|
|
On November 08 2012 22:10 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Actually mormonism, compared, is rather new :D It's cute in a way how it all works.
|
On November 09 2012 01:15 oneofthem wrote:
mormon ex-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.
Could you give an example of what "theological control" means? I know you said last post but I'm just curious what that means.
|
On November 09 2012 01:18 oneofthem wrote:the previous 2 posts about international law should be understood alongside this picture. http://i.imgur.com/b8lm9.jpg
Pretty much. International law is basically the largest prisoner's dilemma game in existence, and shaking the equilibrium is bad news for all parties concerned.
|
On November 09 2012 01:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:08 kwizach wrote: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.
On November 09 2012 01:16 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:08 kwizach wrote: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.
If anyone is going to claim that a military intervention by a state into/against another state is not illegal, by definition the first thing you should be looking at is international law. And the U.N. charter is one of the cornerstones of international law (with other treaties, like the 1969 Vienna Convention).
|
On November 09 2012 01:09 oneofthem wrote:
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.
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.
I don't know how it went on at FOX, but Ohio was called far too early on the PBS broadcast imo. Same goes for a few other states, before any votes were counted... On the other hand, it ended up they were right, but in general showing some restraint in calling states is a good idea. Remember how Al Gore won the 2000 election in Florida and the state ending up going to Bush? That is kind of the point and it is a fair point.
|
Ok, I have a request for all you well-informed posters. I'm looking to take responsibility for my political views.
I grew up Republican and values like you earn what you get, work hard and no one should take that away, and conservative social values. I've leaned Libertarian since the end of high school thinking small government is best, protecting individual rights is important (I still have "conservative" values but I know it's not the government's job to impose some of my values on others)
I think all you liberals make a compelling argument for single-payer healthcare. I am opposed in principle. I don't really like the government making it mandatory but I also really want everyone to have good healthcare. If single-payer is indeed more cost-effective for everyone I would support it. I'm surrounded by some of the right-wing people that are ridiculed in this thread. I think their intentions are good but as I'm exploring this and arguing discussing this with them I need some substance on the subject and need to be better informed. Can you help me out with studies/articles?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2012 01:24 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:09 oneofthem wrote:
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.
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. I don't know how it went on at FOX, but Ohio was called far too early on the PBS broadcast imo. Same goes for a few other states, before any votes were counted... On the other hand, it ended up they were right, but in general showing some restraint in calling states is a good idea. Remember how Al Gore won the 2000 election in Florida and the state ending up going to Bush? That is kind of the point and it is a fair point.
i thought that too, until i looked at county by county data.
the overwhelming majority of votes left uncounted were in the toledo/cleveland areas and those votes went obama by a 70/30 ratio.
if you have this data then it's not hard to call an obama victory. as another note, betting sites already "called" ohio way earlier.
|
Zurich15359 Posts
On November 09 2012 01:02 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You can take one side of the discussion sure, but to deny that the legality is highly contested is absurd. This report gives a good overview over the issue and the different positions: http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/
|
What was the biggest reason Obama won
Other explain: As the most reliable factor of determening the outcome of american presidential elections, once more, total raised and spent cash was the determening one. And as seen before (also under obamas precidency) this will heavily influence the policies during the next period. Basically now it's time for Obama to pay back the corporations who helped him buy the election.
Democracy is a wonderful thing.
|
Lol @ the news anchors and media news people who predicted a landslide victory for M.Rommey
|
A law is only a law if it can be enforced. Otherwise it's just a request.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2012 01:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:
A law is only a law if it can be enforced. Otherwise it's just a request.
a successful escaped inmate's always successful claim.
|
On November 09 2012 01:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:
A law is only a law if it can be enforced. Otherwise it's just a request.
No. A law is what's defined as a law. International law is a domain of law. Also, there are plenty of subcategories of international law. Here, we're talking about public international law.
|
On November 09 2012 01:36 MooMooMugi wrote:
Lol @ the news anchors and media news people who predicted a landslide victory for M.Rommey
Predictions are not gaurantees.
|
On November 09 2012 01:18 oneofthem wrote:the previous 2 posts about international law should be understood alongside this picture. http://i.imgur.com/b8lm9.jpg
Haha, that sums it up pretty well. 
|
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.
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.
21 of 29 presidents who attempted re-election got the second term. Rest of them didnt run the second time due to various resons (death and lack of party nomination are major causes).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 08 2012 22:10 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah but the U.S. has a christian president. The christian religion preaches talking snakes and a 6,000 year old world. Christianity is just as fucking crazy as Mormonism.
|
On November 09 2012 01:33 theJob wrote:
What was the biggest reason Obama won
Other explain: As the most reliable factor of determening the outcome of american presidential elections, once more, total raised and spent cash was the determening one. And as seen before (also under obamas precidency) this will heavily influence the policies during the next period. Basically now it's time for Obama to pay back the corporations who helped him buy the election.
Democracy is a wonderful thing.
...what? Care to back that up with some evidence or are you talking completely out of your ass? It's widely known that Romney had more financial clout on the campaign trail...whether he used it effectively or not is another discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
