<p>"My word of advice: If you want to debate you should CHOOSE SIDES and then support them. All what you are doing is supporting both sides of the issue."</p>
<p>Life is not all black and white there is a gray shade you know. I dont have to fully agree with anything just because this is a debate makes no difference. Why dont you guys give more evidence as you are doing to try and win me/everyone over? As of now i side with bigjake 99% and I am unclear over that other 1%. :)</p>
<p>As of now i side with bigjake 99% and I am unclear over that other 1%. </p>
<p>Nobody cares whose side YOU are on. Of course you will be on bigjakes's side because you are conservative. Since you can't debate then keep standing on the sidelines and cheer for bigjake. </p>
<p>And bigjake, you can attack me all you want. I have no bitterness with you. i just came here to have a civilised debate. And I would still LOVE to read the sources for you claims that other countries are "scared" of America.</p>
<p>I don't see where I'm attacking you any more than you're attacking me. Seems like you're the one unprovokingly attacking ElCommando for...not completely making up his mind on an issue...how dare he!! I'll try to find some sources for you. I like to debate theoretically. Having to search for sources impedes the exchange of ideas. I thought it was pretty obvious that the world is on alert following the US' show of power...</p>
<p>By the way, you haven't exactly cited any sources either...</p>
<p>Actually, those websites with the pictures and sworn statements are my sources. If you google search further, you may find hundreds of more sources.</p>
<p>No response? Guess the liberals won as always!</p>
<p>Guess the conservators are mor intelligent as always having stopped this poitless debate first.</p>
<p>oh and "cryptic" i never said I was a conservative. Next time try to cover yourself up more primitivefuture.</p>
<p>Back to the original question</p>
<p>Yes the US needs to give farm aid. My father farmed and well without the aid we wouldn't have lasted as long as we did. Farming is expensive. Did you know how much a tractor or combine is worth? Do you even know what a combine does? Each of them can sell for around $200,00+ depending on the engine power, then factor in costs of seed, land rent, pesticides, fertilizers, fuel, and then sell the profit at $2.00 a bushel! It is ridiculus!</p>
<p>The US is responsible for protecting ag interests and should be funding it properly. The funding should increase.</p>
<p>On an ironic note grain that is sold overseas is docked in our markets for being low grade or having smaller than average kernals or for being dirty and then dirt and rocks and other foreign materials are added before the grain is sold to increase profit.</p>
<p>By the way a combine is what is used to harvest the grain in the fall.</p>
<p>Guess the conservators are mor intelligent as always having stopped this poitless debate first.</p>
<p>Probably you are right. This is pointless. I'm outta here.Liberals won for sure.</p>
<p>oh and "cryptic" i never said I was a conservative. Next time try to cover yourself up more primitivefuture.</p>
<p>Then what are you ? Liberal? Next time please express whose side you are on when you are in a debate. haha! (You probably know too little about politics to choose a side anyways)
Too bad I wont be around to read your lame arguments. Good Riddance!!</p>
<p>"Yes the US needs to give farm aid. My father farmed and well without the aid we wouldn't have lasted as long as we did. Farming is expensive. Did you know how much a tractor or combine is worth? Do you even know what a combine does? Each of them can sell for around $200,00+ depending on the engine power, then factor in costs of seed, land rent, pesticides, fertilizers, fuel, and then sell the profit at $2.00 a bushel! It is ridiculus!"</p>
<p>That's capitalism! Lots of businesses are expensive to run. Why should we give billions, let me repeat, BILLIONS(!) to farmers? Poor old farmer can't make it? I don't care. There's plenty of people that can't cut it in capitalism and they fail.</p>
<p>Guess what? The government also gives billions--let me repeat, BILLIONS(!)--of dollars in corporate welfare to help subsidize already obscenely rich companies, among them AT&T, Boeing, and GE. What's the justification for that?</p>
<p>"Guess what? The government also gives billions--let me repeat, BILLIONS(!)--of dollars in corporate welfare to help subsidize already obscenely rich companies, among them AT&T, Boeing, and GE. What's the justification for that?"</p>
<p>There isn't justification in that. That's another way for the government to throw money away when we could be spending it on better things. Could you give me a source for that? I didn't realize those subsidies were in the billion dollar range.</p>
<p>LOl, I just love the posts made by the conservatives. Illogical(some) but convincing. True evangelists. I'm one too.....Although, cryptic, aka primitive's posts really don't make a lot of sense. I really don't understand the message he's trying to convey as there are a lot of grammatical errors and awkwardness in his choice of vocab. Keep it simple if sophisticated language confuses you.</p>
<p>why dont you debate for a change and stop finding faults in other people's post? If you can provide better points, and provide them with sources, then i would LOVE to read them.</p>
<p>Looks like bigjake cannot find a source yet. I doubt he would ever get sources to support his wild claims that "other countries are afraid of America" HAHA!</p>
<p>As for Elcommando, i have no response as i still do not know your political standings.</p>
<p>yes you do, dont give me that.</p>
<p>As for you posts about Bush flip-flopping. You are wrong. He does not flip-flop he only changes his position when he gets new information. Besides, those quotes you have of him flip-flopping were at least a year apart whereas Kerry flops only to appease public opinion. If Bush's changes of plan where such a big deal why didnt kerry bring them up to combat his own flopping?</p>
<p>What bigjake means is that every country would be afraid of America if confronted. </p>
<p>I'm not scared of hunters or other people out there carrying weapons around, but if they came up to me with their weapons then I would be scared. Countries aren't just sitting around being scared of America, but if we came to them with an ultimatum then they would be scared. There isn't one country that the United States couldn't turn into ruin (whether it be into physical, financial, etc.).</p>
<p>"United States couldn't turn into ruin"</p>
<p>hmm.... that is a conflicting statement. I understand that most countries are dependent on the U.S. But dont go to hasty conclusions.More and more countries are now abandoning America to work with the E.U., which seems to be a more powerful economic force.</p>
<p>As for physical, if your conclusion was right, then I do not get why U.S. doesnt give an ultimatum to Iraq or Korea? Probably Bush is too scared of them? Dont underestimate the potential of other countries in this world- thats my word of advice.</p>
<p>"If Bush's changes of plan where such a big deal why didnt kerry bring them up to combat his own flopping?"</p>
<p>Elcommando, it good as you were the first to respond to my post regarding Bush as a flip-flopper. Its sad, however, that you cannot differentiate between "flip-flopping" and "changing positions"
Even BCgoUSC admitted that Bush was a flip-flopper, so there is no need for you to make these unreasonable statements. For you kerry can "flip-flop" while Bush can "change positions."</p>
<p>Also, this whole "flip-flopping" campaign was idotic. there was no need for kerry to make those campaigns. there were far better reasons to campaign against Bush. Even Bush later abandoned this dumb "kerry is a flip-flopper" campaign, when he realized that they were not productive after the presidential debates.</p>
<p>"As for physical, if your conclusion was right, then I do not get why U.S. doesnt give an ultimatum to Iraq or Korea? "</p>
<p>Actually, we DID give an ultimatum to Iraq, and that's pretty much why--ostensibly, anyway--we went to war.</p>
<p>We don't give one to N. Korea because we're not looking to start a nuclear war. Gotta love diplomacy.</p>
<p>Sorry, i meant Iran instead of Iraq.</p>
<p>We don't give one to N. Korea because we're not looking to start a nuclear war. Gotta love diplomacy.</p>
<p>in other word, the U.S. is scared and does not want to do anything until N.K. makes the "first move." You statment actually proved uc_benz wrong when he said:
"There isn't one country that the United States couldn't turn into ruin (whether it be into physical, financial, etc.)."</p>
<p>"What bigjake means is that every country would be afraid of America if confronted."</p>
<p>uc_benz, i dont think there is a need for you to expain what other people say. They are debating based on their own views, and i feel that bigjake can speak for himself.</p>
<p>i think you cannot support your point at the "Insurgents and Bin Laden Unite" thread anyways.</p>
<p>You statment actually proved uc_benz wrong when he said:
"There isn't one country that the United States couldn't turn into ruin (whether it be into physical, financial, etc.)."</p>
<p>I don't think so. I mean, if we wanted to, sure we could lob dozens of nukes at North Korea and decimate the country. But what would that serve? North Korea hasn't actively attacked us. We'd be killing millions upon millions of innocent civilians, as well as endangering neighboring countries like China and South Korea. In addition, it's suspected that many of N. Korea's nuclear facilities are underground, meaning that even if we started a nuclear attack (or even if we attacked them with more traditional weapons) we wouldn't know which sites to target, and they could then fire their weapons at us, or more likely at our neighboring allies (China, S. Korea, Japan). WWIII. No one wants that. If we can contain them using diplomacy, that's the way to go.</p>