|
|
On November 09 2012 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 00:15 antelope591 wrote:On November 08 2012 23:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 08 2012 23:22 revel8 wrote:So is Karl Rove still disputing Ohio?  damn, but I wish people would chill out with all the hate. I didn't mind too much during the election because everyone was excited and what-not, but fucking-A, I don't even hate Obama that much (I don't hate him at all actually, but you know what I mean). I'm not saying don't be happy, and I'm not saying don't poke fun.... but it's this kind of shit, along with the "What kind of retard would vote for Mitt Romney!!!?!?!?!!?" crap that really makes Republicans want to laugh our asses off when you turn around and cry about bipartisanship and working together. Karl Rove made a good point and god-forbid he was fucking wrong.... shit. Republican's whole campaign was based on hate so for you to come in after the fact and cry about too much hate is hilarious to say the least have you been in this thread.... at all? I reckon I've been discussing this election in here a whole lot longer than you, and I made this point before the election, so please try not to assume you know something when you don't. "Kill Romney" was the Democrat strategy, in their own words, for this campaign. and that statement was made before Romney had even won the primaries, so don't come talking to me about running a campaign on hate. edit: FTR, I do think the Republicans needed to be better with their language and with the perception that they were giving off. so to add to my first point, don't assume things. I'll condemn Republican hate just as much as I'll condemn any hate from any side.
I could care less how long you've been in this thread...the facts are that the republican ideology undermined everyone who wasn't an old white male or from the south. The facts were supported 100% by the actual results. 70%+ for Obama with every minority group and massive lead amongst women and younger voters. Speaks for itself really
|
United States24770 Posts
On November 09 2012 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
"Kill Romney" was the Democrat strategy, in their own words, for this campaign.
Both sides have done plenty of silly or dumb things, but I'm specifically curious if you have a source for this accusation. Where did you get the words "Kill Romney" from?
|
Not too surprising, these sorts of data mining are used a lot by businesses from modelling traffic to ranking recommendations on Amazon.
Nerds use math to beat Romney. Again. Feels good.
|
On November 08 2012 23:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 23:22 revel8 wrote:So is Karl Rove still disputing Ohio? damn, but I wish people would chill out with all the hate. I didn't mind too much during the election because everyone was excited and what-not, but fucking-A, I don't even hate Obama that much (I don't hate him at all actually, but you know what I mean). I'm not saying don't be happy, and I'm not saying don't poke fun.... but it's this kind of shit, along with the "What kind of retard would vote for Mitt Romney!!!?!?!?!!?" crap that really makes Republicans want to laugh our asses off when you turn around and cry about bipartisanship and working together. Karl Rove made a good point and god-forbid he was fucking wrong.... shit.
Respectfully, I just made a joke. Chill out.
|
France8650 Posts
Aside from exceptionnal situation, does it even happen for americans not to elect the same president twice ? I wonder, because G. W. Bush was reelected - one of the worst US president in regard to america's image on the international and I recall some people saying america just never vote against their president in period of war.
And now I sense a lot of disappointment toward Obama coming from US citizen and I don't understand if they elected him again or just that they feel that he deserve a second mandat to really do his best and see the result after that.
|
I think our priority should be diverting our money away from illegal and immoral wars while investing it in infrastructure. The fact that this isn't even a fucking option on the poll just shows how uneducated people are and how misplaced our priorities are. The US Government kills innocent people every day. Who is the real terrorist in this situation?
|
On November 09 2012 00:36 WhiteDog wrote:
Aside from exceptionnal situation, does it even happen for americans not to elect the same president twice ? I wonder, because G. W. Bush was reelected - one of the worst US president in regard to america's image on the international and I recall some people saying america just never vote against their president in period of war.
If I know my history right slightly less than half of the presidents have been reelected. Don't take my word for it though. 
|
On November 09 2012 00:37 Warcloud wrote:
I think our priority should be diverting our money away from illegal and immoral wars while investing it in infrastructure. The fact that this isn't even a fucking option on the poll just shows how uneducated people are and how misplaced our priorities are. The US Government kills innocent people every day. Who is the real terrorist in this situation?
I don't agree with using the word uneducated here. In fact, people are too educated when it comes to politics for the US to go without a war. Some people believe that war is a necessary fact of politics, exactly because all the research into political systems seems to suggest this (not saying i agree).
In any case, war has little to do with the president anyway. I remember Daniel Ellsberg (the high level governmental adivsor during the Vietnam war, who leaked the Pentagon Papers) saying that the president will have 100 days after an election where they can have some influence, and after that it tends to be the heads of departments (ie the CIA, DOD, NSA etc.) who make most of the important decisions, or twist situations in a way that leaves the president with no choice.
Notice not many candidates will bring up ending wars to gain support from the people. The political discussion doesn't even exist, anywhere in the world.
I'm sorry for sounding a little tinfoilhattish but its pretty much career suicide to honestly believe in ending war abroad.
|
On November 09 2012 00:37 Warcloud wrote:
I think our priority should be diverting our money away from illegal and immoral wars while investing it in infrastructure. The fact that this isn't even a fucking option on the poll just shows how uneducated people are and how misplaced our priorities are. The US Government kills innocent people every day. Who is the real terrorist in this situation?
One of the wars has already been brought to an end, the other is scheduled to be brought to an end.
But the wars were not illegal. Immoral is op to personal definition, but they are objectively not illegal.
|
AFAIK, the matter of the legality of the Iraq invasion is still up for debate.
|
On November 09 2012 00:59 Holgerius wrote:
AFAIK, the matter of the legality of the Iraq invasion is still up for debate.
Depends on if you use the definition of legal, as used by the majority of humanity and all recognized bodies of law.
Or an Alex Jones website.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 23:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 22:40 oneofthem wrote:On November 08 2012 22:31 zalz wrote:On November 08 2012 22:10 Nizaris wrote:On November 08 2012 21:32 blug wrote:
Getting sick of people from my Country saying "YAY OBAMA WON!" and don't even really know what it means. Hell, I don't even really know what it means, but people are enjoying his victory based off of nothing, besides the fact that he acts like a nice guy and is black.
It really seems to me Obama does a really good job at making his opposition look evil not by dismissing or ridiculing his ideals, but simply by acting sincere/genuine. I'm not sure if that's a good thing. i know the US won't be getting a mormon as president so that's a good thing. we don't need religious ppl making policies based on an old book, instead of based on what is rational. I'm sorry but saying that rape is an act of god makes him look retarded. i know it means the us military won't be getting a funding boost.. another good thing. None of the people talking about rape were mormons. Also, mormons don't believe in anything all that crazy when compared to the others. You get your own planet? Jesus came to America? Indians were a tribe of Jews? Yeah, none of that beats believing that someone walks across water or comes back from the dead. People need to stop pretending like mormons are crazy, whilst themselves believing that god incarnate walked the earth as his own son. If you're an atheist and don't believe in any of this silly stuff, oke, fine. But I really get riled up from Christians laughing at what Mormons believe. as a religion/cult becomes more established and someone grows up in it, then they are likely only exposed to the surface ideas and don't know about the history of the movement. in that view sure mormons are nice folks with some backward cultural views, nothing too out of the ordinary. however, it is a very tightly organized religious colony with a theocratic organ that does exercise a bit of control on what members believe and have access to. in this it's prob not unlike some early christian colonies but it is still a distinct feature of it that can qualify it as a cult, as more than a throwaway insult. it is a legit cult. all religions are cults. does no one understand the definition of cult anymore? not going to go very deep into this issue. but by cult i mean a distinct sociological profile. the social facts surrounding mormonism distinguishes it. you can also call it a regional theocracy or soemthing.
for your second question, the answer is no as evidenced by your post.
|
On November 09 2012 00:52 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 00:37 Warcloud wrote:
I think our priority should be diverting our money away from illegal and immoral wars while investing it in infrastructure. The fact that this isn't even a fucking option on the poll just shows how uneducated people are and how misplaced our priorities are. The US Government kills innocent people every day. Who is the real terrorist in this situation? One of the wars has already been brought to an end, the other is scheduled to be brought to an end. But the wars were not illegal. Immoral is op to personal definition, but they are objectively not illegal.
The intervention in Iraq was clearly illegal according to international law, as it was a violation of the UN charter.
On November 09 2012 00:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 23:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 08 2012 23:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 08 2012 23:22 revel8 wrote:So is Karl Rove still disputing Ohio? damn, but I wish people would chill out with all the hate. I didn't mind too much during the election because everyone was excited and what-not, but fucking-A, I don't even hate Obama that much (I don't hate him at all actually, but you know what I mean). I'm not saying don't be happy, and I'm not saying don't poke fun.... but it's this kind of shit, along with the "What kind of retard would vote for Mitt Romney!!!?!?!?!!?" crap that really makes Republicans want to laugh our asses off when you turn around and cry about bipartisanship and working together. Karl Rove made a good point and god-forbid he was fucking wrong.... shit. His "good point" was arguing with Fox's own analysts that they hired specifically to make the call when they had a gigantic Democratic district still to report in. That's not a good point. 1) Karl Rove knows more about politics than either of us could learn in six lifetimes. and this isn't even debatable. 2) He had limited information, and if you actually listened to him, he made a really good point: his information was more recent than Fox's and it had Obama and Romney within 1000 votes of each other. 3) Karl Rove was a part of an election in which all of the networks called a state too early, and it damn near kept his guy from being elected. he was being careful, and probably grasping a bit, and yes, he was wrong. that doesn't make it a bad point, it makes it wrong.
Karl Rove made no good point. The Fox News analysts weren't simply basing their projection on the difference at that point between the two candidates, they were basing it on where the remaining votes to be counted would go. They had way more information than Rove at their disposal on that matter - something he acknowledged himself -, and Rove's objection was precisely rooted in his incorrect belief that the Republican votes that remained to be counted could outweigh the Democratic votes that remained to be counted. Since the entire point of the projection was that this wasn't the case, Rove had no good point - only disbelief and shock at seeing his predictions be contradicted by reality.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
karl rove can't even do arithmetics. at the time of his objections toledo was 12% reporting and cleveland had like 300k obama votes still to be counted. his reason was that there are a couple suburban areas still being counted.
now, at the time of his objections, the vote difference in the state was small, at around 70% reporting. it is possible that assuming random votes for the rest of the 30%, rove has a point. but he should know better than that given the amount of obama votes still to be counted. true enough obama began to pull away after rove had his tantrum.
his objection is probably something like, we have a good case to mislead viewers into believing that romney still has a chance in ohio, but why u ruining this??? he was more annoyed at the lack of partisanship in the projections than he was about the accuracy of the projection itself.
|
|
|
There is nothing that distinguishes mormonism as a cult over any of a thousand other churches or religions. Google actually gave me this as definition for cult which is very accurate in my mind:
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
Most people don't call Jesus a cult figure, so really it depends on the opinions of outsiders and not on any "sociological facts" surrounding the religion in particular.
On November 09 2012 01:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 00:52 zalz wrote:On November 09 2012 00:37 Warcloud wrote:
I think our priority should be diverting our money away from illegal and immoral wars while investing it in infrastructure. The fact that this isn't even a fucking option on the poll just shows how uneducated people are and how misplaced our priorities are. The US Government kills innocent people every day. Who is the real terrorist in this situation? One of the wars has already been brought to an end, the other is scheduled to be brought to an end. But the wars were not illegal. Immoral is op to personal definition, but they are objectively not illegal. The intervention in Iraq was clearly illegal according to international law, as it was a violation of the UN charter.
Yeah but international law is a joke.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
ex-mormon historians may disagree. this is my last post on this topic. if you can't see mormon practices of theological control as problematic i cannot help you.
|
On November 09 2012 01:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 00:52 zalz wrote:On November 09 2012 00:37 Warcloud wrote:
I think our priority should be diverting our money away from illegal and immoral wars while investing it in infrastructure. The fact that this isn't even a fucking option on the poll just shows how uneducated people are and how misplaced our priorities are. The US Government kills innocent people every day. Who is the real terrorist in this situation? One of the wars has already been brought to an end, the other is scheduled to be brought to an end. But the wars were not illegal. Immoral is op to personal definition, but they are objectively not illegal. The intervention in Iraq was clearly illegal according to international law, as it was a violation of the UN charter.
The UN is laughable. I wouldn't consider any UN charter a meaningful legal document.
|
On November 09 2012 00:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 23:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 08 2012 23:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 08 2012 23:22 revel8 wrote:So is Karl Rove still disputing Ohio? damn, but I wish people would chill out with all the hate. I didn't mind too much during the election because everyone was excited and what-not, but fucking-A, I don't even hate Obama that much (I don't hate him at all actually, but you know what I mean). I'm not saying don't be happy, and I'm not saying don't poke fun.... but it's this kind of shit, along with the "What kind of retard would vote for Mitt Romney!!!?!?!?!!?" crap that really makes Republicans want to laugh our asses off when you turn around and cry about bipartisanship and working together. Karl Rove made a good point and god-forbid he was fucking wrong.... shit. His "good point" was arguing with Fox's own analysts that they hired specifically to make the call when they had a gigantic Democratic district still to report in. That's not a good point. 1) Karl Rove knows more about politics than either of us could learn in six lifetimes. and this isn't even debatable.
You're not even able to think/see clearly because your body is overloaded with crying more tears of butthurt than anyone could cry in six lifetimes. and this isn't even debatable.
Hm, this is fun. Thanks for showing me
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
