OpinionConservatives and Liberals in America: Conservatives believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and more personal responsibility, Liberals believe in bigger government, more taxes, and less personal responsibility.
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-08-27 at 15:00:29   (36 comments)

On 2009-08-28 at 07:20:41, BorgClown wrote...
The only thing I recall consistently about conservatives is that they love guns, control and a weird vision of Christian religion. I don't know about your liberals, they aren't that folkloric worldwide.
On 2009-08-30 at 15:35:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
The love of guns goes to our love of our freedoms. It is all about liberty and the left's hatred of it.
On 2009-08-30 at 15:53:33, Thelevellers wrote...
And yet you support the idea of Guantanomo Bay... For me, freedom means very little unless the freedom applies to everyone. But then again I think somethings are better restricted, because there are a great many retards in the world, and the not stupid majority's freedom to live a long time is put at high risk otherwise. Or something.
On 2009-08-30 at 15:55:03, DigitalBoss wrote...
In war, prisoners taken do not get freedom. It is that simple.
On 2009-08-30 at 15:58:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
There is a tactical advantage to taking prisoners. They may be a source of battlefield intelligence. If you take away the value of a prisoner, the commanders on the field will be giving orders to take no prisoners, shoot all on sight, take no prisoners.
On 2009-08-30 at 15:59:58, Thelevellers wrote...
I'm not saying don;t take prisoners, I'm saying treat them like human beings while you hold them.
On 2009-08-30 at 16:08:06, DigitalBoss wrote...
There is no proof that people being held at Guantanomo are not being treated humanly.
On 2009-08-30 at 16:17:06, DigitalBoss wrote...
People mention the Geneva Conventions in error. The Geneva Conventions were written not to provide the prisoner with certain rights, but to give the soldier an incentive to not involve civilians in combat. If the soldier fights with a uniform and keeps his weapons visible, reports to a command structure, and avoids involving civilians in combat, then they will be rewarded with a standard of treatment if captured. Our combatants in the war on terror, have not held to these rules, in fact go out of their way to involve civilians, and therefore DO NOT deserve to be afforded the rights mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. I have read them, have you? I don't think so.
On 2009-08-30 at 20:21:38, Thelevellers wrote...
I don't need to have read them, I haven't mentioned them, they aren't anything to do with my argument. I am saying that we should treat prisoners with respect. Full Stop. How can we expect them to treat us with respect, as the supposedly great nations on this planet, if we lower ourselves to their level? We had the moral high ground, for a short while, then we threw it away by invading Iraq and treating prisoners of 'war' (on a word) like crap. And I'm sure there have been plenty of documents of things like waterboarding having happened in Guantanamo, and shit definitely happened in Abu Grahib, so the point is still valid whether guantanomo is provable or not...
On 2009-08-30 at 20:52:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
Those people have never treated Americans with respect, even before the recent events. I say take um apart piece by piece.
On 2009-08-30 at 21:25:23, Thelevellers wrote...
But if you stoop to their level there is even less reason. And what if you get it wrong? Humans make mistakes... All treating them badly is gonna do is encourage more people to join their cause.
On 2009-08-31 at 02:22:16, DigitalBoss wrote...
If you always worry about making mistakes, you will never get anything done. They need to be shown some strength.
On 2009-08-31 at 02:23:04, DigitalBoss wrote...
Leftists are such pantywaists.
On 2009-08-31 at 04:33:12, BorgClown wrote...
Human rights are not a leftist view, but a humanitarian one. If you don't care about human rights of defenseless people, you don't get to whine when your citizens are being beheaded. Brutality is brutality, no matter how you label it.
On 2009-08-31 at 11:16:42, Thelevellers wrote...
Well said Borg.
On 2009-08-31 at 13:50:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
In war, there are no human rights.
On 2009-08-31 at 14:45:52, Thelevellers wrote...
BS. In war recognising human rights is the clearest way to see which side has some morals left... If there is a time when human rights are needed and should be recognised, it is in war.
On 2009-08-31 at 15:33:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
Oh yeah, I'm here to kill you, but I am going to treat you right up until I blow your brains out. Pantywaist.
On 2009-08-31 at 15:50:05, Thelevellers wrote...
No, 'ok, so we caught you without killing you, until this whole war is done with, you will be fed and housed and not abused.' Not getting this 'pantywaist' insult, btw?
On 2009-08-31 at 18:21:24, Baslisks wrote...
you derail your own threads...
On 2009-09-06 at 16:38:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
@TheBorg: "Defenseless people" wtf is that about?
On 2009-09-06 at 16:40:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
It is very simple, liberals want a government warm and fuzzy security, not liberty. They do not want to rely on their own responsibility in their lives, they want the government to be responsible for them.
On 2009-09-06 at 17:11:09, Thelevellers wrote...
No, I want the government to help those less fortunate than myself. To give them a chance to do the same things as me - you can;t deny that it is far easier for a rich child to end up more successful than a poor one, through no fault of the child. Indeed, without the government schooling that they usually recieve they probably wouldn't even know there was a better life to be had.
On 2009-09-06 at 21:28:09, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I meant prisoners, but you can have those everywhere. USA immigration laws create millions of legally defenseless who nevertheless contribute to your economy and pay taxes.
On 2009-09-07 at 02:33:06, DigitalBoss wrote...
Legally defenseless because they should not be here in the first place. Our immigration laws are not as strict as other countries, namely Mexico. I only wish that we would enforce the laws that we have now. We do not need any new laws... we have had enough laws since about 1910.
On 2009-09-07 at 02:35:41, DigitalBoss wrote...
I wish we could do away with our Congress, we do not need them to create any new laws, all they do now is to create unconstitutional big-government entitlement programs and name bridges after their loved politician friends.
On 2009-09-07 at 03:57:33, BorgClown wrote...
Come on, our laws are strict because we are a bridge towards USA. Frontiers were much more porous in Latin America just a few decades before.
On 2009-09-07 at 04:13:16, DigitalBoss wrote...
@TheLeveler: What does fortune, or less fortune, have to do with anything?
On 2009-09-07 at 18:42:28, Thelevellers wrote...
OK, don;t use the word 'fortune', my point was that some people are born into a situation which is arguably harder to achieve anything out of - through no fault of their own.
On 2009-09-08 at 00:42:33, DigitalBoss wrote...
Most people that fail, do so because they squandered an opportunity, not because they didn't have an opportunity. You can give people equal opportunity, but you can't give them equal outcome. They have to have some personal responsibility to take advantage of their opportunities.
On 2009-10-11 at 21:31:56, DigitalBoss wrote...
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
On 2009-10-11 at 21:32:49, DigitalBoss wrote...
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
On 2009-10-12 at 02:19:47, BorgClown wrote...
If a liberal wants meat, he tries for all people to have access to meat. If a conservative wants meat, he'll take as much meat as possible from the others, even if he can't eat it all. There, played into the useless but dramatic stereotypes game.
On 2009-10-12 at 15:51:34, DigitalBoss wrote...
If a liberal wants meat, he expects the man who chased and killed the beast to give him some, for nothing.
On 2009-10-12 at 15:52:21, DigitalBoss wrote...
If a conservative wants meat, he goes on a hunt and kills the beast.
On 2010-03-25 at 16:33:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Thats life.