• Super Tuesday - most polling booths close at 7pm EST
    665 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49855202]This isn't the only issue in politics.[/QUOTE] Some people think removing corporate money from the government is the most important issue because it's the reason why we have such shit candidates. It takes massive amounts of money to run for office, which is hard to secure without corporate backing. The news agencies (be it TV, on paper, or online) which most people still turn to for deciding who they want to vote for are for profit corporations as well, which have a vested interest in the election. It is a total and completely shit situation. Further, these corporate interests lead to other massive issues because politicians act not in the best interest of the majority of the people, but of the wealthy few. Which leads to the massive outflow of jobs, the unregulation that led to the housing crash, the for profit nature of the prison system, massives wastes of money to feed the military industrial complex, destruction of the environment, and so forth. When we have a government that is acting in the best interest of the majority of it's people and not just a wealthy few, then those other problems (like universal health care, prison reform, education reform, etc...) too will be addressed because doing so is in the best interests of the majority of the people in this country. Whatever reform which might be passed by the corporate shills will not be anything more than a pittance.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49855301]I'm not a Trump supporter, but thanks for putting me into a group so that it's easier for you to discount my opinion. And the Inquisition was in the 13th century, and this is the 21st.[/QUOTE] america has been home for muslims for years and years, why only now are they disdained and barred from entry? if their religion explicitly calls for XYZ things, then why did nobody care when muslims immigrated to america for the two centuries prior to the modern day? and it's not like christians can't be violent too. many branches of american christianity (given the weirdness of christianity in america in general) are composed of fundamentalist nutters who bomb abortion clinics
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49855327]Some people think removing corporate money from the government is the most important issue because it's the reason why we have such shit candidates. It takes massive amounts of money to run for office, which is hard to secure without corporate backing. The news agencies (be it TV, on paper, or online) which most people still turn to for deciding who they want to vote for are for profit corporations as well, which have a vested interest in the election. It is a total and completely shit situation. Further, these corporate interests lead to other massive issues because politicians act not in the best interest of the majority of the people, but of the wealthy few. Which leads to the massive outflow of jobs, the unregulation that led to the housing crash, the for profit nature of the prison system, massives wastes of money to feed the military industrial complex, destruction of the environment, and so forth. When we have a government that is acting in the best interest of the majority of it's people and not just a wealthy few, then those other problems (like universal health care, prison reform, education reform, etc...) too will be addressed because doing so is in the best interests of the majority of the people in this country. Whatever reform which might be passed by the corporate shills will not be anything more than a pittance.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but reddit is ignorant of all these issues and think Trump is good choice because he's not a career politican and isn't "bought out." That's all they think, they don't think about Supreme Court Justices or the laws to end corruption. They just think Trump = Not Bought Out + Not Member of Political Elite = Good We need someone who's going to get justices on there who overturn Citizen's United and Trump sure as hell isn't the guy to do it. Bernie is, yes, one of the better choices for it, but I have more faith in Hilary Clinton to appoint a justice that will overturn that horrible ruling than any other republican candidate. Trump mentions NOWHERE on his website about getting big money out of politics. He doesn't mention it at all. People are just too thick to think anything beyond "Well he isn't political elite, like Bernie, and he isn't bought out, like Bernie, therefore he would be a good candidate, like Bernie!" Meanwhile Hillary, while bought out, is EXPLICITLY running on a platform of campaign finance reform. Go look at her website. You may not believe her, but I at least want someone who promises to make changes over someone who doesn't care at all.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49855202]This isn't the only issue in politics. Everyone on reddit and facepunch is turning into a single issue voter they say they loathe, instead of something like gay marriage or healthcare its this so called "Establishment". I'm sick of people acting like it's all the "Establishment" that matters. Establishment this, Establishment that, it's tiring how people's heads are so far up their assholes they'll switch from social democrat to insane right-wing populist on the drop of a dime because they're a single issue voter even though they won't fucking admit it. THere's more to politics than this establishmentThere's the issue of universal healthcare. There's the issue of college debt. There's the issue of racial inequality. There's the issue of wealth inequality. There's the issue of wages. There's the issue of LGBT interests. There's the issues of foreign policy. There's so many issues besides this percieved "Establishment monster". YES CORRUPTION IS BAD. But acting like that's all that matters in this election is just ruining my internet browsing experience and is going to ruin this country if enough of these peopleare so convinced that they love Bernie so much for his "Anti-establishment" that, someone who has the "Same" "Qualities" like Trump (Spoilers: He fucking doesn't!!!!!!) who goes against all the policy and things Bernie fights for, is a better alternative than Bernie-lite. I can't believe how monumentally stupid these voting-age people can be. Or, the idea that because Hilary and Trump are both "Corporate interests" they're comparable in everything. That's not how it works at all, but they think it is so they won't vote. Hillary is not comparable to Trump. Bernie is not comparable to Trump. They both have different issues and stances on matters that aren't Trump's same stances and issues. And these issues are more important than trying to dismantle the entire political "Etablishment" in one goddamn election. Spoilers, it won't happen that simply and it'll need the use of good surpreme court judges that will overturn citizens united (Which Hillary is more likely to appoint) and for them to get a majority in the Supreme Court when the issue pops up. THAT'S how you dismantle this so called "Establishment" or whatever. (Sorry, not directed at you in particular Human Abyss, whatever your stance may be, but I just used it as a launching platform for my rant)[/QUOTE] It may not be the only issue, and I don't think it is mind you, but "Establishment" matters. I have to stress this. Lobbyists have radically redefined the shape of the US. Corporate policies have given them incredible leeway to abuse that power, to take advantage of the political system and it's political advantages. They have every advantage, and every foot forward over the american people. Candidates like Hilary and Trump will both be extending the power of those groups, corporations, massively under their administrations. Hilary has been for this for years. Donald IS corporate wall street. To imply that those aren't key stone issues, in my mind, is to ignore the reality of the situation in North America where the wage gap will grow more vastly distant, and where your legal ability to defend yourself from a corporation is rapidly shrinking. Class action law suits in the US have almost been made impossible due to lobbyism. That's a pretty big deal that affects the average joe. The "Establishment" is very important, and it's not about being "For" or "against" it. It's about keeping IT in check. Voting Hilary or Trump is voting for an unregulated corporate america.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49855335]america has been home for muslims for years and years, why only now are they disdained and barred from entry? if their religion explicitly calls for XYZ things, then why did nobody care when muslims immigrated to america for the two centuries prior to the modern day? and it's not like christians can't be violent too. many branches of american christianity (given the weirdness of christianity in america in general) are composed of fundamentalist nutters who bomb abortion clinics[/QUOTE] In support of this point: [quote]As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries[/quote] From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ending the First Barbary War between the United States and Tripolitania, signed by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the 5th United States Senate (which included Thomas Jefferson, John Langdon and Andrew Jackson). And just to complete the trifecta, the diplomat to negotiate the treaty was dispatched under Washington. So: even while in a state of actual war with a deeply Muslim country, our Founding Fathers saw no reason why religion should be a problem between us, and wrote in a legally-binding treaty that America as a nation has no objection to Islam as a religion. Which raises an impossible question for those who think we *do* have a fundamental conflict with Islam: If that was the state of things in 1797, but not the state of things in 2016, there exist three possibilities. America could have changed, Islam could have changed, or the Founding Fathers were wrong. The first implies that America has gotten less tolerant over time, and we now have far less freedom than we once did, [I]and that we should have even less[/I]. The second makes it impossible that our conflict is with Islam itself, but rather with a certain current interpretation of it. The argument becomes self-defeating. The third is basically heresy to conservatives. Going against Jefferson? May as well be going against Jesus. I have no problem with that - the founders were only human, and made many mistakes that we have already corrected, and probably many more that we will later correct - but I don't think even Trump can go against party lines so far as that.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html[/url] isnt this a thing, the immunity?
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49855856][url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html[/url] isnt this a thing, the immunity?[/QUOTE] Likely to try and get more information out of that staffer; he invoked his 5th amendment rights when Congress tried to bring him before a hearing on the email scandal. Hopefully he'll turn over info to the FBI now that'll lead to some sort of charge being levied at Clinton- there's no way she should get away with what she did. Classified info is just that- [B]classified[/B]- and should be treated with extreme care to maintain security. If anyone else had done what she did (like a congressman/woman on the intelligence committee in house/senate, or another figure in politics or the military), they'd be facing charges in no time flat.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49855335]america has been home for muslims for years and years, why only now are they disdained and barred from entry?[/QUOTE] Because lately they've taken to blowing up buildings and shooting people en masse.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49856077]Because lately they've taken to blowing up buildings and shooting people en masse.[/QUOTE] a small percentage of a 1.6 billion group And you say "ah, I should apply that to everyone" by this logic, you can never, ever, ever get mad when someone generalizes the entire 350 million US citizens under one banner because you're doing that and fucking then some.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49856077]Because lately they've taken to blowing up buildings and shooting people en masse.[/QUOTE] Well, let's take a look at the facts for a bit. Here's every terrorist attack on American soil since 1990, broken down by perpetrator (thanks, Wikipedia): Muslims - anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian: 8 Muslims - Al Qaeda: 6 (counting each 9/11 plane separately - seems fair, given how deadly each was) Muslims - ISIS: 1 Muslims - unaffiliated: 9 Earth Liberation Front: 3 North Korea: 1 Anti-abortion: 10 Anti-government: 6 Pro-government: 1 Anti-immigrant/White supremacist: 5 Nonspecific crazy people: 7 Perpetrator Unknown: 2 If you merge along general ideological lines, you get: Islamic extremist: 24 Christian reactionary: 21 Crazy: 7 Hippies: 3 Seems like there's a clear dividing line between religious terrorist attacks and non-religious terrorist attacks. Per the evidence, if you're in favor of barring all Muslim immigrants, you should also be at least 87% in support of barring all Christian immigrants, but no more than 12% in favor of barring hippies.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49856194]Well, let's take a look at the facts for a bit. Here's every terrorist attack on American soil since 1990, broken down by perpetrator (thanks, Wikipedia): Muslims - anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian: 8 Muslims - Al Qaeda: 6 (counting each 9/11 plane separately - seems fair, given how deadly each was) Muslims - ISIS: 1 Muslims - unaffiliated: 9 Earth Liberation Front: 3 North Korea: 1 Anti-abortion: 10 Anti-government: 6 Pro-government: 1 Anti-immigrant/White supremacist: 5 Nonspecific crazy people: 7 Perpetrator Unknown: 2 If you merge along general ideological lines, you get: Islamic extremist: 24 Christian reactionary: 21 Crazy: 7 Hippies: 3 Seems like there's a clear dividing line between religious terrorist attacks and non-religious terrorist attacks. Per the evidence, if you're in favor of barring all Muslim immigrants, you should also be at least 87% in support of barring all Christian immigrants, but no more than 12% in favor of barring hippies.[/QUOTE] How many have died as a consequence of Islamic attacks vs. Christian attacks? Volume of attacks doesn't matter nearly as much as volume of deaths.
[QUOTE=Lurr;49856213]How many have died as a consequence of Islamic attacks vs. Christian attacks? Volume of attacks doesn't matter nearly as much as volume of deaths.[/QUOTE] the classic moving of the goal posts...
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49856223]the classic moving of the goal posts...[/QUOTE] The classic dodging of hard questions.
Trump just released his Healthcare plan I'd say it isn't bad. Anyone shitting on Bernie supporters supporting trump over Hillary should really consider but consider that he has always hated [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI"]NAFTA and TPP[/URL] and has a much better idea than Obamacare. [url]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform[/url] There is a reason the party of NOPE hates him. I think his ideas on healthcare are pretty alright.
[QUOTE=Lurr;49856233]The classic dodging of hard questions.[/QUOTE] never once did anybody say that volume of deaths mattered until you were presented with facts that disagreed with you. youre the one thats in the wrong here, and youre trying to act like youre not. did you really think you were that slick?
[QUOTE=Lurr;49856213]How many have died as a consequence of Islamic attacks vs. Christian attacks? Volume of attacks doesn't matter nearly as much as volume of deaths.[/QUOTE] Way to cherry-pick a figure that you know is going to favor you. I'll return the favor and go back only ten years this time, because that's easier than going back 160 years to get the really heavy Klan killings. Death totals do not include perpetrators: Muslims - 38 White Supremacist - 18 Anti-Government - 7 Anti-Abortion - 4 Now, sure, you still win and the evidence does show that Muslims kill more people in terrorist attacks than white supremacists, anti-government and anti-abortion terrorists combined. But these numbers put things into perspective - they seem awfully low given the size of our country. Is it really worth locking over a billion people out of the country, because of 3.8 fatalities per year? We could save 300,000 a year by banning cigarettes - and smoking wasn't an important enough right to enshrine in the Constitution, while religion was. It seems awfully inconsistent to take severe action against the former while doing nothing against the latter. Hell, we see 600 deaths a year from [I]accidental[/I] firearms discharge. If we're banning all Muslims for 38 a year, can we ban all guns for fifteen times the lives saved?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49855381]It may not be the only issue, and I don't think it is mind you, but "Establishment" matters. I have to stress this. Lobbyists have radically redefined the shape of the US. Corporate policies have given them incredible leeway to abuse that power, to take advantage of the political system and it's political advantages. They have every advantage, and every foot forward over the american people. Candidates like Hilary and Trump will both be extending the power of those groups, corporations, massively under their administrations. Hilary has been for this for years. Donald IS corporate wall street. To imply that those aren't key stone issues, in my mind, is to ignore the reality of the situation in North America where the wage gap will grow more vastly distant, and where your legal ability to defend yourself from a corporation is rapidly shrinking. Class action law suits in the US have almost been made impossible due to lobbyism. That's a pretty big deal that affects the average joe. The "Establishment" is very important, and it's not about being "For" or "against" it. It's about keeping IT in check. Voting Hilary or Trump is voting for an unregulated corporate america.[/QUOTE] How exactly will Sanders keep "TEH ESTABLISHMENT!!" out of politics long-term? From what I've read from him, the only real action in anti-money views is based on overturning Citizen's United (same as Hilldog), and that's it. The rest of his plan is "fight for things like the Fair Elections Now Act (which died stillborn in a committee)", which means little because he doesn't have the powers to push his reforms through Congress by himself. Hillary's plan is smaller than Sanders', but it directly states that she will use an executive order to help pry open the door and that she will (not fight) set up a system to encourage small donations. Sanders simply says he'll "fight", but Hillary has more concrete action that seems like it could last long-term and serve as a building block for a larger reform. SHILLARY TAKES WALL STREET MONY!!! as an attack against Hillary's ability to pass reforms doesn't hold up because Obama did the same thing, but under his adminstration, the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, the biggest financial reform bill passed since the Great Depression. Plus, we have no proof that there was a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"-style agreement between Hillary and groups like Goldman Sachs when she accepted money from them.
[QUOTE=Ziron;49856365]Plus, we have no proof that there was a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"-style agreement between Hillary and groups like Goldman Sachs when she accepted money from them.[/QUOTE] So I guess they just gave her money for fun then????
[QUOTE=Durandal;49856376]So I guess they just gave her money for fun then????[/QUOTE] They gave her money because they wanted her to give a speech at one of their events.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;49856312]never once did anybody say that volume of deaths mattered until you were presented with facts that disagreed with you. youre the one thats in the wrong here, and youre trying to act like youre not. did you really think you were that slick?[/QUOTE] Actually it would seem that you know you're wrong, and you're desperately attempting to dodge a gaping flaw in your argument. You're trying to discredit me because you've been backed into a corner. [QUOTE]Way to cherry-pick a figure that you know is going to favor you. I'll return the favor and go back only ten years this time, because that's easier than going back 160 years to get the really heavy Klan killings. Death totals do not include perpetrators: Muslims - 38 White Supremacist - 18 Anti-Government - 7 Anti-Abortion - 4 Now, sure, you still win and the evidence does show that Muslims kill more people in terrorist attacks than white supremacists, anti-government and anti-abortion terrorists combined. But these numbers put things into perspective - they seem awfully low given the size of our country. Is it really worth locking over a billion people out of the country, because of 3.8 fatalities per year? We could save 300,000 a year by banning cigarettes - and smoking wasn't an important enough right to enshrine in the Constitution, while religion was. It seems awfully inconsistent to take severe action against the former while doing nothing against the latter. Hell, we see 600 deaths a year from accidental firearms discharge. If we're banning all Muslims for 38 a year, can we ban all guns for fifteen times the lives saved? [/QUOTE] If we go back 15 years that average increases considerably. In going back 10 years you're not factoring in 9/11, which I daresay is rather important to this discussion.
[QUOTE=Durandal;49856376]So I guess they just gave her money for fun then????[/QUOTE] It's possible for an entity (person or corporation) to support a candidate without expecting special treatment, if they think it will benefit them as a side-effect of what they do in general. Consider an extreme hypothetical scenario. Candidate A is planning to cure cancer and solve world hunger. Candidate B is planning to nuke California because they're too uppity. Corporation X is headquartered in San Francisco, and makes "I Beat Cancer And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt" products. Even if they were forced to donate anonymously, with the candidates having no way to know who the donation came from and thus zero chance that Corporation X would get any special treatment because of this, would Corporation X have rational self-interest in donating to Candidate A? Of course they would. Now, I am not saying that nobody ever got special treatment because of campaign donations. This does pretty clearly happen, regularly. But simply being given money from someone does not in and of itself imply corruption. (In any case, doesn't Goldman Sachs give enough money to every candidate that they'll get special treatment no matter what? They have the money for it. Someone check to see if Sachs gave to anyone on the GOP side - I'm tired of being the fact-checker tonight.) [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Lurr;49856419]If we go back 15 years that average increases considerably. In going back 10 years you're not factoring in 9/11, which I daresay is rather important to this discussion.[/QUOTE] I did that rather deliberately, because it actually is [B]not[/B] relevant to this discussion. Your position is, if I understand it correctly, that our current security apparatus does not protect us sufficiently, and that the only solution is a blanket ban on Muslim travel into or through the United States. After 9/11, we massively reorganized our federal security organizations into one department, increased the firepower of every police force from the FBI HRT to Bumfuck County Sheriff's Department, and created the TSA. The environment the 9/11 attacks were carried out in is about as relevant as the postbellum South - which, if I really wanted to prove a point, I could count casualties back that far and find that white supremacist groups are ten times more deadly than Al Qaeda and ISIS combined.
Ugh can't believe I missed the torture discussion a few pages back.
[QUOTE=wystan;49856539]Ugh can't believe I missed the torture discussion a few pages back.[/QUOTE] Lets not go over it because you don't have anything to add, your original position was defeated logically even if you refuse to see that. Proof points that torture is ineffective, and that it creates the cycle that we are currently dealing with, and it's repeated use only fuels the other side to combat the other side. Stooping down to that level repeatedly has prolonged a war that you want to end and you refuse to see that. There is nothing for you to add. I'm not telling you not to post. I'm just telling you that you have nothing persuasive to say to anyone here because we've all seen the historical truth of the matter that you have refused to and have argued to end with genocide through a "Kill them until they stop"(which of course history shows us they won't) policy.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49856549]Lets not go over it because you don't have anything to add, your original position was defeated logically even if you refuse to see that. Proof points that torture is ineffective, and that it creates the cycle that we are currently dealing with, and it's repeated use only fuels the other side to combat the other side. Stooping down to that level repeatedly has prolonged a war that you want to end and you refuse to see that. There is nothing for you to add.[/QUOTE] I wasn't "defeated" just because you say so lmao, the smugness you people exude is so annoying. I still support torture, I don't care if it yields correct information all the time, I don't see the harm (pun intended) in trying though. Why should I show these people any decency when they won't do the same?
[QUOTE=wystan;49856559]I wasn't "defeated" just because you say so lmao. I still support torture, I don't care if it yields correct information all the time, I don't see the harm (pun intended) in trying though. Why should I show these people any decency when they won't do the same?[/QUOTE] Because history shows it just causes the cycle to continue. It does nothing. It doesn't help. See? You believe these things on principle, on motive, not fact, how is that in any way shape or form a place for a debate to occur? You are as set as stone because facts just simply don't matter. History. Context. All irrelavent. it's not that you were ""defeated" lmao", it's that you literally put yourself into a place where nothing matters because you made it meaningless and entirely about how you [B]feel[/B]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49856566]Because history shows it just causes the cycle to continue. It does nothing. It doesn't help. See? You believe these things on principle, on motive, not fact, how is that in any way shape or form a place for a debate to occur? You are as set as stone because facts just simply don't matter. History. Context. All irrelavent. it's not that you were ""defeated" lmao", it's that you literally put yourself into a place where nothing matters because you made it meaningless and entirely about how you [B]feel[/B][/QUOTE] That "because history" reason is such bullshit. You can make a war so costly on lives it makes people want to stop fighting, how we kill them doesn't bother me, and if pulling a few teeth or making people think they're drowning has even a CHANCE to save American lives, I'll take it.
[QUOTE=wystan;49856576]That "because history" reason is such bullshit. You can make a war so costly on lives it makes people want to stop fighting, how we kill them doesn't bother me, and if pulling a few teeth or making people think they're drowning has even a CHANCE to save American lives, I'll take it.[/QUOTE] except in the context of attempting to reason, use logic or cite facts, your feelings don't mean shit, and neither does what bothers you/what doesn't by extension [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] or within context of trying to remain objective for that matter
[QUOTE=wystan;49856576]That "because history" reason is such bullshit. You can make a war so costly on lives it makes people want to stop fighting, how we kill them doesn't bother me, and if pulling a few teeth or making people think they're drowning has even a CHANCE to save American lives, I'll take it.[/QUOTE] And this is where you should go read that giant post that was aimed at Fat White Lump that gman wrote and read it like you were the target because it's the same fucking deal man. You refuse to see this, but if you were born to a iraqi mother, raised there, saw your cities burnt to the ground, saw wars and combat first hand, and knew that there this was Americas fault, and you would torture and kill every last one of them. You would be ISIS. You would fit right in. You would use islam as a tool, as they do, to manipulate the weaker ones. You would use rhetoric, and emotion, as you have done in all your arguments. And you would kill people because you were so god damn fucking justified in doing so. As you are now. All it takes is a different birth place, and we have an ISIS militant in front of us.
[QUOTE=portalcrazy;49856592]except in the context of attempting to reason, use logic or cite facts, your feelings don't mean shit, and neither does what bothers you/what doesn't by extension [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] or within context of trying to remain objective for that matter[/QUOTE] Objectively what is the downside of torture? Why SHOULDN'T we take that chance for information, no shit it make be a false lead, but why not try? There has got to be a cheap efficient way to torture so it isn't expensive and a real drain on resources. Why should I care about these people's lives and feelings if they just want to kill me? [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49856609]And this is where you should go read that giant post that was aimed at Fat White Lump that gman wrote and read it like you were the target because it's the same fucking deal man. You refuse to see this, but if you were born to a iraqi mother, raised there, saw your cities burnt to the ground, saw wars and combat first hand, and knew that there this was Americas fault, and you would torture and kill every last one of them. You would be ISIS. You would fit right in. You would use islam as a tool, as they do, to manipulate the weaker ones. You would use rhetoric, and emotion, as you have done in all your arguments. And you would kill people because you were so god damn fucking justified in doing so. As you are now. All it takes is a different birth place, and we have an ISIS militant in front of us.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to kill those who disagree with me or live a different lifestyle or follow a different religion, stop comparing me to them.
Wystan, are you [I]really[/I] going to do this whole song and dance again? [I]really?[/I] All you're going to do is make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you know that, right?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.