Nice ignoring my argument and just making a brand new one.


And yet, Obama is listening to his anti-America pastor and not reacting at all. He is just trying to get people to think he's all religious, it's like Clinton saying God Bless America, he can say it all he wants, doesn't mean he believes it.


First of all, I'm tired of everyone making retarded jabs at mormonism, leave my religion out of this, it isn't the discussion. Second of all, my family donates 10% of everything we earn to our church, which uses it to help the poor, and I participate in service projects at least once a week, just last week I worked at a Soup Kitchen, don't tell me I'm not trying to help the poor.

Your last post had no responses to anything I said. I can't read your mind to figure out what you're thinking - you actually have to write it.
Thank god he doesn't believe it. What, and you think McCain does? Sorry, I've never seen him shake in the throes of divine contact. The only person out of the four who believes it, I think, is Palin. Which is one of the sad things. I think that few of the world leaders actually believe in god, though they may say they do. I'm not even sure the Ayatollah does.

I doubt that more goes to the poor then would go if you paid slightly more under Obama and the poor people had to pay less. Just saying. I won't take a jab at your religion, but I will take a jab at your family having a $250,000 yearly income and you whining about it because your parents decided to have nine children. You have the income - your parents are the ones who wanted the nine kids. You can't really use that as an argument. I'm pretty sure for all your troubles, you live better by far than most.

I have written it, and you completely ignored it, I guess if you want to ignore it, I can assume you agree with what I said, or can't find an argument against it.


Wow, you're a worse flip-flopper than John Kerry, let's compare this with your other statement about Obama:

Verses:

So when Obama is believing, then Jesus is all good, but as soon as it's said he doesn't believe in Him, you immediately resort back to your old, already disproved argument, that being a religious person is a bad thing. Not only are you flip-flopping, your resorting to circular reasoning.


And yet, systems are already in place to help them, maybe if Obama was setting up systems to teach them how to fish, rather than simply giving them a fish, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but when he's just taking from people who have earned it and giving it as a handout to those who haven't been putting half as much effort in, it bugs me.

... I didn't write that first quote. Wtf? Now you're going to pretend I wrote something written by something else? The least you can do when in an argument is keeping track of who you're arguing with.

Point it out in your next counterpost, pl0x. Anything less then that will show that you didn't write it. Thanks .

You can't really prosper on government handouts. Anything given out is just enough to live. Plus, what does your church do differently? Does it provide a college education to homeless people? Or is it doing just what you accuse Obama of trying to do? If you want to teach the folks how to fish, you give money to an education organization, not a church.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 5 2008, 9:14 pm by Centreri.

You should know that science should be kept away from religion as much as politics away from religion. Barack Obama is a Christian, true, but is never a hypocrite to his words.

I'm pretty sure that the bullet points I listed unveiled the people taught themselves how to fish well as much as Obama may teach them, there are life obstacles like I stated in the bullet points, are keeping them from leaving poverty or the middle class as they are trying promote as a millionaire status.

Now, if I were to state the fish term completely literal, I can say: a shark, tsunami, waves of water, stingrays and jelly fishes all can cause a leap of obstacles to the fisher and has to avoid them in order for the fisher to survive, either he has to abandon whatever she/he is doing or never go there at all. They CLEARLY understand how to fish well, use the bait and able to get heavy fishes and whatnot, but those obstacles defeats the purpose of fishing. If the fisher knows there is a problem at the certain area, he will most likely find another way to get fishes but will meet another obstacle. Some fishers are lucky, also has either to sell the fish or serve it as their own benefits. Fishes are limited, especially at certain regions, weather conditions and especially the season. It would be unlikely to find fishes during the Winter as much as in the Summer. Comparing to this life, you probably wouldn't find a situation and opportunity to help yourself, living in a bad condition environment and with the season being the time of events of what is going on.

Think realistically, Falkoner.

LOL. You fail so hard falk

Also, how does withdrawing from his church after he heard that count as "not reacting".

My Counterargument: McCain plans to build 45 new nuclear power plants. Isn't nuclear power very dangerous? If 45 nuclear meltdowns happen wouldn't the world end anyways?
America is the first polluter right after China

Nuclear energy is also one of the cleanest and safest. Why is everyone so afraid of the world ending? Wouldn't it be awesome to be the last generation; the ones that get to see it happen?

Converting a lot of our power to nuclear power would not bring about the end of everything, though. You watch too many action movies.

As Doodan said, Nuclear energy is clean and safe. While chances of a meltdown are there, there's only been one major happening of that ever, at Chernobyl. 45 at once? I really doubt it. Nuclear energy is also very powerful and efficient cost/energy.

You forgot 3 Mile Island, an importance case to show that nuclear power is safe. The reactor on 3 Mile Island melted down. Because the reactor had a containment chamber, a standard requirement on every nuclear power plant in America, the meltdown did very little damage and nobody was hurt. The containment chamber worked as it was designed. Compare that to Cherynobl, where there was no containment chamber. And France gets >70% of it's energy from nuclear. The US has over 20 nuclear power plants (i can't remember the number off the top of my head), there just haven't been any built since the 70's, after regulation was passed due to the anti-nuclear fear-mongering hippies of the 60's.

I just LOVE how first Falk states shit like "I WORK COMMUNITY SERVICE GUYZ" and "DOOD I GIVE MONEY TO CHRUCHZ" and "SOOP KITCHENZ" and then says they shouldn't give handouts to the poor.

This was a very funny debate.
"This one!"
"um, you're in the way of my teleprompter..."

This debate wasn't as captivating as the first, but I'd have to say it went to Obama. Obama remained cool headed and wasn't trying to be that aggressive, while McCain showed a hot personality during the debate.

After watching all of these debates, I am starting to lean more and more towards Obama

That debate was boring. I don't really think anyone 'won' it. I found some Obama gaffs and some McCain gaffs... However, McCain repeated himself he repeated repeated himself. Some two words I took note of but forgot.

I didn't watch but 5 minutes of it. Did they actually answer the questions, or did they pull a Biden-Palin debate and just flat-out ignore the question?

Also, Biden-Palin was more watched by more people lolwut?

Second 2008 Presidential Debate

"this one" - John McCain

Those were the two words I took note of lol

Nah, mine were adjectives.

I have neither the time or the patience to listen to their BS. Did they answer the questions or not?