Considering the strong liberal bias in our colleges among professors I'm not surprised by that chart. Not that educated Republicans would have much reason to vote Romney anyway. He's not a conservative and from his record was an obvious flip-flopper a la John Kerry.
Obviously atomic bombs are more destructive. However it's pretty easy to figure out that when you initiate force to prevent a country from receiving basic goods for its people (which should be considered an act of war), a shit ton of people are going to die. They're going to starve from a lack of food and die from diseases that could have otherwise been treated had they had more medical supplies. Especially in countries in the middle east where you have leaders who are going to stockpile what supplies they have for themselves and let the people eat cake, so to speak.
I don't place much value in the 1,000,000 dead figure, but it's important to remember when you hear presidential candidates patting each other on the back over tough sanctions on other countries, they're talking about playing a hand in many children starving to death. Same as high-fiving over increased drone strikes. Innocent people are dying. Stop high-fiving, you psychopaths.
But no, these countries hate us because of our FREEDOMS.
Yeah I realize they're using hyperbole to get their point across, but they need to get specific too. They need to cite facts and sources that tie in cause and effect. Maybe there are other videos where they do that, but those videos you posted make them look ridiculous despite using a guy with a British accent as a narrator. British accents always make things seem more serious and credible.
Location: Watchin a stripper and snortin some coke off her thighs
Posts: 7,369
Re: Poll - Obama (D) vs Romney (R) - Vote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMister
Yeah I realize they're using hyperbole to get their point across, but they need to get specific too. They need to cite facts and sources that tie in cause and effect. Maybe there are other videos where they do that, but those videos you posted make them look ridiculous despite using a guy with a British accent as a narrator. British accents always make things seem more serious and credible.
I believe the purpose of these videos is to provoke individuals into opening their eyes and doing research on the topics themselves to see that sanctions are not harmless, and they absolutely constitute acts of war. Right now when someone mentions sanctions it kind of passes over among the general populace as a relatively harmless word. They might think "oh well, good, we're hurting their economy", but they don't think about the deaths. They don't think about the blowback of being directly responsible for many deaths in other countries.
As with funding civil wars, installing puppet regimes, using drone strikes, and otherwise completely violating the sovereignty of other nations and their people, you're going to piss people off and make them hate you, and sooner or later somebody is gonna figure out a way to hurt you by flying planes into your skyscrapers. Then to appease the masses we have presidents coming out trying to convince us this all happens due to a cultural or religious divide, instead of holding us accountable for our god-awful foreign policy over the decades.
__________________
Must have been a world of evil clowns that let it happen.
But now I recognize, that you were there and so was I.
Last edited by CamillePunk : 11-17-2012 at 03:41 PM.
Or just support its "right to defend itself", like our oh so peaceful president does.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Light
Was just taking my dog for a walk and a guy down the park said he heard from his wife's brother's uncle's second cousin who works for the company that caters Wrestlemania that a chef overheard Vince's driver say that Cena is gonna turn heel tonight
Considering the strong liberal bias in our colleges among professors I'm not surprised by that chart. Not that educated Republicans would have much reason to vote Romney anyway. He's not a conservative and from his record was an obvious flip-flopper a la John Kerry.
Obviously atomic bombs are more destructive. However it's pretty easy to figure out that when you initiate force to prevent a country from receiving basic goods for its people (which should be considered an act of war), a shit ton of people are going to die. They're going to starve from a lack of food and die from diseases that could have otherwise been treated had they had more medical supplies. Especially in countries in the middle east where you have leaders who are going to stockpile what supplies they have for themselves and let the people eat cake, so to speak.
I don't place much value in the 1,000,000 dead figure, but it's important to remember when you hear presidential candidates patting each other on the back over tough sanctions on other countries, they're talking about playing a hand in many children starving to death. Same as high-fiving over increased drone strikes. Innocent people are dying. Stop high-fiving, you psychopaths.
But no, these countries hate us because of our FREEDOMS.
I would say to a certain extent that sanctions are more harmful because no one really cares to know what they really are. It's like a quiet way to kill people, and not just killing them, but simply starving them to death. That's about as nasty as it can get since food is a basic necessity for life. Not only that, but we throw millions of tons of food away here in the States as well each. Denying children the right to eat is morally wrong. Doesn't surprise me though, we are talking about the United States Government.
I dunno, I just think this a one sided argument in which the opposition end up looking like hypocrites. The amount of money spent on drugs coming in should be enough for the Conservatives to scream bloody murder. It's the Federal Government that spends all this money, but I don't hear Conservatives saying anything about that. Most take this "moral" stance on drugs, which is complete emotional bullshit that isn't backed by facts.
Drugs should be legal, plain, and simple. Legal with vast regulation on harder drugs like Crack, or Heroin. Since they are illegal there is no real control over them, but merely costs (our taxes) that helps put our government in the hole each year. Since 1952 we have spent over one trillion dollars on marijuana alone. Regulate these drugs so that "bad heroin", or any bad drug doesn't hit the streets. Drug dealers will cut almost anything with certain drugs these days because the drugs are becoming more expensive, and it's the only way to make a profit.
When you make drugs legal you stop a large amount of crime as well. Dealers will have nothing else to sell. I'm sure they will find something else, but drugs won't be the answer. Not unless they are stealing them. In essence we pay no more tax dollars to house these people in jails. It would costs less to pay for them to get well as opposed to jailing them. Jailing drug offenders is costly, and I am tired of paying more in taxes to keep some junkie in jail, not getting well, but getting more drugs in jail. The system is so broken.
Well crime and voting doesn't exactly have much correlation. I would say there's a better link between education and voting.
Well, I disagree. (Sorry for a very late reply)..most voters aren't exactly too tuned in, and the extent of what they'll know is covered on the surface level of the debates, the rest to them is just noise. The average voter has about as much political knowledge as someone from those states (I know I'm wording this badly, sorry it's hard to say). Cities with the most urban/minority voters (with the most crime) practically won Obama the election (Romney could have won Colorado, Nevada, Florida, etc. had it not been for a handful of cities.
Also, the states with the highest welfare (NY, Cali, etc.) voted overwhelmingly for Obama. That's telling. Gotta get their Obama bucks.
Poll - Obama (D) vs Romney (R) - Vote
Re: Poll - Obama (D) vs Romney (R) - Vote
