politics forum turn into a more moderated version of the General forums????
Nader wont leave, and he shouldnt because he is running for president.
Although personally i feel that ALL people eligible to receive federal matching funds to run for the White House should be given a chance to have their views heard.
America isnt a democracy. Its a Republic. If it were a democracy, we would not have REPRESENTATIVES OR SENATORS, the PEOPLE would vote on all issues at hand.
the pic doesnt mean anything really though, cuz dean did the same thing to kerry and gephardt a fw months ago... and his team did it regularly...
he needs to win NH, if he is a CLOSE second within 3 points then he can hang around until super tuesday... but he really needs something BIG to happen for him...
explain this...
a conservative president is in favor of MORE spending, wouldnt that piss off his base just a bit?
since they believe in smaller government and lower taxes and such?
its a much more complicated system than that bum...
some places like iowa have a caucus- which instead of voting like normal, people go to their designated place and talk for 30 minutes, then everyone splits up into groups under teh banner of their top candidate choice...if any candidate fails to get 15% in that place the people under his banner can either go to a new banner OR an uncommitted section then the polls are taken again and sent to the state party... then they have some rediculously huge equation to see how many delegates you get from the state party...
each state party has a delegate system so when the convention comes around those are the people voting for the nominee BUT usually the nominee is obvious by then...
new hampshire is more 'normal' in the sense that people vote then (some of) the ballots are counted and whoever gets the most votes wins and the winner gets teh delegates from new hampshire... proportionally i think, meaning dean gets 50% of vote he gets 50% of delegates...
although if doesnt really matter cuz the media picks the GUY that did better than expected wins... cuz who are you going to report on... guy A that won like he was going to OR guy D that didnt seem like he had a chance but somehow came in second?
all in all the process is kinda democratic BUT poorly done because the BEST candidtate usually doesnt win
At 1/20/04 02:06 AM, Jimsween wrote:At 1/20/04 12:23 AM, karasz wrote: yeah aview is right... i say all those at odds with each other settle their disputes the real way... fight to the deathI'm pretty sure you have the rules mixed up.
the one who doesnt die wins
so then jim you are in favor of the dieing side to win???
At 1/19/04 08:36 PM, Proteas wrote: And unlike some people, I observe abstinence.
yes but was abstinence YOUR choice OR did women just not have sex with you??/
its a joke
but remember everyone chooses to be a virgin... just sometimes its not THEIR choice
but even still, brauns endorsement wasnt anything special, other than braun will be voting for dean and even THAT isnt a guarantee
the whole time man... they have no reason to leave the race... kinda like alan keyes in 2000 a republican but never had a chance
ok this is what happened...
kerry= 38%... he won cuz he got veterans and their relatives to vote for him... and this part is just my opinion the people that were going with dean thought dean wasnt winnable in november so they picked the vietnam vet kerry
edwards= 32%... he did this great cuz he didnt get in petty arguements, or go negative, he stayed postive and optimistic, and made himself above the bickering of the rest... that and he is a young attractive southern democrat (surprisingly enough iowans actually try to pick the guy most likely to win the presidency)... and was endorsed by the des moines register (big newspaper there)
dean= 18%... dean dropped cuz people that vote want someone to beat bush and they felt like he wasnt the BEST candidate to beat bush, so most of them went to kerry... and at an iowan household he told an old man to sit down in a negative tone and that made people realize his temper might be a problem... and he and gephardt had been in a real battle with each other thinking they might win and they both throw out as many negative ads as they could and it hurt them in the process
these 3 guys get delegates for the convention... meaning they will have iowa supporting them
gephardt= 11% he didnt win Iowa, which he had to at least come in 3rd to have a chance in new hampshire so he is leaving the race... my guess is backing kerry
lieberman/clark= didnt really run in iowa spent time in new hampshire and south carolina... cuz the tradition goes winning iowa doesnt mean you do win, winning new hampshire historically means you have a better chance to win the nomination
sharpton/kucinich= these guys are running just so they get their sides heard during debates and stuff
yeah aview is right... i say all those at odds with each other settle their disputes the real way... fight to the death
the one who doesnt die wins
well their are primaries too...
but yes as it stands now going into new hampshire
kerry, dean, edwards, clark, lieberman, sharpton, kucinich
kerry dean edwards clark still have a shot... sharpton and kucinich are in it just to be in it...
new hampshire will clear the race up a bit... if dean does not win new hampshire he is done... if clark beats kerry kerry is hurting big time... if edwards finishes in 4th i think it will hurt...
should be fun
gotta hand it to ya dago, you were correct so this means only one thing
you have a time machine and used it to see who would win the iowa caucus... shouldve seen what the powerball numbers were going to be
anyway kerry's win sets up the battle for new hampshire... dean VS kerry if dean loses he is done... should be fun to watch
hey... without women the human race will cease to exist...
not that i mind, but ya know someone might...
lets not forget that its only been 2 and a half hours on a sunday night since it came up...
although this thread doesnt include flaming or any sort of anti-one side or another so most people may not know how to respond to it...
i think all 4 have a real chance at winning
but i think edwards will end up in 4th, gephardt 3rd, kerry 2nd and dean slight win...
then in new hampshire dean wins over kerry's second and clarks 3rd... then gephardt drops and endorses kerry, then onto super tuesday on feb 3rd...
In an attempt to try to bring some POLITICS to the forum i want to see how everyone thinks the Iowa Caucus will fare for the Democratic Party...
Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton, Kucinich (Liberman and Clark have forgone the caucus in hopes of being successful in New Hampshire and South Carolina on Feb 3rd)
thats my guess by the way...
take a guess and see who is right...
what about dean, kerry, gephardt and edwards?
they are tied for first in iowa AND have at one point or another been within the margin of error to beat bush...
clark wont get it cuz by the time south carolina comes around he wont have any momentum, and he has no grass roots campaign which is what you need to get the vote out for your supporters AND to vote for him...
now as a VP i could see him on the ticket
back to the original point...
the dag was started to have people give the unseen sides to arguements nobody was taking... (funk has proved this what with being pro-killing retards and pro-fascism at different points... unless he really believes in those things not that it matters)
the PC was started to have more of the regulars talk politics without the fear of every thread turning into a flame war... but it turned into just a general forum for the politics regulars... at least i felt it did...
the whole problem started when we tried to define a regular... cuz we didnt just want anyone in there cuz they could still be a total moron on things and just have a good couple posts...
anyway then the pc said no to funk, then the dag started taking just anyone, and it turned into a stupid ass war between the 2 for no real reason...
its all pointless... there is 1 reason i come here just about everyday... and that is for the chance to have a civil discussion about politics with whomever so chooses... but that really hasnt happened yet... i mean sure some arguements have been made on things but it still boils down to whoever stops flaming the other side loses the arguement...
maybe its my idea of what a political forum should be and maybe thats whats wrong... OR its everyone else
yeah, its definitely everyone else
and the problem about mods, even if they were around what good would they do? they shut down a forum for real reasons there is always the arguement about free speech and the thread starter screams violation of the constitution, not to mention that someone does deserve to be banned the mod gets the fun job of threats every day... i dont blame everyone else for leaving...
At 1/18/04 04:15 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 1/18/04 12:40 AM, karasz wrote: remember when we used to have actual threads on stuff and BOTH SIDES didnt revert to flaming each other and the stupid ass put downs of those that disagree???I blame the lack of mods. Freak's left us. Then Ted, Shrike and Jonas became mods. Ted disappeared off the face of the earth, Jonas is nowhere to be seen and Shrike never posts anymore. We need another mod, to just have that authority.
but even still thats not going to solve anything... it never did before... there have always been flame wars... over stupid shit too...
when it comes right down to it when was the last time a real political thread was on the bbs?
not just conservative and liberal but politics politics, like something about a new bill up in congress OR the state of the union OR the iowa caucus...
of course then it turns into the other side jumps into it and says you guys suck heres why... then goes off on their rant and the other side always retailates...
