Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 17, 2014, 10:27:07 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 409
26  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Kalwejt on: March 24, 2014, 11:30:34 pm
Pompous at times, but I would say FF.
27  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Phelps vs. Thatcher vs. Bin Laden on: March 24, 2014, 11:13:33 pm
Of the three on this list, only two openly preached hate.  Neither Fred Phelps nor Margaret Thatcher personally murdered anyone.  Bin Laden is definitely the worst of the three. I'm not going to sugarcoat this and say Phelps never actually harmed anyone, though.  No.  He harmed many people.  Thatcher - well, you can disagree with the way she ran her government, sure, but she didn't lay the foundation for what only can be compared to Klan rallies nor did she order her people to fly planes into buildings.  Love her or hate her, her intentions were nothing like those of the other two.

I voted Thatcher.

While Phelps did rob people of their life's earnings in several lawsuits, I think it's insane to suggest that he harmed "many" people.  Especially compared to Maggie Thatcher, whose policies destroyed entire communities.

He harmed people emotionally.  He kicked people when they were already on the ground, and he did it with full knowledge of his crimes and he did it because he wanted them to feel pain.  Thatcher's policies were destructive, but I don't think her intentions can be compared to those of Phelps.  Do you really think that a country under the power of Fred Phelps would be less bad than Thatcher's Britain?

How DARE you even put Thatcher Phelps in with those others.



Fixed

Phelps was by far the least destructive of the three.

Well, if you admire Fred Phelps so much, the leader of an extremist hate group, that's up to you.

Well if you admire Maggie Thatcher, the leader of the Conservative Party of Great Britain that put into place policies that destroyed industries in the North of England, buddied up with Reagan's world policeman mentality, violently opposed to the Irish Republican movement (because how dare Catholics in Ulster think they have Civil Rights?) and play a hand in extending violence in the North for a decade longer than it would've otherwise lasted, demolishing social conditions in the country, and ushering in the war against worker's rights and unfettered endorsements of finance capital, then that's up to you.

I for one, would take a loudmouth homophobe who had no real influence outside of the hundred or so crazies who were in his congregation.  Any day of the week.

Well, Mr. Flawless, anyone who can serve as Prime Minister for 11 consecutive years, winning three straight majority election mandates from the people must be doing something right.

That's, uh, some interesting logic there...

Thank you for agreeing with my logic.

After all, if this leader was so horrible, there is no way they would be receiving such massive public support from the people in a truly democratic election.
28  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Phelps vs. Thatcher vs. Bin Laden on: March 24, 2014, 11:07:22 pm
The only thing this poll and commentary show is the extreme leftist bias of this forum.
29  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Ronald Reagan on: March 24, 2014, 11:04:33 pm
The only thing this poll and commentary show is the extreme leftist bias on this forum.
30  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Ronald Reagan on: March 24, 2014, 09:36:31 pm
Anyone who wins 49 out of 50 states in a Presidential election, and 59% of the popular vote, obviously a massive Freedom Fighter.
putin won every province of russia and 64% of the popular vote in 2012, so by your logic he's an even bigger freedom fighter.

Only a completely uninformed individual would compare a Russian election with a U.S. election.
31  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Phelps vs. Thatcher vs. Bin Laden on: March 23, 2014, 10:53:36 pm
How DARE you even put Thatcher Phelps in with those others.



Fixed

Phelps was by far the least destructive of the three.

Well, if you admire Fred Phelps so much, the leader of an extremist hate group, that's up to you.

Well if you admire Maggie Thatcher, the leader of the Conservative Party of Great Britain that put into place policies that destroyed industries in the North of England, buddied up with Reagan's world policeman mentality, violently opposed to the Irish Republican movement (because how dare Catholics in Ulster think they have Civil Rights?) and play a hand in extending violence in the North for a decade longer than it would've otherwise lasted, demolishing social conditions in the country, and ushering in the war against worker's rights and unfettered endorsements of finance capital, then that's up to you.

I for one, would take a loudmouth homophobe who had no real influence outside of the hundred or so crazies who were in his congregation.  Any day of the week.

Well, Mr. Flawless, anyone who can serve as Prime Minister for 11 consecutive years, winning three straight majority election mandates from the people must be doing something right.
32  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Phelps vs. Thatcher vs. Bin Laden on: March 23, 2014, 10:41:54 pm
How DARE you even put Thatcher in with those others.

She was a great Prime Minister and world leader.

You have got be joking. Oh, I looked at your sig and realized your whole persona is a joke. Next.

Oh, we have a little Mr. Smart Pants here I see.  
33  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Ronald Reagan on: March 23, 2014, 10:28:39 pm
Anyone who wins 49 out of 50 states in a Presidential election, obviously a massive Freedom Fighter.
34  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Phelps vs. Thatcher vs. Bin Laden on: March 23, 2014, 10:24:26 pm
How DARE you even put Thatcher Phelps in with those others.



Fixed

Phelps was by far the least destructive of the three.

Well, if you admire Fred Phelps so much, the leader of an extremist hate group, that's up to you.
35  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Phelps vs. Thatcher vs. Bin Laden on: March 23, 2014, 10:12:48 pm
How DARE you even put Thatcher in with those others.

She was a great Prime Minister and world leader.
36  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Hypothetical Richard Nixon Impeachment, 1974 on: March 23, 2014, 09:59:44 pm
Given the sheer volume of the overwhelming irrefutable evidence against the President

Aye (R)
37  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: You are U.S. President and must nominate a new CIA Director.......... on: March 23, 2014, 09:50:33 pm
Well, I can see no one is taking my question seriously.

I look for someone in the Defense or Intelligence communities who has a long career in Defense or Intelligence, who is familiar with Capitol Hill and has good relations with Congress, and also whose personality and political affiliations I find agreeable or at least not too partisan.

Probably not an Admiral or General or any other career military officer, but instead someone who has held a civilian position with significant authority in the Department of Defense. Based on that I go with R. James Woolsey or Joe Lieberman.

Excellent answer.  This is exactly the kind of response I have been looking for, one that explains the type of individual you would pick and why.  Thank you very much.
38  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who is the #2 President in U.S. history? on: March 23, 2014, 09:44:10 pm
Of these three

1.  Abraham Lincoln
2.  George Washington
3.  Franklin Roosevelt
39  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Santorum's first movie premieres in a few minutes on: March 23, 2014, 09:31:09 pm
Congrats, Phil.

The Winfield legacy lives on.
40  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Northeast Voting Booth: Amendment to Article V on: March 22, 2014, 09:23:18 pm
Aye
41  Questions and Answers / Presidential Election Process / What if in the 2016 primaries.......... on: March 21, 2014, 08:30:43 pm
..........nobody casts a ballot in the Democratic or Republican primary elections?

Obviously would never happen

BUT IF IT DID

Would either party legally have a Presidential candidate?

Following such a scenario, how would the parties then choose their Presidential candidates?

Please discuss.

 
42  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: You are U.S. President and must nominate a new CIA Director.......... on: March 21, 2014, 08:21:36 pm
Well, I can see no one is taking my question seriously.
43  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: You are U.S. President and must nominate a new CIA Director.......... on: March 21, 2014, 07:32:33 pm
If I had to nominate *someone* I would nominate someone totally opposed to the entire mission of the CIA.

Do you not believe, however, that the CIA does serve some useful purposes?
44  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: You are U.S. President and must nominate a new CIA Director.......... on: March 20, 2014, 11:17:29 pm
Thank you all for your answers.  Very interesting.

However, I must have worded this poorly.

My intent is not to ascertain the name of someone you would pick for CIA Director, but rather from what background you would nominate someone, say someone from the military, such as an Admiral of a General, or say one of the Deputy Directors, or someone with a political background, such as a Senator, or someone with a diplomatic background, or someone with some different qualifications and background, and your reasons, if you wish to explain, for choosing them.   

E.G., one answer might be.....I would pick an Admiral because of their military knowledge and leadership qualifications.....etc., etc.

Sorry for the confusion.
45  General Politics / Individual Politics / You are U.S. President and must nominate a new CIA Director.......... on: March 20, 2014, 09:28:16 pm
Do you pick a military officer like an Admiral or General?

Or

Do you pick one of the Deputy Directors?

Or

Someone else?

Please discuss. 
46  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages? on: March 20, 2014, 08:49:13 pm

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

Methinks Mr. Scott has been in the political game too long.  He has become quite proficient at twisting, exaggerating, embellishing, putting his own spin on what others say.

But then again, this is exactly what I would expect from a radical leftist like Mr. Scott, to denigrate and trivialize a marriage between one man and one woman of legal age.

No need to be a condescending little twat when your narrow views of marriage are put into question.  But then you wouldn't be being yourself, now would you?

Oh Mr. Scott, you are soooooooooo predictable.

Hurling personal insults, so unbecoming, and then followed up by throwing a hissy fit, so very immature.

But, whatever.
47  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages? on: March 20, 2014, 08:14:29 pm

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

Methinks Mr. Scott has been in the political game too long.  He has become quite proficient at twisting, exaggerating, embellishing, putting his own spin on what others say.

But then again, this is exactly what I would expect from a radical leftist like Mr. Scott, to denigrate and trivialize a marriage between one man and one woman of legal age.
48  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages? on: March 19, 2014, 10:55:37 pm
I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

I wouldn't really call it discrimination. A standard marriage is basically a contact between two people, while a group marriage is a similar contract involving a larger number of people, so it requires different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, what you are saying, is that group marriages have a different set of standards than other marriages, as it requires, in your words, a different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, by this logic, group marriages are not treated the same as other marriages, as they require a different set of rules and regulations, your words.   
49  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages? on: March 19, 2014, 10:45:01 pm
I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.
People can still enter into a group marriage without a prenuptial agreement. A prenup is only required if they want their marriage to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes.

But your above statement, bolded, does not say that, simply those wishing to enter into group marriages.  It does not specify any particular type of group marriage.  

But thank you for the clarification.

However, I assume you would not have other types of marriages who want their marriage to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes, sign a prenup.  If this is the case, then this would still be a different set of standards for group marriages than for other marriages when it comes to those wanting their marriages to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes.  
50  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages? on: March 19, 2014, 10:15:21 pm
I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 409


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines