Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

Why do people hate republicans its all liberals fault there causing all of the problems and republicans cant fix them because people think they re bad and dont support them its all obamas fault.

Freedom of speach is a very important right in the world because it allows people to be free to comunicate their opinions with others and be free to talk to people and expres there ideas with no censership or restrictions. People in this forum are pretty horrible and dont respect this and other rights and they calim liberals are much better than conservatives when they go against thte freedom os speach. For example people here deleted recess because they didnt agree with the things other people said there and went against there right of speech and its like they were dictators or horrible people because people just wanted to talk and you were mean to them but oh well i gues they deserve it because they are also mean people anyway. So liberals are bad I found these reasons from a respected source


1. Their policies promote government dependence.
2. Got a problem? Throw money at it!
3. They tax the working class and give handouts to the slackers
4. They think my hard earned money belongs to them
5.
They don't use logical thought to solve problems. They lie, scream,
& cry when they don't get their way like a bunch of babies.
6. They attack anyone who disagrees with them. then scream victim when thier opponent counters.
7. They are fueled by hatred for everyone who disagrees with them
8. They're hypocrites- they act so holy... but can be so vicious
9. Liberals do suck all they want to do is cut defense and support people, with tax payers money, who don't work and use drugs
10. They Lie, Bill Clinton....enough said!

I have every right to post here the USA is a free country if you dont agree maybe you hate america and hate freedom jesus dialed for our freedom do you hate jesus

This post has been edited by MeXSusan: 14 April 2012 - 06:47 AM

I've been visiting Conservapedia recently. Everytime I visit I laugh my ass off and at the same time I die a little inside

MeXSusan, on 14 April 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

You're an idiot. Conservative is synonymous with anti-progressive. That is nothing to be proud of, nor is it helpful in the slightest.

MeXSusan, on 14 April 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

I have no words to describe your idiocy; Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with private businesses or homes. If you start calling your black friend a nigger in his house, you're probably going to get kicked out. Yes, you have every right to say it, but you're a guest in that person's home (in this case, you're a guest in the forum). You don't have any right to insult them, nor do you have any right to be on this forum in the first place. It's a privilege, a privilege that can easily be revoked. Freedom of Speech isn't a free pass to be an idiot.

MeXSusan, on 14 April 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

Wow, are you sure you're not confusing 'Liberal' with 'Republican', because that's what the majority of your points are telling me.

For #1: Oh, so you're one of those 'small government, anything else is COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM AAAA type people. Here's a thought for you: public school promotes government dependence since it is state-funded. Public schooling is also socialist.

For #2: Sounds like Republicans to me. Except it's throw money AND the bible!

For #3: 'Slackers' - by this I assume you mean the poor? Or people on welfare? Well, aren't you just a wonderful human being? With my dad suffering from Agent Orange and my mom hooked up to life support in the hospital, we live off of social security. But you know, since their both terminally ill with serious diseases, that means they're slackers and don't deserve that money. Forget the fact my mom worked for thirty years, and my dad started out in a meat-packing plant before he got a job with Western Union. WE DON'T DESERVE THAT MONEY, OR NEED IT AMIRITE.

For #4: Once again, sounds like Republicans. Tax the rich? Heavens no!

For #5: Republicans!

For #6: Republicans, again. Yawn.

For #7: REPUBLICANS! And most anti-gay, anti-choice Protestants as well.

For #8: BINGO! Republican. And again, those shitty conservative religious morons.

For #9: Unintelligent generalizations and warmongering all in the same point - you really are conservative, aren't you? Furthermore, buddy - alcohol is a drug. It impairs your mental capabilities, and it's addictive. It's also far more dangerous than marijuana or pot. You're just privileged and selfish. How dare my money go to aid those less fortunate!

For #10: Oh yes, he was obviously the worst, despite the extra money we had left over when his term ended. That George Bush totally ruined.

For your last point, you have no right to post here. This isn't the United States of America, nor would Freedom of Speech apply. It's a privately-owned place, and you suffer consequences for saying stupid shit, just as you would at your job, or at a friend's home.

Also, I do hate Jesus, because religion is stupid. He didn't die for anything, and I feel the need to reiterate that America is not a Christian, Catholic, or Protestant nation. The bible has no place in law.

Wow mAce your post is relly enlightening and adds a lot to Susans post... haha it got deleteed u sukkk

Susan you make a lot of very great points youre so smart and inteligent and thats so attractive in you... but why do you hate jesus? I thougt people were allowed to beleive anything they want and people couldnt call them stupid for having believes, why do you say that religion is stupid then??

This post has been edited by MeXSusan: 14 April 2012 - 03:21 PM

Whoever told you that you could believe whatever you want without being called stupid lied to you. You're free to believe in fairy tales if you want, so long as you realize someone is going to call you an idiot when you admit to believing it.

MeXSusan, on 14 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

I'm going to assume that was sarcasm.

Jerk, on 26 September 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

I worked in Louisiana for about 5 months, and I can tell you what the answer is.

Fucking whales.

One word: boudin.

They stick that in a ball of rice, put a bunch of spicy crap in it and then... you guessed it! They deep-fry it. I ate one, and while it was alright, I could already feel my arteries clogging. (You can see a picture of boudin balls in the link above.)

EDIT: Deliberately ignoring Republican's, because I despise their very essence, so nothing in this thread will surprise me.

This post has been edited by Blazenarm: 14 April 2012 - 04:43 PM

MeXSusan, on 14 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

People are allowed to believe anything they want; they're not free from judgment for believing it.

What I can't do is ask that religion be outlawed or anything of the sort, because that is infringing on another citizen's rights - my rights end where yours begin, and yours end where another's begin, so on and so forth. For example, you can not support gay marriage but you can't deny gay people marriage, because it is a civil right.

Why do I hate religion? It breeds stupid people who blindly follow their millenia old books - though more specifically Christianity and it's derivatives. Their bible is one of hate, racism, sexism, and discrimination. I detest how they are trying to force their believes on the rest of the country through anti-choice laws and anti-gay laws, among other things that don't fall into such large political agendas.

This isn't a Christian, Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or any religious nation. We are a secular nation; we are one made up of many.

MeXSusan, on 14 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

BEHOLD: THE NEW CRAFT AIDS EVERYONE!

From 14 April 2012 - 06:20 PM:

Hahaha how can people think mAce and me are the same person its obvious were not....

This post has been edited by MeXSusan: 14 April 2012 - 06:35 PM

It's because you keep mentioning me.

But now that they saw us talking to each other theyll know were not the same.

I have a question: If I don't belive everything the bible teaches, if I don't belive in heaven and hell and if I think that god isn't all powerful. Am I still a christian or am I something else entirely?

Depends on what "Christianity" means to you, or rather the person judging you.

Dynamic, on 14 April 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Heaven is pretty integral to Christianity, given salvation via Jesus is the center of that religion.

A quantum theory of Mitt Romney

This post has been edited by Titanium Dragon: 14 April 2012 - 07:56 PM

Well that's the thing. On multiple occasions I have thought of what Heaven is like and well... I think that Heaven would be excruciatingly boring. Just think about it, everything being nice and good all the time? Happieness is pretty much the nice valley between 2 mountains of shit. If you feel happy all the time then you actually don't feel anything at all.

(Oh crap I forgot that this isn't a religion thread.)

This post has been edited by Dynamic: 14 April 2012 - 07:58 PM

No, only because the Christian heaven is supposed to be the epitome of good feelings. You probably would be incapable of feeling bored.

Still, If given the choice of going to heaven or staying on earth I'd most likely stay.

@Dynamic - In my opinion, if heaven actually existed, I think it would be really neat to go that. Being able to see all your relatives and all of those that have passed away? That'd be pretty darn swell. But hey, that's one of the reasons why religion is so appealing to people; eternal life? Who wouldn't want that?

On topic: I really enjoy when I see educated republicans, because then I do get to have discussions with them that aren't just "Dude you're stupid, you like Obama? What the hell, have you seen the gas prices?" (Actual convo btw). On the same note, I also enjoy seeing educated democrats, which I find very hard to find on the internet. A lot of them just seem really assholish and very high and mighty and are very condescending to the republicans, which really doesn't leave much room for discussion, it's just a two way "Hey let's bash that guys political views".

I personally don't know enough about politics to have an educated debate with anyone, but I know the basics, and enough to know that I definitely side more with liberals.

Hmm... I guess I won't be appreciated here for my super-conservative views... well, when have I backed down from a challenge? The problem about taxing the owners of companies is that the money usually comes out of the employee salaries (although this republican guy is too rich). Also, the problem with liberals... if they had their way, you wouldn't be able to shoot the guy. My other views... whoever said just the stupid ones are the ones in office, they are right. Also, the problem with Obamacare is that it forces hospitals to pay for contraceptives, even if the hospital does not believe in abortion (I'm super pro-life). I have only one problem with gay "marriage", in that I don't think it should be called marriage (they can call it a "union", but, by the order of God, marriage is the bond of a man and woman ONLY).

mrplow, on 10 September 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

I don't pretend to know anything about economics (let's be honest here, does anyone REALLY know about economics?), so I won't respond to that. However, your comments on gay marriage were interesting.

I am making the assumption that a "union" would be handled identically to a "marriage." This means they would be given the same breaks in relation to taxes, and a "union" would be treated as a sort of legal marriage. So, as long as a church isn't involved, they're just another word for married.

The reason I am assuming this and stating my opinion is because I'm assuming that is your stance. After all, you seem to have no qualms about "gay marriage" beyond the Religious factor, which would mean legally they would get the same rights as everyone else. Though, it is interesting how you mentioned this: "by the order of God."

The problem with that statement is that it implies that marriage is religious. If that is the case, then yes, you are completely in your
rights to reasonably disagree with using that term. However, are you implying marriage isn't legal? Or that marriage is simply a union with religious undertones? That means that all people married, even a Nihilist male bumping it with a Satanic Witch Queen are in some way connected via Religion. While at the same time, two Christian males would not have be able to have this religious bond!

There is another issue, as well. Should a male and a female, possibly Atheist, be able to get a union instead be married in order to purge these religious implications? Should people who are currently married -- people of whom did not want to be associated religiously -- have to change the status of their relationship to reflect this?

mrplow, on 10 September 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

Your conceptions of liberals are based on lies and your politics are founded in superstition. Calling you sub-human would be an insult to subhumans. You are excrement stacked, formed and given opinion.

I bet Mr Plow doesn't know that marriage pre dates Christianity, Judaism, and pretty much recorded history in general.

Quote

So we shouldn't tax the rich because they're greedy assholes? Sounds logical. Why not instead force them to be content with a 1 million dollar salary after taxes? I mean hell, that's a per year thing. Most people these days work of a 20th of that or less. But yeah, let's tax the people who can't afford it rather than beating out the loophole abuse.

Quote

Gun CONTROL is different than taking them out of the equation entirely. It's about preventing people who are already proven to be a risk from owning guns, or preventing the public from owning guns they have no business owning (can you really think of a legitimate use for you to own a fully-automatic assault rifle or a grenade launcher?) And shooting someone because you don't agree with them is already illegal anyway, so unless that second part was worded very poorly, it's a moot point.

Quote

You realize contraceptives don't actually takes lives, right? They prevent them from being formed in the first place. Therefore, they should have no bearing on your pro-life lifestyle.

Quote

Christianity didn't invent marriage. As others have said, it's a part of every culture, many of whom are not in the least bit Christian. Furthermore, marriage in the US is a LEGAL status, which means preventing gays from getting married is unconstitutional. Besides, your Bible Thumping has no place in the legal system. At least, according to the First Amendment.

We're doomed.

Dang, I'm no good with forums... I can't figure out how to quote... anyway, my response to Meowth is that yes, I believe marriage is religious. I'm pretty sure that if you want to get married, you have to find a church. However, the rest of your argument is interesting, and you brought up some points that I, myself can't answer. However, your argument about "2 Christian males" is not too great, because, while they would be able to become partners, it is not religious for them to become married. My response to Carcharocles is that I was referring to business owners, not simply the "super rich". I would say that the super-rich should be taxed more. My response to you about gun control is that I was making a half joke. Also, no, I don't want fully-automatic rifles or explosives to be sold to the general public. However, that brings up another point. Look at the recent shootings that have been happening. Imagine what would have happened if, in that theater in Colorado, someone had had a gun, and had taken down the shooter before too many people were hit. Also, criminals that are planning on breaking the law and shooting a bunch of people probably wouldn't care if they broke the law by buying an AK from the black market. Finally, I believe that contraceptives and abortion and incredibly similar. I'm sorry if you disagree.

You're wrong on needing to find a church to get married. Marriage is a legal document that can be obtained at any courthouse, without a church involved. It's called "getting married at city hall," and a LOT of people choose this route.

As for the possibility of a guy owning a gun stopping the Dark Knight Shooting, well, that had nothing to do with gun laws in the first place. For starters, no one knew what was happening until it was too late. Your statement on criminals owning guns is kind of a valid point, except the possibility of someone breaking a law is never a good defense for getting rid of said laws. Besides, most criminals go for cheap junk guns anyway, not assault rifles.

The AK was just an example. Also, I have to say that I'm not saying that Republicans are perfect: far from it. I'm saying that Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils: not everything that they believe I believe. I would vote for Independents, but that would end up being a vote for Liberals, who I disagree with more than with Republicans. However, you say someone couldn't have stopped the Dark Knight shooting? Well, I think someone could have (although I mostly don't like how the Colorado governor used it to further his (her? I forget) campaign against guns). Hmm... I just thought of something... I'm fine if gays get "married" (even if I don't like the term being used that way) at city hall, however, many gays want to have a marriage that is sanctioned by a church, and the gov't is trying to force churches and priests to marry gays even if they don't want to.

mrplow, on 11 September 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Please get HIV

mrplow said:

There is a considerable difference between the two. Contraceptives are used to prevent conception from taking place, whereas abortion is the termination of an already-existing embryo or fetus. Consistent use of contraceptives by both parties is a responsible way of ensuring that an unwanted pregnancy does not occur.

mrplow said:

I would be uncomfortable with the general populace bearing firearms. Gun accidents are far more common than some random nutso deciding to take out a few people. Even trained professionals risk injuring innocent people (see for example the recent shooting near the Empire State Building). And here you're talking about the average citizen initiating a gun battle in a dark and crowded theatre, where hitting the correct target is far from certain. Much better to just get the hell out of there if you can, and leave armed response to the police.

mrplow said:

As far as I'm aware, the United States government cannot force a church to perform a religious rite. Hence it is up to individual denominations and churches to decide whether they wish to marry homosexual couples.

Okay, what the fuck, Kansas? About a week ago it was announced on the local news that a Kansas man filed a complaint to get Obama removed from the ballot due to the birther issue. To add insult to injury, the Kansas Election Board actually considered it. So yes, this got the complainant hate mail, so he dropped it. Now some ditzy bitch from California is suing to have him removed.

This will tell you more than you need to know about the challenge
And here's that ditzy bitch's story.

Jesus Christ, and I thought Missouri was a red state.

Californians don't have accents. They communicate through subpoenas and affidavits.

Summarized in a handy-dandy picture that even your senile grandma with alzheimers would be able to understand.

Apparently they hate big bird and sesame street too https://www.facebook...1&type=1&ref=nf

I'm glad you emphasized something substantial to take away from the debate.

Fast check: Romney hates PBS and big bird. GOP is pure evil.

It shows he has no idea how to handle the budget. PBS is actually 0.012% of the budget. That'll really get us out of the rut.

Yeah. He truly is out of touch with the reality of the general public. He makes generalizing claims that seem to make sense, but never rationalizes them. He had a great debate, partly because Obama wasn't successful at calling him out on several of his budget slashing strategies. Why is it so hard to cite a few examples of the loopholes that the upper class use for tax exemption? He is quick To tell Obama he is wrong on his examples, but says nothing to rebuttal. Say something more than involving cutting subsidies of popular childhood learning programs. Who is the lesser of two evils is the real question.

This post has been edited by Purin: 05 October 2012 - 05:03 AM

Regardless of my personal feelings for the man, I think we all have to admit that Romney won that debate.

He won it handily. President Obama looked disinterested the entire time and didn't attack Romney on anything. It was like he wasn't ready for the thing at all.

I'm sure next time it will be a more even debate, but this was quite the coup for Romney and a bit of a misstep for the President.

You realize that you don't win a debate by completely ignoring the moderator and rambling one while throwing out general platitudes about the American people and what he plans to do, all of which goes contrary to every single thing he said on the campaign trail, right? It's not going to be a debate if your opponent is just going to make up answers on the spot. It's just two people talking over each other until they feel they've made their point, which Romney failed to do on every count. He told so many lies in that one segment that fact checkers had to stay up all night verifying every assertion that he made, ultimately proving that he made more lie during that period than anyone in the history of presidential debates. That's fucking retarded and it shows what kind of president he would be: an idiot and a pathological liar. If you think he won, you a) don't know the purpose of this exercise and b) the kind of person stupid enough to buy into his shit.

In other words, the publications asserting that are full of shit. I watched the whole thing. Obama got to the point quickly over what he wanted to do and how successful he was, generally treating the entire thing professionally, while Romney flailed to articulate himself. Even if you don't like him, Obama handled that much very well and kept his dignity through the whole "debate," no matter how much of a petulant child Romney became. If you didn't see it, then you don't know so you should shut the fuck up. If you did see it, then you missed all the important nuances going and even places that were such blatant lies that you don't need a factchecker to call bullshit, in which case you should also shut the fuck up.

Quote

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that Mr. Romney won the debate, but I have to define what 'winning' is, because we both have different interpretations of what that is.

Winning is whatever gets you closer to becoming the president of the U.S. And this relies on image. How do you think Bush got two terms?

I point to the 'likability scale.' Like it or not, most of the voting public are not political junkies: they don't check the facts. Politicians know this, so they aim, very hard I may add, to win the 'likability' rating over their opponent. They do this because they know that your vote carries as much (and as little) weight as the next guy's. A wider net catches more fish.

Look at the positions the two candidates were in before the debate: Romney was just reeling from his 47% disaster, among other missteps last week, and Mr. Obama was coming from a position of strength. Going into this debate, the general consensus was that the President was an eloquent, thoughtful, perhaps brilliant public speaker while Romney had a reputation for not being able to connect with the common man. Even worse, he was viewed as a vulture capitalist, someone who was horribly out of touch with reality. He was weird. Odd.

So what did Romney do? The only thing he could do: he took the fight to Obama by acting aggressively, facts be damned. He's selling his personality, not what he's saying, and he won that aspect handily. He blunted, at least to some degree, the negative image leveled against him.

Romney was more energetic, more upbeat, more aggressive, more optimistic about the country, more EVERYTHING compared to President Obama, who spent the entire debate staring at his podium and taking notes. Obama had tons opportunities to counterattack, to call Romney on his bullshit, but he didn't. And that's how you lose a debate.

Mute the debate and watch it again, and you'll see exactly what I mean. Body language speaks volumes, volumes that swing votes. Obama's body language was horrific. It looked like Romney was the president.

The average American is not going to fact check. The average American is watching a debate to see that two guys can look like they can run the country, to make sure one of them doesn't look like a guy who's going to burn it down. They KNOW politics is bullshit, no matter who wins.

And Romney, by looking the part of a leader, lies and all, did a whole lot more to help himself than Obama did.

And that's how you win a debate.

This post has been edited by TomTomBBQ: 07 October 2012 - 05:08 PM

Tom you're trying to talk to a petulant child.

TomTomBBQ, on 07 October 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

... I feel as though there is a contradiction here. Are you saying that all that really matters is someone who can seem likable? (On a slightly related note, Romney has a slasher smile that creeps me the fuck out) Because you seem to be insinuating that politics is bullshit by the way you phrased that statement, so would the only thing that matters be personality?

I'd prefer someone who, even if he was unfriendly, was more qualified to actually /handle/ the country. It makes me sad to know that people actually care if the president is "likable." Obama's a nice enough guy as is--so why don't people just look past "personality" and realize that Romney is nothing but a miserable little pile of contradictions and lies.

Honesty, to me, is part of personality, too. And it is something that Romney severely lacks.

MeXSusan, on 14 April 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

... And this is why I generally hate the Republican viewpoint. Because nearly every Republican I've talked to has used this as an argument. Do people honestly believe that if one doesn't make it big, then they're slacking?

Some people can't make it big. They start from too low a point. Extenuating circumstances prevent them from raking in cash. Some people have entire families to care for on their own. You think they're slacking when they're sleeping, what, four hours a day, working sixteen, and then the other four they're taking care of helpless family members? It's such a parochial view that proves the one making the statement does not even stop to consider the circumstances behind the less fiscally secure.

Republicans also seem to hold the view that everyone can make it big--but you should sure as hell hope that doesn't happen. If everyone becomes the upper class, then... there is no foundation to support the upper class, and then the entire economy falls apart.

I'm not saying we should say "fuck you" to those less fortunate and force them to stay down in the lower class. But we need people in that position. Therefore, the least the more fortunate can do is give a bit more money that they earned to help the less fortunate at the very least get by.

Quote

Oh my God

Thank you for planting such a silly image in my head and making me laugh the hardest I had all day

This post has been edited by Lux Aeterna: 07 October 2012 - 09:08 PM

Quote

I'll be honest. I almost didn't include that line about everyone knowing politics was bullshit, because I have enough respect for our fellow Americans to believe that, by now, they'd know that it was true. But maybe the majority doesn't know. And that's what the politicians play for. Soundbites and promises. Or lies and pandering.

Personality isn't the only thing that matters, of course, but it plays a huge part for many voters. When was the last time you looked at a politician and just said "He looks like someone I can relate to. I think I'll vote for him." A lot of people do this. Some base their entire decisions on this.

What you call a miserable little pile of contradictions and lies in Romney, someone else may very well take a look at that debate and say "that man's got some serious balls to go up against Obama like that when we all though he'd be creamed. I like that gumption!" It's all subjective. That's the power of emotion, which Romney intentionally pulled to his advantage.

Quote

Jerk's a grown man. He communicates in his own way and I'll do it in mine. What comes of it comes.

TomTomBBQ, on 07 October 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

The issues of politics are very real. The attempts at it are very fake. But the nature of politics in and of itself is not flawed. It is only made out to be as such because there are so many power hungry people such as Mitt Romney.

Let me be clear: people shouldn't consider personality an important factor. They should barely consider it a factor at all? Why is it that people don't just step back and consider that personality has nothing to do with ability? I believe that most people in this world are good people, but I also believe that most people in this world are stupid people. This case helps to prove that notion.

Emotion and law should be almost mutually exclusive. The only time emotion should come into the equation is being humane, and even then, generally being humane aids itself to a well-functioning society.

Maybe the problem is that people are humans and they delude themselves into thinking emotional appeal makes for a good leader.

TomTomBBQ, on 07 October 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Forgive me, I'm not used to people taking a high road in this community. It's refreshing.

Ace, on 07 October 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

i agree

Ace, on 07 October 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Hey, I called it as I saw it: a posturing loudmouth talking over an old man to hear the sound of his voice. I didn't even learn until later that he actually set the record for lies told during a presidential debate. From watching, that's the only thing that impressed me. Otherwise, I disagree with the consensus that he seemed more "presidential," unless by presidential you mean spouting stupid shit every other sentence.

The entire Republican party is suicidally stupid. Hence the thread. I've missed out on so much dumb shit I genuinely feel guilty for not playing along. But they're getting so fucking stupid they mock themselves. Todd Akin? What the fuck am I supposed to say about him? He speaks for himself and as a microcosm of the entire party.

Actually, since we have an actual Republican in the audience, why don't you tell what it's like to be wrong on every single issue?

Isn't saying idiotic BS the normal standard for politics?

Republicans have just gotten less subtle about it

This post has been edited by Insanity Streak: 15 October 2012 - 08:58 AM

It's the difference between the vague "I have a plan and it will make all of us rich and sexy" and then talking about current accomplishments and knowing what the fuck you're actually talking about.