The great and all-powerful political thread!

1. There are perfectly good non-lethal alternatives to firearms such as a tazer or stun gun, which yes they can kill but it takes fucking effort and if you're defending yourself you're not going to generally put in that kind of effort.

2. To be quite honest what the fuck does someones sexual activities have to do with their capacity to lead a country? None.

3. One thing, what sane fucking person would ever stockpile arms?

1. I'm not interested in that crap

2. if he were Republican, like I said before, the "moral majority" would've had him impeached

3. who cares? I like guns, fuck you.
 
expertvoter.org

I found this site while surfing the web - check out the independent candidates :lol:
 
expertvoter.org

I found this site while surfing the web - check out the independent candidates :lol:
 
I don't understand people thinking Hillary is that bad. I mean besides the penis.

It's because she's a chick and because she is Bubba's hubby i mean wife lol :lol: ... The GOP are still bitter towards Bubba so they will make up lies to smear her... as well as the GOP being a macho club where they do not like females in charge of testerone inflated balls...
 
1. I'm not interested in that crap

2. if he were Republican, like I said before, the "moral majority" would've had him impeached

3. who cares? I like guns, fuck you.

1. Then you're a fool stuck in your own stagnant waters with no potential for growth as a human. It is the right of each person to defend themselves, but using lethal means is not the proper answer when there are perfectly non-lethal means of doing so, ones that are just as effective. You should above all be promoting human life and not killing "criminals."

2. He was impeached you idiot, go back to high school and take your political science class seriously.

3. It is fine to like guns, but that doesn't mean anything. No sane person would stockpile fire arms.
 
1. Then you're a fool stuck in your own stagnant waters with no potential for growth as a human. It is the right of each person to defend themselves, but using lethal means is not the proper answer when there are perfectly non-lethal means of doing so, ones that are just as effective. You should above all be promoting human life and not killing "criminals."

2. He was impeached you idiot, go back to high school and take your political science class seriously.

3. It is fine to like guns, but that doesn't mean anything. No sane person would stockpile fire arms.

whats wrong with killing people? thins out the population. You liberals know damn well thats a problem in the world and I realize it too.

god they're so many bleeding hearts here. Now the Red Cross is going to wonder where their blood supply went...

and since when was he impeached? they never succeeded. he got voted out of office.
 
whats wrong with killing people? thins out the population. You liberals know damn well thats a problem in the world and I realize it too.

god they're so many bleeding hearts here. Now the Red Cross is going to wonder where their blood supply went...

and since when was he impeached? they never succeeded. he got voted out of office.

Everything is wrong with killing people, and sure overpopulation is a problem but NOT in developed countries. If we were to spread ideas of protected sex into third world countries, and spread condoms around down there overpopulation would be, while still an issue, significantly less worrisome.

:lol:

I love how you think you know anything about how this world, particularly our own government system, works.

Clinton WAS impeached. Impeachment is the formal making of the accusation of wrong doing while holding public office, it is NOT removing the person from office.
 
whats wrong with killing people? thins out the population. You liberals know damn well thats a problem in the world and I realize it too...

and since when was he impeached? they never succeeded. he got voted out of office.

And what if we decide that you have to be killed because of overpopulation? Not me but I'm sure alot of people on this thread wouldn't mind you being killed lol Again it would help lower overpopulation... nothing wrong with killing right? :lol:

BTW Clinton was never voted out of office. His two terms for President were up and thats why Gore and Bush Jr. ran against each other. Though I wouldn't say it's a law but Presidents generally can only run and be Prez 2 times with the exception of FDR who if im correct had a total of 4 terms. I think there was one other Prez who had 3 terms but I can't remember. But point is Clinton was never voted out of office, he merely took his two shots at office and could not run again. But if he did run now I have no doubt he would win by a landslide.
 
FDR had three terms in office, and after that there was a constitutional amendment passed setting a two term limit.
 
FDR had three terms in office, and after that there was a constitutional amendment passed setting a two term limit.

4 terms... election years:

1. 1932

2. 1936

3. 1940

4. 1944

He died in April of 1945 so he served about 4 months of his 4th term then Harry Truman took over.... so 4 terms he was elected though he didn't finish his 4th term out...
 
Since your a retard, then your first. We have to kill off the unfit.

Thank you. Anyone who thinks there's nothing wrong with killing has brain damage.

But to give a more serious answer to ohiogrinder's question:

As far as the whole 'thinning out the population' argument goes, there are ways to do that without dehumanizing life and creating a situation that welcomes anarchy or worldwide despotism.

For one thing, populations do get thinned out routinely in undeveloped areas, where 3/4 of a family's children end up starving to death in infancy or childhood. And if the developed world ever started having problems with scarcity of resources, they could just pass birth control laws. It worked for China.
 
Thank you. Anyone who thinks there's nothing wrong with killing has brain damage.

But to give a more serious answer to ohiogrinder's question:

As far as the whole 'thinning out the population' argument goes, there are ways to do that without dehumanizing life and creating a situation that welcomes anarchy or worldwide despotism.

For one thing, populations do get thinned out routinely in undeveloped areas, where 3/4 of a family's children end up starving to death in infancy or childhood. And if the developed world ever started having problems with scarcity of resources, they could just pass birth control laws. It worked for China.

It's called survival of the fittest and it didn't exactly work for China since I have friends in China I chat with.The Gov't thought they could stomp on people's basic human rights to procreate in that country and that would solve their so call population problem but it hasn't. It just made them want to do it more and rebel (though in private). Much like a teenager here rebels when you tell them not to do something and they do it anyway. I wonder how many Gov't officials in China have more then 1 child when they passed such laws (though I believe the law does not exist anymore).