• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you enjoy bull**** ?

Do You Enjoy being fed Bull**** ?

  • yes i love it

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • no

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • Total voters
    19
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Virtually everything that you eat was GM. You aren't typing this from an isolated hunter-gatherer tribe in New Guinea, are you?
Click to expand...

However not everything was specifically engineered by scientists in the same way. GM foods are the epitome of human hubris, we take something that has taken millenia to develop and very quickly meddle with it when we even admit we don't know far from everything about genetics.

Now I don't know much about direct negative effects but the ecological damage such could do is obviously immense.
 
GySgt said:
Most people choose to go to Organic food stores if they so desire. That would be that freedom thing you just tried to whine about not having.
Click to expand...

the way organic foods are certified changes all the time. i don't bother to keep track of the changes so i don't know whether GM foods can get certified as organic or not.
 
NEUROSPORT said:
fair enough. but what PRECISELY is it about our handling of Iraq that OBL was protesting against ? i am sure it wasn't our unwillingness to invade it ...
Click to expand...

Didn't you just tell Kandahar to use google because you are not his slave?

I'm better than this though.

OBL protested the "starving children of Iraq." He protested our presence in the region (especially Saudi Arabia), which escallated every time Hussein played his games. He protested many things, most of which were entirely exaggerated. But let's look at Hussein....

1) He invaded two neighboring countries and threatened stability in the oil rich region.

2) He continuously threatened his neighbors even as late as 2002 when he flew military jets over Saudi and Jordanian air space.

3) He defied the UN over and over again and kicked inspectors out repeatedly, which gave him the reputation that he can do anything and not even the U.S. could do anything about it.

4) He caused mass humanitarian crisis' within his borders before and long after the Gulf War causing us to either enter the country for humanitarian reasons or merely watch as if his "soveriegnty" mattered more than anything.

This was not a man to be simply left alone in a region where the entire world needs stability. And he was not a man we should have left in power causing us to dig deeper and deeper into the mess over the twelve years prior to 2003. You care about your fuel, but can't fathom the instability that would have come with Saddam Hussein freed in the region? Doing nothing was not an option.

Our greatest trades and business ties are with democratic nations. Our worst are with what we see in the Middle East. If we are to truly rid ourselves of the "excuses" that mad men look for to murder Americans then we have to address this region in which we are attached to. A democratic Iraq is quite possibly the last hope for this region to move forward beyond what it is today. The alternative is to watch a radical religiously fueled nuclear Middle East rise.

And what will that do to your gas prices? Instead of complaining about the smaller wars, maybe you should imagine the much larger ones we are trying to prevent. Just like we have done since WWII. Only now in the post Cold War we have the luxury of not enlisting dictators and religious monsters that will merely stab us in the back later.
 
GySgt said:
So...you are concerned about what steroid or other substance may be in your food, but drug out and use steroids anyway? Oh the freedom to choose...do I shoot up or do I just ingest my steroids.

Like I stated, you don't know what you stand for. You are just complaining about nothing and swerving no purpose.
Click to expand...

just because you know what you stand for doesn't mean you're right.

i would rather be right and doubt myself than be wrong and dead certain.
 
Last edited:
NEUROSPORT said:
just because you know what you stand for doesn't mean you're right.

i prefer to stay open minded and intellectually flexible.

i would rather be right and doubt myself than be wrong and dead certain.
Click to expand...

No, you prefer to complain about everything, make no real decisions, blame someone else for not telling you what you need to know, and then hypocrit out anyway.

1) Complaining about what in your food may be harmful to your body, but happily acknowledging drug use?

2) Complaining about Iraq not being about oil, but complaining that we supported Hussein in the 80s even though it was about preserving oil production stability?

I think you can be certain that you don't know what you believe in and are easily swayed from one headline to the next.
 
NEUROSPORT said:
i have never bothered to look for the evidence, but i encourage you to do so and report back your findings to us.
Click to expand...

In other words, everything you said about there being studies that proved genetically modified foods were unhealthy was, in fact, total bull****.
 
GySgt said:
Didn't you just tell Kandahar to use google because you are not his slave?

I'm better than this though.

OBL protested the "starving children of Iraq." He protested our presence in the region (especially Saudi Arabia), which escallated every time Hussein played his games. He protested many things, most of which were entirely exaggerated. But let's look at Hussein....

1) He invaded two neighboring countries and threatened stability in the oil rich region.

2) He continuously threatened his neighbors even as late as 2002 when he flew military jets over Saudi and Jordanian air space.

3) He defied the UN over and over again and kicked inspectors out repeatedly, which gave him the reputation that he can do anything and not even the U.S. could do anything about it.

4) He caused mass humanitarian crisis' within his borders before and long after the Gulf War causing us to either enter the country for humanitarian reasons or merely watch as if his "soveriegnty" mattered more than anything.

This was not a man to be simply left alone in a region where the entire world needs stability. And he was not a man we should have left in power causing us to dig deeper and deeper into the mess over the twelve years prior to 2003. You care about your fuel, but can't fathom the instability that would have come with Saddam Hussein freed in the region? Doing nothing was not an option.

Our greatest trades and business ties are with democratic nations. Our worst are with what we see in the Middle East. If we are to truly rid ourselves of the "excuses" that mad men look for to murder Americans then we have to address this region in which we are attached to. A democratic Iraq is quite possibly the last hope for this region to move forward beyond what it is today. The alternative is to watch a radical religiously fueled nuclear Middle East rise.

And what will that do to your gas prices? Instead of complaining about the smaller wars, maybe you should imagine the much larger ones we are trying to prevent. Just like we have done since WWII. Only now in the post Cold War we have the luxury of not enlisting dictators and religious monsters that will merely stab us in the back later.
Click to expand...

stop playing dumb. all we had to do is leave the region ( not Iraq, but ALL of middle east ) and OBL would be more than happy.

now just the war in Iraq cost us a trillion or more. add to that the first gulf war, afghanistan, the military presence in Saudi Arabia, the military and other aid to Israel - that is a ****load of money !

if we simply took all that money and invested it into alternative sources of energy as well as energy efficient technologies we would be economically ahead of every other nation right now instead of being on the brink of bankruptcy.
 
GySgt said:
No, you prefer to complain about everything, make no real decisions, blame someone else for not telling you what you need to know, and then hypocrit out anyway.

1) Complaining about what in your food may be harmful to your body, but happily acknowledging drug use?

2) Complaining about Iraq not being about oil, but complaining that we supported Hussein in the 80s even though it was about preserving oil production stability?

I think you can be certain that you don't know what you believe in and are easily swayed from one headline to the next.
Click to expand...

i believe in individual freedom, free market economy, free trade and small government.
 
Kandahar said:
In other words, everything you said about there being studies that proved genetically modified foods were unhealthy was, in fact, total bull****.
Click to expand...

no. the documentaries i saw on the subject claimed that was the case. i suspect that it is true. but i haven't double checked myself.
 
anyway i think you had enough of my brilliance for the day.

i am going to retire now.
 
NEUROSPORT said:
no. the documentaries i saw on the subject claimed that was the case. i suspect that it is true. but i haven't double checked myself.
Click to expand...

Well, if it's in a documentary then it MUST be true...:roll:
 
NEUROSPORT said:
no. the documentaries i saw on the subject claimed that was the case. i suspect that it is true. but i haven't double checked myself.
Click to expand...

Documentaries, huh? And you believed them without bothering to verify their accuracy? As a brilliant man once said:

so **** lovers - do you think everything is always true ?

that TV is a truth machine ? that god speaks to you directly through your ****ing wretched tube ?
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Well, if it's in a documentary then it MUST be true...:roll:
Click to expand...

Well that depends.. if the documentary supports your mindset and is a close proximity to your ideological views it is always true.

If it goes against your views then it is obviously false, and a huge load of propagandizing bull****

so in summary:

I agree = that is the gospel truth

I disagree = what a load of falsified propaganda bull****

Its really not that hard to figure out.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Who even is this guy? He's all over the map. In one post he declares himself upset because Iraq wasn't about oil in which he suppported then in another he complains that we supported Hussein against Khomeini, which preserved the stability of oil flow in the region.

I don't think he knows where he is coming from or even what he even stands for.
Click to expand...

It's possible, if he doesn't use condoms, that he has syphilis. Probably fried his brain.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Don't put me in the same category as a few malcontents. Conservatives and Liberals are not better. Besides, going after a whole political movement like this isn't exactly mature. We aren't exactly Neo-Nazis.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were. I described the majority libertarians in an analogy most people will understand. And honestly you'd be hard pressed to find somebody in the American political world who doesn't view them in that way. NEUROSPORT is the very furthest extreme of Libertarianism but my analogy stands. Libertarians are probably the easiest ideology in America to get an insult from just because you don't agree with them.

They simply can't take being told that most grown ups in this country don't think it's a good idea to pull away from the UN or that privatizing roads is ridiculous or that maybe in the 21st century it's okay to meddle in the affairs of people with weapons that can blow up entire countries. And these are just some of the more radical ideas I hear from Libertarians and their associates.

It's really that simple. I mean if you're not like over 90% of Libertarians I've met on this forum and elsewhere then God bless you. But you'd be in the minority. You'd be the equivalent of a black Republican or a Southern democrat. If you hold some of these views then you're a political teenager in some aspects and more like a political adult in others. I mean when Jerry and I both agree on drugs or when I, as a liberal, actually see some common ground with Conservatives on some sort of gun control it's refreshening. But Libertarians are just silly.

They're like the family member who says the most random things for no reason and you just nod your head or face palm. Don't get me wrong. I'd have a beer with you any time regardless of your ideology. I would just vote for a Zombie Reagan before I vote for a living Libertarian.
 
Last edited:
NEUROSPORT said:
stop playing dumb.
Click to expand...

Dumb is for the ignorant and this thread already has it representation.

As long as you need gasoline and oil based products there is no leaving the Middle East. Arabs have fought no less than 16 open wars or conflicts over the last forty years. These wars have effected oil production off and on.

What exactly do you think a nuclear Iran will do to Sunni Arab oil production? The trbes of Iraq have all but refused to allow the oil to flow because they were are too busy hating each other to care about NEUROSPORT's gasoline prices in the States. And what about external? The entire Cold War had a huge focus on the Middle East. The Soviets started the Cold War early by forcing America and Britian to insist on its leaving Iran and Turkey immediately after WWII. By the time Korea kicked off, the Soviets were building powerful military and had great influence in the oil rich Middle East with the Suez Canal being a center focus of control.

And before this we have the Nazis. Field-Marshall Rundstedt of Germany acknowledged that one of the factors leading to Germany's defeat was its own deficiency in oil, especially in the form of gasoline. The Allied forces used 7 billion barrels during WWII. "6" billion came from the U.S.

So if you think just leaving the Middle East will keep Americans safe and make everybody happy and the madness will simply stop then you may want to actually think before you type. One world war and a nuclear Cold War centered around oil resources. It would be a bit harder for NEUROSPORT to get his precious gasoline with our enemies controlling it wouldn't he?
 
Hatuey said:
I didn't say you were. I described the majority libertarians in an analogy most people will understand. And honestly you'd be hard pressed to find somebody in the American political world who doesn't view them in that way. NEUROSPORT is the very furthest extreme of Libertarianism but my analogy stands. Libertarians are probably the easiest ideology in America to get an insult from just because you don't agree with them.

They simply can't take being told that most grown ups in this country don't think it's a good idea to pull away from the UN or that privatizing roads is ridiculous or that maybe in the 21st century it's okay to meddle in the affairs of people with weapons that can blow up entire countries. And these are just some of the more radical ideas I hear from Libertarians and their associates.

It's really that simple. I mean if you're not like over 90% of Libertarians I've met on this forum and elsewhere then God bless you. But you'd be in the minority. You'd be the equivalent of a black Republican or a Southern democrat. If you hold some of these views then you're a political teenager in some aspects and more like a political adult in others. I mean when Jerry and I both agree on drugs or when I, as a liberal, actually see some common ground with Conservatives on some sort of gun control it's refreshening. But Libertarians are just silly.

They're like the family member who says the most random things for no reason and you just nod your head or face palm. Don't get me wrong. I'd have a beer with you any time regardless of your ideology. I would just vote for a Zombie Reagan before I vote for a living Libertarian.
Click to expand...

Most of the libertarians I encounter strike me in much the same way as do religious fundamentalists in that they are entirely dogmatic. Of course, many of the socialist/communists strike me in much the same way, but with all of them, their politics is pretty much just an act of selecting a ready made ideology and then treating it as inviolate.

Folks like that never really question much of anyting since they are such idealogues, and since they do not question they also do not learn. Everything just gets filtered through the political template they have chosen for themself.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
Most of the libertarians I encounter strike me in much the same way as do religious fundamentalists in that they are entirely dogmatic. Of course, many of the socialist/communists strike me in much the same way, but with all of them, their politics is pretty much just an act of selecting a ready made ideology and then treating it as inviolate.

Folks like that never really question much of anyting since they are such idealogues, and since they do not question they also do not learn. Everything just gets filtered through the political template they have chosen for themself.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Libertarianism just seems like a very shallow ideology. If I can deduce a person's position on any given issue without them saying a word, or if they shriek "Let the market decide" as the solution to any problem in society, that usually does not reflect well on their critical thinking abilities. Maybe there are a few exceptions to this, but they are few and far between.

That's not to say that libertarians are always wrong - I completely agree with them on drug laws, for example - but their reasoning is usually just supported by a few cliches (e.g. "government can't do anything right," "we need an originalist interpretation of the Constitution," "the free market always produces the most efficient result") which are nothing more than articles of faith.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I didn't say you were. I described the majority libertarians in an analogy most people will understand. And honestly you'd be hard pressed to find somebody in the American political world who doesn't view them in that way. NEUROSPORT is the very furthest extreme of Libertarianism but my analogy stands. Libertarians are probably the easiest ideology in America to get an insult from just because you don't agree with them.
Click to expand...

Most Libertarians that I know in my day to day life and online, aren't like that. They generrally aren't much if at all worse than Conservatives or Liberals. There are plenty of nuts on all sides. Ignorance generrally isn't a an ideological thing.

Hatuey said:
They simply can't take being told that most grown ups in this country don't think it's a good idea to pull away from the UN or that privatizing roads is ridiculous or that maybe in the 21st century it's okay to meddle in the affairs of people with weapons that can blow up entire countries. And these are just some of the more radical ideas I hear from Libertarians and their associates.
Click to expand...

Some libertarian ideas seem a bit extreme. If you don't like them, then fine debate them. Most of the things that we bring up, we back with arguments at least as much as you "Political Adults". You don't have to agree with them, but, despite what you may think we aren't any more dogmatic than Lefties or Righties.

Hatuey said:
It's really that simple. I mean if you're not like over 90% of Libertarians I've met on this forum and elsewhere then God bless you. But you'd be in the minority. You'd be the equivalent of a black Republican or a Southern democrat. If you hold some of these views then you're a political teenager in some aspects and more like a political adult in others. I mean when Jerry and I both agree on drugs or when I, as a liberal, actually see some common ground with Conservatives on some sort of gun control it's refreshening. But Libertarians are just silly.
Click to expand...

Most Libertarians that I've met aren't looney nuts. Our views may seem strange and out there. That doesn't mean that they're wrong. We're a bit odd, I'll give you that. Unpopular doesn't mean right or wrong.

Hatuey said:
They're like the family member who says the most random things for no reason and you just nod your head or face palm. Don't get me wrong. I'd have a beer with you any time regardless of your ideology. I would just vote for a Zombie Reagan before I vote for a living Libertarian.
Click to expand...

That's your perogative. However, not having agreeing with someone doesn't mean that they're dumb. Inteliigent people can disagree.
 
Kandahar said:
I agree with this. Libertarianism just seems like a very shallow ideology. If I can deduce a person's position on any given issue without them saying a word, or if they shriek "Let the market decide" as the solution to any problem in society, that usually does not reflect well on their critical thinking abilities. Maybe there are a few exceptions to this, but they are few and far between.
Click to expand...

I always see many Liberals and Conservatives defending their respective parties to the death. Not all are like this, but not all Libertarians are either.

Kandahar said:
That's not to say that libertarians are always wrong - I completely agree with them on drug laws, for example - but their reasoning is usually just supported by a few cliches (e.g. "government can't do anything right," "we need an originalist interpretation of the Constitution," "the free market always produces the most efficient result") which are nothing more than articles of faith.
Click to expand...

They aren't articles of faith. They're generrally true, as shown by our view of history and reason. They aren't by any means absolute, but they generrally trend that way. Virtually all Libertarians aren't oppossed to any government action, but we have a bias against government intervention unless it's pretty conclusively shown to be needed. Kind of like criminal suspects are innocent until proven guilty.
 
Hatuey said:
I didn't say you were. I described the majority libertarians in an analogy most people will understand. And honestly you'd be hard pressed to find somebody in the American political world who doesn't view them in that way. NEUROSPORT is the very furthest extreme of Libertarianism but my analogy stands. Libertarians are probably the easiest ideology in America to get an insult from just because you don't agree with them.

They simply can't take being told that most grown ups in this country don't think it's a good idea to pull away from the UN or that privatizing roads is ridiculous or that maybe in the 21st century it's okay to meddle in the affairs of people with weapons that can blow up entire countries. And these are just some of the more radical ideas I hear from Libertarians and their associates.

It's really that simple. I mean if you're not like over 90% of Libertarians I've met on this forum and elsewhere then God bless you. But you'd be in the minority. You'd be the equivalent of a black Republican or a Southern democrat. If you hold some of these views then you're a political teenager in some aspects and more like a political adult in others. I mean when Jerry and I both agree on drugs or when I, as a liberal, actually see some common ground with Conservatives on some sort of gun control it's refreshening. But Libertarians are just silly.

They're like the family member who says the most random things for no reason and you just nod your head or face palm. Don't get me wrong. I'd have a beer with you any time regardless of your ideology. I would just vote for a Zombie Reagan before I vote for a living Libertarian.
Click to expand...

Just because you find comfort in the status quo doesn’t mean you’re right or more mature than “libertarians”. If anyone is a damned teenager its you and the other “liberals” who are so deadly afraid of individual freedom and responsibility that you’ll perpetuate the failed and unjust statist policies of the past.

You have no substance, as usual, just inane blathering and ranting about “libertarians” being teenagers.
 
Kandahar said:
I agree with this. Libertarianism just seems like a very shallow ideology. If I can deduce a person's position on any given issue without them saying a word, or if they shriek "Let the market decide" as the solution to any problem in society, that usually does not reflect well on their critical thinking abilities. Maybe there are a few exceptions to this, but they are few and far between.

That's not to say that libertarians are always wrong - I completely agree with them on drug laws, for example - but their reasoning is usually just supported by a few cliches (e.g. "government can't do anything right," "we need an originalist interpretation of the Constitution," "the free market always produces the most efficient result") which are nothing more than articles of faith.
Click to expand...

Those are generally the libertarians who come into it with a single issues or a few issues in mind and haven't embraced its gestalt.
 
Gardener said:
Most of the libertarians I encounter strike me in much the same way as do religious fundamentalists in that they are entirely dogmatic. Of course, many of the socialist/communists strike me in much the same way, but with all of them, their politics is pretty much just an act of selecting a ready made ideology and then treating it as inviolate.

Folks like that never really question much of anyting since they are such idealogues, and since they do not question they also do not learn. Everything just gets filtered through the political template they have chosen for themself.
Click to expand...

Yea, liberals and conservatives aren't dogmatic at all. They never blindly support political parties or engage in petty partisan politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom