[QUOTE=hismajestythepope;16814437]okay look at it this way, you give a kid $40 for a pair of shoes

the kid spends it on weed, so you give the kid $80 so he can definitely get the shoes, comes back no shoes still, give the kid $120 maybe thatll fix it!
[/QUOTE]
But that isnt's what happens, what happens is you give a kid $40 for shows so he spends $20 on shoes and $20 on weed...if I get what you're trying to say.

Either way, the idea of criticizing the way the government spends money to complete projects has usually seemed silly to me because, for the example of this bridge, it was (I'm pretty sure) contracted out to a private corporation, and they blew it. So please, someone enlighten me as to why a corporation will take government money and blow the project, but all of a sudden if the people spend the money directly, they won't mess up anymore?

mccain supporter?

POST THE LINK TO YOUR BLOG

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;16814471]But that isnt's what happens, what happens is you give a kid $40 for shows so he spends $20 on shoes and $20 on weed...if I get what you're trying to say.

Either way, the idea of criticizing the way the government spends money to complete projects has usually seemed silly to me because, for the example of this bridge, it was (I'm pretty sure) contracted out to a private corporation, and they blew it. So please, someone enlighten me as to why a corporation will take government money and blow the project, but all of a sudden if the people spend the money directly, they won't mess up anymore?[/QUOTE]

no, msdot definitely was in charge of the maintenance of the bridge, their inspectors said it needed repairs within a certain time window (i forget the exact window) and some higher up in msdot was just like "nah thatll cut profits"

msdos

[QUOTE=Dimmu Burger;16814461]Out of curiosity, why do young people tend to vote liberally?[/QUOTE]

A few reasons:
1. They are educated by an overwhelmingly liberal teacher base.
2. They are open minded to new ideas because they are inexperienced.
3. Conservatism is bred of lethargy, and young people aren't yet lethargic or jaded.
4. Liberalism is in line more with middle class values which is what everyone in America wants to be until life experiences change them.

[QUOTE=masada;16814473]mccain supporter?

POST THE LINK TO YOUR BLOG[/QUOTE]

hahaha

[QUOTE=hismajestythepope;16814478]no, msdot definitely was in charge of the maintenance of the bridge, their inspectors said it needed repairs within a certain time window (i forget the exact window) and some higher up in msdot was just like "nah thatll cut profits"[/QUOTE]

Um that makes sense except that GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DON'T EXIST TO MAKE PROFIT.

...

What since when? :eek:

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;16814483]A few reasons:
1. They are educated by an overwhelmingly liberal teacher base.
2. They are open minded to new ideas because they are inexperienced.
3. Conservatism is bred of lethargy, and young people aren't yet lethargic or jaded.
4. Liberalism is in line more with middle class values which is what everyone in America wants to be until life experiences change them.[/QUOTE]

well that sounds about right, lol.

still talking about this **** jesus christ

[IMG]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c7/pyroflame311/n1011331775_30709741_6929.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=masada;16814585]still talking about this **** jesus christ[/QUOTE]

i no rly talking about things of substance instead of spamming, ****ing hell guys

[url]http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61[/url]

go drink some wine baby ur stressed

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;16814483]A few reasons:
1. They are educated by an overwhelmingly liberal teacher base.
2. They are open minded to new ideas because they are inexperienced.
3. Conservatism is bred of lethargy, and young people aren't yet lethargic or jaded.
4. Liberalism is in line more with middle class values which is what everyone in America wants to be until life experiences change them.[/QUOTE]
i would agree with 1 and 2.

3 is wrong period. Liberalism is known to be much more breeding of lazy people, if we appeal to stereotypes. (and slightly personal experience i guess.) And i dont get the jaded part. I find liberal idealists much more "jaded" with indoctrination whilst conservatives are more pragmatic and resistant to change.

4 is somewhat write. I would say that young people find more definition and relation to the lowly individual because they are generally more poor. They see on a surface level and rhetoric level, that liberals are much more appeasing to them (even if its not necessarily true).

I would say liberalism also stems from the fact that younger people are often more idealistic and utopian oriented, as where older people are more pragmatic.

no thx i feel great =)

[QUOTE=McP3000;16814612]i would agree with 1 and 2.

3 is wrong period. Liberalism is known to be much more breeding of lazy people, if we appeal to stereotypes. (and slightly personal experience i guess.)

4 is somewhat write. I would say that young people find more definition and relation to the lowly individual because they are generally more poor. They see on a surface level and rhetoric level, that liberals are much more appeasing to them (even if its not necessarily true).

I would say liberalism also stems from the fact that younger people are often more idealistic and utopian oriented, as where older people are more pragmatic.[/QUOTE]
3 is not wrong period. Liberalism is associated with changing while conservatism is sticking to what is standard. Liberalism is progressive. Conservatism isn't regressive, but it's very much for keeping things as they are.

Middle class isn't "lowly." America is all about the middle class though, which is about change (The American Dream) and equality and things of that nature. Liberalism is focused on all those sorts of ideals in their rhetoric.

That last is what I was trying to cover in 2 and 3.

[QUOTE=hismajestythepope;16814278]we needed bush as our president this past decade dude. we were attacked. on american soil. bush being a militant mother****er pwned the noobs who hit us and took out one of the biggest supporters of al-qaeda.

his policies outside of the war are pretty lol though.
.[/QUOTE]
We didn't "need" Bush at all. Any president at that time would have sent troops into the middle east. The military has A LOT of influence over the president.


[QUOTE=masada;16814284]there are a lot of kids at my school that regurgitate obama rhetoric but dont seem to do anything but that

same for the other side too[/QUOTE]

Yeah same here. I ask Obama supporters why they like him and they give me some bullpoop, vague response. Same for McCain supporters.



[QUOTE=hismajestythepope;16814354]except mccain's planning on reforming the government and fixing spending issues where obama's just planning on increasing taxes and spending.[/QUOTE]

I wish I had a dime every time a president said that. Face it, everything candidates say is just to make you feel good until they get into the white house. They follow up on some things, but do you really think they're going to change the power structure that got them there and retains their own power in the first place?

not all

I'm reading The Art of War right now and I just keep going like "omg Bush screwed up so bad" as I read it. It pretty much points out everything that went wrong in the entire war.

We get it. Bush screwed up.

[QUOTE=hismajestythepope;16814394]just saying yeah your point is pretty hilariously ignorant.

[B]if you were to do some historical research, you might find that increased military spending SAVED US FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION.[/B][/QUOTE]

Thats actually one of the biggest myths ever.

FDR's social reforms started to finally kick in and work around WW2, thats all. Of course WW2 helped, but it didn't end the depression by itself. All WW2 did was solve unemployment, but that was also because over 11 million men were drafted and most were sent overseas, freeing up a lot of jobs.






As for Bush, yes, he's a ****ing terrible President, but I think he gets more stuff blame don him than he actually deserves. A lot of things that went wrong had to do with poor cabinet choices.

[QUOTE=Mr. Ron;16814676]Thats actually one of the biggest myths ever.

FDR's social reforms started to finally kick in and work around WW2, thats all. Of course WW2 helped, but it didn't end the depression by itself. All WW2 did was solve unemployment, but that was also because over 11 million men were drafted and most were sent overseas, freeing up a lot of jobs.






As for Bush, yes, he's a ****ing terrible President, but I think he gets more stuff blame don him than he actually deserves. A lot of things that went wrong had to do with poor cabinet choices.[/QUOTE]
Top part of post is win.


Well...he chose his cabinet no? SO still his fault...

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;16814683]Well...he chose his cabinet no? SO still his fault...[/QUOTE]

lol oh snap!

I've been listening to Jane Doe on repeat for 34 minutes and didn't realize it.

I like how we technically aren't even in a war.

lol accidental elitery ftw!

[QUOTE=Angmar;16814729]I like how we technically aren't even in a war.[/QUOTE]

It's the War On Terra!!!

No it's "keeping the peace", even though it is a war, as far as I know war has never officially been declared because bush declared "victory" before the time period where a declaration of war was needed to occupy a country.

Yeah he's very sneaky.

so andrew (paraphilia rhythm guitarist/producer) decided hes quitting the band now too :)

ahahah theyre getting pwned so hard