28% say we will win the Iraq war [Archive] - Debate Policy

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 03:15 PM

Once again you are dumb enough to rely upon polls that sample less than .00001 percent of our nation. And just about every time you post a poll it's from a different website or source. Do you ever get tired of scouring the internet for obscure articles and polls to support your views?

It doesn't really matter anyway as no amount of lame polls you post will change the direction we go in fighting terrorism and supporting Iraq. You already lost. Get over it.

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 03:27 PM

MtnBiker

12-26-2007, 03:31 PM

Yeah, China and India's growing ecomomies and higher demand for oil don't have any effect on the world's oil commodity price. :rolleyes:

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 03:31 PM

No, YOU lost because you're paying more than twice as much at the pump than you did 7 years ago. You're just dragging everyone else down with you.

How could I have lost when I am HAPPILY willing to give more in anyway I can to support our military efforts in fighting terrorism? They can triple the current rates of gas if I know the extra money will go towards killing some more scumbags. If you'd rather appease terrorism so you can have cheaper gas, more power to you!

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 03:34 PM

Yeah, China and India's growing ecomomies and higher demand for oil don't have any effect on the world's oil commodity price. :rolleyes:

And Enron was just a believer in the free market.

MtnBiker

12-26-2007, 03:35 PM

Here is another poll result

About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion. That includes 51% who said they were Protestant, 5% who were "other Christian," 23% Roman Catholic, and 3% who named another Christian faith, including 2% Mormon.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/Questions-Answers-About-Americans-Religion.aspx

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 03:40 PM

Here is another poll result

Polls are unnecessary in this thread. TM will search high and low to find any lame poll she can to support her views and then claim everything as fact. I can find a poll to support just about anything, but I won't, and I certainly won't do so and claim it's the truth to end all. I've been waiting about 3-4 months now for her to provide proof of her lame assertions that "major financial companies use these polls to make major financial decisions".

MtnBiker

12-26-2007, 03:43 PM

I hear you Jim. Just pointing out that there are also polls that may not support her perspective.

Dilloduck

12-26-2007, 03:44 PM

ahhh don't be too hard on her. Someone was probably nice to on Christmas so now she feels like she deserves to have her ass kicked.

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 03:53 PM

I hear you Jim. Just pointing out that there are also polls that may not support her perspective.

I'm not discounting your input, just stating that it is wasted on someone who hasn't learned how to think properly yet!

ahhh don't be too hard on her. Someone was probably nice to on Christmas so now she feels like she deserves to have her ass kicked.

I hope Santa got her some books or recordings to enhance her reading abilities!

darin

12-26-2007, 04:35 PM

I'd say 100% of folk want the war to end. Good people know war is a necessary evil. Islamic Terrorist Assholes think war is a necessary noble cause, though...that's why we're still there.

Chessplayer

12-26-2007, 04:49 PM

How could I have lost when I am HAPPILY willing to give more in anyway I can to support our military efforts in fighting terrorism? They can triple the current rates of gas if I know the extra money will go towards killing some more scumbags. If you'd rather appease terrorism so you can have cheaper gas, more power to you!

Could you tell me how the more expensive price of gas is contributing to the military effort to fight terrorism?

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 04:58 PM

How could I have lost when I am HAPPILY willing to give more in anyway I can to support our military efforts in fighting terrorism? They can triple the current rates of gas if I know the extra money will go towards killing some more scumbags. If you'd rather appease terrorism so you can have cheaper gas, more power to you!

I have a better one: those who give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

And the guy who said that was smarter even than I! :)

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 04:59 PM

Could you tell me how the more expensive price of gas is contributing to the military effort to fight terrorism?

As soon as you show me where anyone stated as much.

The higher gas prices might be a result of war efforts, and if so, I am more than happy to pay higher prices. I'm also more than happy to be taxed more to contribute towards the efforts.

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 05:00 PM

I have a better one: those who give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

And the guy who said that was smarter even than I! :)

Well, I gave up no freedoms, so you're analogy doesn't make sense.

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 05:02 PM

Well, I gave up no freedoms, so you're analogy doesn't make sense.

A willingness to pay more for energy and transportation just to be safer from terrorists IS giving up freedom. You have less of it.

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 05:03 PM

A willingness to pay more for energy and transportation just to be safer from terrorists IS giving up freedom. You have less of it.

Sorry, nice try, but energy/transportation doesn't equate to freedoms.

Chessplayer

12-26-2007, 05:05 PM

As soon as you show me where anyone stated as much.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=175942#post175942

It was you who stated such.

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 05:05 PM

Sorry, nice try, but energy/transportation doesn't equate to freedoms.

Oh really? How free are you if you can only go as far as your legs will carry you?

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 05:31 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=175942#post175942

It was you who stated such.

Nice twist, but COMPREHENSION goes a long way.

My point is that if taxes are being raised as a RESULT of the war, and gas prices are rising as a RESULT of the war - then I am happy to pay them.

Chessplayer

12-26-2007, 05:34 PM

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 05:34 PM

Oh really? How free are you if you can only go as far as your legs will carry you?

Just as free as I was before prices went up. I'm free to pay higher prices. Free to purchase a cheaper vehicle. Free to use mass transportation. Free to protest. Free to make my choices.

Why do democrats want to take away my freedoms by increasing social policies that benefit the poor by taxing me more?

Honestly, I don't think that would be affecting my freedoms, but it sounds as silly as your argument.

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 05:35 PM

Nice twist, but COMPREHENSION goes a long way.

My point is that if taxes are being raised as a RESULT of the war, and [if] gas prices are rising as a RESULT of the war - then I am happy to pay them.

Then my analogy does, in fact, apply.

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 05:36 PM

So, someone made a comment that you're paying twice the money for gas, and your reply was that "if the higher price is the result of higher taxes to pay for the war, you'll support them."

Ok, fine.

What if the reason you're paying twice the money for gas is not that the extra money is going to the WOT...You didn't address that issue. I perceived that to be the point of the question.

What IF the money, the extra cost of gas, is NOT going to the war effort, what do you think of the extra cost then?

Have you read the title of the thread you are posting in? Have you read the post I originally replied to?

And if the increase is a RESULT of the war, but the money I spend doesn't go back to it, I still don't give a damn. I'll pay the results to fight terrorism.

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 05:37 PM

Then my analogy does, in fact, apply.

Only if someone is foolish enough to believe that paying higher prices at the pump is "losing freedom".

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 05:42 PM

Only if someone is foolish enough to believe that paying higher prices at the pump is "losing freedom".

Mobility is a huge part of freedom, Jim. It always has been.

(Why do you think that there are no road signs in North Korea? It's because the average citizen is forbidden from traveling anywhere without the government's permission.)

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 05:45 PM

Mobility is a huge part of freedom, Jim. It always has been.

(Why do you think that there are no road signs in North Korea? It's because the average citizen is forbidden from traveling anywhere without the government's permission.)

You are trying to equate my freedom to be mobile, with the cost of gas, which is wrong. I am still free to travel anywhere I please but if I choose to do so in a way that requires gas, it will cost more.

When the price of food goes up does that mean I am losing my freedom to eat?

Hagbard Celine

12-26-2007, 05:56 PM

Only if someone is foolish enough to believe that paying higher prices at the pump is "losing freedom".

Well yeah. I've lost the freedom to buy groceries because I have to buy gas to go to work so yeah. I call that losing freedom :poke:

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 06:02 PM

Well yeah. I've lost the freedom to buy groceries because I have to buy gas to go to work so yeah. I call that losing freedom :poke:

I'm starting to understand why you guys don't understand about fighting for freedom - because you don't understand freedom.

Yurt

12-26-2007, 06:07 PM

Then my analogy does, in fact, apply.

Is it a "right" to drive?

Yurt

12-26-2007, 06:09 PM

Well yeah. I've lost the freedom to buy groceries because I have to buy gas to go to work so yeah. I call that losing freedom :poke:

http://www.walkinghealthy.com/Shop/EvolutionOfRaceWalkingLarge.jpg

http://www.uh.edu/engines/bicycle.gif

:)

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 06:13 PM

You are trying to equate my freedom to be mobile, with the cost of gas, which is wrong. I am still free to travel anywhere I please but if I choose to do so in a way that requires gas, it will cost more.

In the real world of 2007, if you want to travel any significant distance from point A to point B, you're stuck with gas-burning vehicles.

Makes your "choice" argument moot.

Is it a "right" to drive?
It's never gone to court (except in Maryland), but most federal and state laws give you the right to travel on any public road "on the conveyance of the day," unless it's for the purpose of commerce.

Yurt

12-26-2007, 06:18 PM

In the real world of 2007, if you want to travel any significant distance from point A to point B, you're stuck with gas-burning vehicles.

Makes your "choice" argument moot.

It's never gone to court (except in Maryland), but most federal and state laws give you the right to travel on any public road "on the conveyance of the day," unless it's for the purpose of commerce.

You misunderstood the question. Is it a fundamental or inalienable "right" to drive? Giving a "right" is not the same as the right naturally existing. "Allowing" one to use a road is not bestowing a right. Also, it has gone to court and if I remember correctly, the ruling stated that we do not have a "right" to drive, it is a privilege.

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 06:18 PM

In the real world of 2007, if you want to travel any significant distance from point A to point B, you're stuck with gas-burning vehicles.

Makes your "choice" argument moot.

I'm finding airline and train fares cheaper now than I did when I got married in 1994. In fact, the airline cost to get to St. Lucia where I got married is now about $400 cheaper than I paid back then. Any "significant" travel will generally require one of those modes of transportation.

I guess I have MORE freedom now.

And you still haven't answered my question. When the price of food goes up, am I losing freedoms?

Yurt

12-26-2007, 06:19 PM

I'm finding airline and train fares cheaper now than I did when I got married in 1994. In fact, the airline cost to get to St. Lucia where I got married is now about $400 cheaper than I paid back then. Any "significant" travel will generally require one of those modes of transportation.

I guess I have MORE freedom now.

And you still haven't answered my question. When the price of food goes up, am I losing freedoms?

the "market" doesn't exist, stop fooling us :laugh2:

Abbey Marie

12-26-2007, 06:24 PM

Ever since I got my rolling luggage a few years ago, I find I feel a lot more "free" when I travel. I don't have to get a cart, or pay for someone to carry around my bags for me. So, I don't have to check my bags now, and I am "free" to leave the airport much sooner. And with Easy Pass, I get through tolls much quicker, saving fuel by not stopping to pay the tolls every time. Yup, my freedoms have increased. ;>)

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 06:26 PM

You misunderstood the question. Is it a fundamental or inalienable "right" to drive? Giving a "right" is not the same as the right naturally existing. "Allowing" one to use a road is not bestowing a right. Also, it has gone to court and if I remember correctly, the ruling stated that we do not have a "right" to drive, it is a privilege.Actually, passing a law that allows persons to use a public road is definitely bestowing a right. As far as going back to rights that "naturally exist," there are none. We the people accept that these rights naturally exist because that's the consensus of the society we live in.

BTW, the phrase "on the conveyance of the day" did actually come from the Maryland Supreme Court, when a guy fought his charge of driving without a license. It could very well work elsewhere.

I'm finding airline and train fares cheaper now than I did when I got married in 1994. In fact, the airline cost to get to St. Lucia where I got married is now about $400 cheaper than I paid back then. Any "significant" travel will generally require one of those modes of transportation.

I guess I have MORE freedom now.Sure, if you can walk to the airport and the train station. :laugh:

And you still haven't answered my question. When the price of food goes up, am I losing freedoms?If you aren't bringing in more money, then you're certainly losing the freedoms to be mobile and pursue happiness.

jimnyc

12-26-2007, 06:28 PM

If you aren't bringing in more money, then you're certainly losing the freedoms to be mobile and pursue happiness.

Shouldn't you be protesting major companies daily then for taking away our freedoms? I paid more for a gallon of milk this week than just last week!

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 06:32 PM

Shouldn't you be protesting major companies daily then for taking away our freedoms?
Most people should be. But hey, if they'll settle for fixed elections these days, I suppose they'll put up with practically anything.

Yurt

12-26-2007, 06:35 PM

Ever since I got my rolling luggage a few years ago, I find I feel a lot more "free" when I travel. I don't have to get a cart, or pay for someone to carry around my bags for me. So, I don't have to check my bags now, and I am "free" to leave the airport muic sooner. And with Easy Pass, I get through tolls mich quicker, saving fuel by not stopping to pay the tolls every time. Yup, my freedoms have increased. ;>)

:lmao::lmao:

Yurt

12-26-2007, 06:40 PM

Actually, passing a law that allows persons to use a public road is definitely bestowing a right. As far as going back to rights that "naturally exist," there are none. We the people accept that these rights naturally exist because that's the consensus of the society we live in.

BTW, the phrase "on the conveyance of the day" did actually come from the Maryland Supreme Court, when a guy fought his charge of driving without a license. It could very well work elsewhere.

No, it is not bestowing a right. It is allowing you to use the road, so long as you obey the rules, etc... It is not a right. I don't think you truly understand what "rights" are. Let me ask you this, there are laws that allow you to have work, is it a right that you always have a job?

Actually, there are "natural" rights and this country has made sure that these rights are secure. Life, liberty..... Read up on rights, it will absolutely be an eye opener.

As I said, not sure about the case, but I remember something like it.

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 06:55 PM

No, it is not bestowing a right. It is allowing you to use the road, so long as you obey the rules, etc... It is not a right. I don't think you truly understand what "rights" are. Let me ask you this, there are laws that allow you to have work, is it a right that you always have a job?

Actually, there are "natural" rights and this country has made sure that these rights are secure. Life, liberty..... Read up on rights, it will absolutely be an eye opener.
Wrong: the only "natural" rights are defined by those that you are willing to use force, or the threat of force, to protect.

Simple example: you and I are sitting at a table, and I'm wearing my wristwatch. You take your wristwatch off my arm and keep it for yourself. Whose watch is it now?

Unless I kick your ass (direct force), or call the police (threat of force), the watch becomes yours. I no longer have any right to it.

So going back to the example of public roads, nobody can just arbitrarily set up a toll booth to take your money unless the government allows them to do it. You have a right to use that road whether you're carrying money or not.

Yurt

12-26-2007, 07:05 PM

Wrong: the only "natural" rights are defined by those that you are willing to use force, or the threat of force, to protect.

Simple example: you and I are sitting at a table, and I'm wearing my wristwatch. You take your wristwatch off my arm and keep it for yourself. Whose watch is it now?

Unless I kick your ass (direct force), or call the police (threat of force), the watch becomes yours. I no longer have any right to it.

So going back to the example of public roads, nobody can just arbitrarily set up a toll booth to take your money unless the government allows them to do it. You have a right to use that road whether you're carrying money or not.

good lord, you ain't that smart. how am I wrong about what i said about natural rights, Life, Liberty....? dude.

you have no right to use roads just because the government creates them. using your own example (lame really) you can get to your destination without the use of government roads. are you telling me that you are WILLING to use (force, or the threat of force, to protect. ) to your use of government roads? This is what you define as a "right?" holy crap, what if your electrocity goes out?

typomaniac

12-26-2007, 07:11 PM

good lord, you ain't that smart. how am I wrong about what i said about natural rights, Life, Liberty....? dude. Well, your lights are on, but I'm not sure anybody's driving the Yurtmobile today.

I told you just now: Life and Liberty are "inalienable rights" only because our society has accepted them as such. It's purely a human social creation: there's no physical "force of nature" about it.

you have no right to use roads just because the government creates them. using your own example (lame really) you can get to your destination without the use of government roads. are you telling me that you are WILLING to use (force, or the threat of force, to protect. ) to your use of government roads? This is what you define as a "right?"I have the right to call the Highway Patrol if some nut tries to block the road...

Yurt

12-26-2007, 07:13 PM

Well, your lights are on, but I'm not sure anybody's driving the Yurtmobile today.

I told you just now: Life and Liberty are "inalienable rights" only because our society has accepted them as such. It's purely a human social creation: there's no physical "force of nature" about it.

I have the right to call the Highway Patrol if some nut tries to block the road...

:lmao::lmao:

LOOOOOL, you don't even know what a "right" is.... bless your heart typo

Immanuel

12-26-2007, 08:40 PM

Abbey Marie

12-27-2007, 12:10 PM

Yeah? Any idea how many skycaps people like you (um us) have sent to the Welfare roles? ;)

Immie

But they are experiencing the freedom of not carrying other people's bags around. It's a win-win. :laugh2:

PostmodernProphet

12-27-2007, 12:23 PM

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29447

68% want to it to end.

no, 100% want to end it, the only question is when and how.......

Abbey Marie

12-27-2007, 12:35 PM

no, 100% want to end it, the only question is when and how.......

I tried to rep you for this slice of truth. :clap:

Kathianne

12-27-2007, 12:44 PM

I tried to rep you for this slice of truth. :clap:

Got it!

Abbey Marie

12-27-2007, 01:16 PM

Got it!

Thanks! :salute:

truthmatters

12-27-2007, 04:05 PM

68 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, and 69 per cent call for a withdrawal of all or some U.S. troops from the country.

jimnyc

12-27-2007, 04:13 PM

68 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, and 69 per cent call for a withdrawal of all or some U.S. troops from the country.

99% think you're an idiot.

Sir Evil

12-27-2007, 04:15 PM

68 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, and 69 per cent call for a withdrawal of all or some U.S. troops from the country.

Per cent, really? what do they get per each cent moron? :laugh2:

truthmatters

12-27-2007, 04:36 PM

It is a direct quote from the article.

You people here are in the minortity in this country.

Its just the truth.

jimnyc

12-27-2007, 04:46 PM

It is a direct quote from the article.

You people here are in the minortity in this country.

Its just the truth.

And you're still an idiot. And at least we can prove that!

82Marine89

12-27-2007, 04:55 PM

It is a direct quote from the article.

You people here are in the minortity in this country.

Its just the truth.

That just means the author is also an idiot.

truthmatters

12-27-2007, 05:04 PM

What benifit to you gain from pretending to yourselves that you are not in the minority of thought here?

jimnyc

12-27-2007, 05:17 PM

What benifit to you gain from pretending to yourselves that you are not in the minority of thought here?

What "benefit" do you get from constantly scouring the internet for articles to support your view, especially those that sample .00001% of the nation?

Sir Evil

12-27-2007, 05:53 PM

What "benefit" do you get from constantly scouring the internet for articles to support your view, especially those that sample .00001% of the nation?

The benefit would be something that she could post so she would sound somewhat intelligent. Unfortunately she will have to reply to someone sooner or later, and the whole intelligent thing goes right out the window.