Comments on: Barack Obama Quote

By: natedog

natedog — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:44:32 +0000

HA! 69, dude!

http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/essays/images/BillTed3.jpg

By: Snow

Snow — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:10:23 +0000

you know whats really funny people bitch and itch on about politics on this site never realising the real culprit … tiki … he has put up this quote sat back and watched as all of u got a beach of sand in your vaginas all the while screaming yes yes FIGHT fight for my amusement. you got us you sneaky drunk.

By: knogoodidleft

knogoodidleft — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:10:42 +0000

cause they got nothing else to do.

By: Mayy

Mayy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:09:10 +0000

Why so serious?

By: mAgnUS BUTTfoorson

mAgnUS BUTTfoorson — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:50:07 +0000

The North American Union will save us all!
.
Or at least be interesting. I’m all for it because I like to shit get fucked. And I like swearing.
.
This thread has too much thought in it and not enough stupid. Thank the good lord for me.
.
Oh and I love America. Canada is like a feminine guy who stands there content in his own mediocrity and never really saying anything of any actual consequence. We just want you to like us.

By: Caio

Caio — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:40:35 +0000

Oh, really? I’m guessing you haven’t been to any other countries. Just using my own personal experience: I’m from Brazil, but have lived in the US (where I’m technically a citizen), Canada and Portugal. I can tell you, the kind of poverty that is present in Ohio, Oakland, half of SF, SoCal, Florida: It just doesn’t exist in the Eurozone (save a few towns in south Italy, maybe, and the outskirts of Paris) and is rare in Canada. However vibrant your economy is, the end stretch of impovershed factory towns, and the Ghetto-metropolises you have have more to do with South America than a Developed Nation. However vibrant your economy is on paper, in reality, there are a disturbing number of Americans who don’t reap its rewards.
.
I was careful to use the phrase ‘informal empire’. I find the EU to be quite formalized in their Empire building, and anything resembling a satellite state (Norway, Switzerland, a few African countries) is a major controversy over there. Power-sharing is the name of the game.
.
Lastly, you are right about bullshit election promises. There’s no way any of these candidates would every pull out of Iraq within the last few years unless their crazy. I was reading an article on the logistics and cost of pulling out of Iraq, and it would be near impossible. While I do want to see America out of Iraq eventually, an immediate withdrawl would do financial harm to the states, and probably fuck up Iraq even more. None of these candidates have the balls to even try, once in office.

By: Ren

Ren — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:39:33 +0000

With all the military talk, I thought I’d post a quote from an article I read on Forbes.com. It stated that Congressman Ron Paul has received MORE military contributions than the other three Republican candidates COMBINED. Shouldn’t that tell you something?

By: schulzbrianr

schulzbrianr — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:05:19 +0000

Europe isn’t a country, it’s a geographical location full of countries. And, isn’t the European Union an empire of sorts? And, the US is in no way a third world nation in any reality. Good luck on that tho.

By: Caio

Caio — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:42:45 +0000

You know, there have been, like, three ‘go to Canada’ posts here. These aren’t the days of Trudeau, man. It would be overly-optimistic to say ’51st State’ at this point, as being a state would give us some kind of representation. Martin turned us into a fucking vassal, and Harper has been seriously considering downgrading that to ‘bantustan’.
.
Smart money is on Europe. Not only are they the only ones asside from China and Russia with the clout not to be made part of some informal empire. Plus, the emphasis on long term economic planning means there’s a hell of a lot less of a chance that it’ll all collapse, which could happen to the US at any time. Which means the US will be a third-world nation on paper as well as in reality.

By: BALLSINYOURJAWS

BALLSINYOURJAWS — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:29:10 +0000

Magnus:
Yeah, no one will ever hold hands and sing the sound of music and shit, that I can agree with. Iraq and Iran arent the only countries that hate America thats for sure.

By: imandynan0

imandynan0 — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:17:31 +0000

I wish that there were simpler times, so I could go back and live there. Stuff has just been messed up forever… I mean, look at the Gilded Age, it would suck for me in the 50’s (as I have a vag), and the Industrial Revolution. America’s never really been isolationist- it should start NOW.

By: mAgnUS BUTTfoorson

mAgnUS BUTTfoorson — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:15:58 +0000

He forgot to mention both Jesus and the children.
PS: Iran and Iraq hated America long before Bush got voted in.
.
This guy seems to have all the answers a certain demographic in America wants to hear doesn’t he? What a good little politician. I think we should trust him….OHNO!!!!!!!!!!

By: schulzbrianr

schulzbrianr — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:53:40 +0000

Yeah, again, I wish we could go back to simpler times (the early colonial days, the 50s, whatever) when we didn’t have to worry about being blown up by psychos, and, yes, we have huge problems in this country, but unfortunately, there are bad people in the world who want to do bad things to good people, so we need to stay on top of that while at the same time trying to do better here. To quote one of my favorite films “Troy” (damn, I can’t find it on IMDB, gonna have to paraphrase and hope I’m close) “I promise you, there will always be another war” so, good luck on there BEING an end to this war shit, but, hopefully we can get enough help from other nations who want to exist peacefully to take a portion of the burden off of our backs so we can concentrate on homegrown issues.

By: BALLSINYOURJAWS

BALLSINYOURJAWS — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:24:34 +0000

schulzbrianr: I see your point and commend you for serving your country. I guess my biggest gripe is that since before I can remember we (USA) have concerned ourselves with things that we just cant control. I think we can control what goes on right here on American soil. I think we could blow up anyone we wanted. But I truly think that after all this war shit is over we need to take a break from everyone else’s problems, and fix things here at home. I know, I know, there are too many people in bed with each other at the top of the food chain ( i.e. big oil, int’l oil ), but we are the voters. In the end, whatever downfall is lined up for this nation is our own fault. Mine and yours included. Just my little pipe dream……..

By: schulzbrianr

schulzbrianr — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:41:53 +0000

Hrmm, I have 3000 people in New York who argue that someone was/is a threat.

By: Smedlorificus

Smedlorificus — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:38:53 +0000

America would be better off if it went back to being isolationist, like it was before world war one. They’re rich enough and have lots of mineral and other resources, so they have no real reason I can see to keep messing with the rest of the world. I don’t see why they don’t just pull their troops out of everywhere. The cold war is over, so no-one is a significant threat to them anymore.

By: imandynan0

imandynan0 — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:32:25 +0000

First off, I’m not here to agree with, or disagree with anyone. I don’t feel like getting bogged down in arguments on this site, too. I just have one problem with a statistic/fact that keeps popping up every few comments.

“More troops have been killed in Iraq than in 9/11!!!!1!!!!!111!”

Well, no shit. There weren’t troops killed in 9/11. Those were civilians, dumbasses. Those in the armed forces (I know plenty who are proud to serve) signed up to go and fight our enemies. The people who lost their lives in the World Trade Center did not.

There is no POSSIBLE way comparing the amount of lives lost in Iraq to those in the 9/11 attacks makes sense, because 9/11 was not an act of war- it was an act of terrorism.

By: BALLSINYOURJAWS

BALLSINYOURJAWS — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:00:02 +0000

I had a typo: the president WOULDNT allow his sons to go to war.

By: Gunface01

Gunface01 — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:42:28 +0000

POLITICS LOL

By: schulzbrianr

schulzbrianr — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:32:38 +0000

I worried about getting blown up while I go about my day the 6 months I spent in Iraq. I had two close calls (while I was on base, a mortar went off less than a football field away, or went overhead and we never heard it detonate) that made me quite fearful, but I wanted nothing more than to spend more time there, doing something good. Yes, troops have families. But those families don’t go to war.

I agree my logic isn’t always consistent. Oh well, I live with it. I’m sorry that criminals are always active. But at least here you can have a gun to defend yourself, or some other means against someone who wants to directly confront you. A bomb is an indirect weapon, something you can’t really fight, like ghosts, or phantoms, they aren’t really physical. If someone comes up to you and sticks a knife/gun in your face, and demands your wallet, you can give it to them, shoot them, or whatever. If someone runs up to you and detonates a bomb, there is pretty much nothing you can do. I prefer keeping those kinds of people out of this country (America) and killing them whenever possible.
reboot:
Fine, citizens of any country get rights. What about people who are members of a terrorist organization? They abuse the rights we give to everyone inherently, and laugh at our laws that treat everyone as equals. So fuck them if they can’t take the joke. I’m the furthest thing from anti-American there is. I am anti-criminal. I want people to be able to live without fear (the possibility) of being victimized. That means that innocent people are protected, because certain people are out there hunting criminals, people who commit crimes, or are about to commit a crime, based on deductive reasoning from past actions.
natedog:
I can’t argue with you any more, because you seem to think that the fact we have a constitution protecting everyone means that everyone should be afforded those rights. I say no, that people should be treated the way they treat others. Same thing goes:
What about people who are members of a terrorist organization? They abuse the rights we give to everyone inherently, and laugh at our laws that treat everyone as equals. So fuck them if they can’t take the joke.

How’s this for an example for why we went to war with Iraq. Next time you play “Command & Conquer” tell me how you win. Do you parachute all of your troops directly into the enemies base (tell me how many casualties you have in order to successfully destroy the base), or do you build a strong base nearby, fortify an army, and then go in in force. We will do the same thing there (Iraq/Middle East), I expect. Strong forces in Iraq, and then branch out to neighboring countries. If you are ever declared an enemy combatant without cause, get a lawyer, prove your case, and then sue, because you seem to think that the president will randomly declare YOU an enemy combatant for some reason. I maintain that I have nothing to hide, so I have no fear of the government. Also, I think your capslock button is broken.

By: BALLSINYOURJAWS

BALLSINYOURJAWS — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:13:46 +0000

schulzbrianr:

“Yeah, troops. Not innocent civilians. Troops risk (and give up) their lives so that innocent people donâ€™t have to worry about being blown up while they are going about their day. Youâ€™re welcome.”

My only question for you is, since when have you ever worried about getting blown up while going about your day? I don’t feel safe because of the military, I feel safe because whey worry, if its your time, it’s your time. I veered off there, but my point is that I grew up in a ice suburb ($400k plus homes throughout), and due to the fact that on three separate occasions in 18 years, someone was stabbed or shot to death in that neighborhood, growing up I was more afraid of someone locally killing me than I was with some terrorist. Sure the military is great, but sending people off to war on the fantasy that it will stop terrorism? Not so smart. Sure the troops sign up knowing they may risk their lives but I guarantee the president would allow his sons to got o war if he had any. In fact Im relieved there arent any Bush males to keep that legacy going. You also said troops and not innocent civilians. What is that supposed to mean? Troops have families just like any of us. In some respects you have interesting points, but Im really confused by your logic.

By: tiki god

tiki god — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:04:24 +0000

Right on! Yeah!

By: BALLSINYOURJAWS

BALLSINYOURJAWS — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:00:04 +0000

Politics no matter where you are seems as though they are the lesser of two evils. Sure, terrorism is obviously bad. However, you cant stop terrorism. There is no “setting the stage” “or making an example.” Thats the whole idea of terrorism. Terror, catching people by surprise. Aside from thinking that GW isnt the wisest of presidents, I pretty much stay away from politics (except for voting), but he made it clear what his agenda was (more defense spending, further deepening the economy’s black hole of a deficit) when he used fear to get re-elected. No offense to Canadians, but what the fuck? Since when has our economy been so bad that things cost more in Canada! Answer:?since the GWB lol. Folks, I may not a patriot such as you, but I love being an American and being in the USA, however you have to give it to Canada as well as some other countries. Why you ask? Well Canada doesnt need to spend ridiculous billions on wars and defense, because they know that there will always be a cowboy-style president in the states that will protect them. Therefore, they can spend money on CRAZY stuff like national health care, etc. Other countries can also sit back sipping on their drink of choice because they know the same thing. Its really bad when the coolest country in the world allows itself to operate like this. There’s no reason why America cant have its cake and eat it too. You cant solve every problem, but what we need to do is handle our affairs stateside, build up our economy, take care of Americans, then go from there. Thats just my two cents.

By: natedog

natedog — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:59:20 +0000

and as to the whole point about how we have less freedom now, the simple fact of the matter is that the more laws you have, the less freedom you have.

the constitution was not written to restrain the people, but to restrain the government and limit its power. just read the 9th amendment, which i post here in its entirety:

Ninth Amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

or read the first paragraphs to the Declaration of Independence:

“IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â€” That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. â€” Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

By: natedog

natedog — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:50:55 +0000

schulz, you are a fucking retard.

its called checks and balances. it’s called due process. and you are not a criminal until you have been convicted. until you are convicted, you have rights.

you are not deemed an unlawful enemy combatant after a hearing, dick. the president just decides you’re a scumbag, and you lose. you dont even get to ask why they arrested you.

and i am citing myself. if I get deemed an enemy combatant, i get fucked. it could happen today. to you or me or any other american.

THE FUCKING TERRORISTS THAT ATTACKED US WERE FROM SAUDI ARABIA!!!

WE JUST SOLD THE SAUDIS $20BILLION IN WEAPONS!!

AND WE INVADED IRAQ, WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 OR AL-QAIDA UNTIL WE WENT OVER THERE.

BUSH AND HIS BITCHES LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 935 DOCUMENTED TIMES BETWEEN 9/11 AND THE START OF THE IRAQ WAR.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

THEY LIED US INTO A WAR THAT HAS KILLED MORE AMERICANS THAN 9/11 DID.

HEAR THE LIES FROM THEIR OWN FUCKING MOUTHS HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?

WE ARE NOT SAFER. WE JUST HAVE LESS FREEDOM NOW.