Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why do you think a lot of Muslims in the Middle East hate the US then? Just because?
It's not even just the US they hate, but the West in general. Why?
There's what the British and French did in the Middle East.
But then the US came along and took over this mantle.
Go look at what the US has done in the Middle East and Muslim countries over the last 70 years, and you'll get an idea of how the US made enemies.
As for people being on a mass murdering spree since way way back, well, WHO THE HELL HASN'T?
Why regulate capitalism? Did you not notice what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s?
Did you not notice what happened with the banks in 2008/09???
I still don't understand why. I know what happened; I'm not ignorant of history. But how much must our government regulate the markets? How deep do you want to go?
Okay, I'll show you.
If a 4 year old kid throws the ball up in the air, whose job is it to catch it? Chances are the 4 year old won't be able to catch it, they just haven't learned to do that yet.
However, when the child learns to catch it, he no longer needs to rely on the teacher, or someone else to catch it for him. When he becomes proficient, it becomes second nature.
Thus, when you get out on your own, you no longer need your government to coddle you. For example, I am an autodidact. I learn through self teaching, just like my dad does. So the idea that one must learn from the government through their idea of education is...inaccurate. I also had speech impairments as a child. I only learned words at half the pace normal children did, my 50 words to another child's 100-150. However, my grandmother taught me to read, and helped me get a grasp on my vocabulary. I took it the rest of the way. When I got bored, I read dictionaries. I now know at least 25-40,000 words based on the last estimates I received back in high school, though the art of calculating such is a bit imprecise. However, here I am still searching for more words to learn.
The irony here is that I don't have access to a college education right now either, so that means I have to give myself or rather rely on myself for an education. Instead of lamenting the lack of same, I make do with what I have at my disposal. The internet is a vast cornucopia of knowledge.
So it's the job of the parents to teach them to do this, right? What if the parents don't teach the kid?
Parents and government are completely unrelated. Like I said, when the child does learn, the need for the parents tutelage diminishes. There is no need for them to continue teaching it to him. If they do, whatever progress the child makes will be lost, since he will remain reliant on them instead of himself.
For example. When I first started typing with a QWERTY style keyboard, I taught myself how to do it on my own. My grandmother was a professional typist, but she preferred I learn the layout on my own. And so I did. I can type almost 110 words per minute, faster than her. I didn't have to rely on anyone to learn something, just like I don't need my government coaching me on everything.
There are two ways of looking at this. From the parents with kids point of view, or the kids with parents point of view. The latter shows that the kid is fucking screwed in life with your attitude.
Huh? So, you expect the child to rely on his parents the rest of his life? Is this what I'm reading? So, are we preaching dependence or independence?
Isaac Newton said that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants", he meant that what he had done would not have been done without all those who had gone before him. That is what science is. You can't learn science without learning from those who came before you.
Sure, but science, or physics in Newton's case, was founded and improved on by people, not by government regulation. Newton happened to be one of those giants. Einstein was another, Edwin Hubble another, and so on.
They didn't require assistance from the government, they learned from teachers, or were in fact their own teachers, not government. Government is no substitute for ingenuity.
Imagine a successful businessman in the US. Now imagine the same person having been born in Mogadishu in Somalia and imagine how rich this businessman would be in Somalia compared to in the US.
I don't understand how that has anything to do with what our Government in the US should do. Let Somalia handle its own economy how it sees fit. The businessman in the US naturally has more upward mobility and room to succeed than if he were born in Mogadishu. If he were born in Somalia, all he would need to do is... wait for it... emigrate here, learn our language, learn the ways of business and venture out into the sea of capitalism.
Why do you think a lot of Muslims in the Middle East hate the US then? Just because?
It's not even just the US they hate, but the West in general. Why?
There's what the British and French did in the Middle East.
But then the US came along and took over this mantle.
Go look at what the US has done in the Middle East and Muslim countries over the last 70 years, and you'll get an idea of how the US made enemies.
As for people being on a mass murdering spree since way way back, well, WHO THE HELL HASN'T?
They hate us because we not Muslim. They been attacking Europe since ?? ~650 AD. West been fighting them off ever since. We drink, smoke, porn, tatoo.......bacon. We not Muslim.
They say "kill or convert". Terrorism every day I can remember for 50-60 years from them.
I am by far no expert, but it is ingrained into me now that they are on attack. They can't won't live in harmony. They never have, they never will. We either sit back and respond, or go on offense.
Why do you think a lot of Muslims in the Middle East hate the US then? Just because?
It's not even just the US they hate, but the West in general. Why?
There's what the British and French did in the Middle East.
But then the US came along and took over this mantle.
Go look at what the US has done in the Middle East and Muslim countries over the last 70 years, and you'll get an idea of how the US made enemies.
As for people being on a mass murdering spree since way way back, well, WHO THE HELL HASN'T?
They hate us because we not Muslim. They been attacking Europe since ?? ~650 AD. West been fighting them off ever since. We drink, smoke, porn, tatoo.......bacon. We not Muslim.
They say "kill or convert". Terrorism every day I can remember for 50-60 years from them.
I am by far no expert, but it is ingrained into me now that they are on attack. They can't won't live in harmony. They never have, they never will. We either sit back and respond, or go on offense.
No, they don't hate the West because they're non-Muslims. This just washes over history completely.
They've been attacking Europe since whenever, and Europe has been attacking them since, oh, about the same time. So what? Human history is full of violence. So...?
Yes, I think you're right, you're no expert and it is ingrained into you. That basically means you're not looking at this from a proper perspective of what has actually been going on, and why things have happened.
I'm not saying Islam is great, I don't like Islam. What I'm saying is that you might find the US is the same or worse than Islam, if you wanted to look.
You say the need for teachers diminishes as a child gets older. Sure, diminishes, but doesn't go away.
Yes, the internet has a lot of knowledge. People can learn from others. However, if you look around a message board like this, you see people using such tools, not to improve themselves, not to learn from other people, but to reinforce their prejudices, to reinforce their assumptions and so on.
A child needs to be given the support and learning in order to be able to go out into the world as an adult and compete.
Science was improved on MASSIVELY by government help.
I don't get people who say they want smaller government.
Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.
Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.
In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.
Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.
Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?
I don't get people who say they want smaller government.
Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.
Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.
In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.
Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.
Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?
now you got me going. I try to paste this one I copy from others........
View attachment 54324
The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.
Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.
Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.
It's actually frightening the way liberals think.
They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.
And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.
True, but the Democrats rely on ignorant voters. That's why people like Sanders and other Democrats across the country are trying to automatically register you as a voter once you turn 18 years old. Some are trying to extend it to people under the age of 18.
They are against Voter-ID because their voters are lazy. Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough for them. But to go out and put some effort into voting? Forget about it. How are Democrats supposed to pull hobos from the train tracks and get them to obtain a Voter-ID? They won't be able to. Without an ID, they can simply pay them some cigarettes and drive them to the polls without question.
If it were up to me, you would have to take a simple test before you vote to determine if you know anything about politics or the issues. Nothing too hard. Questions like "what party does the Vice President belong to?" "Who is the Vice-President, who is the President?" "How many states do we have in our country?" "What party is in leadership of the US Congress?" Things like that.
Republicans would be thrilled, but Democrats would revolt.
The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.
Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.
Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.
It's actually frightening the way liberals think.
They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.
And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.
True, but the Democrats rely on ignorant voters. That's why people like Sanders and other Democrats across the country are trying to automatically register you as a voter once you turn 18 years old. Some are trying to extend it to people under the age of 18.
They are against Voter-ID because their voters are lazy. Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough for them. But to go out and put some effort into voting? Forget about it. How are Democrats supposed to pull hobos from the train tracks and get them to obtain a Voter-ID? They won't be able to. Without an ID, they can simply pay them some cigarettes and drive them to the polls without question.
If it were up to me, you would have to take a simple test before you vote to determine if you know anything about politics or the issues. Nothing too hard. Questions like "what party does the Vice President belong to?" "Who is the Vice-President, who is the President?" "How many states do we have in our country?" "What party is in leadership of the US Congress?" Things like that.
Republicans would be thrilled, but Democrats would revolt.
The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.
Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.
Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.
It's actually frightening the way liberals think.
They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.
And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.
Or if you are illegal. No vote in FED if you don't "pay" FED income tax? (wooo-eeee! that would really blow them up).
I suppose there are enough hidden fees/fines/charges that "they" will claim they pay a lot of FED taxes?
People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.
The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.
Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.
Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.
Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.
Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.
Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.
It's actually frightening the way liberals think.
Anyone that believes someone wanting to keep more of what they've earned is greedy but someone that didn't earn it getting a portion of it isn't has a problem with logic.
With that I need to quote Ken Blackwell:
"Liberals believe that if you earn money--you are not entitled to it. But if you want money--you are."
Muslims love Americans, but hate our gov't, especially the GOP, for getting into their business DUH. And their blind allegiance to Israel, who've ruined Palestinians for 70 years now. They'll be happier when their economies recover from the corrupt Booosh World Depression.
That's because they don't need it for anything.The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.
It's actually frightening the way liberals think.
They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.
And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.
True, but the Democrats rely on ignorant voters. That's why people like Sanders and other Democrats across the country are trying to automatically register you as a voter once you turn 18 years old. Some are trying to extend it to people under the age of 18.
They are against Voter-ID because their voters are lazy. Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough for them. But to go out and put some effort into voting? Forget about it. How are Democrats supposed to pull hobos from the train tracks and get them to obtain a Voter-ID? They won't be able to. Without an ID, they can simply pay them some cigarettes and drive them to the polls without question.
If it were up to me, you would have to take a simple test before you vote to determine if you know anything about politics or the issues. Nothing too hard. Questions like "what party does the Vice President belong to?" "Who is the Vice-President, who is the President?" "How many states do we have in our country?" "What party is in leadership of the US Congress?" Things like that.
Republicans would be thrilled, but Democrats would revolt.
The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.
It's actually frightening the way liberals think.
They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.
And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.
True, but the Democrats rely on ignorant voters. That's why people like Sanders and other Democrats across the country are trying to automatically register you as a voter once you turn 18 years old. Some are trying to extend it to people under the age of 18.
They are against Voter-ID because their voters are lazy. Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough for them. But to go out and put some effort into voting? Forget about it. How are Democrats supposed to pull hobos from the train tracks and get them to obtain a Voter-ID? They won't be able to. Without an ID, they can simply pay them some cigarettes and drive them to the polls without question.
If it were up to me, you would have to take a simple test before you vote to determine if you know anything about politics or the issues. Nothing too hard. Questions like "what party does the Vice President belong to?" "Who is the Vice-President, who is the President?" "How many states do we have in our country?" "What party is in leadership of the US Congress?" Things like that.
Republicans would be thrilled, but Democrats would revolt.
I don't know if they would go even if "paid" with cigarettes and driven. In my State, some 165,000 people were identified as not having a valid ID when voter ID laws passed. The State offered a free ID AND a ride to get it. TWENTY-FIVE accepted.
Why do you think a lot of Muslims in the Middle East hate the US then? Just because?
It's not even just the US they hate, but the West in general. Why?
There's what the British and French did in the Middle East.
But then the US came along and took over this mantle.
Go look at what the US has done in the Middle East and Muslim countries over the last 70 years, and you'll get an idea of how the US made enemies.
As for people being on a mass murdering spree since way way back, well, WHO THE HELL HASN'T?
They hate us because we not Muslim. They been attacking Europe since ?? ~650 AD. West been fighting them off ever since. We drink, smoke, porn, tatoo.......bacon. We not Muslim.
They say "kill or convert". Terrorism every day I can remember for 50-60 years from them.
I am by far no expert, but it is ingrained into me now that they are on attack. They can't won't live in harmony. They never have, they never will. We either sit back and respond, or go on offense.
No, they don't hate the West because they're non-Muslims. This just washes over history completely.
They've been attacking Europe since whenever, and Europe has been attacking them since, oh, about the same time. So what? Human history is full of violence. So...?
Yes, I think you're right, you're no expert and it is ingrained into you. That basically means you're not looking at this from a proper perspective of what has actually been going on, and why things have happened.
I'm not saying Islam is great, I don't like Islam. What I'm saying is that you might find the US is the same or worse than Islam, if you wanted to look.
OK, thank you. It is a 60 year war to me. I decided to join "our" side and Israel 100%. I hate what the Muslim horde is doing and has done. I want to see them exterminated, banned from the planet. But "our" side has decided to try to "work with them". huh? Kill them before they kill you. They are never going to "get along". This is proven. They are a political movement to take over all.
You say the need for teachers diminishes as a child gets older. Sure, diminishes, but doesn't go away.
I partially disagree.
When one becomes proficient with the things or skills he has been taught, he no longer needs to be taught. It is quite possible that he becomes a teacher himself. There are some cases where the need to be taught doesn't completely go away, as you said.
Though, when you learn to catch a ball, like I said earlier, you have mastered it. You are the master of your own ability to catch the ball. What you learned now sustains you in that endeavor.
Yes, the internet has a lot of knowledge. People can learn from others. However, if you look around a message board like this, you see people using such tools, not to improve themselves, not to learn from other people, but to reinforce their prejudices, to reinforce their assumptions and so on.
Of course, however, I seek such knowledge for the betterment of myself, and to an extent other people, but not for the confirmation of my biases. Government plays no role in my quest for knowledge.
A child needs to be given the support and learning in order to be able to go out into the world as an adult and compete.
And you think the government is capable of doing that?
Science was improved on MASSIVELY by government help.
Though, if government funds science, it can influence it. The so-called "science" of Global Warming being a prime example.
I don't get people who say they want smaller government.
Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.
Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.
In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.
Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.
Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?
Yo, you can sure talk out of your ass? But that is just waste, like you! Take a long hard look at your Puppet Master Obama, Harry Reid, and let`s not forget the lunatic Nancy Pelosi? Now you can say in your face Puppet!!! Your Socialist Party is going down, BIG-TIME!!!!
"GTP"
View attachment 54334
I don't get people who say they want smaller government.
Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.
Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.
In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.
Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.
Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?
I'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?
What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.
As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.
