EPT(but I think all politically active persons should be held accountable for the meaning of the words they use, to encourage greater precision in discourse. Therefore if this man wants to go around saying things like "the real vote can't be manipulated" he should not be allowed also to advocate voter ID laws)
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 700
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
(but I think all politically active persons should be held accountable for the meaning of the words they use, to encourage greater precision in discourse. Therefore if this man wants to go around saying things like "the real vote can't be manipulated" he should not be allowed also to advocate voter ID laws) | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On October 08 2012 04:53 sam!zdat wrote: He's just being lazy with language. What he means to say is that "the real vote, regardless of its status of having been or not having been manipulated, is what counts" (but I think all politically active persons should be held accountable for the meaning of the words they use, to encourage greater precision in discourse) Yeah, I agree. I think it is untrue to say that real votes can't be manipulated because they can and have been in the past (dead voters), although I don't think there has ever been any evidence of enough voter fraud to make a big enough difference that should force us to have an I.D. Personally, I don't care whether or not they require I.D.s (as I have one...and every adult I know) but if they are going to make it a requirement we need to start getting free I.D.s | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On October 07 2012 19:14 paralleluniverse wrote: If we are not at full employment, an assumption that you've thrown out, then there will be people to hire. If the government hires everyone that's unemployed, then we are at full employment and fiscal stimulus is bad because (as I've said), it will only lead to inflation. Did an argument about this realy go on for several pages? Off course when there is full employment, anny means of stimulus will lead to inflation. But why would governmants want to give stimuli when there is full employment annyway lol? This situation is completely irrelevant and will never occur in reality. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 08 2012 04:48 kmillz wrote: I have to ask, because I have never voted before, but what do you use to prove that you are a U.S. citizen when you register? It varies by state, but it typically involves providing your driver's license number and/or your SSN or some part of it. And you've never registered? Um, what state do you live in? The deadline for this year's election | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On October 08 2012 04:56 kmillz wrote: Yeah, I agree. I think it is untrue to say that real votes can't be manipulated because they can and have been in the past (dead voters), although I don't think there has ever been any evidence of enough voter fraud to make a big enough difference that should force us to have an I.D. Personally, I don't care whether or not they require I.D.s (as I have one...and every adult I know) but if they are going to make it a requirement we need to start getting free I.D.s Requiring ID just targets the poor the most as they are the least likely to drive and thus hold state ID. But yeah if you have a voter I.D. law you need to give them enough time to get new I.D.'s and make them free. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On October 08 2012 05:41 Mindcrime wrote: It varies by state, but it typically involves providing your driver's license number and/or your SSN or some part of it. And you've never registered? Um, what state do you live in? The deadline for this year's election I was in the military and overseas so it was a pain in the ass to vote last time (and I didn't like either candidate anyway, just like this year -_-), I'm 23 and I live in Ohio. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
![[image loading]](http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/files/2012/10/mike100712.jpg) Had to share this image, one of the best things Obama supporters can take from the first debate. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Dat Romney flip-flop. | ||
|
Gatored
United States679 Posts
On October 08 2012 09:08 Saryph wrote: Had to share this image, one of the best things Obama supporters can take from the first debate. I chuckled. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
I was entertained, but I was hoping there would be a but more meat to it. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On October 08 2012 15:05 Signet wrote: For those who wanted to watch the Stewart - O'Reilly debate, it's here on youtube. Sorry if this has been posted already... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5RJ42K91yM I was entertained, but I was hoping there would be a but more meat to it. Thank you! I love watching these 2 debate. Gotta admit, even when I agree with O'Reilly I still think he is a bonehead. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
sigh. | ||
|
KiaL.Kiwi
Germany210 Posts
On October 08 2012 15:20 kmillz wrote: Thank you! I love watching these 2 debate. Gotta admit, even when I agree with O'Reilly I still think he is a bonehead. Thanks for the link - wanted to watch that debate really badly but only found the official version where you have to register. Though I have to say I'm flabbergasted again and again that Bill O'Reilly gets taken the slightest bit serious - the oversimplifications he made on basically every topic are void of content and appealing to the lowest of instincts. I'm able to follow certain patterns of argumentation made by the right, but if those "bullet-points" he presents on his cards don't make you want to vomit there's something wrong with you :/. Since i've only got a small insight into the american public debate and well-known spokespersons in media - are there republicans (or other right-leaning individuals) that you can actually listen too without feeling intellectually violated? I mean - at least 50% of your country's population is leaning most heavily to the right - but the tidbits of your discurse that reach me are mostly Fox News and people like O'Reilly, both of which seem completly nuts in their perception of the world. There has to be something more to that whole party/ideology, there have to be spokespersons that can make their case without such extreme populism. Any advice on whom to look for to get a better perspective on why half of america stands behind the republican party? | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
On October 08 2012 17:47 Defacer wrote: God, the O'Reilly and Stewart debate is so much more interesting and informative than the presidential ones ... and better moderated. sigh. I struggle to find more than 5 intelligent things O'Reilly says? Granted Stewart got so confused on debt vs deficit, he ultimately made a much better argument than O'Reilly; I guess i'd also struggle to defend Romney | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21915 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7914 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7288 Posts
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff. Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons. he wasn't just talking about mandatory military service. He also mentioned service in the community for children. | ||
|
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On October 08 2012 15:05 Signet wrote: For those who wanted to watch the Stewart - O'Reilly debate, it's here on youtube. Sorry if this has been posted already... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5RJ42K91yM I was entertained, but I was hoping there would be a but more meat to it. Steward is just so fucking hilarious. They both had some good points tho. Am I the only one who thinks O'Reilly is just one big troll? I mean those cards. It's as if he is trolling his core audience by basically telling them they need to have some help like children in class to understand things with big ass signs and pictures. | ||
| ||
