EPT
This country is really fucked up
| Blogs > nimysa |
|
nimysa
United States383 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24743 Posts
edit: also this is probably nothing new | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32091 Posts
On November 05 2008 09:40 micronesia wrote: Er unlike being black, being old is actually important. edit: also this is probably nothing new Seriously, especially when you've got a functional retard as your VP. And at least here, most people aren't voting just cuz one is black or old. | ||
|
Makhno
Sweden585 Posts
| ||
|
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
| ||
|
ish0wstopper
Korea (South)342 Posts
you dont see senators going and shooting their fellow hunters in the back because everyone knows deer are humanoid and wear clothes and hats elections are ALWAYS popularity contests havent you attended high school? | ||
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
| ||
|
nimysa
United States383 Posts
| ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
| ||
|
nimysa
United States383 Posts
On November 05 2008 10:20 tube wrote: times like these when i want to move to canada Too close to here, why not move to another continent such as someplace in Europe, or a place in South America like Buenos Aires or even Asia for that matter. | ||
|
ShmotZ
United States581 Posts
 btw on a serious note, she can see russia from her house | ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
On November 05 2008 09:37 nimysa wrote: WTF is with people taking this election as a popularity contest? I mean the majority of people voting don't seem to be aware of what a presidential election means. I mean first its Obama is black, women bla bla bullshit, and now suddenly the stock market crash now everyone is worrying about the economic issues, but now its back to Obama is black and Mccain is old etc etc etc. I mean seriously goddammit, have people have so become apathetic and selfish that the only they care about are things that directly affects them somehow? Shouldn't people force their self-interests to not cloud their judgments? I could go on and go on but I still think the U.S is fucked up, whether Obama gets elected or not. On November 03 2008 08:44 nimysa wrote: What the rest of the world does I don't know of, and frankly I don't care because they don't directly affect me and I don't know what the rest of the world does in its spare time or whatever shallow morals they posses. W-W-W-WWHAAAAAT | ||
|
Descent
1244 Posts
Anyways...Age is a very important factor to consider during these elections. I don't see how, when one of the candidates has a reasonable chance of dying during office due to natural causes, i.e. old age, as predicted by mathematical sampling (as well as there being a relatively large age discrepancy between the two primary candidates, too), age cannot be considered an important factor. Or maybe I misunderstood your post? | ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
On November 05 2008 10:03 ish0wstopper wrote: we had a functional retard as vp just now you dont see senators going and shooting their fellow hunters in the back because everyone knows deer are humanoid and wear clothes and hats elections are ALWAYS popularity contests havent you attended high school? he was actually shooting at mourning dove i believe | ||
|
il0seonpurpose
Korea (South)5638 Posts
LMAO wow you just got p0wned | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
Hahahaha, nice... | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24743 Posts
On November 05 2008 11:24 Suggestion Box wrote: I am disturbed that there are states where a McCain/Palin ticket is winning. This is giving me dreams of going to each state and going one by one to each person's house to work through them the platforms of the parties to help them see what the real differences are. I would also like them to watch the debates with me and help teach them to understand what is really going on there. It might take me a thousand years to change one state but I really am saddened that any state has so many ignorant voters that they would risk putting McCain/Palin in office. In most of their cases, if you consider what their absolute, non-negotiable, no1 priorities are, they are actually picking the better candidate. The problem is their priorities. | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
On November 05 2008 11:26 micronesia wrote: In most of their cases, if you consider what their absolute, non-negotiable, no1 priorities are, they are actually picking the better candidate. The problem is their priorities. I'm not even sure. Unless their priority is to stop a half white half Kenyan man from being Pres, or if they... ah that's it. It's Palin. They want a fundamentalist creationist to run the country. I see what you did there. Well fuck. I want to convince them away from THAT nonsense then. Even if you care about Jesus and think he's the son of God you should never be led to the kind of religion Palin represents, let alone the public policy that she stands for that is in any way tied to it. MAYBE you still would do it purely on the pro-life chances. But if deaths are what bothers you, what about all the civilians and soldiers etc.? IDK IDK. What opinions really have to change to fix this? Fundamentalism particularly, or just the abortion issue? Or just convincing people that war and corruption matter as much as abortion? I'm seriously interested about this. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32091 Posts
On November 05 2008 10:03 ish0wstopper wrote: we had a functional retard as vp just now you dont see senators going and shooting their fellow hunters in the back because everyone knows deer are humanoid and wear clothes and hats elections are ALWAYS popularity contests havent you attended high school? yeah, seriously man, no one votes because of issues, what was I thinking. Seriously, how can one person be so retarded kpcrew? | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
On November 05 2008 11:40 Hawk wrote: yeah, seriously man, no one votes because of issues, what was I thinking. Seriously, how can one person be so retarded kpcrew? Well the last two elections sure showed us that didn't they? Poor people are consistently voting to be trickled down on, like we don't know about that from 20 yrs ago? They'd rather turn the whole country into billionares and homeless people, gut the government and replace it with lobbyists, than lose an opportunity to say with their vote, "boo abortion! boo gays! let's kick terrurist ass!" | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On November 05 2008 11:46 Suggestion Box wrote: Well the last two elections sure showed us that didn't they? Poor people are consistently voting to be trickled down on, like we don't know about that from 20 yrs ago? They'd rather turn the whole country into billionares and homeless people, gut the government and replace it with lobbyists, than lose an opportunity to say with their vote, "boo abortion! boo gays! let's kick terrurist ass!" Poor people vote Red because the Republicans use the American dream to trick them, Joe the plumber wants to own the company he works for. That is not going to happen. He will never make more than 250K(he does not live in CA, lol). He would be better off voting democrat. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On November 05 2008 10:03 ish0wstopper wrote: we had a functional retard as vp just now you dont see senators going and shooting their fellow hunters in the back because everyone knows deer are humanoid and wear clothes and hats elections are ALWAYS popularity contests havent you attended high school? Did he not shoot his friend in the face, not the back? And they were quail hunting, by the way. Birds look pretty different from deer. Oh also, your an idiot. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On November 05 2008 12:02 Fontong wrote: Poor people vote Red because the Republicans use the American dream to trick them, Joe the plumber wants to own the company he works for. That is not going to happen. He will never make more than 250K(he does not live in CA, lol). He would be better off voting democrat. Yes, always the amusing part of election turnouts. The fact is, republicans are all about screwing over the middle class economically. And of course it's just always been a tragedy that the poor class, had it voted, could have swung almost every election in recent history in favor of the democrats. Today's republicans, other than a few, un-republican hand-outs (and most of it still goes to the rich) pretty much focus on the top 5%. Naturally, most of the top 5% votes for them. But it's remarkable how republicans can keep convincing the bottom 95% to constantly vote against their own economic interests. After all, they do a pretty half-assed job at social issues like abortion or gay marriage. That Obama's taxing more for people over 250k shouldn't even be an election issue, except that lots of people--and not all of them have delusions about getting rich as does J.T.P--seem to love defending the interests of the top 5%. It's like how in the 19th century common folk actually actively argued for Social Darwinism, accepting their inferiority. | ||
|
StormSnarlX
United States278 Posts
wow, thank you for owning that hypocritical prick. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
| ||
|
Straylight
Canada706 Posts
| ||
|
capek
United States585 Posts
only thing to do now is to see his response. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
but really, probably 70% of the votes are like that -.- oh well | ||
|
nimysa
United States383 Posts
Can you twist and intentionally misinterpret things more please? That was in response to someone saying that I should care about poor people in the world that don't have the same things as me, or other people that I don't know much about. This is equivalent to saying I can't be depressed because children are dying in Africa and I should be worried about fruit flies because they are not human. My response was the perfect one to yet another idiot telling about people deprived in the world. At least have the guts to post the proper context; even if what you were trying to imply was true, this blog post would be legitimate because it was concerning the state of the country, which affects me. Plus this is about politics, something different from the original post I made in the other blog post. Personally, I would feel violated if money crubbing fiendish librarians attempted to sack my pockets. | ||
|
Jusciax
Lithuania588 Posts
On November 05 2008 20:50 nimysa wrote: Can you twist and intentionally misinterpret things more please? That was in response to someone saying that I should care about poor people in the world that don't have the same things as me, or other people that I don't know much about. This is equivalent to saying I can't be depressed because children are dying in Africa and I should be worried about fruit flies because they are not human. My response was the perfect one to yet another idiot telling about people deprived in the world. At least have the guts to post the proper context; even if what you were trying to imply was true, this blog post would be legitimate because it was concerning the state of the country, which affects me. Plus this is about politics, something different from the original post I made in the other blog post. Personally, I would feel violated if money crubbing fiendish librarians attempted to sack my pockets. Damn you just proved his point again... way to go cowboy! | ||
|
nimysa
United States383 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36383 Posts
LOL OWNED | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36383 Posts
On November 05 2008 12:15 Hippopotamus wrote: Yes, always the amusing part of election turnouts. The fact is, republicans are all about screwing over the middle class economically. And of course it's just always been a tragedy that the poor class, had it voted, could have swung almost every election in recent history in favor of the democrats. Today's republicans, other than a few, un-republican hand-outs (and most of it still goes to the rich) pretty much focus on the top 5%. Naturally, most of the top 5% votes for them. But it's remarkable how republicans can keep convincing the bottom 95% to constantly vote against their own economic interests. After all, they do a pretty half-assed job at social issues like abortion or gay marriage. That Obama's taxing more for people over 250k shouldn't even be an election issue, except that lots of people--and not all of them have delusions about getting rich as does J.T.P--seem to love defending the interests of the top 5%. It's like how in the 19th century common folk actually actively argued for Social Darwinism, accepting their inferiority. most voters that vote republican do so because of reasons other than the economy | ||
|
ish0wstopper
Korea (South)342 Posts
On November 05 2008 12:14 Valentine wrote: Did he not shoot his friend in the face, not the back? And they were quail hunting, by the way. Birds look pretty different from deer. Oh also, your an idiot. who cares? it wasnt an important event i just know he shot his "friend" in the back Oh also, "you're" an idiot. | ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
On November 05 2008 20:50 nimysa wrote: Can you twist and intentionally misinterpret things more please? That was in response to someone saying that I should care about poor people in the world that don't have the same things as me, or other people that I don't know much about. This is equivalent to saying I can't be depressed because children are dying in Africa and I should be worried about fruit flies because they are not human. My response was the perfect one to yet another idiot telling about people deprived in the world. At least have the guts to post the proper context; even if what you were trying to imply was true, this blog post would be legitimate because it was concerning the state of the country, which affects me. Plus this is about politics, something different from the original post I made in the other blog post. Personally, I would feel violated if money crubbing fiendish librarians attempted to sack my pockets. i really don't understand why you keep running back to that children starving in africa idea, it isn't even comparable to this situation. we're saying you should be happy that you have a library, because you can get FREE* books, and yet you continuously violate their rules and keep books for too long, then complain because they give you a minor punishment. *if you know how a library works and how to return books on time and that was the proper context, i didn't cut anything out, I even left all the quotes in from people you responded to. you essentially just gave me more evidence you don't care about many things because they have no "direct" effect on you. HOLY fuck you idiot, you realize you can avoid library fees completely if you just follow the libraries policy and turn your books in on time? | ||
|
ish0wstopper
Korea (South)342 Posts
although i dont see how library fees have anything to do with the presidential election | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg) | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 05 2008 12:15 Hippopotamus wrote:That Obama's taxing more for people over 250k shouldn't even be an election issue, except that lots of people--and not all of them have delusions about getting rich as does J.T.P--seem to love defending the interests of the top 5%. Tax hikes in general don't help a recession like the current one, regardless of who you're taxing. They tend to hurt because they take away buying power from the people. Voting against Obama because he's taxing the rich isn't "defending the interests of the top 5%", its endorsing sound basic economic policy. Given the state of the economy right now, any change in fiscal policy is an election-relevant issue. I voted Obama because of Palin. I would have voted for McCain had he chosen a better running mate. Choosing people to run the various departments is one of the major real roles of the president, and how can we trust McCain to make intelligent choices when he picks someone thats borderline retarded as his running mate? | ||
|
nimysa
United States383 Posts
On November 06 2008 00:19 Nitrogen23 wrote: i really don't understand why you keep running back to that children starving in africa idea, it isn't even comparable to this situation. we're saying you should be happy that you have a library, because you can get FREE* books, and yet you continuously violate their rules and keep books for too long, then complain because they give you a minor punishment. *if you know how a library works and how to return books on time and that was the proper context, i didn't cut anything out, I even left all the quotes in from people you responded to. you essentially just gave me more evidence you don't care about many things because they have no "direct" effect on you. HOLY fuck you idiot, you realize you can avoid library fees completely if you just follow the libraries policy and turn your books in on time? Whoa whoa! Someone takes the internets very seriously! The original complaint in that thread was that I shouldn't be angry over the library issue because I have something many people in the world would die for, thats why I stated the whole the africa argument thing because its essentially saying the same thing: Maybe you could actually turn your things in on time like 99% of the general population and realize that you're complaining about 40 cents while taking advantage of a service that the rest of the world would kill for. You also forgot to consider the part where I said that all the good books are hard to come by and the renewal policies are a bit aggravating: "usually because in my library the good books are always checked out so its too late everyday" But the library only allows you to renew the books the day before they are due, and if you happen to have any fees around 10$ then you can't renew or do anything at all. If you try to renew the day after they are due, then they charge you $.40 for all the books. If you return the books immediately after the day it was due then they still charge you for the books you returned. If you return any overdue books then you still have to pay for the days for the same books that you had not returned for several days or weeks. Also there are limitations on when you can renew books, like in some times you can't renew books because the library might consider it too "early" to renew them. Nice job again taking things out of proportion asswipe!! Instead of actaully reading everything that I wrote, you just read 1 or two sentences and made a generalization!!!! Although I must confess that I'm a bit disorganized, so I would half agree that it was idiotic on my part to rant, however you're not making a good case. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On November 05 2008 23:30 ish0wstopper wrote: who cares? it wasnt an important event i just know he shot his "friend" in the back Oh also, "you're" an idiot. So, you replied, and couldn't wait so long for me to reply back and decided to RAGE to me via PM? Super, lol. Of course, who cares? It wasn't an imporant event, but you brought it up, and had to keep this back-and-forth shit going by sending a PM to me, just to make sure I realized how much of an idiot I am for saying "your" instead of "you're". When I said that you were an idiot, I was referring to: elections are ALWAYS popularity contests havent you attended high school? Sorry if you couldn't understand my meaning. Here's the PM, by the way. Just in case anyone wanted to see it: you dumb fuck its you're, not your if you are gonna use proper spelling and grammar when you type on the internet, use it properly you fucking retard moron. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7921 Posts
On November 05 2008 09:37 nimysa wrote: WTF is with people taking this election as a popularity contest? I mean the majority of people voting don't seem to be aware of what a presidential election means. I mean first its Obama is black, women bla bla bullshit, and now suddenly the stock market crash now everyone is worrying about the economic issues, but now its back to Obama is black and Mccain is old etc etc etc. I mean seriously goddammit, have people have so become apathetic and selfish that the only they care about are things that directly affects them somehow? Shouldn't people force their self-interests to not cloud their judgments? I could go on and go on but I still think the U.S is fucked up, whether Obama gets elected or not. Luckily you are here to teach us that people think about themselves. Why do you think communism failed? :D | ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
On November 06 2008 06:59 nimysa wrote: Whoa whoa! Someone takes the internets very seriously! The original complaint in that thread was that I shouldn't be angry over the library issue because I have something many people in the world would die for, thats why I stated the whole the africa argument thing because its essentially saying the same thing: You also forgot to consider the part where I said that all the good books are hard to come by and the renewal policies are a bit aggravating: Nice job again taking things out of proportion asswipe!! Instead of actaully reading everything that I wrote, you just read 1 or two sentences and made a generalization!!!! Although I must confess that I'm a bit disorganized, so I would half agree that it was idiotic on my part to rant, however you're not making a good case. those weren't my points, i clearly reiterated them in my previous post. read again. in the likely case you cannot find it, i will repost it for you here: we're saying you should be happy that you have a library, because you can get FREE* books, and yet you continuously violate their rules and keep books for too long, then complain because they give you a minor punishment. *if you know how a library works and how to return books on time i believe this was the point of several other people, as well as myself, and there were other people who were saying that you should be happy that you have a library, and that is also true. i don't think the whole "starving kids in africa" theory you keep reposting is a valid retort to EITHER of these arguments. oh yeah, nice job contradicting yourself when you said that i generalized your rant, when you completely generalized my post and missed the entire point. congrats. | ||
|
Augury
United States758 Posts
| ||
| ||
