Politics is even worst than sports..

[resolvent]

.. and yet, the sad thing is, politics is REAL and IMPORTANT and AFFECTS OUR LIVES,
so unfortunately we are FORCED to participate in this ugly, messy business.

I mention this here, only because I think that part of my post-olympic depression
is NOT due to me loving the olympics, but, instead, recognizing that the big drunken entertainment party is over and now we have to get back to the REAL world.

My post-olympic depression is ALSO due to the fact that in sports, the contestants do not change the rules of the game as they win medals or even money. In absolute contrast, politics is pure evil: winner-takes-all. The winners actually change the rules (the laws) of the game.

e.g. The unconstitutional rule in many states of the United States
that non-Demopub non-Republicrat political parties
are required to get extreme numbers of signatures (20,000 or more) to get onto ballots,
while the Demopublicrats only need 2000.

[Lewis]

What I find strange is that people think sports are more important than politics. Politics actually is important and effects the world we live in, while a sportman scoring a goal would have no effect on global warming. Yet more people follow sports.

[Fat Man]

What I find strange is that people think sports are more important than politics. Politics actually is important and effects the world we live in, while a sportman scoring a goal would have no effect on global warming. Yet more people follow sports.

I beg to differ with you, because sports do have an effect on global warming.

Look at all those bright lights they use to light up the stadiums during night games.

And football players are not satisfied to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars. They all have to drive those great big $100,000 dollar Hummers or the like.

Not to mention, the stench of the football locker rooms pollutes the air!

PEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUU!!!

Also, all jocks and their sports fans are full of hot air!!!

[Lewis]

I only used global warming as a hypothetical situation. While politics contributes to society to make it a better place, sports only contibute negatives, such as any fan riots and it's not like they plough money into the community.

[Fat Man]

I only used global warming as a hypothetical situation. While politics contributes to society to make it a better place, sports only contibute negatives, such as any fan riots and it's not like they plough money into the community.

I agree!

I was only being sarcastic!

[RaleighRob]

At least with Politics, the competition (and yes, it's very competitive if you think about it) is much more based on strategy and intellectual exercise than sports could ever be. And it can be just as brutal...if not more so!

[Fat Man]

At least with Politics, the competition (and yes, it's very competitive if you think about it) is much more based on strategy and intellectual exercise than sports could ever be. And it can be just as brutal...if not more so!

Yeah, and also, it's not just jocks who are bullies.

Sometimes intellectuals can be bullies, but it is verbal instead of physical.

Also I take delight in hearing some intellectual "bully" ripping some some retarded jock apart verbally, and everything an intellectual bully says ring so true.

Society actually needs the intellectual bully to keep us on our toes, and to drive us into moving forward, evolving to a higher level of consciousness.

When you have been attacked by some stupid jock who uses physical bullying, you might be injured or crippled up for life.

But when you have been verbally attacked by an intellectual bully, he's actually doing you a favor, because what he says is right, and it wakes you up from your slumber of complacency.

Yes, politics can be very brutal sometimes, and of course not all politicians are intellectuals. Some are real dumb asses.

For example, John McCain and Sarah Palin.



Now, those two have been pigging out at the All You Can Eat Dumb Buffet!

[Lewis]

Yeah, and also, it's not just jocks who are bullies.

Sometimes intellectuals can be bullies, but it is verbal instead of physical.

Also I take delight in hearing some intellectual "bully" ripping some some retarded jock apart verbally, and everything an intellectual bully says ring so true.

Society actually needs the intellectual bully to keep us on our toes, and to drive us into moving forward, evolving to a higher level of consciousness.

When you have been attacked by some stupid jock who uses physical bullying, you might be injured or crippled up for life.

But when you have been verbally attacked by an intellectual bully, he's actually doing you a favor, because what he says is right, and it wakes you up from your slumber of complacency.

Yes, politics can be very brutal sometimes, and of course not all politicians are intellectuals. Some are real dumb asses.

You should watch the House of Commons, it's like children jeering at each other.

[Fat Man]

Obama sucks

BUSH SUCKS!!!

[blackdog4444]

Clinton sucked the worst. Obama's certainly better at the moment that the past few presidents.
I wouldn't be surprised if sports rox1234 is racist after that one.

[sports rox1234]

no i am not i have black friends.maybe i wanted ralph nader to win did you ever think of that?

Clinton sucked the worst. Obama's certainly better at the moment that the past few presidents.
I wouldn't be surprised if sports rox1234 is racist after that one.

[Fat Man]

Clinton sucked the worst. Obama's certainly better at the moment that the past few presidents.
I wouldn't be surprised if sports rox1234 is racist after that one.

Actually it wasn't Clinton who sucked so much as it was Monica Lewinsky who sucked Clinton.

But yes, as President, he did suck!

[blackdog4444]

Ugh, I can't believed they trusted him.
sports rox1234, you've gotta admit you have a problem before you solve it.

[resolvent]

"At least with Politics, the competition (and yes, it's very competitive if you think about it) is much more based on strategy and intellectual exercise than sports could ever be. And it can be just as brutal...if not more so! "

I disagree about "strategy". There is absolutely NOTHING intellectual about the strategy of politics. ALL it is is BRUTE FORCE REPETITION.

Some politicians do NO work, namely, those who have NO interest in helping anyone
OTHER than preserving the status quo. Those are Demopubs and Republicrats in the USA,
or any major parties in other countries. They don't have to do the incredibly difficult
work that the small parties, such as Greens, Socialists, or Libertarians have to do
of trying to change people's habit and to pass laws in their favor.

Some political causes are easy and trivial, such as outlawing abortion or outlawing human cloning, because the targets of those attacks are small: some tiny fraction of the human population engages in human cloning or abortion.

By contrast, working to outlaw eating meat in order to save trillions of innocent animals
each year from being tortured to death is an incredibly difficult and necessary task,
because of the large numbers of people who eat animals and multi-billion dollar industries we have to fight.

Clinton, GW Bush and his father all ought to be tortured and executed for hunting and fishing.

The more I learn about most other humans, the less I respect them.
The more I realize they are simply garbage to be exterminated.

[Fat Man]

"At least with Politics, the competition (and yes, it's very competitive if you think about it) is much more based on strategy and intellectual exercise than sports could ever be. And it can be just as brutal...if not more so! "

I disagree about "strategy". There is absolutely NOTHING intellectual about the strategy of politics. ALL it is is BRUTE FORCE REPETITION.

Some politicians do NO work, namely, those who have NO interest in helping anyone
OTHER than preserving the status quo. Those are Demopubs and Republicrats in the USA, or any major parties in other countries.

They don't have to do the incredibly difficult work that the small parties, such as Greens, Socialists, or Libertarians have to do of trying to change people's habit and to pass laws in their favor.

Some political causes are easy and trivial, such as outlawing abortion or outlawing human cloning, because the targets of those attacks are small: some tiny fraction of the human population engages in human cloning or abortion.

By contrast, working to outlaw eating meat in order to save trillions of innocent animals
each year from being tortured to death is an incredibly difficult and necessary task,
because of the large numbers of people who eat animals and multi-billion dollar industries we have to fight.

Clinton, GW Bush and his father all ought to be tortured and executed for hunting and fishing.

The more I learn about most other humans, the less I respect them.
The more I realize they are simply garbage to be exterminated.

Whoa! You wouldn't happen to be a member of PETA or at least a PETA sympathizer?

I like to eat meat, chichen and fish! I actually prefer fish more than meat.

Should I be tortured because I eat meat???

I think you need to check out the topic I started titled "Here Is Some More Stupidity!!!" at:

http://www.sportssuck.org/phpbb2/viewto ... ?f=7&t=894

On the topic I had also mentioned the following . . . . .

I would also like to point out, that eating fish, especially oily fish, such as salmon, sardines, tuna, or mackerel is good for your brain. No, it's not just merely some "old wives tale" that fish is brain food, it is now a well established scientific fact. Fish has essential fatty acids, mostly Omega 3 fatty acids that is good for the brain, and the heart.

Also, all the hype about the mercury levels in fish, turns out to be an exaggeration. One would have to eat about 20 pounds of fish per day over a lifetime to accumulate any harmful levels of mercury, and most of the trace amount of mercury in fish is actually naturally occurring.

But the Government Granny Nannies have done us a great dis-service, especially to the poor, by exaggerating the mercury levels in fish. It's a now an established fact, that pregnant women who eat at least 2 servings of fish per week, will have much smarter kids. Tuna is a cheap source of Omega 3 fatty acids that even the poor can afford, as well as sardines.

But as a result of the exaggerated mercury scare, many pregnent women had stopped eating fish, and the results is more children with lower IQ scores doing poorly in school!

Oh well! I guess these kids can just play football! Right ?

Unfortunately, I forgot to point out that it was mostly low income mothers who had stopped eating fish because of the exaggerated hype while mothers in middle income and upper income brackets continued to eat fish.

This is probably because, being better educated makes one better informed.

Now I come from a poor family, but my mother was very wise. She taught me how to read and write before I even started school, and as I had mentioned a few times before, I was already reading at the adult level when I was only in the 3rd grade, and when I was 13, I scored 150 points on a standard IQ test.

Although I was raised in a poor family, when I was a kid, I actually thought we were rich because we had a house full of books.

I also need to point out, my mother loved fish, and ate lots of fish while she was pregnant, and as a kid, I liked fish more than meat. I still prefer fish over meat.

We lived up in Minnesota so the local trout and smelts was fairly cheap, and I remember the smell of fish frying in the kitchen about 2 days out of each week.

Also, we are NOT herbivores as PETA claims. It's a scientific fact the we are omnivores, because we have the back teeth of herbivores and the front teeth of carnivores, so we are designed by nature to eat both meat and vegetables.

There is nothing wrong with eating animals. Other animals eat animals, and we are also animals. We're 2 legged animals, the most intelligent species of animal on this planet, a species that calls itself human, but we are still animals nonetheless. We are 2 legged human animals.

OK, I am against torturing animals. There are more humane and less painful ways to kill animals for food.

But it's not morally wrong to eat animals, because other animals eat animals.

Some animal species are herbivores and eat only plants. Some animal species are carnivores and eat only meat. And some animal species omnivores and eat both pants and other animals. We are omnivores by nature.

So, I was offended by what you has said about people eating meat or fish.