[Merged] 2004 US Presidential Election

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Goes to show how far to the right the US has gone if it regards someone like Kerry Clinton or Edwards as being extreme left.

No, it shows how far we have drifted to the left to have such nutbars in our mist. Come on. You're absolutely not going to tell me we're more to the right from 1776.

Kinda makes me sick that it seems to be a crime to be 'liberal' now -

The modern day liberal yes. We're not talking about the classical liberal though.

suppose people should shut up about personal freedom, etc,

Which is why liberals are such huge fans of the personal freedom to own firearms, and why they protect the Second Amendment with such zeal. Because we know that Democrats are always there to protect personal freedoms. That is why Kerry voted for the Patriot Act.

[Ignition]

I have no idea what state the US was in in 1776 - maybe I just see things more clearly. Fact you call these people nutbars says pretty clearly where you are.

Owning firearms isn't a personal freedom, it's a gross violation of other people's freedom to live in my opinion. The right to bear arms was conceived to allow the people to form a militia when they needed to defend themselves, not so that people could buy fully automatic weapons in lieu of having a penis. Your apparent excitement at possibility of being allowed to own fully automatic weapons is far more nutbar behaviour to be honest.

Frankly the attitude that everyone should have a gun has no place in modern society and is the reason why hundreds of people are killed by guns in the US each and every day,

I nearly moved to the US lol don't think I'd fit in right now though

[Jerrek]

So you only protect the personal freedoms you like?

That is the left!

And I really don't want you to move to the United States. We've got enough liberals and should start exporting them.

I have no idea what state the US was in in 1776 - maybe I just see things more clearly

Right, so you have NO IDEA what the state of the U.S. was in 1776, but you see things more clearly.

Yes.

I can see that.

Honest.




.
.
.
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[Russ]

I still can't see why we seem to be so bothered over this - America will continue to be the world bully no matter who sits in charge

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I still can't see why we seem to be so bothered over this - America will continue to be the world bully no matter who sits in charge

True, and jerrek will still be overcompensating for not being a real american.

Jerrek:

1) Why should you allow people to carry automatic arms? What on earth is this going to achive? You already have soaring gun crime and making more powerful weapons avaible is stupid?

2) You said that it is up to state goverment for education. Isn't the idea of giving more power to indivdual states rather than central goverment historically a Democratic idea.?

3) Why are the left 'nastys' and what is wrong with clinton who did a lot under this two terms and so on? While George W Bush has made america unpopluar and taken you into a war for which there was no need? I support the removal of saddam and still support the war. But Blair had to force G.W Bush to even try to go though the United Nation, if it was up to bush he would have gone in right away.

The fact is though the Iraq war will cause more Terrorism, not less

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Right, so you have NO IDEA what the state of the U.S. was in 1776, but you see things more clearly.

Yes.

I can see that.

Honest.

Ah on hindsight it probably wasn't too different from the UK in being massively right to say the least, as indeed most of the rest of the world was. An expert on US history I am not, although I have a general outline of it, although the relevance of politics 200 years ago confuses me.

Obviously you'd rather that we were all back there, and that these disgusting modern phenomenons of liberalism and socialism should be gotten rid of as they are inconvenient to the 'elite' who want the right to make money regardless of who gets hurt in the process, carry lethal weapons whose sole purpose is either as penis enlarger or to kill, abuse the rest of the world, get rid of these nasty taxes that rob them of their money to help those genuinely in strife.

A good part of the rest of the world has moved on in 200 years, shame your belief system and apparently that of the US hasn't.

They still forcing the teaching of creationism and refusing / making it an offense to teach evolutionism in parts of the greatest most forward thinking shining example of democracy and freedom in the world? In between making their citizens the most spied upon by their own Government in the Western world of course (with the possible exception of the UK!).

Originally Posted by Damien

2) You said that it is up to state goverment for education. Isn't the idea of giving more power to indivdual states rather than central goverment historically a Democratic idea.?

Conversely, the right to bear arms, organised militia, blah blah stuff in the constitution was originally intended to prevent the government having a permanent army, for there to be a body of men who could be called upon to defend the country if necessary. Why is ok for there to be federal aspects to the Army, when in fact the constitution argues against the need for a federal army?

Ummmm....could you re-write that? I was talking about the comment Jerrek made about educations being decided by each indivdual state and pointing out that for a far right person to support this is odd as it was one of the main points when the Democratic party was set up

I meant Power in terms of goverment, not army/weapons

Ah, I was kind of riding off the answer that Jerrek gave to you an which is more important, spending on education or spending on war, with Jerrek arguing that it isn`t for federal government to be spending on education as his response to you. I was merely highlighting the fact that the constitution was created with the intention that there wouldn't be big Federal spending on army. It was from back down the thread a bit and I didn`t get to reply earlier, I just replied to yours as it was a convenient springboard.

Oh right, Well hopefully he will be on soon to answer my questions which are:

1) Why should you allow people to carry automatic arms? What on earth is this going to achive? You already have soaring gun crime and making more powerful weapons avaible is stupid?

2) You said that it is up to state goverment for education. Isn't the idea of giving more power to indivdual states rather than central goverment historically a Democratic idea.?

3) Why are the left 'nastys' and what is wrong with clinton who did a lot under this two terms and so on? While George W Bush has made america unpopluar and taken you into a war for which there was no need? I support the removal of saddam and still support the war. But Blair had to force G.W Bush to even try to go though the United Nation, if it was up to bush he would have gone in right away.

New Question:

4) Since the fact that arms are protected by the constitution, then why spend so much money on a government controlled army which goes against the constitution

lucky for bush he has Fox news on side

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/real/0...981:300,00.ram

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Damien

1) Why should you allow people to carry automatic arms? What on earth is this going to achive? You already have soaring gun crime and making more powerful weapons avaible is stupid?

Lets not drag this into a gun debate. Guns don't cause crime anymore than games cause crime. See this thread: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=15505 Individuals make a decision to commit a crime. A gun can assist, but so can a knife or a baseball bat.

Likewise I can also ask: why should you allow people to [do this] or [do that] or [own this]?

I will tell you why. Our fundamental belief is freedom and liberty. That is why.

2) You said that it is up to state goverment for education. Isn't the idea of giving more power to indivdual states rather than central goverment historically a Democratic idea.?

No it isn't. Democrats tend to favor a centralized government.

Back to the original argument, yes: no federal funds should be spent on education. It is the jurisdiction and responsibility of the States.

3) Why are the left 'nastys' and what is wrong with clinton who did a lot under this two terms and so on?

That is a very, very loaded question, quote beyond the scope of the threat. If you do look for an answer, I could summarize what I believe and what reasoning is used.

Let us just say that the fundamental difference, to me, between the classic left and classic right is altruism. The left tend to be altruistic. I'm not.

While George W Bush has made america unpopluar and taken you into a war for which there was no need?

The popularity concept is quite unimportant to me. I do not care what people think of me. Neither do I really care what people think of my country. Someone once said: a leader is a person who doesn't care what people think of him.

I don't want to live in 90% of the world because the conditions and environment is appalling. Why should it bother me if they dislike me? Obviously we're doing something right and they are doing something wrong, and if they dislike me for that, who cares?

This is not a popularity contest.

I support the removal of saddam and still support the war. But Blair had to force G.W Bush to even try to go though the United Nation, if it was up to bush he would have gone in right away.

Yes. The United Nations are quite irrelevant and unimportant. Honestly, did it make a difference?

[Chris P Bitz]

That last line unintentionally says more about America than you realise!

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Damien

lucky for bush he has Fox news on side

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/real/0...981:300,00.ram

Is there a problem with what aired on television? Something that the people shouldn't know?

*shrug* Lucky for Kerry he has CNN, New York Times, and the vast majority of the media on his side.