Staredit Network

I rest my case (grammar n'/or spellin')...

And I called you N.Nightmare well... 'cause I just know to many fellas with Neo amongst their names, at WB's or even BF (actually, it's the same guy but with a X attached to it's nick). Thus, I don't want to mix you with them. So... you get the conclusions.



Altough I find interesting your reasoning, the point of it is?

Edit reason: Wtf!?! The text coding for links doesn't work?
Now it did... Please enlighten me folks, why did I have to use the darn Http button (for it to work)?

Basan, my point is that some people in america can be stupid...

Actually, we're also a bunch of middleschoolers/junior high so many of the posts you see here on SEN would be pretty... imature and stupid like mine

Why should he? If us high-schoolers can't keep up then we don't belong in this discussion.


I don't care what my parents think, I still believe Bush is taking our nation downhill. I read the news (mostly from non-American sources).


Wait, so we have to be considered "weird" or "freakoids" just because we're interested in politics and decide to take a stand, thinking it will somehow make the world much less us feel better? Funny how that works out.


Wait he doesn't belong here because he can do research, while you do belong here when you talk about "[making] the text pink so everyone will think [you're] gay?" Wow, so mature.

BULL : : wow!! go crawl in a hole in die. I don't agree with my parents just because they are my parents. I have a brain too, you know? Just because of our age doesn't mean that we can't post in serious discussion. That's a stereotype. I can be just as serious as anyone, or, I can be a complete lunatic. If you want me to be a lunatic ill do it on the Garbage Forum Where you belong *COUGH*COUGH*

Devlin - you don't happen to watch/read the BBC do you? They're not as neutral as they're made out to be. They are neutral on British matters but not American matters, because the institution is British and therefore much further to the left than America in general.

I'm being a bit harsh (The BBC is my preferred choice for news), but you do get the occasional impression that the BBC's journalist is supporting one side or the other.

the pic
this picture shows the IQ of the people that voted for Bush!

(not my pic)

That's pretty funny.

Age... again? So!?! The point is? (This has been debated before, ya know?)
As a matter of fact, I'm interested in politics (or at least to know what they're up to) since 15. Any doubts? Search to see both cases (read view points) to make my mind on that particular item. That's what I say.
*Rambles* For instance, nobody told me to buy the mild creationist theory (it's the one followed by evolution) but I did my research and find it one of the possibilities (the other is pure evo' with abiogenesis amidst it). And 'cause I'm still to be proven that there's a God/Goddess or even similar 'till today, I'd stick upon evo' even before mild creationism (more facts supporting it). *Ends wandering*

Nope. Never did and never will now (for school anyway. I was in the science branch, btw). If you wanna know, I was a school slacker (not an hard studier). Had a positive grade, no point studying more (when I did so). The same applies to my degree.
My research is mainly to see the news broadcasts n' papers and recall it later (expanding my memory and knowledge). In sums, keep an eye of what's goin' on 'round the world. When I want to know more on some subject, then I'll look into it (better).
Consider me a freakoid, then. *Looks under nick*

As for belonging in the Serious Debate section, I think to be more fitted than you. When I don't present proofs (read links), at least I'll do a valid reasoning that supports my point. And so far yours is? *Just curious*
And I want (or would like ) the level of the debates here to rise. Plain n' simple. Is that so bad? N' why?

Now resuming your post. Circle logic around the fact I'm older than you, so I shouldn't post here even supporting what I state (by proofs or sound logical reasoning). Woa... I'm impressed. Or not.

And if you like to state that your gay by posting in pink... that's your choice n' option. It doesn't affect me the slightest.
Please just don't go all rainbow like.

P.S. - Btw, I'm still waiting for your reasoning on why Bush is a better Pres than Kerry would (in post #208, page 11).
Afterall we (me n' others here) already provided reasoning on why he's a bad Pres, so now we'd (daring to speak for many of us here) like to see you prove Bush's good deeds. *Dozes off waitin'*



Than you should refered it to an I.Q. link or a previous post here (that possessed those).
I picked that (age thingy) 'cause someone who's entering adulthood should know what he/she wants n' how to support his(hers statements better.
Edit: (In fact, since we're in the Net, lies 'bout age could be made. Know that my B-day here is off by a few days than the real date. The difference is my fav number and it happens to be on my girlfriends' B-day. So, I've picked that one off. ) - End edit.
You being in school doesn't affect your abillity to post here. Im my eyes, you prob'ly just need to look (n' try) harder to post sound logic(s) of what you state, thus supporting'em. Other than that... no biggie.

Edit reason: Read above... *Meh*

they could be people who vote for Kerry and mocking Bush's "major stupidity", ever thought about that?

Obviously this isn't real. It just proves a point sort of. (Also, it's for laughs and what you said doesn't make sense. Why would a democrat waste their time doing that?

MORE PICS!! :-D YAY ^_^
[

I'm not reading 19 pages of posts, I'll just say bush is a dumbass

Actually yeah, I watch and read the BBC news. And yes, its a lot farther left, but that's what I like about it. They report about the things American journalists are afraid to touch. Our media reflects a more conservative view while the BBC and The Nation (as a few examples) do not.

And the reasoning behind your statement is?
If you're joinin' the debate, I seriously advise you to read it completly (has said many times before). If not, just please go n' create a simple Bush-bashin' thread on the proper section, hmm?

(Recall that this is actually the Serious Debate area and not the chit-chat zone (aka Garbage, ok? )



After reading this more carefully, let me just add my 2 cents... (Please bear with me, if I bypassed it earlier.) Is that this just seems to resemble a litlle too much flame bait for my easenees to let it slide by...

So, in your eyes, it needs to be an U.S. news station (or source) to be sure it's unbiased?
It's just that I do recall a certain Arab network playin' a similar role not far ago...

Please enlighten me what might the problem be the country in question to be more to the left (or right) in this particular matter? *Rolf*

It seems like you're the one trying to incite flames... Or you just misunderstood my post.

I was saying that the BBC is much less biased than most news networks (including all major American ones), but it is not unbiased. Now, it is only marginally unbiased in the UK, because it is a British institution and therefore is more or less dead-centre of British politics.

In the US, the BBC appears to be far more biased than it is over here because it reflects British politics. British politics are quite a way to the left of American politics as a whole, which is why the BBC seems to be on the Left if you're in America, and is sometimes vilified by the American Right because of this and its growing popularity in the States.

So, if you're American, you might want to watch a sample of all major networks, and see how they deal with American politics. See if you think the BBC is unbiased, left-leaning or right-leaning from your point of view.

I love the BBC - it's the biggest and best news network in the world (in my opinion). It had the BBC World Service going long before satellite communications. You could listen to the BBC on the radio in India, or Australia, even Rhodesia (as it was known at the time). It's one of the places where the British have succeeded, and I'm glad of that. Remnant of an Empire it may be, but the BBC is not redundant.

Missunderstood it seems. Actually, if you see more carefully the flag above my post you'll find out easy that I'm not an American neither a Brit.
My point was, that we must see all angles and draw our own conclusions from it. BBC (Prime and World) is one of the top channels imho, in my cable TV, if you wanna know.



Just dragged this pargraph for a quick note on U.K. stands on politics as a whole (bear me)
.
That just depends on the current politic status quo of your country and doesn't add to the situation at hand or it shouldn't at least.
Your contries' whole politics (Conservatives n' Labour) are just around the center (sort of) and that's why any extremism is far more dificult to obtain than in the States (gladly).
Unfortunetly for us (refering to the U.S.), and allow me to do a counter part of your countries' parties when resembling the U.S. ones. The Conservative in U.K. are similarly equivalent to the U.S. Democrats, so by this just take your conclusions on where stands the Republican party... *Sigh*
This should clear up the comparison between the U.S. and U.K. parties.

From this point on, and if didn't realized already, I'm handin' out the reason to you.

Well, exactly. The political scales of the UK and the USA are different. Our Right is their Left, their Right is our Extreme Right. I was saying that the BBC are in the middle of the UK scale, which is the USA's Left.

Go to www.politicalcompass.org !!! this will bring up a lot of discussion. Also, compare yourself to the other famous people or people on staredit. I know that George W. Bush was in the top right of the compass and i was on the x-axis over to the right one!! Hope this isn't too

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''| ME
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''|''|'''''''. < BUSH!! : >.< :
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''| \/
'''''''________|_.______
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''|
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''|
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''|

It isn't off topic. I'm a slightly left of centre libertarian on that.

Do you all want to know why Bush won? Even though many people didnt like his idea on the war, he is oppossed to gay marrage and abortion, both of which Kerry really didnt care about. I personally would have voted for Bush if i could have...

The Republicans nearly always win in election years where national security and the success of the USA in foreign affairs is the big issue. That's why Bush won, because America is a very nationalist country.

Did you formulate this hypothesis yourself, or did someone help you(such as the Anti-Bushies)?

Well, bush is certainly much better than some past presidents like Hoover...

Hoover was president when the Great Depression started. People kept asking him over what to do because banks all over the nation got corrupted, people lost jobs, money distribution poorly balanced, and other of that junk. And what did he say? For the most part he was like, "ah we'll just make do without it. Eventually our nation will recover." Apparently, after 4 more years, the nation instead of gradually improving dramatically deproved. Then when the election came, Franklin Roosevelt won somewhere like 528-8 in electorial votes. He made those 1st and second deals which really got our nation back. That's why i think he's really one of our best presidents ever..

So you see, Hoover really didn't care. He didn't really do anything about our nation. That makes him a Dumbass

Yeah we've had a lot worse presidents - like all the ones during the Guilded Age (3 Post Civil War decades).


You sure about that? Usually its the Democrats that keep good relations with other nations. Hell, a lot of other nations hate us now, making us pretty unsuccessful in foreign affairs under our Republican president.

And did this 'Bushie lover' read the whole thread?
It has been debated before, but not just in those ways. Osama's video, for instance is one of those that to me helped him alot in the elections.



And the social policies (also debated before) that were stepped down from Clinton's admin just show what? That he cares?
Sorry, but unemplyoment rising (in his last mandate) and diplomacy skills with other countries to export and therefore eventually increase your business volume don't show me that. Just not to mention the environmental concerns... *Meh, rant on the day*



I think he's not talking 'bout diplomacy here (war on Iraq, Canada and many others driving off as usual allies,etc.)...

Edit reason: Fixing the quotes... initially had mistaken myself and placed'em in the wrong place. *Sigh*