• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

16 year old conservative saying hi!

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Little belated hi, but here it is!

I got involved in politics during the 2000 elections. 9/11 got me into it irrevocably. I was looking at some of the things being said, and it didn't make any sense. Many people seem to just look on the top of an issue and make a decision from there. I like to find causes, facts etc.

For example, people say the war in Iraq is just a bid for oil. When you look at some of the facts the left wants you to hear, and ignore the others, this makes sense.
But, I did the math. Iraq exported 1.5 million barrels of oil a day last year. Oil being about 65 dollars a barrel average (every time I write this the price changes), this comes to 97.5 million dollars in one day. Times this by 365 and we get $35,587,500,000 (35 billion dollars) for one year. Two years is $71 billion. We have spent $200 billion on the war thus far (over two years). Anyone else see an inconsistency with those numbers?
If we were to pull out now, it would take 3 years to gain a profit from the oil. This is taking all of the exports for 5 years. Also, we would be leaving Iraq in a very instable state, which would quickly collapse into civil war and anarchy.
I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
Also, Congress got the same WMD intel as Bush, and they still authorized the war. They agreed with it then. But now its a lie?

If you look hard enough, you can find a great deal of incongruities (to use a nice politically corrected-up term) in the left's arguments.

I am pro-life (excepting cases of serious physical, emotional, or mental harm to the mother), patriotic, support the troops wholeheartedly, pro 'under God', and I have an unique (I think...) position on the evolution/creationism issue, which should be under both religion and education soon...

I look forward to writing (more) on this forum!
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If you're going to throw out a "belated" hi, then a "belated welcome is in order...

Welcome to Debate Politics, Nez Dragon!:2wave:

Excellent post....

As you will find out soon enough...It will fall on a lot of deaf ears...:(
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nez Dragon said:
Little belated hi, but here it is!
Welcome. Glad to have you.

Nez Dragon said:
I got involved in politics during the 2000 elections. 9/11 got me into it irrevocably.
For many people, that raised the bar for what it was rational to be ignorant about. [Painless Primer on Rational Ignorance]

Nez Dragon said:
For example, people say the war in Iraq is just a bid for oil. When you look at some of the facts the left wants you to hear, and ignore the others, this makes sense.
But, I did the math. Iraq exported 1.5 million barrels of oil a day last year. Oil being about 65 dollars a barrel average (every time I write this the price changes), this comes to 97.5 million dollars in one day. Times this by 365 and we get $35,587,500,000 (35 billion dollars) for one year. Two years is $71 billion. We have spent $200 billion on the war thus far (over two years). Anyone else see an inconsistency with those numbers?
If we were to pull out now, it would take 3 years to gain a profit from the oil. This is taking all of the exports for 5 years. Also, we would be leaving Iraq in a very instable state, which would quickly collapse into civil war and anarchy.
I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
As you wish.

For starters, you figured money instead of oil. Control of oil is a strategic issue, more than a fiscal one. There's been an American policy that access to oil is a vital American interest for a few decades now.

Next, Iraq's petro infrastructure is crippled. The 1.5mbpd is not what it will be once things are fixed.

Then, the folks who would make the profits (if things were to settle down enough over there for the big boys to be willing to invest the astronomical sums necessary to bring Iraqi capacity up to speed) are not the same folks who are ponying up the funding for the war. So, even if you were to examine it from a fiscal erspective, you'd see that the profit end isn't affected by the expense of the invasion.

Bear in mind I don't think that oil was the main motivation for the invasion. I'm just discussing what you presented.

Nez Dragon said:
Also, Congress got the same WMD intel as Bush, and they still authorized the war. They agreed with it then. But now its a lie?
I'm not entirely certain that the Congress did get the same info. Consider the atmosphere:
A dispute over the Bush administration's control of information since the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes erupted into an angry exchange between the White House and Congress yesterday after President Bush moved to restrict intelligence shared with lawmakers.
Even so, it wouldn't be the first time that more than one politician at a time was being dishonest.

Nez Dragon said:
If you look hard enough, you can find a great deal of incongruities (to use a nice politically corrected-up term) in the left's arguments.
Why stop there? Like the old saw says: How can you tell when a politician's lying?

Don't forget that just because a pol makes a show of being conservative doesn't mean that he's actually honest.
And, fwiw, what passses for conservatism these days is exceedingly liberal.

Nez Dragon said:
I look forward to writing (more) on this forum!
Good, good, good.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In his best Simon W. Moon voice...which sounds slightly higher than Ethel Mermann...

Hi Nez!,

Let me welcome you by dissecting your post into 746 pieces!:rofl
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
If you're going to throw out a "belated" hi, then a "belated welcome is in order...

Welcome to Debate Politics, Nez Dragon!:2wave:

Excellent post....

As you will find out soon enough...It will fall on a lot of deaf ears...:(
The actual scientific term is "selective hearing".

They aren't deaf when we screw up, but they have an uncanny way of hiding what they do.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Welcome,

As a conservative at 16 you're already way ahead of the bar, just make sure never to tow the party line and always question authority, whichever side of the isle they happen to reside on because they're not always looking out for your best interests. Oh, and as a 16 year old conservative you've got along ways yet to go through the bowels of liberal elitest academia, so here's the best suggestion I can give you: smile and nod your head politely and get the A so you can get the f outta there as quickly as possible. I learned that one the hard way.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
In his best Simon W. Moon voice...which sounds slightly higher than Ethel Mermann...

Hi Nez!,

Let me welcome you by dissecting your post into 746 pieces!:rofl
Well, he did say, "I would be interested to hear comments on that one." Maybe if we start w/ them while they're still young we can prevent the sorts of (nameless) tragedies we've both seen. ;)
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Nez Dragon said:
Little belated hi, but here it is!

I got involved in politics during the 2000 elections. 9/11 got me into it irrevocably. I was looking at some of the things being said, and it didn't make any sense. Many people seem to just look on the top of an issue and make a decision from there. I like to find causes, facts etc.

For example, people say the war in Iraq is just a bid for oil. When you look at some of the facts the left wants you to hear, and ignore the others, this makes sense.
But, I did the math. Iraq exported 1.5 million barrels of oil a day last year. Oil being about 65 dollars a barrel average (every time I write this the price changes), this comes to 97.5 million dollars in one day. Times this by 365 and we get $35,587,500,000 (35 billion dollars) for one year. Two years is $71 billion. We have spent $200 billion on the war thus far (over two years). Anyone else see an inconsistency with those numbers?
If we were to pull out now, it would take 3 years to gain a profit from the oil. This is taking all of the exports for 5 years. Also, we would be leaving Iraq in a very instable state, which would quickly collapse into civil war and anarchy.
I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
Also, Congress got the same WMD intel as Bush, and they still authorized the war. They agreed with it then. But now its a lie?

If you look hard enough, you can find a great deal of incongruities (to use a nice politically corrected-up term) in the left's arguments.

I am pro-life (excepting cases of serious physical, emotional, or mental harm to the mother), patriotic, support the troops wholeheartedly, pro 'under God', and I have an unique (I think...) position on the evolution/creationism issue, which should be under both religion and education soon...

I look forward to writing (more) on this forum!
Welcome to the forum my friend.....It is refreshing to see someone your age being Conservative in your political thinking.......Most young people are influenced by their teachers in school who are predominately Liberal.............They usually become more moderate or conservative when they grow older and wiser get married and have families.........
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Thats right Navy. Good thing I went to Catholic school my whole life or I might have turned out conseravative.

Welcome to the forums.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
FinnMacCool said:
Thats right Navy. Good thing I went to Catholic school my whole life or I might have turned out conseravative.

Welcome to the forums.
Yeah. Good thing kids have brains too, not to mention the ability to think for themselves. Strange that you never hear liberals whine about people turning conservative as they get older...

Welcome to the forum too!!
 

mistermain

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Truth is liberals tend to react on emotion, while conservatives react on logic. This would explain how you came to the conclusion that conservatives make the most sense after careful review and consideration of what each side was saying. It's too bad that our schools have become liberal hotbeds where we seem to be breeding little left wingers.

As for youngsters thinking on their own, they do, but they tend to be easily persuaded. If they are barraged by liberal thought all day, the more easily swayed will conform. The logical thinkers, like our friend here, will realize something is rotten.

Anyways, welcome to the forum.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
mistermain said:
Truth is liberals tend to react on emotion, while conservatives react on logic. This would explain how you came to the conclusion that conservatives make the most sense after careful review and consideration of what each side was saying. It's too bad that our schools have become liberal hotbeds where we seem to be breeding little left wingers.

As for youngsters thinking on their own, they do, but they tend to be easily persuaded. If they are barraged by liberal thought all day, the more easily swayed will conform. The logical thinkers, like our friend here, will realize something is rotten.

Anyways, welcome to the forum.
I think by "truth", what you actually meant to say was "my opinion". One of my favorite sayings is competence before compassion. Note, that it's not competence instead of compassion...

If they're easily persuaded, oh well. I don't have time to waste feeling offended for people that won't use their minds. Neither should you.
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
mistermain said:
Truth is liberals tend to react on emotion, while conservatives react on logic. This would explain how you came to the conclusion that conservatives make the most sense after careful review and consideration of what each side was saying. It's too bad that our schools have become liberal hotbeds where we seem to be breeding little left wingers.

As for youngsters thinking on their own, they do, but they tend to be easily persuaded. If they are barraged by liberal thought all day, the more easily swayed will conform. The logical thinkers, like our friend here, will realize something is rotten.

Anyways, welcome to the forum.
Thanks for the welcomes.

I wouldn't generalize, some liberals act on logic, some conservatives act on emotion.

I'm more wary of the left than the liberals. Micheal Moore, John (F) Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, etc. are... well, evil.

Yes, I am well aware of the situation in colleges. Thankfully I have one more year in a Catholic school (mock poll was 67% in favor of Bush :2razz: Also, Chef Boyardee got more votes than Nader) before then.

Oh yeah, and that only applies to us.
Never said that. It just seems to happen that much more w/ the left. It is kinda funny how dead people voted for Kerry, and some places got a 110% voter turnout...

I do disagree with stuff Bush has done. But Kerry wouldn't have done any better. Can anyone explain to me how to fight a "sensitive" war?

Yeah. Good thing kids have brains too, not to mention the ability to think for themselves.
I once saw a signature that had "three most useless things in the world". The first two I probably can't repeat, the third said "the opinion of a teenager". Wrong!
Yes, teens do have opinions and they do matter. What counts is the amount of information residing behind the opinion.

As a conservative at 16 you're already way ahead of the bar, just make sure never to tow the party line and always question authority, whichever side of the isle they happen to reside on because they're not always looking out for your best interests.
If I could vote ('08 I will, Hillary is going down :lol: ), I would vote for the candidate who is best suited for the job, not just some random Republican.

Welcome, but I need to correct some of your numbers. Oil didn't even reach $60 a barrel until this summer, I think it was in June, so using $65 a barrel as the average for all of last year, at which it was at no point at, so definately not over $60 a barrel. According to the Energy Inforation Administration the avergae cost for a barrel of crude in 2004 was $41.44, and now it's gotten above $70.
This goes to prove that the whole "war for oil" thing is BS.
Let me do the math on that :mrgreen:

Thats 22.7 billion dollars for 2004 and (estimated) 35.6 billion dollars for 2005. That's 58.3 billion dollars for two years, as opposed to our spending of $200 billion. Check, please?

I think by "truth", what you actually meant to say was "my opinion".
If that's his opinion then it's a fairly accurate one. I react to issues after looking at it with an open mind unclouded by bias or emotion, look at the facts, then I respond. I find it works well.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
If that's his opinion then it's a fairly accurate one. I react to issues after looking at it with an open mind unclouded by bias or emotion, look at the facts, then I respond. I find it works well.
I was referring to his opinion that liberals act on emotion and republicans on logic. :2razz:
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nez Dragon said:
Can anyone explain to me how to fight a "sensitive" war?
Sure.
Are you sure you want all this here in your welcome thread instead of out in the forum?

Have you given the Pentagon's Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication a glance yet?
It's all "Global Test" and "sensitive war" crap.
“Strategic communication requires a sophisticated method … … [it] will build on in depth knowledge of other cultures and factors that motivate human behavior. It will adapt techniques of skillful political campaigning … It will engage in a respectful dialogue of ideas that begins with listening and assumes decades of sustained effort.

[Global] opinions must be taken into account when [US] policy options are considered and implemented.

“The Task Force recommends that the President issue a directive to: (a) strengthen the U.S. Government’s ability to understand global public opinion, advise on the strategic implications of policymaking, and communicate with global audiences ...

“The strategic environment has changed radically since the October 2001 Task Force report. We face a war on terrorism, intensified conflict within Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility[!] and ways the U.S. pursues its goals[!].

"The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective ... But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists ...

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
Nez Dragon said:
This goes to prove that the whole "war for oil" thing is BS.
Let me do the math on that :mrgreen:

Thats 22.7 billion dollars for 2004 and (estimated) 35.6 billion dollars for 2005. That's 58.3 billion dollars for two years, as opposed to our spending of $200 billion. Check, please?
If we were in a real thread...

Nez Dragon said:
If that's his opinion then it's a fairly accurate one.
IYHO anyway.
"Conservatives" and "conservatism" aren't what they once were.
Here's a humorous pice someone read and somehow thought of me:


I Miss Republicans.
No, seriously. Remember Republicans? Sober men in suits, pipes, who'd nod thoughtfully over their latest tract on market-driven fiscal conservatism while grinding out the numbers on rocket science. Remember those serious-looking 1950's-1960's science guys in the movies -- Republican to a one.

They were the grown-ups. They were the realists. Sure they were a bummer, maaaaan, but on the way to La Revolution you need somebody to remember where you parked the car.

How did they become the party of fairy dust and make believe? How did they become the anti-science guys? The anti-fact guys? The anti-logic guys?

Stem cell research? Agin' it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."-- Why not?
Biggest Surplus to biggest debt, even not counting the war? More tax cuts!
Post-war planning in one of the most divisive Arab communities in the world? Don't need it.
Global warming? No, no it's not.
No WMD's? So what? ... "So what?" SO WHAT?
Conservation? Bigger tax breaks for Hummers than hybrids.
Soldiers need more armor! No, no they don't. Nonny-nonny-nonny ...

Seriously, if I were writing these guys in a script, you'd mock me for stereotyping. And rightfully so.

Republicans used to be the guys who put the brakes on this ****. A sad chuckle, a little head shake. "Who's going to pay for this?" they'd say, frowning over national budgets. "Where are the facts? The research?" They'd take out their little red pens and buzzkill our little dreams of nationalized health care or solar-powered windmills...

Please. Please. Bring back the real Republicans. Bring back the science guys. I miss you.​
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kelzie said:
I was referring to his opinion that liberals act on emotion and republicans on logic. :2razz:
I wrote something to this effect awhile ago....

Let's say you have a friend who has a horse in the Kentucky Derby...

His horse is running at 50-1, and is picked to come in 8th in a field of 9...

The Liberal is more likely to put his money down on his friend's horse, as a sign of loyalty and hope against hope that he wins...He's going by emotion, and not facts...Thats "heart over head" logic...

The Conservative, while having a close friendship with the horse's owner, will put his money on the favorite...He's going by facts, and not by emotion...That's "head over heart" logic...

Both have their legitamate reasons for doing what they've done, but tell me...

Who's got the better shot of winning?
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Simon W. Moon said:
Sure.
Are you sure you want all this here in your welcome thread instead of out in the forum?

Have you given the Pentagon's Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication a glance yet?
It's all "Global Test" and "sensitive war" crap.
“Strategic communication requires a sophisticated method … … [it] will build on in depth knowledge of other cultures and factors that motivate human behavior. It will adapt techniques of skillful political campaigning … It will engage in a respectful dialogue of ideas that begins with listening and assumes decades of sustained effort.

[Global] opinions must be taken into account when [US] policy options are considered and implemented.

“The Task Force recommends that the President issue a directive to: (a) strengthen the U.S. Government’s ability to understand global public opinion, advise on the strategic implications of policymaking, and communicate with global audiences ...

“The strategic environment has changed radically since the October 2001 Task Force report. We face a war on terrorism, intensified conflict within Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility[!] and ways the U.S. pursues its goals[!].

"The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective ... But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists ...

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
If we were in a real thread...

IYHO anyway.
"Conservatives" and "conservatism" aren't what they once were.
Here's a humorous pice someone read and somehow thought of me:


I Miss Republicans.
No, seriously. Remember Republicans? Sober men in suits, pipes, who'd nod thoughtfully over their latest tract on market-driven fiscal conservatism while grinding out the numbers on rocket science. Remember those serious-looking 1950's-1960's science guys in the movies -- Republican to a one.

They were the grown-ups. They were the realists. Sure they were a bummer, maaaaan, but on the way to La Revolution you need somebody to remember where you parked the car.

How did they become the party of fairy dust and make believe? How did they become the anti-science guys? The anti-fact guys? The anti-logic guys?

Stem cell research? Agin' it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."-- Why not?
Biggest Surplus to biggest debt, even not counting the war? More tax cuts!
Post-war planning in one of the most divisive Arab communities in the world? Don't need it.
Global warming? No, no it's not.
No WMD's? So what? ... "So what?" SO WHAT?
Conservation? Bigger tax breaks for Hummers than hybrids.
Soldiers need more armor! No, no they don't. Nonny-nonny-nonny ...

Seriously, if I were writing these guys in a script, you'd mock me for stereotyping. And rightfully so.

Republicans used to be the guys who put the brakes on this ****. A sad chuckle, a little head shake. "Who's going to pay for this?" they'd say, frowning over national budgets. "Where are the facts? The research?" They'd take out their little red pens and buzzkill our little dreams of nationalized health care or solar-powered windmills...

Please. Please. Bring back the real Republicans. Bring back the science guys. I miss you.​
ookaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...

If we were in a real thread what?

Speaking of which, one should appear in a few days (I hope less)

And what was the point of the last article????
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
I wrote something to this effect awhile ago....

Let's say you have a friend who has a horse in the Kentucky Derby...

His horse is running at 50-1, and is picked to come in 8th in a field of 9...

The Liberal is more likely to put his money down on his friend's horse, as a sign of loyalty and hope against hope that he wins...He's going by emotion, and not facts...Thats "heart over head" logic...

The Conservative, while having a close friendship with the horse's owner, will put his money on the favorite...He's going by facts, and not by emotion...That's "head over heart" logic...

Both have their legitamate reasons for doing what they've done, but tell me...

Who's got the better shot of winning?
Which is a good example of why betting is dumb. :lol:
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.
Have you ever gotten the opinions of Afghans or Iraqis on that?

I was referring to his opinion that liberals act on emotion and republicans on logic.
Yes, I know. It seems to be pretty much true.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
Maybe. But you haven't answered the question :2razz:
In a way I have. I'm a liberal, I think betting/gambling is stupid because you are playing with your money on the slight chance you might win big. Obviously, I'm not being ruled by my emotions or idealistic hopes. So, :2razz: right back at ya. ;)
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kelzie said:
In a way I have. I'm a liberal, I think betting/gambling is stupid because you are playing with your money on the slight chance you might win big. Obviously, I'm not being ruled by my emotions or idealistic hopes. So, :2razz: right back at ya. ;)
Isn't that what the whole Stock Market idea?
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Isn't that what the whole Stock Market idea?
Which would also explain why I don't have any money in it. You know, either that or the fact that I am a poor a** college student. :mrgreen:

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with calculated risks. But when the odds are as bad as they are in casinos, there's not a broker in the world that would invest in stock like that.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nez Dragon said:
If we were in a real thread what?
then I'd go ahead and remind you of the flaws in the argument you repeated.

Nez Dragon said:
And what was the point of the last article????
Just reiterating that much of what passes for conservativism these days is not conservatism.
Did you know that the neo-conservtive movement was founded by communists? Trotskyites IIRC.

Dept. of Defense's Defense Science Board Task Force said:
Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.
Nez Dragon said:
Have you ever gotten the opinions of Afghans or Iraqis on that?
I guess you didn't notice, but I was quoting a DoD document. What's your gut instinct on this one? Do you think they pulled their assessments out of their ass?
I provided a link to the report immediately before the quoted excerpts. Here is that link again if you would care to examine the report for yourself: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf
 
Top Bottom