PDA

View Full Version : Election Day



bornlie
11-06-2012, 01:56 PM
I am not trying to troll or anything, but we all know Obama is going to win. When was the last time an incumbent president lost.

Godxilla
11-06-2012, 02:06 PM
George HW Bush, not that long ago.

And why must all your threads start with a troll security clause? Have you been banned from here before? Have you been banned from anywhere else? Lighten up, and troll if you wanna troll.

MOTO13
11-06-2012, 02:06 PM
Oh...maybe 1992. Clinton def. Bush.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 02:13 PM
Oh...maybe 1992. Clinton def. Bush.

20 years ago.



George HW Bush, not that long ago.

And why must all your threads start with a troll security clause? Have you been banned from here before? Have you been banned from anywhere else? Lighten up, and troll if you wanna troll.

Why must your vagina have sand in it?

Godxilla
11-06-2012, 02:21 PM
Actually, I'm male.
Sorry for your slightly booty-hurt mud-chuck fail.

Tiny Vessels
11-06-2012, 02:35 PM
One thing that I can't wait for is after today no more political adds and no more political phone calls. Thank god.

MOTO13
11-06-2012, 02:44 PM
20 years ago.

You asked when was the last time it happend as if it was not even plausible for the incumbent to lose...it was 1992 genius. Six presidential elections ago. Hardly ancient history.

Tiny Vessels
11-06-2012, 02:51 PM
You asked when was the last time it happend as if it was not even plausible for the incumbent to lose...it was 1992 genius. Six presidential elections ago. Hardly ancient history.

6 presidential elections ago ws 1992 and also 1992 was 20 years ago. 1992-2012= 20. That's not ancient history?

MOTO13
11-06-2012, 03:04 PM
6 presidential elections ago ws 1992 and also 1992 was 20 years ago. 1992-2012= 20. That's not ancient history?

Not hardly. So, unless something happend 27 minutes ago it never occurred and the possibility of something similar is thrown out the window? Do all you morons belong to the same friggin club? Keep ignoring history...you'll be doomed to repeat it. Sad part is, in about 22 years when you wake up and actually realize that 20 years ago you should have done something different, it will be too late.

Tiny Vessels
11-06-2012, 03:11 PM
Not hardly. So, unless something happend 27 minutes ago it never occurred and the possibility of something similar is thrown out the window? Do all you morons belong to the same friggin club? Keep ignoring history...you'll be doomed to repeat it. Sad part is, in about 22 years when you wake up and actually realize that 20 years ago you should have done something different, it will be too late.

Everybody knows that history repeats itself. DUH. Ok lets say that happens to me, will I say holy shit I was fucking stupid? Yeah probably but will I dwell on it? No. How I would look at it as a lesson learned and I know now what I should have known then. You live, you learn, you move on.

MOTO13
11-06-2012, 03:25 PM
Well, people assume they have to make a mistake to learn. Which is just a super phylosophy. And making mistakes is simply, oh well, fuck it, I learned something. Yeah, maybe you did learn something, but at what cost? You fit that bill apparently. If you IGNORE history you are doomed to repeat it.

Tiny Vessels
11-06-2012, 03:29 PM
Well, people assume they have to make a mistake to learn. Which is just a super phylosophy. And making mistakes is simply, oh well, fuck it, I learned something. Yeah, maybe you did learn something, but at what cost? You fit that bill apparently. If you IGNORE history you are doomed to repeat it.

I'm sorry but sometimes you do have to learn the hard way. Its true. I don't ignore history as you seem to think I do, I learn from history.

MOTO13
11-06-2012, 03:40 PM
I'm sorry but sometimes you do have to learn the hard way. Its true. I don't ignore history as you seem to think I do, I learn from history.

Oh yeah? What did you learn from the past 4 years?

Godxilla
11-06-2012, 03:57 PM
Ha ha! That's a good point. Well, if Obama's reelected for four more years, then clearly the previous four taught us nothing. Or maybe they taught us that record unemployment, crushing debt, and flimsy promises are what make this nation great.

Tiny Vessels
11-06-2012, 03:59 PM
Oh yeah? What did you learn from the past 4 years?

I learned that Obama killed Bin Laden, I learned that Obama ended Don't Ask Don't Tell, Obama feels that gays have every right to get married, Obama saved the auto companies by bailing them out, Obama wants everyone to have healthcare.

randman21
11-06-2012, 04:55 PM
Ha ha! That's a good point. Well, if Obama's reelected for four more years, then clearly the previous four taught us nothing. Or maybe they taught us that record unemployment, crushing debt, and flimsy promises are what make this nation great.
Sigh. Unemployment is right there where it was when he took office.

National debt. That's kind of what happens when you have a deficit every year (which is only microscopically higher than what he inherited). How is that specifically his fault, and more than anyone else's?

What promises? I definitely won't deny that there were none. I'm just curious about your particular beefs, because you and MOTO are vague as fuck ALL THE TIME.

And how do you think McCain or Romney would have done better? If I seem like I'm trying to be a dick, I'm not. 90% of me is voting against Romney rather than for Obama. I just like how everyone acts like their guy wouldn't have fucked things up, too. :p

_Lost_
11-06-2012, 06:39 PM
I'm so over everyone dumping shit on each other. Godxilla, as someone not even old enough to vote, you sure do seem to think you are a political savant. You and MOTO's naivete is annoying at best, but the same can be said about all of the political drivel I see posted on here and Facebook. I am simply over it. Rather than focus on how evil one or the other is, maybe take a minute to see that neither candidate is better or worse in the end and there is only so much that will occur in the next for years, no matter who is elected, despite what they would like for you to believe. The president may or may not change, but there are still several hundred other elected officials to contend with.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 07:05 PM
Not hardly. So, unless something happend 27 minutes ago it never occurred and the possibility of something similar is thrown out the window? Do all you morons belong to the same friggin club? Keep ignoring history...you'll be doomed to repeat it. Sad part is, in about 22 years when you wake up and actually realize that 20 years ago you should have done something different, it will be too late.

We aren't talking about geological time here. If a song is more than 5 years old, it's considered ancient history. And I'm pretty sure that once a song is 20 years old or more, you no longer have to get permission from the one who owns the rights to it to use or cover that song. So much for not ancient history.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:09 PM
We aren't talking about geological time here. If a song is more than 5 years old, it's considered ancient history. And I'm pretty sure that once a song is 20 years old or more, you no longer have to get permission from the one who owns the rights to it to use or cover that song. So much for not ancient history.

I love you!

_Lost_
11-06-2012, 07:11 PM
Try using a Beatles song without permission.

Also, don't look at it as a time thing. Clinton, bush, Obama. Not that long ago in terms of presidents.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 07:16 PM
Try using a Beatles song without permission.

Also, don't look at it as a time thing. Clinton, bush, Obama. Not that long ago in terms of presidents.

Ugh, I would rather use the Beach Boys' songs.

Yeah, it doesn't seem that long ago because they all served two terms. Well, not Obama. We don't know that, yet.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:16 PM
Ugh, I would rather use the Beach Boys' songs.

both are awesome!

T-6005
11-06-2012, 07:21 PM
We aren't talking about geological time here. If a song is more than 5 years old, it's considered ancient history. And I'm pretty sure that once a song is 20 years old or more, you no longer have to get permission from the one who owns the rights to it to use or cover that song. So much for not ancient history.

Sucks that you were pretty sure, because a copyright in the United States currently lasts for 120 years. And will likely be extended the next time Mickey Mouse is about to pass into the public domain.

It is similarly ironic that you think that the last four elections represent an absolute in a chain of 45.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:23 PM
Sucks that you were pretty sure, because a copyright in the United States currently lasts for 120 years. And will likely be extended the next time Mickey Mouse is about to pass into the public domain.

It is similarly ironic that you think that the last four elections represent an absolute in a chain of 45.

she made a typo, leave her alone.

WebDudette
11-06-2012, 07:24 PM
We aren't talking about geological time here. If a song is more than 5 years old, it's considered ancient history. And I'm pretty sure that once a song is 20 years old or more, you no longer have to get permission from the one who owns the rights to it to use or cover that song. So much for not ancient history.

That's plain ridiculous. One out of three presidents didn't serve a second term, those aren't exactly good odds, and 20 years is not ancient history, especially concerning political events.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 07:29 PM
Politics suck and I don't care what you think of what I say.
Try getting by today with he technology of 20 years ago then tell me it's not ancient history.

WebDudette
11-06-2012, 07:31 PM
she made a typo, leave her alone.

Its pretty blatantly not a typo. Why would you respond to '20 years isn't that long' with 'you're wrong, 120 years is a long time'?

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:32 PM
Politics suck and I don't care what you think of what I say.
Try getting by today with he technology of 20 years ago then tell me it's not ancient history.

for all of you retards out there trying to sound like Bighead, *cough*, that means no Iphone or ultra absorbent tampons.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 07:33 PM
for all of you retards out there trying to sound like Bighead, *cough*, that means no Iphone or ultra absorbent tampons.

And no HD TV, no pocket-sized digital cameras, no 3D videogames, no electronic books, no ipods, no DVD's, no buying music online...the list can go on forever. Although, I could do without the increase in pop music popularity.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:34 PM
And no HD TV, no pocket-sized digital cameras, no Playstation, no electronic books, no ipods, no DVD's, no buying music online...the list can go on forever.

and no free pron... unless you use binoculars to spy on your neighbors.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 07:37 PM
and no free pron... unless you use binoculars to spy on your neighbors.

That's not "pron" because they aren't getting paid.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:38 PM
That's not "pron" because they aren't getting paid.

hey getting paid doesn't always constitute porn, look at all the politicians. They get paid and they aren't porn stars.

WebDudette
11-06-2012, 07:40 PM
Politics suck and I don't care what you think of what I say.
Try getting by today with he technology of 20 years ago then tell me it's not ancient history.

We're not talking about technology, that's not the issue. We're talking about political trends, whether you like politics or not, you're objectively wrong. Think about it this way, the Cold War lasted 40 years, the civil war ended in 1865, while the civil rights movement started in the 1960's. If we were talking about how dated a 20 year old movie looked, or how powerful my phone is compared to a nokia brick, you'd have a point. But we're not, and you don't.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 07:40 PM
hey getting paid doesn't always constitute porn, look at all the politicians. They get paid and they aren't porn stars.

Hey, you said it and it didn't "need approval!"

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 07:41 PM
We're not talking about technology, that's not the issue. We're talking about political trends, whether you like politics or not, you're objectively wrong. Think about it this way, the Cold War lasted 40 years, the civil war ended in 1865, while the civil rights movement started in the 1960's. If we were talking about how dated a 20 year old movie looked, or how powerful my phone is compared to a nokia brick, you'd have a point. But we're not, and you don't.

I'm sorry, I fell asleep as soon as you started talking about history.

T-6005
11-06-2012, 07:44 PM
And no HD TV, no pocket-sized digital cameras, no 3D videogames, no electronic books, no ipods, no DVD's, no buying music online...the list can go on forever. Although, I could do without the increase in pop music popularity.

Not a single thing you mentioned is necessary to a healthy or interesting life. You are literally just describing yourself falling into a consumerist sinkhole.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:44 PM
I'm sorry, I fell asleep as soon as you started talking about history.

haha you are so awesome :)

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:44 PM
Not a single thing you mentioned is necessary to a healthy or interesting life. You are literally just describing yourself falling into a consumerist sinkhole.

who died and make you Ghandi?

T-6005
11-06-2012, 07:45 PM
who died and make you Ghandi?

Ghandi did.

WebDudette
11-06-2012, 07:47 PM
Ooooooh, sick burn. It's not like the whole subject of the conversation was political trends in history or anything.

Moving along, I do find these things silly and interesting at the same time. Obligatory XKCD:

http://i.imgur.com/NTWpd.png

I'm not sure how to easily do proper formating from my phone, I'll fix it when I get home.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 07:52 PM
Not a single thing you mentioned is necessary to a healthy or interesting life. You are literally just describing yourself falling into a consumerist sinkhole.

Like you would know me. What do you know of what technology I own? You literally just made an ass of yourself by assuming.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:53 PM
Like you would know me. What do you know of what technology I own? You literally just made an ass of yourself by assuming.

she doesn't own a smart phone, she doesn't need one! She is brilliant!

Llamas
11-06-2012, 07:55 PM
no Iphone or ultra absorbent tampons.


no HD TV, no pocket-sized digital cameras, no 3D videogames, no electronic books, no ipods, no DVD's, no buying music online...

The only one of those things I have is a pocket-sized digital camera, and it's broken so I don't use it and I'm fine. I'm completely fine in my life without any of those things that didn't exist in "ancient history".


We're not talking about technology, that's not the issue. We're talking about political trends, whether you like politics or not, you're objectively wrong. Think about it this way, the Cold War lasted 40 years, the civil war ended in 1865, while the civil rights movement started in the 1960's. If we were talking about how dated a 20 year old movie looked, or how powerful my phone is compared to a nokia brick, you'd have a point. But we're not, and you don't.

Exactly. Comparing political history with technology is absurd. Doesn't matter if you don't like politics or history; the point still stands.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 07:57 PM
The only one of those things I have is a pocket-sized digital camera, and it's broken so I don't use it and I'm fine. I'm completely fine in my life without any of those things that didn't exist in "ancient history".



Exactly. Comparing political history with technology is absurd. Doesn't matter if you don't like politics or history; the point still stands.

a llama without ultra tampons? Shame!

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 08:09 PM
You can't separate politics from technology. Didn't you realize that politics use twitter, facebook, ads on your computer, modern technology to count votes, and that technology influences political issues? And don't even get me started on modern warfare and military weapons. You guys really should pay attention more.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 08:10 PM
You can't separate modern politics from technology. Didn't you realize that politics use twitter, ad's on your computer, modern technology to count votes, and technology influences political issues? You guys really should pay attention more.

i usually get porn and political adds on my computer. You have a point. Why don't people listen?

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 08:18 PM
i usually get porn and political adds on my computer. You have a point. Why don't people listen?

...because most people are selfish, egotistical idiots.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 08:19 PM
...because most people are selfish, egotistical idiots.

and don't forget stupid

XYlophonetreeZ
11-06-2012, 08:20 PM
Guys. This thread, like nearly every other thread on the main page, blows. It's not just infighting, but it's infighting between a bunch of BBS members that my old ass doesn't give a damn about. I know the election is annoying and everyone's sick of it, but can we please turn this into some semblance of a discussion about the election?

So, Obama will probably win. If he doesn't win Florida, he needs to either win Ohio or else win every battleground state but Ohio.

I can't stand how CNN keeps talking about "Miami-Dade County" as though it were a politically significant entity. Counties don't carry electoral votes. It's a huge county with lots of uncounted votes, and they're giving us no information on where within the county those votes are located. That's kind of a big deal since Miami-Dade is a huge-ass county with both major liberal (inner-city Miami) and conservative (Hialeah) strongholds within it.

Also, why does everyone always act all elitist about CNN's coverage of the election? Why is it so horrible that they use holograms and technology? I don't necessarily like everyone on their election team, and the aforementioned issue about Florida coverage is annoying, but on the whole I think they do an excellent job. It's not their fault that they just make people recognize how fucked up the electoral college is.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 08:22 PM
Guys. This thread, like nearly every other thread on the main page, blows. It's not just infighting, but it's infighting between a bunch of BBS members that my old ass doesn't give a damn about. I know the election is annoying and everyone's sick of it, but can we please turn this into some semblance of a discussion about the election?

So, Obama will probably win. If he doesn't win Florida, he needs to either win Ohio or else win every battleground state but Ohio.

I can't stand how CNN keeps talking about "Miami-Dade County" as though it were a politically significant entity. Counties don't carry electoral votes. It's a huge county with lots of uncounted votes, and they're giving us no information on where within the county those votes are located. That's kind of a big deal since Miami-Dade is a huge-ass county with both major liberal (inner-city Miami) and conservative (Hialeah) strongholds within it.

Also, why does everyone always act all elitist about CNN's coverage of the election? Why is it so horrible that they use holograms and technology? I don't necessarily like everyone on their election team, and the aforementioned issue about Florida coverage is annoying, but on the whole I think they do an excellent job. It's not their fault that they just make people recognize how fucked up the electoral college is.


So in other words, you are trying to say people should not be posting but instead watching CNN?

XYlophonetreeZ
11-06-2012, 08:26 PM
I didn't say that, because I'm not a hypocrite. I'm obviously posting here. But, part of the reason I'm posting here is because I came to the forums in hopes of finding much better discussion than the crap that's currently going on here. I was kinda hoping that maybe a thread called, ya know, "Election Day" might have something worth reading on Election Day.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 08:26 PM
Does anyone think that the election count is going to be so close that recounts will be necessary or do you think it will be a landslide victory?

bornlie
11-06-2012, 08:30 PM
Does anyone think that the election count is going to be so close that recounts will be necessary or do you think it will be a landslide victory?

they are neck and neck right now

cool 2 hate 681
11-06-2012, 09:17 PM
obama has won the 2012 election

bornlie
11-06-2012, 09:24 PM
obama has won the 2012 election

like i said. Obama would win

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-06-2012, 09:25 PM
No surprise there. Now I'm awaiting all the Romney enthusiasts to go commit suicide.

bornlie
11-06-2012, 09:25 PM
George HW Bush, not that long ago.

And why must all your threads start with a troll security clause? Have you been banned from here before? Have you been banned from anywhere else? Lighten up, and troll if you wanna troll.

so junior, what now?

Dulce
11-06-2012, 09:31 PM
Obama won again! Am I happy for America? No.

WebDudette
11-06-2012, 11:20 PM
As excited as I am about Obama, my state got kind of screwed. I mean, I'm not surprised, but Arpaio kept his position and Flake one.

Does anyone know where I can find definitive information of the gay marriage propositions?

WebDudette
11-07-2012, 12:04 AM
This is the shit I really like to see:


In a ballot initiative Tuesday, Maryland residents voted to legalize same-sex marriage starting next year.
The vote on Maryland’s Question Six marked the first time voters decided by referendum to approve gay marriage. Other states that have legalized gay marriage have done so through state legislatures and the courts.
In March, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) signed a gay marriage law, but it was put on hold after opponents gathered enough signatures to force a public vote. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/07/maryland-legalizes-same-sex-marriage/)


Maine voters approved gay marriage Nov. 6 through a historic public vote, the Associated Press is reporting.

The Portland Press Herald has additional information on what Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Chad Griffin hailed as a "landmark" move. As of press time, Maine had voted 54 to 46 percent in favor of marriage equality. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/maine-gay-marriage-question-1-results_n_2050863.html)

This is a good day for America.

Jebus
11-07-2012, 12:15 AM
I'm sick and didn't feel like going to vote, but I went last minute after finding out there's a measure in LA to force porn stars to wear condoms. Had to vote for no... FOR FREEDOM.

WebDudette
11-07-2012, 12:18 AM
I have seen a bit about that, but haven't really looked into it and I'm not sure why it'd be a good idea.

Jebus
11-07-2012, 12:32 AM
Just checked and it looks like it's 65 yes/35 no so it's gonna pass. Not sure what's gonna happen really. The main concern is that they'll just start filming porn somewhere else.

Jebus
11-07-2012, 12:39 AM
oh hey, recreational marijuana is now legal in Washington and Colorado. That's pretty big.

randman21
11-07-2012, 01:02 AM
[ QUOTE="Melyssa K" Kennedy;1487299]Like you would know me. What do you know of what technology I own? You literally just made an ass of yourself by assuming.[/QUOTE]

Literally? Or figuratively?

I don't know, guys. I kind of think that having only one one-term president out of the last five/thirty-two years is valid. I don't know how, but I think it's possible that it's a cultural thing, and not purely coincidental. Has there been a similar stretch of time with similar results? I mean, we're talking about a trend, so it's not like we'd take into account every president since the beginning, just the last x number of years. Not that it's even pertinent to this thread...just throwing some stuff out there.

EDIT: Oh and I didn't think MK's bit about technology was necessarily that off the mark. The internet, as you know, has had an astronomical effect on how we communicate and relate to each other, and how we receive and transmit information. Major culture shift. I'm not speaking in general terms (ie the ability to email/use google that we didn't have 25 years ago), but more from a sociological standpoint. I wish I weren't on a phone, so I could look up some info that illustrates specifically what I'm talking about. But I wonder how much that kind of stuff plays into how we think about politics...

WebDudette
11-07-2012, 01:08 AM
They were talking about uhh... Washington, I think, on NPR earlier. It sounds like they've got a pretty solid run at doing this right and shooting the Fed down.

WebDudette
11-07-2012, 01:25 AM
I don't know, guys. I kind of think that having only one one-term president out of the last five/thirty-two years is valid. I don't know how, but I think it's possible that it's a cultural thing, and not purely coincidental. Has there been a similar stretch of time with similar results? I mean, we're talking about a trend, so it's not like we'd take into account every president since the beginning, just the last x number of years. Not that it's even pertinent to this thread...just throwing some stuff out there.

You're right, voting out an incumbent is pretty damn uncommon, and while I don't think it's a good idea to make predictions based on that, I made a mistake by comparing it to other, more ridiculous precedents. Still, arguing about the likely hood of an incumbent staying in office and whether or not Obama would win was not my intention. Just that it's absurd to compare the lifetime of pop singles and technology to the rise and fall of political trends and precedents.

WebDudette
11-07-2012, 01:38 AM
Washington also legalized gay marriage!

Llamas
11-07-2012, 04:13 AM
I'm happy that Obama won.

But what literally brought tears to my eyes was seeing that Minnesota voted against hate - they voted down the marriage amendment. Plus Wisconsin elected the first openly gay senator, Todd Akin and his creepy woman-hating self lost, and three more states voted for equal marriage. I'm actually kind of proud of my country right now. Like, actually legit. This is amazing. I couldn't be happier today!

T-6005
11-07-2012, 07:16 AM
EDIT: Oh and I didn't think MK's bit about technology was necessarily that off the mark. The internet, as you know, has had an astronomical effect on how we communicate and relate to each other, and how we receive and transmit information. Major culture shift. I'm not speaking in general terms (ie the ability to email/use google that we didn't have 25 years ago), but more from a sociological standpoint. I wish I weren't on a phone, so I could look up some info that illustrates specifically what I'm talking about. But I wonder how much that kind of stuff plays into how we think about politics...

The problem with MK is not that she has opinions. Technology has obviously changed the world - the difference is in claiming that there are technologies that we can't do without. Of the ones she mentioned, perhaps if she'd said 'cell phone' instead of 'iPhone,' it might have gone a different way.

The problem is that she insists on sharing those opinions as if by repeating them they become facts. I'm beginning to feel too old to rehash someone's entire argument every time they think that going off on a tangent constitutes a valid answer. But fair enough-

We were originally talking about the lengths of trends - fair dinkem. A good argument to have. Then she drew an incorrect comparison to copyright law, which I pointed out. The response, as I recall was 'lol typo' from someone who didn't type the post, and a left-field list of technologies that we should keep in mind when we try "getting by today with he technology of 20 years ago then tell me it's not ancient history."

From trends to technologies - we follow. Except that 'getting by' without the technologies she listed (again, except debateably for the cell phone, not the iPhone) is absolutely possible, and not even particularly significant from a cultural standpoint, in the main. It's in the politics of consumption that these products reign, and I pointed it out.

At that point, I believe I 'literally made an ass of myself' for assuming what technologies she had. Because I did that instead of just listing what she'd written back to her. OH WAIT.

Again, none of this invalidates the original discussion - or the potential for it - which was on trends in politics.

But


Politics suck and I don't care what you think of what I say.

Not caring about what I say is one thing. And it's a valid thing, I don't mind being ignored. And not allowing other people's opinions to overshadow your own is also important. But not caring about what other people are receiving or understanding when you speak - or when you write - might be a mistake. We're all learning to express ourselves all the time, and it's crucial that we find out what other people are understanding when we do. If we don't, we'll continue living in a fantasy world and never glean any sort of pleasure from feeling the touch of other minds in our communication. I hope you keep that in mind and try not to get offended immediately the next time someone disagrees with you. Maybe look at what's being said and why it's being said before following your fingers off the jump.

-Thibault

Harleyquiiinn
11-07-2012, 07:34 AM
We aren't talking about geological time here. If a song is more than 5 years old, it's considered ancient history. And I'm pretty sure that once a song is 20 years old or more, you no longer have to get permission from the one who owns the rights to it to use or cover that song. So much for not ancient history.

The IP lawyer in me couldn't let this one slide... You cannot use something without authorization for 70 years after the author's death.

That's in Europe and US. (I don't know for all countris in the world but I assume you live in one of these countries)...

Edit : Ah, I didn't see T already answered. Indeed, it's death + 70 or 120 years in the US. Did Disney die young ?

Tiny Vessels
11-07-2012, 09:00 AM
I'm happy that Obama won.

But what literally brought tears to my eyes was seeing that Minnesota voted against hate - they voted down the marriage amendment. Plus Wisconsin elected the first openly gay senator, Todd Akin and his creepy woman-hating self lost, and three more states voted for equal marriage. I'm actually kind of proud of my country right now. Like, actually legit. This is amazing. I couldn't be happier today!

I totally agree with you.

bornlie
11-07-2012, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE="Melyssa K" Kennedy;1487299]Like you would know me. What do you know of what technology I own? You literally just made an ass of yourself by assuming.

Literally? Or figuratively?

I don't know, guys. I kind of think that having only one one-term president out of the last five/thirty-two years is valid. I don't know how, but I think it's possible that it's a cultural thing, and not purely coincidental. Has there been a similar stretch of time with similar results? I mean, we're talking about a trend, so it's not like we'd take into account every president since the beginning, just the last x number of years. Not that it's even pertinent to this thread...just throwing some stuff out there.

EDIT: Oh and I didn't think MK's bit about technology was necessarily that off the mark. The internet, as you know, has had an astronomical effect on how we communicate and relate to each other, and how we receive and transmit information. Major culture shift. I'm not speaking in general terms (ie the ability to email/use google that we didn't have 25 years ago), but more from a sociological standpoint. I wish I weren't on a phone, so I could look up some info that illustrates specifically what I'm talking about. But I wonder how much that kind of stuff plays into how we think about politics...[/QUOTE]


well said :)

XYlophonetreeZ
11-07-2012, 09:43 AM
Minnesota voted against hate - they voted down the marriage amendment.

Still voted for Bachmann though :/

But yes, what you mentioned is more important by a longshot.

WebDudette
11-07-2012, 11:04 AM
Why are people still talking about Ron Paul? I was reading a Libertarian forum where people where certain he would have won if he was the Republican candidate, I've seen liberal idiots talk about writing him in, and people just generally having no idea what the fuck they are talking about. What can people possibly see in this man?

Godxilla
11-07-2012, 12:08 PM
Sigh. Unemployment is right there where it was when he took office.

National debt. That's kind of what happens when you have a deficit every year (which is only microscopically higher than what he inherited). How is that specifically his fault, and more than anyone else's?

What promises? I definitely won't deny that there were none. I'm just curious about your particular beefs, because you and MOTO are vague as fuck ALL THE TIME.

And how do you think McCain or Romney would have done better? If I seem like I'm trying to be a dick, I'm not. 90% of me is voting against Romney rather than for Obama. I just like how everyone acts like their guy wouldn't have fucked things up, too. :p
Just go to www.politifact.com. Search Obama. Read. Understand. Got it?

so junior, what now?

Call me junior one more time and I'll bust you up like a keg of kerosene.

_Lost_
11-07-2012, 12:37 PM
Mmm... Politics website... The be all end all source if unbiased information.

Call me junior one more time and I'll bust you up like a keg of kerosene.
No, no you won't.

I'm just hoping that now that he has won, Obama won't back off on some of the firm stands that he has taken towards gay marriage laws and women's rights.

Tiny Vessels
11-07-2012, 12:41 PM
I'm just hoping that now that he has won, Obama won't back off on some of the firm stands that he has taken towards gay marriage laws and women's rights.

He better thats for sure.

bornlie
11-07-2012, 02:15 PM
Just go to www.politifact.com. Search Obama. Read. Understand. Got it?


Call me junior one more time and I'll bust you up like a keg of kerosene.


I'm sorry Junior :).

yeah now that this is all over and Obama won(it was obvious) things can get back to normal.

MOTO13
11-07-2012, 02:18 PM
Obama rammed The HCA down our throats on a partisn basis in the middle of the night with zero republican support, unemployment would not go over 8% (uhhh...it did for 43 months straight), he would be the most transparent president ever with CSPAN covering (he cloaks damn near everything...aka HCA), he pulls bullshit Exectutive Privilege over a completely fucked federal program called Fast and Furious which killed an Amercian border patrol (EP had no basis for being exerted), he has rung up debt at a faster pace than ANY PRESIDENT EVER with no results, he gave $550,000,000 to a bancrupt company with campaign ties, under his watch for the first time EVER, our US credit rating was lowered, he has weakend this country miltarily in the eyes of every other country, his cabinet picks for the first term we a hodge podge of totally unqualified friends of which most quit, he had Americans KILLED/MURDERED in Libya under his watch and lied about it (1st MURDERED amabassador in 40 years), gas prices have increased 100+% in 3 years, # people on food stamps at all time highs, # people on SSI at all time highs, damn near 50% of all citizens pay ZERO federal income tax and he wants to tax the so-called wealthy even more...shit these are just a few of the things off the top of my head.

And he was the one for hope and change. Going to change Washington and work accross the aisle with republicans. He has made race a major issue, he has this country more divided than ever with rich vs poor, black vs white. Plus he basically flew around the country campaigning 90% of the time while supposedly working under the guise of his "jobs" program. PLUS, I simply do not trust this clown.

Then we have people electing this guy so her friggin gay friends can possibly finally get weddig dresses. Some of you people have lost your god damn minds.

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-07-2012, 02:22 PM
Not caring about what I say is one thing. And it's a valid thing, I don't mind being ignored. And not allowing other people's opinions to overshadow your own is also important. But not caring about what other people are receiving or understanding when you speak - or when you write - might be a mistake. We're all learning to express ourselves all the time, and it's crucial that we find out what other people are understanding when we do. If we don't, we'll continue living in a fantasy world and never glean any sort of pleasure from feeling the touch of other minds in our communication. I hope you keep that in mind and try not to get offended immediately the next time someone disagrees with you. Maybe look at what's being said and why it's being said before following your fingers off the jump.

-Thibault

First of all, can you at least spell my name correctly when quoting me?
Second, it was an abbreviated list I made, not everything I was referring to.
Lastly, I didn't literally mean you can't live without those things, but society's demands for a fast internet, a cell phone, and some other key technologies make living without them extremely problematic. If doctors or your kids or parents need to get a hold of you urgently, a cell phone can save precious time rather than playing phone tag. Online banking makes life so much less hectic for people that are very busy or can't get around easily. Without a decent internet connection, research on school projects would be more difficult, as would be online sections of classes. If you don't drive, going to the library isn't the easiest thing. Do you understand what I was saying, yet?

"Melyssa K" Kennedy
11-07-2012, 02:29 PM
Just go to www.politifact.com. Search Obama. Read. Understand. Got it?


Call me junior one more time and I'll bust you up like a keg of kerosene.

If I saw a keg of kerosene, I'd be smart enough to leave it alone, not go beat the crap out of it.

Tiny Vessels
11-07-2012, 02:29 PM
MOTO, He weakened the country's miltarily by TRULY ending the wars in Iraq and Afganitstan? Obama said that he was going to bring the troops home and thats what he did/doing.

bornlie
11-07-2012, 02:30 PM
If I saw a keg of kerosene, I'd be smart enough to leave it alone, not go beat the crap out of it.

haha watch out, you might make him mad and he might blow himself up.

MOTO13
11-07-2012, 02:43 PM
MOTO, He weakened the country's miltarily by TRULY ending the wars in Iraq and Afganitstan? Obama said that he was going to bring the troops home and thats what he did/doing.

Do you even begin to understand what I am talking about? Without a miliatry second to none, our days are numbered. He thought Alkaeda (or however it is spelled) was defeated and this is exactly why our ambassador was killed. Obama is fucking up regarding foreign policy. When we leave, the middle east will be a complete free for all. Truely ending it? Don't be fucking naive. We either need to completely gut the middle east or be ready to live with terrorism on a full time basis...on american soil.

Little_Miss_1565
11-07-2012, 03:44 PM
You know it wasn't Al Qaeda that stormed the Benghazi embassy, right?

What we're dealing with now is splintered terrorist cells, a lot of them being "lone wolf" type of situations, like the attempted car bombing in Times Square. Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran won't fix that.

MOTO13
11-07-2012, 03:50 PM
Keep repeating that. You may actually beilieve it some day. Obama's admin REPEATEDLY stated it was an attack directly as a result of a video.

Tiny Vessels
11-07-2012, 03:53 PM
Keep repeating that. You may actually beilieve it some day. Obama's admin REPEATEDLY stated it was an attack directly as a result of a video.

First off it's spelled believe :) second it really did start off because of a video...

RageAndLov
11-07-2012, 03:57 PM
Obama only won with less than 600 000 votes more than Romney. This was a close call. Of course, people's votes are only for advising the electoral colleges. It's not like the people are smart enough to decide who should be their own president. Well, at least the minority of the US citizens who actually vote. The majority can't be arsed.

T-6005
11-07-2012, 04:26 PM
First of all, can you at least spell my name correctly when quoting me?
Second, it was an abbreviated list I made, not everything I was referring to.
Lastly, I didn't literally mean you can't live without those things, but society's demands for a fast internet, a cell phone, and some other key technologies make living without them extremely problematic. If doctors or your kids or parents need to get a hold of you urgently, a cell phone can save precious time rather than playing phone tag. Online banking makes life so much less hectic for people that are very busy or can't get around easily. Without a decent internet connection, research on school projects would be more difficult, as would be online sections of classes. If you don't drive, going to the library isn't the easiest thing. Do you understand what I was saying, yet? Sorry about the name, I was blasting through my response and wrote from memory. I assumed you would figure it out.

And nobody is disputing that technology has changed the way we live - not exactly, anyway. However, it wasn't part of the original discussion, which was about trends. I wasn't sold on the analogy you used - I'm still not. If you're claiming that the way we receive information has changed, I can get behind that - in the main, it's true. In the same vein, if you claim that our perception of time has been incorrectly compressed because of integrated technologies (particularly wireless technologies), you're joining a fascinating ongoing discussion on a topic that I'd be only too happy to join.

Now, if you want to discuss the sociological effects of technology, I suppose I could take the devil's advocate position on it. Because while I would agree that some things have changed because of technology, I would just as vehemently disagree that other aspects of our lives have not fundamentally changed, merely been perceived that way. For example, the HDTV was in your list (I understand that the list wasn't meant to be exhaustive), and that really is a fundamentally consumer-aimed good. It adds nothing from previous technological circles and in no way contributes to a jump forward in communications methods - if anything, it just strengthens existing cycles of domination over popular media.

I'm getting off-topic again. Anyway, we were originally talking about whether the last time an incumbent lost was a decent benchmark for establishing a trend. 1992. Keep in mind that in those twenty years, some Americans may have voted in none of those elections, or in all of them. Ditto for the population as a whole - in electoral terms, there is a demographic shift in that time, but how significant it is is debateable. 20 years means keeping a large proportion of the voting population from the first to the last cycle. Comparing it to copyright first (a much longer cycle), and then technology (a much shorter one) are both errant metaphors. That's what we were originally talking about.

If you'd rather act like I'm attacking you, Melyssa, go ahead. I am not.

I think that maybe I will keep my answers to your suggestion that the internet has fundamentally changed the process of doing research for another post. But in a nutshell - I don't think it has, though it may have sped it up. Digitization of research materials is straight textual conversion - only the physical locale changes.

Godxilla
11-07-2012, 04:51 PM
If I saw a keg of kerosene, I'd be smart enough to leave it alone, not go beat the crap out of it.
The dif between you and me. Which makes you smarter, likely.

haha watch out, you might make him mad and he might blow himself up.

Self-immolation, baby! You know I'm Tibetan of ancestry.

Llamas
11-08-2012, 07:13 AM
Still voted for Bachmann though :/

The district Bachmann represents is kinda the black sheep on Minnesota. It's basically the district that's directly to the north of the twin cities, where lots of rich white assholes live. I used to have to teach in some parts of that district, and I had the WORST kids ever. Spoiled little brats. I actually preferred teaching in the inner city schools, full of poor, troubled immigrant kids... true story.Seriously, most of Minnesota hates the 6th district... but nobody wants to move there to vote against Bachmann because fuck everyone who lives there. So really, Minnesotans didn't expect her to lose due to the district she's in... but she'll never get further in the state govt than her district because the rest of the state hates her.


Why are people still talking about Ron Paul? I was reading a Libertarian forum where people where certain he would have won if he was the Republican candidate, I've seen liberal idiots talk about writing him in, and people just generally having no idea what the fuck they are talking about. What can people possibly see in this man?
I really don't understand this shit at all. I actually thought Gary Johnson was a pretty good candidate, and FAR better than Ron Paul. And now I'm STILL hearing about Ron Paul... I get why people have been flocking to the Libertarian party (fed up with the two-party system, want something new), but why are they SO OBSESSED with Ron Paul?? I still heard people talking about RP while Johnson was running... it's like they weren't even aware that RP wasn't the candidate. And yet they call themselves Libertarians. I wonder how many self-proclaimed Libertarians showed up at the polling booth and spent some time searching for Ron Paul's name in confusion before giving up.


MOTO, He weakened the country's miltarily by TRULY ending the wars in Iraq and Afganitstan? Obama said that he was going to bring the troops home and thats what he did/doing.
We're not out of Afghanistan, unfortunately... and I don't think we will be any time soon, based on what military friends of mine who've been deployed there recently have told me...


Do you even begin to understand what I am talking about? Without a miliatry second to none, our days are numbered. He thought Alkaeda (or however it is spelled) was defeated and this is exactly why our ambassador was killed. Obama is fucking up regarding foreign policy. When we leave, the middle east will be a complete free for all. Truely ending it? Don't be fucking naive. We either need to completely gut the middle east or be ready to live with terrorism on a full time basis...on american soil.
You actually believed Obama truly thought Al Qaeda was defeated?? Hahahaha... he said they were on the path to defeat because he wanted to make the public feel good - that's what politicians do. To think he actually believed that is completely absurd. And making the innocent people from the middle eastern countries suffer as much as we do because of a small percentage of terrorists is really fucked up. We haven't solved anything in the last year we've been over there. Talk about wasting money.


Obama only won with less than 600 000 votes more than Romney. This was a close call. Of course, people's votes are only for advising the electoral colleges. It's not like the people are smart enough to decide who should be their own president. Well, at least the minority of the US citizens who actually vote. The majority can't be arsed.
Minority? Pretty sure that in every election vote, between 60 and 70% of Americans show up at the polls - about the same as Czech Republic, UK, etc. Maybe in Scandinavian countries it's a bit higher, but it's not like Americans are too dumb to vote and just stay home. We have a majority who do vote.

And the electoral college doesn't exist because people are too dumb to pick a president themselves. Very ignorant thing to say.

This is where the electoral college came from:

"while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#cite_note-7)"

MOTO13
11-08-2012, 07:34 AM
You actually believed Obama truly thought Al Qaeda was defeated?? Hahahaha... he said they were on the path to defeat because he wanted to make the public feel good - that's what politicians do. To think he actually believed that is completely absurd. And making the innocent people from the middle eastern countries suffer as much as we do because of a small percentage of terrorists is really fucked up. We haven't solved anything in the last year we've been over there. Talk about wasting money.]

Of course he knew Alqueda was still active. It was 100% complete bullshit. But he wanted the public to believe he actually accomplished something regarding stopping Alqueda. That's why his admin kept repeating it was a spontaneous attack based on some 5 month old video and certainly not Alqueda that he had stated was basically in chaos and no longer a real threat. He didn't want "us" to believe he dropped the ball.

RageAndLov
11-08-2012, 11:23 AM
Minority? Pretty sure that in every election vote, between 60 and 70% of Americans show up at the polls - about the same as Czech Republic, UK, etc. Maybe in Scandinavian countries it's a bit higher, but it's not like Americans are too dumb to vote and just stay home. We have a majority who do vote.

And the electoral college doesn't exist because people are too dumb to pick a president themselves. Very ignorant thing to say.

This is where the electoral college came from:

"while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#cite_note-7)"






The turn out for the US presidential election hasn't been above 60% since 1968. What I have read in the papers tells me that the turn out this year is estimated to be around 49%, so we will have to see. In 1996 it was at 49%. So maybe the US has barely a majority of votes, or maybe it will be a minority. However, the turn out is very low, and that is a trend amongst First Past the Post democracies like the US where the plurality of votes in that state get counted, and all the others (most often the majority) are thrown away.

And I was being sarcastic when I said that about the electoral colleges, but I can see no good reason for them actually making the call. What is the purpose of electoral colleges? Why can't the people be trusted to decide who is to be their president? And your argument is that the US has had such a system before, therefore the US should continue to use it. That is not a very good argument.

Llamas
11-08-2012, 04:33 PM
Of course he knew Alqueda was still active. It was 100% complete bullshit. But he wanted the public to believe he actually accomplished something regarding stopping Alqueda. That's why his admin kept repeating it was a spontaneous attack based on some 5 month old video and certainly not Alqueda that he had stated was basically in chaos and no longer a real threat. He didn't want "us" to believe he dropped the ball.

So, wait... you say our ambassador was killed because Obama thought Al Qaeda was finished ("He thought Alkaeda (or however it is spelled) was defeated and this is exactly why our ambassador was killed."), which would mean Obama actually thought that and the ambassador was killed because Obama lowered the protection... and then you say that Obama didn't *really* believe Al Qaeda was finished, and therefore *didn't* actually lower the protection...


The turn out for the US presidential election hasn't been above 60% since 1968. What I have read in the papers tells me that the turn out this year is estimated to be around 49%, so we will have to see. In 1996 it was at 49%. So maybe the US has barely a majority of votes, or maybe it will be a minority. However, the turn out is very low, and that is a trend amongst First Past the Post democracies like the US where the plurality of votes in that state get counted, and all the others (most often the majority) are thrown away.
Voter turnout this year was lower than usual, at 57.5 percent (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/11/8/voter_turnout_drops_more_races_settled.htm). 1996 was the last time the US voter turnout was under half, at 49%. And that was the only election since any of us here have been alive that turnout was a "minority" (one percent under half = stretch to call a "minority"...) And maybe - just maybe we have a 10% lower turnout than most countries because a lot of Americans don't like either of the parties and know that the other parties don't have enough money to run the country. Some don't feel that there's any difference. Others find registering difficult (especially the poor) - hell, I found it difficult to register for my first vote in 2004. I voted in 2004 and 2008, but didn't vote this year. Does that make me apathetic? Nope. Not at all.


And I was being sarcastic when I said that about the electoral colleges, but I can see no good reason for them actually making the call. What is the purpose of electoral colleges? Why can't the people be trusted to decide who is to be their president? And your argument is that the US has had such a system before, therefore the US should continue to use it. That is not a very good argument.
No, I didn't say that. I just said that's where it comes from. Your joke wasn't obvious, so I was explaining. It'd require an amendment to remove the electoral college, and that's not easy. There have been proposals to alter the process, but none have made it. Two-thirds majority in both houses, plus three-fourths majority of Americans is required to pass an amendment. It's not easy. But proposals will keep coming in and hopefully one of these days one will pass.

WebDudette
11-08-2012, 06:28 PM
Obama only won with less than 600 000 votes more than Romney. This was a close call. Of course, people's votes are only for advising the electoral colleges. It's not like the people are smart enough to decide who should be their own president. Well, at least the minority of the US citizens who actually vote. The majority can't be arsed.

If by '600,000' you mean '~3,000,000 and potentially rising' and if instead of 'the majority can't be arsed' you actually me 'a majority of those able to vote turned out', then you are totally right.

Why do you blindly hate America so much, Rage?

Llamas
11-08-2012, 07:08 PM
If by '600,000' you mean '~3,000,000 and potentially rising' and if instead of 'the majority can't be arsed' you actually me 'a majority of those able to vote turned out', then you are totally right.

Why do you blindly hate America so much, Rage?

I just noticed the 600,000 thing. Still being counted, but Obama has 60,652,238 to Romney’s 57,810,407 as of this morning... quite a bit more than 600,000.

I don't even live in the US, I'm no patriot, and I dislike the US more than most Americans (I get accused of hating America by a lot of people back home)... and yet I find Rage's blind America-hate to be beyond obnoxious.

MOTO13
11-09-2012, 08:18 AM
Obamanamadingdong was under pressure to get as many military out of the middle east as he could. After all, he promised this and the election was looming. After he...and I use this term very looely, got rid of OBL, he figured dissaray. Nope. Too many factured cells over there still intact. He ignored requests for security at a god damn American embassy and then all of a sudden, on 9/11 no less, all shit breaks loose. Americans are killed. Obama knew when his poll number dropped by .000001% and yet did not have the forsight to protect an embassy after requests for security were given? Then he says it was spontaneous from a video. Nothing could have been done...but we'll investigate it...after the election. The story was buried by the press. The press spent 2 years grilling Romney about his friggin tax returns, yet spent 10 minutes on a murdered ambassador and 3 other americans on 911. Yeah, call me skeptical. The guy is a fucking liar. Period.

Tiny Vessels
11-09-2012, 09:43 AM
Obamanamadingdong was under pressure to get as many military out of the middle east as he could. After all, he promised this and the election was looming. After he...and I use this term very looely, got rid of OBL, he figured dissaray. Nope. Too many factured cells over there still intact. He ignored requests for security at a god damn American embassy and then all of a sudden, on 9/11 no less, all shit breaks loose. Americans are killed. Obama knew when his poll number dropped by .000001% and yet did not have the forsight to protect an embassy after requests for security were given? Then he says it was spontaneous from a video. Nothing could have been done...but we'll investigate it...after the election. The story was buried by the press. The press spent 2 years grilling Romney about his friggin tax returns, yet spent 10 minutes on a murdered ambassador and 3 other americans on 911. Yeah, call me skeptical. The guy is a fucking liar. Period.

1) I don't think it was 2 years the press was on Romney for his tax returns.
2) It was way more than 10 mins the press spent on the American Embassy
3) It really did start because of a video
4) We really DO need get out of the middle east, we been over way too long

MOTO13
11-09-2012, 09:53 AM
1) I don't think it was 2 years the press was on Romney for his tax returns.
2) It was way more than 10 mins the press spent on the American Embassy
3) It really did start because of a video
4) We really DO need get out of the middle east, we been over way too long

1. Yes it was.
2. Slightly more thn 10 minutes, but 100 times less press than murdered Americans.
3. You're an idiot.
4. Yes we do. It will be complete an utter choas when or if this ever happens.

Tiny Vessels
11-09-2012, 09:59 AM
Hey now I'm not an idiot and you know that I'm not. We happen to disagree on something and that doesn't mean you can call me names. I don't call you names. K Thanks

MOTO13
11-09-2012, 10:29 AM
Ok...maybe you're not an idiot. But your statement regarding number 3 is pretty fucking stupid. Let me ask you this oh one who is not an idiot...has the video gone away? Is it no longer in existence? Has it completely left this planet and in no possible way can it be viewed? No. Then why have the "protests" with rocket launchers, grenades, guns and murders not continued? Why did it take 6 months for this video to cause such riots and wtf did the American emabssy and murdering people who never had one thing to do with the video have to do with it? And why did the riots and murders accross the ME begin on 911?

Tiny Vessels
11-09-2012, 10:40 AM
Ok...maybe you're not an idiot. But your statement regarding number 3 is pretty fucking stupid. Let me ask you this oh one who is not an idiot...has the video gone away? Is it no longer in existence? Has it completely left this planet and in no possible way can it be viewed? No. Then why have the "protests" with rocket launchers, grenades, guns and murders not continued? Why did it take 6 months for this video to cause such riots and wtf did the American emabssy and murdering people who never had one thing to do with the video have to do with it? And why did the riots and murders accross the ME begin on 911?

I mean I guess it went away. I heard that took it off the net so it wouldn't be viewed anymore. They did it for the simple fact that they were americans and Al Qaeda hates americans. They know what 9/11 means to us so why not do it on that day more bad/painful news to us.

MOTO13
11-09-2012, 11:07 AM
I mean I guess it went away. I heard that took it off the net so it wouldn't be viewed anymore. They did it for the simple fact that they were americans and Al Qaeda hates americans. They know what 9/11 means to us so why not do it on that day more bad/painful news to us.

So we have established that...IT WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS. Baby steps are ok...

Llamas
11-09-2012, 11:46 AM
Interesting... thousands died from a HUGE terrorist attack while a Republican was in power... ON OUR FREAKING SOIL. Yet we're supposed to be mad at Obama for a MUCH smaller attack on foreign soil?? Hilarious.

Saying that this has hardly been covered is ridiculous... I've been hearing about it constantly since it happened, and I'm not even in the US. Hell, I've read articles where Hilary Clinton called this ambassador a "hero"... really? Diplomats are now heroes? If you ask me, this is getting a ridiculous amount of attention. I've read countless articles about all the research being done to find the best way to prevent something like this from happening again. Tons of money is being spent on this.

And the Romney tax return thing started in late January - less than 11 months before the election. Tiny Vessels was right about both things. What caused the attack is open for question, but not when the tax return stuff started and how much coverage the attack in Libya is getting.

MOTO13
11-09-2012, 02:37 PM
Interesting... thousands died from a HUGE terrorist attack while a Republican was in power... ON OUR FREAKING SOIL. Yet we're supposed to be mad at Obama for a MUCH smaller attack on foreign soil?? Hilarious.

Saying that this has hardly been covered is ridiculous... I've been hearing about it constantly since it happened, and I'm not even in the US. Hell, I've read articles where Hilary Clinton called this ambassador a "hero"... really? Diplomats are now heroes? If you ask me, this is getting a ridiculous amount of attention. I've read countless articles about all the research being done to find the best way to prevent something like this from happening again. Tons of money is being spent on this.

And the Romney tax return thing started in late January - less than 11 months before the election. Tiny Vessels was right about both things. What caused the attack is open for question, but not when the tax return stuff started and how much coverage the attack in Libya is getting.

Hillarious? Glad you give two shits about the 4 dead Americans. And when these assholes flew planes into the Twin Towers in 1991, it was basically the beginning of terror as we know it. Nobody saw this coming. There were literally no measures in place to even begin to think of such an act of complete stupidity. Different world then. Get $2 and buy a clue.

I have heard VERY VERY little on the Libya murders outside of the first 1-2 weeks. Once Sandy hit, what little was being reported...stopped or put on the back burner.

I have read stories about Romney's returns for over 2 years. This is nothing new. It has been HAMMERED for at least a year. Now let's see how it stacks up against 4 dead Americans murdered on the anniversary of 911 and then the story gets twisted and fucked over trying to blame some god damn video and spontaneous riots. You'd have to be brain dead to believe such bullshit.

Little_Miss_1565
11-09-2012, 03:08 PM
Bud, you know that the other former GOP presidential candidates were the ones that started in on the whole Bain / vulture capitalism thing, right? And that the spontaneous riot theory was canned within hours of the news breaking and the only people still talking about it are people like you looking for a drum to beat? There was a terrorist attack. They're pursuing the people responsible. Not much to talk about in the meantime. We did eventually stop talking about 9/11 every day, you know. Doesn't mean people have been forgotten.

MOTO13
11-09-2012, 03:31 PM
Huh...cause I was pretty ceratin the Obama adminsitration was talking about this spontaneous riots video bullshit for at least 10 days after. In fact, they sent Hillary's ass down the South America shortly thereafter. She is taking the fall for this like a good little idiot. Expect her to step down as SAS pretty soon.

My point is...the story was buried because of the election. Because it would do damage to Obama.



I just read some pretty interesting stuff on your presidents HCA...anyone read anything similar?

p50..sect 152...The bill will provide insurance to all non-US residents...even if here illegally.

P272 sect 1145...Cancers hospital will ration health care in accordance with patients age.

p425...The gov't MANDATES those on SSI (of age) "end of life planning", death counseling, every 5 years.

p429..the gov't will specify which doctors can write end of life orders.

Also, this bill does not apply to members of congress or the president.

This may have been taken out of context, so any added information would be appreciated.

Little_Miss_1565
11-09-2012, 03:38 PM
I just read some pretty interesting stuff on your presidents HCA...anyone read anything similar?

p50..sect 152...The bill will provide insurance to all non-US residents...even if here illegally.

P272 sect 1145...Cancers hospital will ration health care in accordance with patients age.

p425...The gov't MANDATES those on SSI (of age) "end of life planning", death counseling, every 5 years.

p429..the gov't will specify which doctors can write end of life orders.

Also, this bill does not apply to members of congress or the president.

This may have been taken out of context, so any added information would be appreciated.

Yeah, that's a mix of out of context and not real. But I do wish the "death panels" were real, because I have a long list I'd like to submit to them.

MOTO13
11-09-2012, 03:51 PM
I saw this like 3 weeks ago. Have you seen the same information? I am going to get the HCA if available and read it. Yes, you heard right...I can read.

Little_Miss_1565
11-09-2012, 03:57 PM
I saw this like 3 weeks ago. Have you seen the same information? I am going to get the HCA if available and read it. Yes, you heard right...I can read.

Yes, I have seen this before as this is the same tired and debunked nonsense that's been circulating for years on the subject.

_Lost_
11-09-2012, 08:56 PM
Is anyone else gonna point out that he said the twin tower attack was in 1991?

Tiny Vessels
11-09-2012, 09:41 PM
Is anyone else gonna point out that he said the twin tower attack was in 1991?

I was going to say something but was at work and I didn't have time. Oh Moto... he is something else lol. For someone who's all about facts and history he sure cant get that right. 2001.

Little_Miss_1565
11-10-2012, 03:00 AM
Is anyone else gonna point out that he said the twin tower attack was in 1991?

There was a bombing in 91 that was intended to destroy the towers but failed. But yeah. No planes were involved in that one.

RageAndLov
11-10-2012, 07:50 AM
Voter turnout this year was lower than usual, at 57.5 percent (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/11/8/voter_turnout_drops_more_races_settled.htm). 1996 was the last time the US voter turnout was under half, at 49%. And that was the only election since any of us here have been alive that turnout was a "minority" (one percent under half = stretch to call a "minority"...) And maybe - just maybe we have a 10% lower turnout than most countries because a lot of Americans don't like either of the parties and know that the other parties don't have enough money to run the country. Some don't feel that there's any difference. Others find registering difficult (especially the poor) - hell, I found it difficult to register for my first vote in 2004. I voted in 2004 and 2008, but didn't vote this year. Does that make me apathetic? Nope. Not at all.

The papers I read at the time I made my first post had these numbers, but they were corrected later. There was a bare majority who voted, and Obama won with 3 million votes. The point with Obama winning with 600 000 votes (which is now confirmed to not be accurate) was not meant as a critique. I was just fascinated with the very close election. 3 million votes in between the two candidates is also close.

I still think the US has a low turn out, but I can understand it. If I were a Democrat living in Texas, I don't know if I would have bother going to vote for Obama. I know that state would've be won by the Republicans. If I nevertheless had voted, my vote would have been thrown away. And that's what I dislike with the First Past the Post system. The whole thing with Electoral Colleges makes it even worse.



No, I didn't say that. I just said that's where it comes from. Your joke wasn't obvious, so I was explaining. It'd require an amendment to remove the electoral college, and that's not easy. There have been proposals to alter the process, but none have made it. Two-thirds majority in both houses, plus three-fourths majority of Americans is required to pass an amendment. It's not easy. But proposals will keep coming in and hopefully one of these days one will pass.

I am glad we agree upon this. I hope for the sake of the US that this will be changed as soon as possible. I can't understand why this doesn't create a debate every 4th year when the presidential election is around. I would be very frustrated if my vote was only advising my state's Electoral College.


If by '600,000' you mean '~3,000,000 and potentially rising' and if instead of 'the majority can't be arsed' you actually me 'a majority of those able to vote turned out', then you are totally right.

Why do you blindly hate America so much, Rage?

Oh boy, here we go again. For the numbers, read above. For the supposedly "blind hate of America", I don't see where you get that from in this thread. The thing is about this BBS is that all we talk about in regards of politics is the USA. I comment therefore to the various issues in the political realm of the US. The voting system which happens to be the one the US uses is in my opinion flawed and not very democratic. The UK has the same issue with their voting system, and I would be the first one to criticise their system if it were brought up in a thread here. The problem is, it never is. How often do we discuss British elections, or British politics in general? Almost never.

So in short, I don't "blindly hate America". I criticise the First Past the Post voting system which the US happens to use. Start talk about other countries and their (in my opinion) flawed voting systems, and I will surely criticise them too. Start talk about aspects of the US which I agree upon, and I will argue that they are good things.



I don't even live in the US, I'm no patriot, and I dislike the US more than most Americans (I get accused of hating America by a lot of people back home)... and yet I find Rage's blind America-hate to be beyond obnoxious.

Read above. I don't have a blind hate towards the USA.

Llamas
11-10-2012, 08:47 AM
I still think the US has a low turn out, but I can understand it. If I were a Democrat living in Texas, I don't know if I would have bother going to vote for Obama. I know that state would've be won by the Republicans. If I nevertheless had voted, my vote would have been thrown away. And that's what I dislike with the First Past the Post system. The whole thing with Electoral Colleges makes it even worse.
That's a huge part of it. That's why I didn't vote this year - if I could've voted in Wisconsin (where I grew up), I would've because WI is a bit more of a swing state... but it turned out I could only vote in the state I last voted in, which is Minnesota... and Minnesota has voted Democrat since 1976. Minnesota and DC were the only two democrat states in one Reagan election. So I knew Minnesota was gonna go Obama, anyway, so I didn't vote. Of course, if it was about a popular vote, I would've voted for sure - or if I'd been able to vote on the MN amendments, which I wasn't.


I am glad we agree upon this. I hope for the sake of the US that this will be changed as soon as possible. I can't understand why this doesn't create a debate every 4th year when the presidential election is around. I would be very frustrated if my vote was only advising my state's Electoral College.
Trust me, a lot of people have a problem with this. It's heavily discussed and debated in the US among intelligent Americans. It just doesn't get picked up by the media. One would think the Bush vs. Gore election would've been a huge eye-opener for EVERYONE to care and drastic steps would've begun, but no.


Oh boy, here we go again. For the numbers, read above. For the supposedly "blind hate of America", I don't see where you get that from in this thread. The thing is about this BBS is that all we talk about in regards of politics is the USA. I comment therefore to the various issues in the political realm of the US. The voting system which happens to be the one the US uses is in my opinion flawed and not very democratic. The UK has the same issue with their voting system, and I would be the first one to criticise their system if it were brought up in a thread here. The problem is, it never is. How often do we discuss British elections, or British politics in general? Almost never.

So in short, I don't "blindly hate America". I criticise the First Past the Post voting system which the US happens to use. Start talk about other countries and their (in my opinion) flawed voting systems, and I will surely criticise them too. Start talk about aspects of the US which I agree upon, and I will argue that they are good things.

The thing is, you word things so that you're not just strictly talking about the US - you are often comparing it to Europe or at least Norway. There was no need to say, "It's not like the people are smart enough to decide who should be their own president. Well, at least the minority of the US citizens who actually vote. The majority can't be arsed."

That alone is a very anti-American way of stating your thoughts. You should read, "Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Hates America" - it's written by an American girl who's married to a Dane and lives in Denmark. Lots of Europeans carry this anti-American sentiment and don't even realize it. The fact is, while you may not feel like you hate America, your words say otherwise.

RageAndLov
11-10-2012, 11:21 AM
The thing is, you word things so that you're not just strictly talking about the US - you are often comparing it to Europe or at least Norway. There was no need to say, "It's not like the people are smart enough to decide who should be their own president. Well, at least the minority of the US citizens who actually vote. The majority can't be arsed."

That alone is a very anti-American way of stating your thoughts. You should read, "Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Hates America" - it's written by an American girl who's married to a Dane and lives in Denmark. Lots of Europeans carry this anti-American sentiment and don't even realize it. The fact is, while you may not feel like you hate America, your words say otherwise.


First of all, the things I said was based on an estimated number which appeared later to be wrong. Secondly, I was being sarcastic. Of course I don't think people are too stupid to decide who should be their own president, but that seems like the reasoning the US has for keeping the Electoral Colleges. I know it isn't easy to change an amendment, like you said, but people should at least try. Maybe my sarcasm wasn't clear enough, or my post was poorly worded. Like I said, if this would have been the case in any other country, I would have given the exact same critique.

By the way, I refrain from using Norway as comparison or as an example, because I know how that easily appears as if I think Norway is the best country in the world or that I am nationalistic. I am not. Nationalism is one of the things I REALLY loathe because I think it is one of the most irrational sentiments human kind can have. As not to appear biased, I don't use Norway as a comparison. I know very well that Norway isn't perfect. It has a bunch of flaws. I would readily have a discussion about what is wrong with Norway, but no one gives a fuck about the small country in the outermost corner of Europe, so I never get to "show" that.

And that appears as an interesting book and I should probably read it.