|
|
Time for our good buddy Diocletian?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
You obviously don't post in this thread very much.
I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south.
If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya).
All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce.
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:19 Lmui wrote:Also, relevant image that I've found: Coupled with Show nested quote +At this point of our analysis, the cause appears to originate with electronic voting equipment; the
problem does not exist when manual methods are used. The individual voting machines terminals,
the large central scanners or the central tabulators each or all could be the cause. Worries me a lot.
Furthermore, that article accuses Wisconsin as vote-rigging. We only use automated counters that leave a paper trail (and have been counted in the past). They are verified as being legit.
Now I do some election law, and our system is by NO means good (our government agency is incompetent as can be). However, I have no reason to think there is any sort of voting system rigging going on.
|
On October 26 2012 15:34 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south. If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya). All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce.
Suggesting that the Democrats give up New England is heresy, and I hereby condemn thee to 400 hours of Hannity.
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:34 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?"
As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years).
What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south. If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya). All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce. Suggesting that the Democrats give up New England is heresy, and I hereby condemn thee to 400 hours of Hannity.
ROFL
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:34 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?"
As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years).
What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south. If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya). All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce. Suggesting that the Democrats give up New England is heresy, and I hereby condemn thee to 400 hours of Hannity.
I don't care for New England. California born and raised - no other area matters!
|
On October 26 2012 15:34 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south. If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya). All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)
Only bring it up jokingly cause I have seen stuff about this every once in blue moon around town(I'm in Portland)
Also I'm not happy with this split, where do third partiers go. How hard will it be to cross to the other country and see my family. I'm not an independent or a democrat  I'd be happy staying where I am though.
|
On October 26 2012 14:56 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:55 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:52 Defacer wrote:
Honestly guys, Obama didn't actually apologize.
Has your boss ever fucked you over, and when you confronted him, he said something along the lines of, "I understand that you're upset ..." in an apologetic tone, but they never actually apologize for or try to justify their actions?
That's pretty much the extent of Obama's 'Apology' tour. Honestly I wouldn't give a damn if he apologized, as that would be the right thing to do, and would help strengthen ties and not "weaken foreign policy" at all. We all know what happens when a country doesn't take proper responsibility for all the atrocities they've committed (Japan-East Asia relations). Yeah, exactly, I mean I'm not saying the U.S.A. should apologize, but I don't think it should feel like it's above doing so. Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:55 HunterX11 wrote:
But George H.W. Bush as Vice President said he would never apologize for America, ever: he didn't care what the facts were. (What's funny is that this was in reference to the U.S. shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290 people.) Good lord, I didn't know that.
if you ask me america should apologize for electing bush and before that reagan who almost started a nuclear world war
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:40 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:34 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?"
As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years).
What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south. If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya). All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)Only bring it up jokingly cause I have seen stuff about this every once in blue moon around town(I'm in Portland) Also I'm not happy with this split, where do third partiers go. How hard will it be to cross to the other country and see my family. I'm not an independent or a democrat I'd be happy staying where I am though.
I'm sure the Green Party would find a nice home with the Democrats, considering the Green Party is what a significant portion of Democrats would be if they weren't controlled by money. I don't know where Libertarians would go though tbh. They'd clash with the social conservatives.
I guess they can have Puerto Rico.
Borders would be open imo. We'll just have separate federal governments is all.
|
On October 26 2012 15:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:34 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?"
As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years).
What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south. If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya). All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce. Suggesting that the Democrats give up New England is heresy, and I hereby condemn thee to 400 hours of Hannity.
wasn't there a poll with new hampshire going to obama by 9 points? and the maine senators are really democrats
republicans can have texas, oklahoma. kansas, missouri, mississippi, georgia, south carolina, tennessee, alabama, and maybe kentucky just for a buffer
|
On October 26 2012 15:25 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:45 Lmui wrote:On October 26 2012 14:37 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 14:20 Lmui wrote:The last time I posted something similar, it didn't get the attention it deserved I think http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdfFrom a purely analyitical standpoint, the numbers are completely out of line compared to what they should be. There's 11 separate cases where it seems that something funny's going on. In short: It appears that there is a reasonable case for investigation into election fraud. The numbers are too far out of line and too consistent across the board to be a statistical anomaly. Edit:: It is an extraordinary observation and indicates overwhelming evidence of election manipulation. A massive set of detailed data and analysis for all 50 states, beyond the scope of this paper, also confirmed these unlikely results. There may be other reasons for this but given that when analysis of other areas is done, it seems that it settles out to the expected value of a straight line. Actually this has a much more straight-forward explanation (coming from someone who's been in an election war room. Smaller precincts tend to have easier counts, and therefore report sooner. The late reporters tend to be major suburban areas (large populations yet not state of the art systems for counting). This is (in my eyes) Romney's republican primary voting group. How would reporting later or earlier influence the results? We're aren't talking about 1-2% differences between the 5% cumulative mean and the 100% total tally. We're talking about 5-10% swings across thousands of precincts, consistently across the board. Also, explain pages 20 and 21 where Romney in 2008 got flat lines. Huckabee got a small curve there but nothing compared to the straight evenly sloped line that's present in Romney's 2012 primary results. Edit:: Reading it again, Historically in other contests not involving GOP candidates, we found no significant correlation
between precinct vote tally and the percentage success for each candidate. In other words, for most
counties and states, the vote result is unrelated to the number of voters in a precinct. There are random
variations between precincts, but no definite linear trend from small to large precincts. Also At this point of our analysis, the cause appears to originate with electronic voting equipment; the
problem does not exist when manual methods are used. The individual voting machines terminals,
the large central scanners or the central tabulators each or all could be the cause. Both seem rather damning. Ok, i misunderstood the charts originally. This is easy. Larger areas are more liberal than smaller areas. It makes sense, with Romney as the only moderate this year, that he did better in more populated areas. Last year doesn't work because McCain is also a moderate, so they may have split that. Nor does the other election they used on 21 where it is a late primary when he had already won. Most people just voted for him regardless.
That makes no sense. They found no correlation between voting habits of precincts in rural areas vs urban areas. The only variable that changed was the amount of people in a particular precinct. I'm done for tonight though as far as this topic goes, I'm tired and my ability to read through a paper comprehensively is dropping pretty quickly.
|
libertarians get stuff east of the mountains
|
On October 26 2012 15:44 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:38 farvacola wrote:On October 26 2012 15:34 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong.
Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies?
Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here?
And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south. If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya). All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce. Suggesting that the Democrats give up New England is heresy, and I hereby condemn thee to 400 hours of Hannity. wasn't there a poll with new hampshire going to obama by 9 points? and the maine senators are really democrats republicans can have texas, oklahoma. kansas, missouri, mississippi, georgia, south carolina, tennessee, alabama, and maybe kentucky just for a buffer
Idaho and Montana would feel left out.
|
On October 26 2012 15:19 Lmui wrote:Also, relevant image that I've found: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v6m70.gif) Coupled with Show nested quote +At this point of our analysis, the cause appears to originate with electronic voting equipment; the
problem does not exist when manual methods are used. The individual voting machines terminals,
the large central scanners or the central tabulators each or all could be the cause. Worries me a lot.
this wouldn't worry me except i see all these bad polls showing romney ahead like the media is trying to convice everyone romney is winning so the results wont be as suspicious. i think they learned after 2004 it takes more work than just rigging the vote
|
On October 26 2012 15:46 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:44 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 26 2012 15:38 farvacola wrote:On October 26 2012 15:34 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all. I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south. If only we could actually split into two different countries... Bring all the Democrats to the West Coast, Republicans can have the East Coast. Independents can have Alaska (we claim Hawaii boo-ya). All this partisanship reminds me of a married couple who have been on the ropes throughout the majority of their marriage and are causing their kids to suffer. Some times, it may just be better to divorce. Suggesting that the Democrats give up New England is heresy, and I hereby condemn thee to 400 hours of Hannity. wasn't there a poll with new hampshire going to obama by 9 points? and the maine senators are really democrats republicans can have texas, oklahoma. kansas, missouri, mississippi, georgia, south carolina, tennessee, alabama, and maybe kentucky just for a buffer Idaho and Montana would feel left out.
those states become national parks and endangered animal preserves
|
I think an extension of the Mason-Dixon line that bends up through the center of Denver only to end right below San Francisco would be the best contiguous split, but I am a unionist above all else and see nothing but horrible things in the future for a divided US.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:50 farvacola wrote:
I think an extension of the Mason-Dixon line that bends up through the center of Denver only to end right below San Francisco would be the best contiguous split, but I am a unionist above all else and see nothing but horrible things in the future of a divided US.
I will not allow San Diego to be swept right out from under me. You, sir, will be banished to Puerto Rico alongside jd and Ron Paul.
I'm not sure a divided U.S. would be feasible either, but one can dream...
|
On October 26 2012 15:28 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:05 ZackAttack wrote:
That statistical paper totally convinces me that Romney stole the primary. Then you are an idiot.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. lol.
|
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon
Ain't that the truth. The biggest enemy of America is not Russia, China, or even Iran. It's ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
