Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I wish people here could have civil arguements so we could have discussions about religion and politics, etc. That would make me .
































No, it wouldn't make me a banana, it would make me happy.

What do you mean civil arguements?

With out insults and bashing im persuming.

religion? politics? without a fight??? boy, you are new at this huh

ha ha ha! That's funny!

It's possible yerss

If some people have half a brain and aren't stubborn and thick

Isn't a civil arguement in other words a debate

I thought of this because of the gay marriage thread that got closed. iluvpippen and I were discussing the stuff and we weren't really seeing things the same way or anything yet nothing got out of hand. It got closed because of potential bashing but there wasn't any yet. I just wish people could debate like we did because its interesting, but people are dumb and that makes me sad.

I wish some people would just relax and not get so easily offended. It sucks that we can't debate these important issues

"OTF basically anything goes" my ass

well, before i start, you all should know this. i am right and you guys are wrong!!! i know everything and you guys know nothing!!!!!!

stop being an ass!

Well you know what? You are a ing mother er. Go a goat in the you er!

nice to see i have a fan club here.

on the count of three lets argue

1
2
3

well I never in all my life since such a suck @ss president as bush.

you cant aruge about bush...everyone is gonna agree he sucks ass

He's better than Kerry. Kerry doesn't know where to stand.

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and later said he didn't really support it. He said he voted the way he did because he didn't believe that Bush would do what he said he'd do. How can we vote for a guy who doesn't believe a president is going to keep his word?

wuta actually not EVERYBODY will agree there always be sum one to disagree

bush and kerry both suck...what we need is a normally every day blue collar president....not these rich assh*les he say there for the common workin man....how can you be for the workin man if you never lived the life of a working man?

I wish we could vote Reagan in.

Screw it. Lets do a write in. REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT!

dead man walking, eh?

or we could start a revolution and overthrow bush and kerry and make me president...well we can get someone to run against me but we'll rig it so i win

Um... no offense... but I'd rather have Kucinich.

lets get BKK to run for president!!!!!

^I made a joke

totally regan.

who?

Dennis Kucinich. He's a current Presidential candidate.

looks like I started a good discusion *is proud*

never heard of him

Well... I guess you must not follow politics very closely then, huh?

show me a politician i can trust than i'll follow politcis until than GO PISTONS!

Well... I guess thats not Kerry.

or bush

Bush kept his word at least.

BKK for president!!! i am her running mate!!!!!

Oh, I was going to vote for BKK but now?...

what, do you have a prob with me?

No, I'm just an ass. Thats all.

his word on what? a good economy, weapons of mass destruction, capturing osama bin laden....the only reason why i think he went to war was to get saddam coz saddam tried to kill his daddy...thats just my opionion

bush is a scumbag and criminal.

Those are gurantees. He kept his word on trying to do that stuff. Do you think he said that he was going to try to help the economy and then turned on us and said, "I LIED! HA HA HA! I did this on purpose! MUAH! HA! HA! HA!"

I meant those aren't gurantees. Kerry didn't believe that Bush would even try to do what he said.

Bush...He said we went to war for WMD, we found none.

Iraq was said to be a big oil supplier...No it is less then 5% of what we have

The only Country I see anything wrong with is Korea. We know they have nukes but we do nothing.

if he kept his word than he we would have a better economy...whatever happen to that trickle down effect..that didnt do sh#t..i'm not saying kerry is any better but i dont trust or like either of them but bush just lies to a whole nation....he went to war over weapons of mass destruction that never existed....are freedom of speech is gettin more and more limited and this is all happening while bush is in office, are you saying this a a quiocidence

a very sexy ass tho if i must say so myself!

I am not really in to Bush or Kerry.

Bush...you know why.
Kerry...changes his mind all the time on important issues

what about carrot top for president?

i dont kmnow nytin on politics esept that theyre rich old men who live in houses with lots of collums!

im liking this

me too!!!!!

B!TCHY GUYS ROCK

who is a bitchy guy here?

PICHON!

really? is he a whiny byatch?

hes my dog! and yes he is whiny, if ur eating food hell sit there beggin for it until u finished!

well, i dont know him all that well.

i put a piccie of him hes gorgeous!

?

wha???

you mean dawg....a dog is an animal

no, i litterally mean dog!

The trickle down effect didn't work but he didn't lie about what he was trying to do.
He went to war for 2 reasons, remove Sadam and find weapons of mass destruction. He didn't find any but that doesn't mean he lied.
Freedom of speech, whether you think he is taking it away or not, doesn't mean he is lying either. We are talking about honesty here. Whether or not you think he was a good president, he has been pretty damn honest.

war sux! i think we should make it ilegal! i wanna b/come presient so we can stop war!

i wanna become president so i can declare a national holiday in honor of star wars.

um.....id just declare national holiday once a week for ppl still bin alive!!! who votes ME for president!!!

ummm do you remember in the beinning of the war when the scuds were launched at Isreal and at our forces moving into Iraq?.... Not to be arqumental but those right there were WMDs... and where did those launchers go?.... they are probably moved into nearby countries just to make the US and the world bad... is that not the perfect rouse... ?

LOL... that will never happen... as long as you feel annoyance and anger at your neighbor there will be war.

a jedi holiday!!!

For the Sith! i say

oh

he said the trickle down effect would work...it didnt...isnt that a lie?....he said that there were WMD so goint to war is justified...we didnt find any....isnt that a lie?...he has been anything but honest..the only thing that i know for sure about him is that he's against gay marraige...thats the only thing he's been honest about

Actually we don't know if the trickle down works yet... it seems to have in the past because thats what Reagen used to get us outa the hole.

Saddam did have WMDs because he used them as soon as we crossed into his border... remember the scuds launched at isreal and our forces in the beginning parts of this war. He wasn't supposed to have those yet he did....

scuds arent WMDs

Scuds are, they invoke only terror... they are the most inaccurate weapon on earth compared to todays arsenal, ever heard of the V2 or V1 thats what the scud is. they can be retrofited in five minutes with chemical or nuclear payloads.

Any arguement against that is like saying an ICBM with conventional payload being launched and used as a feild weapon... you launch one of those with nuke or not and you just started WW3

yea but they didnt ave any nucleay payloads in them...if they had in chemical weapons to use they would have used them on us when we invaded baghdad..the bottom line is we didnt find any chemical weapons and that was Bush's justification for goin to war

If they had the guts to use them when we got into bagdad they would have used them on us in the first war. They didn't use, or rather withdrew them into other countries, to create political intrgue... making us look bad... how could everyone in the world undeniably know that Iraq has WMDs yet not find them... the CIA MI6 and MOSSAD do not make mistakes like that. Saddam by the way, if you remember, threatened to use them on us when we entered iraq in this war.

Why did he refuse inspectors then all those years if he didn't have them?
Did anyone protest when Clinton launched airstrikes and Tommawks into iraq when Saddam refused inspectors?

Also, the economy would have dropped no matter who was president during the 2000-04 term. Clinton (who I liked btw) did have it easy because the economy boomed due to the ".com" era. That had nothing to do with Clinton. The internet is what made the economy sky rocket and after a while, the weaker ".com" businesses naturally went under which would have happened no matter who was president. Plus, the 9/11 situation was a major issue that effected the economy and Bush handled that situation well IMO. If Gore was president, the US would have ended up looking like cowarding pussies.

^(wipes tear, beautiful)^

aw if i could b bofad readin that im sure it would b very sweet!

Myth likes his political science (the study of Government and Community).

I liked Clinton to , but they give him too much credit as you have pointed out. Myth

you make good points but saddamm was obviously bluffing.....bush went to war stictly to overthrow saddam the WMDs are just smoke and mirrors my point is that bush lied about why we went to war if you guys think that he actully had bio and chemical weapons than thats your opinion my opinon is that he went to war to overthrow saddam coz everyone knows the history between the bushes and saddam, but we didnt find anything....even Powell said we didnt find anything....and i dont think we lost any soldiers on the airstrike clinton ordered....were losing 500,000 and counting with bush

Well, I said that there was 2 reasons with 1 being to overthrow Saddam and Bush admitted that. As to Bush's real intentions for going over there? Well, I guess we'll never know. But just because it is possible that WMDs weren't his real reason, doesn't mean he is a liar because nothing proves that those weren't his intentions. So you are assuming that he lied about his intentions and I am assuming that he didn't. But nothing proves it one way or the other because the only way to know if he is lying is if he admits it or we look into his mind somehow.

700 dude... in vietnam we lost like a 100 a day.
he could have lied and said we did find them. That would be the easy way out... since it hasn;t happened why would someone sacrifice themselves on a notion that they lied about yet could have easily countered?

Simply he's telling the truth.

exactly...thats why i say my opionion and your opinion

But it still doesn't prove him to be a liar, and thats my point.

ok...you gotta good point....but on the flip side we dont exactly know if he's tellin the truth either

Thats correct. We don't know if he is telling the truth. But you can say that about anybody.

See. This is nice. We have gone 93 posts without bashing. I'm happy.

hey myth.....ima prob not gon come back on kmc again i know but my dad caught me an he might check it out on his comp....ill try pop in occasionaly when me dads not home!
pm me if ya want my email!
xxoo misha

you cant say that about people who backup there claims with facts and proof

But you can always question somebodies intentions. Intentions can't be proved.

good point....we need a new subject...i'm sick of talkin about bush....we need a new civil argument

Sounds good to me. Um... topic anybody?

Censorship maybe..

good topic....censorship sucks ass...howard stern has been doin the same bit for his radio show for like the past 20 years and now there starting to censor some of his bits that they never censored before

I'm around children alot .. yet i liked a lot of Sterns humor. Yet i hate MTV... very confusing... i know.
I'm for censorship on TV because everyone uses it and its easy to access.. radio is harder to access.. but easy to click on something by accident... it matters by situation. The past was fun without all this racy stuff today.. more like desperation rather then entertainment these days.

everything kids hear on tv they hear on the playground.....its the parents job to raise there kid and tha includes monitoring what they watch or listen to

so thats why there is censorship so that parents don't have to breath down childrens necks.. because we all know that what we restrain will be what our children are most curious to find out about....

kids already know about the things you dont what them to know about...if there not gonna get it from tv than there gonna get it from the playground....shows already have labels on them...tv-14, tv-ma, thats all you need

But some adults should not be watching certain things.. truly no one should be watching some of this stuff...

adults are big boys and girls that can decide if there capable or not of watching a show...i dont need a censor telling me what i like and dont like

Now if you were to have to pick, which point in the past would you choose to go back to as an example of a acceptable time? the 50's? The Victorian era?

See - salacious images (to stick to one easy example) have been with us for many generations. The only difference is that nowadays they are readily available to any and all whereas they were once the province of the upper class male.

Fr instance: Lady Chaterly's lover wasn't available in the US and Uk 'till 1960 - the judge at the obscenity trial was worried that if it were published "servants and the lower classes" might read it and become inflamed.


Censorship is state control: You may be comfortable with having the government decide what it's acceptable for your child to see so that you don't have to monitor them but that thinking lead to the banning of books like One flew over the Cuckoos nest, The Diary of Anne Frank and The Canterbury Tales to name but a few.

You forget that the government isn't some evil empire or a force on our horizon... we have control over the government we are represented by our government, we are the government. The whims of the people will be followed...they have to so i don't get why everyone thinks we are being controlled by some dark entity.

The most popular radio show in my area got kicked off the air because they played the 'audio' of the american losing his head. It was probably wrong of them to do that, but the whole staff got the boot which is ridiculous.

They all knew the chances they were taking... yet that was a horrendous thing to air.

BUT THE WHOLE STAFF! Not just the ones involved, the WHOLE STAFF!

we only have control over the gonvernment to an extent.....we vote who we want in office but are options are always the same...some rich conserative or some rich liberal and once they get in office they can do alot of things we dont want or we dont have conrtol over

Its called recall... you can recall senators with enough peeps... apparently enough people have no problems with them not to vote them out or to vote them in....

i know what its called.....it also called politicing....saying your gonna do one thing and than completely do another...or only pleasing the rich or upper class coz the majority of them vote so you cant have a recall

Thats a problem with government and social mechanics... not enough people vote.

Exactly what I was thinking.