Before this begins, let me state that it will be quite difficult not to break any of those rules, considering the previous political discussions we had over here, BUT... let's try our best, eh?

The Terror in London thread has some very cicil and well put arguments.

Personally I think a generic politics thread is a bit too vague, but hey.

I think this thread will be used to concentrated all the political debate. If we start debating about it on an unrelated thread, such as what happened in Space Shuttle, we'll move it to here.

Yeah, ok, I dig.
Sometimes conversations just flow and grow from nothing and I think people screaming 'off-topic, off-topic' can really killa good conversatiuon, whether it is off-topic or not. But if that is still allowed and then we just bring it here, then that's cool.

Wow this thread died fast.

Of course, that 's because politics suck.

THERE ARE TWO TOPICS THAT ARE ALWAYS EXPLOSIVE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM. THE OTHER IS RELIGION.

Wow. That is probably the best political statement I've ever seen since Chaplin's final speech in The Great Dictator.

Well, I would criticize the DJs on Dead-Air Ameri...ooops, I mean Air America (why have a liberal radio network when there's NPR??), but nobody would hear it.

If you question the mental faculties of Coulter and Hanity, then what can you say about the almost non-existant thoughts of Micheal Moore or Al Franken?

As all good lawyers should be, I am a classical liberal. That means that people should be free to do what they choose so long as it does not impede the progress of society. This, of course, means that I am in favour of free market capitalism, freedom of religion, free speech and all the other things that can potentially make a country great, and can also contribute to its downfall. It's all about self-discipline, baby.

So what's your take on "interpreting" the constitution vs constructionism? Do you believe in the "discovered" rights to privacy that came about as a result of Roe v Wade, while ruling out specific wording in the Bill of Rights, as many do when ruling in say...2nd Amendment cases? Or are you a letter of the law type lawyer? I'm curious to know why a lawyer needs to be liberal by definition. Could you also expand on that further?

Excuse me, but that just sounds asenine! Conservatives, yes, want to restrict certain behavirour... DEVIANT behaviour. We want to stop murders, and rapes, and gay marriage, and NAMBLA, and rampant drug use, and availability of porn to children.

It's the liberals who want to control what people EAT and DRIVE and THINK. It's the liberals who say "Porn is OK, but just looking at a woman is sexual harrasment. But if you rape and kill her, then that's OK. We'll get you an aquital." Liberals are the elitist, self righteous jerks who think they know how the US should spend us money.

Gundark and Adam, I am certainly not accusing YOU of holding these views, but what I've listed is typical and true of the party you're defending.

And.. how the (FRACK) can you say Micheal Moore is "LEVEL HEADED"??

No, they don't want the control, they just espouse a system of government that makes it a foregone conclusion. Unbridled liberalism = socialism = communism = totalitarianism.

And, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar" : Very....level....headed.

Moore and Franken are level-headed


Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911
Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit

And this is actually written by a liberal: Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit

Become educated.

EDIT: Actually... screw it. It's not worth getting into a debate with people not willing to think over their own statements before they hit "SUBMIT".

To whom are you speaking?