|
|
Not that I'm aware of.
I'm not surprised by this. I don't think Obama has done this, but I'm sure staffers do this kind of thing all the time. The fact that it is coming straight from Romney isn't very good for him, though. Fox will spin it as a statement on the economy, MSNBC will spin it as voter intimidation. People will freak out. No one will change their minds on anything. People already know Romney is a scumbag. His campaign isn't based on him. His campaign is not-Obama.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 15:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:52 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women, not necessarily how they actually are. I believe we have two entirely different outlooks on what constitutes a 'nice guy.' My idea of a 'nice guy' is a guy who is friendly, generous, considerate, kind, aka not a douche. He isn't necessarily shy, weak, insecure, obsessed, hesitant, needy, desperate, or obsequious. My point is that a friendly, generous, considerate, and kind man will come off in certain negative ways to women. I think we all know nice guys who hot girls just aren't attracted to, despite the fact that said guys are genuinely good people. Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:49 kmillz wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women. Wow..so what would be your adjectives for douche bag? "Jerks" present themselves to women in the opposite way; they display confidence, strength, security, aloofness, initiative, lack of caring, indifference, and assertiveness.
Actually, I have to disagree with this. There are a lot of nice guys who can come off as confident, strong, and secure.
|
On October 18 2012 13:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 13:39 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: I've only seen a few south park episodes but should I watch that one because I'm a lit theorist? Or will it hurt my feelingzz? Lit theorist, huh? In that case, you may question your existence after watching the episode.
haha "question my existence" are you kidding this is a brilliant literary theoretical text
LOL encore
edit: haha in the courtroom scene the author-function (complete with its multiple subject positions) is arguing with the critic over the interpretation of the text, denying that it has any of the coherence assigned to it by the critic! how droll!
edit: "well we've got our vomit buckets ready"
edit: LOLOL
|
On October 18 2012 16:15 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:56 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:52 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics.
[quote]
It's a useful generalization.
It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women, not necessarily how they actually are. I believe we have two entirely different outlooks on what constitutes a 'nice guy.' My idea of a 'nice guy' is a guy who is friendly, generous, considerate, kind, aka not a douche. He isn't necessarily shy, weak, insecure, obsessed, hesitant, needy, desperate, or obsequious. My point is that a friendly, generous, considerate, and kind man will come off in certain negative ways to women. I think we all know nice guys who hot girls just aren't attracted to, despite the fact that said guys are genuinely good people. On October 18 2012 15:49 kmillz wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics.
[quote]
It's a useful generalization.
It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women. Wow..so what would be your adjectives for douche bag? "Jerks" present themselves to women in the opposite way; they display confidence, strength, security, aloofness, initiative, lack of caring, indifference, and assertiveness. Actually, I have to disagree with this. There are a lot of nice guys who can come off as confident, strong, and secure.
Then we're not using the same definition of a "nice guy".
On October 18 2012 16:09 Risen wrote:Not that I'm aware of. I'm not surprised by this. I don't think Obama has done this, but I'm sure staffers do this kind of thing all the time. The fact that it is coming straight from Romney isn't very good for him, though. Fox will spin it as a statement on the economy, MSNBC will spin it as voter intimidation. People will freak out. No one will change their minds on anything. People already know Romney is a scumbag. His campaign isn't based on him. His campaign is not-Obama.
Yeah, I'm sure that realistically every politician does this through intermediaries. The only difference is that Romney seems to have a tendency of getting caught in PR-compromising positions.
Agreed that this won't change people's minds.
|
On October 18 2012 16:15 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:56 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:52 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics.
[quote]
It's a useful generalization.
It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women, not necessarily how they actually are. I believe we have two entirely different outlooks on what constitutes a 'nice guy.' My idea of a 'nice guy' is a guy who is friendly, generous, considerate, kind, aka not a douche. He isn't necessarily shy, weak, insecure, obsessed, hesitant, needy, desperate, or obsequious. My point is that a friendly, generous, considerate, and kind man will come off in certain negative ways to women. I think we all know nice guys who hot girls just aren't attracted to, despite the fact that said guys are genuinely good people. On October 18 2012 15:49 kmillz wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics.
[quote]
It's a useful generalization.
It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women. Wow..so what would be your adjectives for douche bag? "Jerks" present themselves to women in the opposite way; they display confidence, strength, security, aloofness, initiative, lack of caring, indifference, and assertiveness. Actually, I have to disagree with this. There are a lot of nice guys who can come off as confident, strong, and secure.
Yes. Sounds like teenage high school clichés.
Making huge generalization as if "women" wanted this or that regardless of who they are is plain dumb. All women are different; and have as diverse tastes as we have. And we don't all go for the same chicks. Luckily
|
Stop talking about females, we're debating politics on the internet, we're all fucking losers.
When did everyone on the internet decide they were a pick-up artist? Oh, that's right, anonymity allows you to pretend to be whatever you fantasize about!
|
Wow I thought this was the thread about the US Elections... Guess i miss clicked on the "nice guys never get girls" thread. Good job guys.
|
On October 18 2012 17:52 armada[sb] wrote:
Stop talking about females, we're debating politics on the internet, we're all fucking losers.
When did everyone on the internet decide they were a pick-up artist? Oh, that's right, anonymity allows you to pretend to be whatever you fantasize about!
Whoa whoa whoa..... Speak for yourself there buddy. I don't want to have to bring up my Ferrari and model girlfriends.
|
On October 18 2012 17:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 17:52 armada[sb] wrote:
Stop talking about females, we're debating politics on the internet, we're all fucking losers.
When did everyone on the internet decide they were a pick-up artist? Oh, that's right, anonymity allows you to pretend to be whatever you fantasize about! Whoa whoa whoa..... Speak for yourself there buddy. I don't want to have to bring up my Ferrari and model girlfriends.
Please don't, everyone already shot down my confidence with their nice guy bashing!
|
On October 18 2012 17:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 17:52 armada[sb] wrote:
Stop talking about females, we're debating politics on the internet, we're all fucking losers.
When did everyone on the internet decide they were a pick-up artist? Oh, that's right, anonymity allows you to pretend to be whatever you fantasize about! Whoa whoa whoa..... Speak for yourself there buddy. I don't want to have to bring up my Ferrari and model girlfriends.
Hahaha  I wish I came up with that.
|
On October 18 2012 18:01 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 17:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 18 2012 17:52 armada[sb] wrote:
Stop talking about females, we're debating politics on the internet, we're all fucking losers.
When did everyone on the internet decide they were a pick-up artist? Oh, that's right, anonymity allows you to pretend to be whatever you fantasize about! Whoa whoa whoa..... Speak for yourself there buddy. I don't want to have to bring up my Ferrari and model girlfriends. Please don't, everyone already shot down my confidence with their nice guy bashing!
There you go again, admitting that your confidence was lowered. There's no hope for you. 
|
On October 18 2012 18:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 18:01 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 17:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 18 2012 17:52 armada[sb] wrote:
Stop talking about females, we're debating politics on the internet, we're all fucking losers.
When did everyone on the internet decide they were a pick-up artist? Oh, that's right, anonymity allows you to pretend to be whatever you fantasize about! Whoa whoa whoa..... Speak for yourself there buddy. I don't want to have to bring up my Ferrari and model girlfriends. Please don't, everyone already shot down my confidence with their nice guy bashing! There you go again, admitting that your confidence was lowered. There's no hope for you.
Fuck... brb dildos.
|
On October 18 2012 07:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 06:55 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:28 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:08 CajunMan wrote:On October 18 2012 04:54 Snaap wrote: Hey guys I was wondering about something. First of all I'm not from the US, nor do I have a great understanding of US politics, so dont hate if I get something wrong. When reading/watching stuff about the election, often time it is stated how terrible the last 4 years have been and how this is the reason for not voting for obama. Now in my opinion considering the very tough spot the US were in when Obama took over he did a very good job, but for some reason people expect him to turn the whole crises and deficits over over night. Everytime I read his statements they're usually realistic and make sense to me, What is the reason for saying that obama failed in his term? Am I missing something here? Again, Im not a pro on US politics so no flame pls It is because everything he is currently promising is what he promised in 2008. He had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didn't do 99% of it. That is a very large part of it a lot of people feel betrayed they put their trust in him. After 4 years his biggest accomplishments are a stimulus plan that is largely a waste of money and a healthcare program that raised premiums and put us further in debt. (I am against universal healthcare 100% personally but I don't even know how you can suggest such a plan that will cost so much with both a debt and a deficit as large as ours it is fiscally irresponsible above all else) Exactly right. This is why it is somewhat meaningless to score the debates in a vacuum (like I have been doing) and pronounce winners and losers. Voters aren't measuring Obama at the debates with just his performance at any given debate in mind. They are weighing his debate performance in context with his record of the past four years and the rhetoric on which he ran 4 years ago. Viewed in this larger scope, it becomes very apparent why Obama is in such a hard spot. He has fallen very, very far from where he was in 2008. Yeah ... that's interesting. I've really enjoyed the US election this year as an outsider. It's easy for me to analyse the election as sport -- who is playing better, or what the next play should be. But it's impossible for me to have a good sense on the pulse or actual perception of average voters, or America at-large. I wonder if any pundit, high-information voter or keyboard warrior actually does. Anyone who wears their party affiliation on their sleeve whilst offering forth "accurate" depictions of moderate/independent voting tendencies is drinking too much kool-aid, be it of the red or blue variety. So you think that people are ignoring Obama's four year track record and what he promised during the 2008 campaign? You may want to reconsider who's drinking the kool-aid. Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? This has been discussed to death already. Here's the bottom line. Obama's record is bad. This isn't debatable.
Sorry to come back on topic :/
Obama's record is "bad", because we are living the worst crisis since 1929. And nobody on earth could have hold promises done before the crisis, during the crisis. It's like blaming the captain of the ship who said you would cross the ocean in three weeks to have done it in four weeks when he has faced with success storms that have sinked all the ships around. (Sorry for the shitty analogy.)
Yet, America is doing very well compared to most advanced countries, creating jobs, perfecting stuff that are dismantled everywhere else such as its healthcare system, and, without the stubborn obstination of Republican asses in the congress, would still have its triple A in all main notation agencies, which means that investors consider the country as solid as rock.
The foreign policies has been too hawkish in my taste, but he managed to somehow disengage progressively from Irak and Afghanistan (I would have said you guys were there for 50 years, 4 years ago), did a great job in Lybia, despite the Benghazi incident. American diplomacy is for the first time not completely biaised towards Israel, which is quite fantastic. He has got more results against Al Qaeda than anybody would have ever dreamt of, killing a huge number of its leader, including Bin Laden.
So yeah, stuff are bad, because times are bad. But I swear you, I would replace the idiots we had in France for the last 15 years by Obama any minute. And we wouldn't be in such a horrible shape. Just, look at Europe to see what failure against a crisis means. I swear you, we haven't created jobs. Look at the UK, with their austerity program that doesn't work one little bit. Look at France with its tax raises and budget cuts that kill all hopes of growth. Look at Europe as a whole with its complete lack of vision, of plan, of anything. You guys are fucking blessed to have Obama.
|
On October 18 2012 18:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:55 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:28 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:08 CajunMan wrote:On October 18 2012 04:54 Snaap wrote: Hey guys I was wondering about something. First of all I'm not from the US, nor do I have a great understanding of US politics, so dont hate if I get something wrong. When reading/watching stuff about the election, often time it is stated how terrible the last 4 years have been and how this is the reason for not voting for obama. Now in my opinion considering the very tough spot the US were in when Obama took over he did a very good job, but for some reason people expect him to turn the whole crises and deficits over over night. Everytime I read his statements they're usually realistic and make sense to me, What is the reason for saying that obama failed in his term? Am I missing something here? Again, Im not a pro on US politics so no flame pls It is because everything he is currently promising is what he promised in 2008. He had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didn't do 99% of it. That is a very large part of it a lot of people feel betrayed they put their trust in him. After 4 years his biggest accomplishments are a stimulus plan that is largely a waste of money and a healthcare program that raised premiums and put us further in debt. (I am against universal healthcare 100% personally but I don't even know how you can suggest such a plan that will cost so much with both a debt and a deficit as large as ours it is fiscally irresponsible above all else) Exactly right. This is why it is somewhat meaningless to score the debates in a vacuum (like I have been doing) and pronounce winners and losers. Voters aren't measuring Obama at the debates with just his performance at any given debate in mind. They are weighing his debate performance in context with his record of the past four years and the rhetoric on which he ran 4 years ago. Viewed in this larger scope, it becomes very apparent why Obama is in such a hard spot. He has fallen very, very far from where he was in 2008. Yeah ... that's interesting. I've really enjoyed the US election this year as an outsider. It's easy for me to analyse the election as sport -- who is playing better, or what the next play should be. But it's impossible for me to have a good sense on the pulse or actual perception of average voters, or America at-large. I wonder if any pundit, high-information voter or keyboard warrior actually does. Anyone who wears their party affiliation on their sleeve whilst offering forth "accurate" depictions of moderate/independent voting tendencies is drinking too much kool-aid, be it of the red or blue variety. So you think that people are ignoring Obama's four year track record and what he promised during the 2008 campaign? You may want to reconsider who's drinking the kool-aid. Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? This has been discussed to death already. Here's the bottom line. Obama's record is bad. This isn't debatable. Sorry to come back on topic :/ Obama's record is "bad", because we are living the worst crisis since 1929. And nobody on earth could have hold promises done before the crisis, during the crisis. It's like blaming the captain of the ship who said you would cross the ocean in three weeks to have done it in four weeks when he has faced with success storms that have sinked all the ships around. (Sorry for the shitty analogy.) Yet, America is doing very well compared to most advanced countries, creating jobs, perfecting stuff that are dismantled everywhere else such as its healthcare system, and, without the stubborn obstination of Republican asses in the congress, would still have its triple A in all main notation agencies, which means that investors consider the country as solid as rock. The foreign policies has been too hawkish in my taste, but he managed to somehow disengage progressively from Irak and Afghanistan (I would have said you guys were there for 50 years, 4 years ago), did a great job in Lybia, despite the Benghazi incident. American diplomacy is for the first time not completely biaised towards Israel, which is quite fantastic. He has got more results against Al Qaeda than anybody would have ever dreamt of, killing a huge number of its leader, including Bin Laden. So yeah, stuff are bad, because times are bad. But I swear you, I would replace the idiots we had in France for the last 15 years by Obama any minute. And we wouldn't be in such a horrible shape. Just, look at Europe to see what failure against a crisis means. I swear you, we haven't created jobs. Look at the UK, with their austerity program that doesn't work one little bit. Look at France with its tax raises and budget cuts that kill all hopes of growth. Look at Europe as a whole with its complete lack of vision, of plan, of anything. You guys are fucking blessed to have Obama.
Experience suggests that saying how much worse things are in Europe doesn't work against Republicans.
They'll play the socialism card.
|
On October 18 2012 19:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 18:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 18 2012 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:55 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:28 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:08 CajunMan wrote:On October 18 2012 04:54 Snaap wrote: Hey guys I was wondering about something. First of all I'm not from the US, nor do I have a great understanding of US politics, so dont hate if I get something wrong. When reading/watching stuff about the election, often time it is stated how terrible the last 4 years have been and how this is the reason for not voting for obama. Now in my opinion considering the very tough spot the US were in when Obama took over he did a very good job, but for some reason people expect him to turn the whole crises and deficits over over night. Everytime I read his statements they're usually realistic and make sense to me, What is the reason for saying that obama failed in his term? Am I missing something here? Again, Im not a pro on US politics so no flame pls It is because everything he is currently promising is what he promised in 2008. He had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didn't do 99% of it. That is a very large part of it a lot of people feel betrayed they put their trust in him. After 4 years his biggest accomplishments are a stimulus plan that is largely a waste of money and a healthcare program that raised premiums and put us further in debt. (I am against universal healthcare 100% personally but I don't even know how you can suggest such a plan that will cost so much with both a debt and a deficit as large as ours it is fiscally irresponsible above all else) Exactly right. This is why it is somewhat meaningless to score the debates in a vacuum (like I have been doing) and pronounce winners and losers. Voters aren't measuring Obama at the debates with just his performance at any given debate in mind. They are weighing his debate performance in context with his record of the past four years and the rhetoric on which he ran 4 years ago. Viewed in this larger scope, it becomes very apparent why Obama is in such a hard spot. He has fallen very, very far from where he was in 2008. Yeah ... that's interesting. I've really enjoyed the US election this year as an outsider. It's easy for me to analyse the election as sport -- who is playing better, or what the next play should be. But it's impossible for me to have a good sense on the pulse or actual perception of average voters, or America at-large. I wonder if any pundit, high-information voter or keyboard warrior actually does. Anyone who wears their party affiliation on their sleeve whilst offering forth "accurate" depictions of moderate/independent voting tendencies is drinking too much kool-aid, be it of the red or blue variety. So you think that people are ignoring Obama's four year track record and what he promised during the 2008 campaign? You may want to reconsider who's drinking the kool-aid. Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? This has been discussed to death already. Here's the bottom line. Obama's record is bad. This isn't debatable. Sorry to come back on topic :/ Obama's record is "bad", because we are living the worst crisis since 1929. And nobody on earth could have hold promises done before the crisis, during the crisis. It's like blaming the captain of the ship who said you would cross the ocean in three weeks to have done it in four weeks when he has faced with success storms that have sinked all the ships around. (Sorry for the shitty analogy.) Yet, America is doing very well compared to most advanced countries, creating jobs, perfecting stuff that are dismantled everywhere else such as its healthcare system, and, without the stubborn obstination of Republican asses in the congress, would still have its triple A in all main notation agencies, which means that investors consider the country as solid as rock. The foreign policies has been too hawkish in my taste, but he managed to somehow disengage progressively from Irak and Afghanistan (I would have said you guys were there for 50 years, 4 years ago), did a great job in Lybia, despite the Benghazi incident. American diplomacy is for the first time not completely biaised towards Israel, which is quite fantastic. He has got more results against Al Qaeda than anybody would have ever dreamt of, killing a huge number of its leader, including Bin Laden. So yeah, stuff are bad, because times are bad. But I swear you, I would replace the idiots we had in France for the last 15 years by Obama any minute. And we wouldn't be in such a horrible shape. Just, look at Europe to see what failure against a crisis means. I swear you, we haven't created jobs. Look at the UK, with their austerity program that doesn't work one little bit. Look at France with its tax raises and budget cuts that kill all hopes of growth. Look at Europe as a whole with its complete lack of vision, of plan, of anything. You guys are fucking blessed to have Obama. Experience suggests that saying how much worse things are in Europe doesn't work against Republicans. They'll play the socialism card.
Well, fun fact, Obama has answered to the crisis with a stimulus, Europe is answering with austerity.
Wait I'm so confused....
|
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
|
Unless we're talking about Obama being a metrosexual nice guy and Romney being a bad boy, let's drop that thread, shall we?
|
On October 18 2012 20:26 TigerKarl wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
This smallest piece has a huge influence. If you have enough money and power, you can make most people believe that 2+2 = 5 (or that even less taxes for billionaires who pay 12% taxes is good for everyone which make just as little sense).
If you look at campaign spots, you realize that democrats really try to explain something, while republicans are all about (texan redneck accent required) "yakno, I know this guy, and he is a real family man, and very hard worker" and other crap along those lines.
|
On October 18 2012 20:41 DoubleReed wrote:
Unless we're talking about Obama being a metrosexual nice guy and Romney being a bad boy, let's drop that thread, shall we?
Romney would be the awkward guy who changes his entire personality based on what the girl says. "Did you say you liked ice cream? Me too." "Oh you don't? Yeah, me neither."
|
On October 18 2012 15:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:52 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women, not necessarily how they actually are. I believe we have two entirely different outlooks on what constitutes a 'nice guy.' My idea of a 'nice guy' is a guy who is friendly, generous, considerate, kind, aka not a douche. He isn't necessarily shy, weak, insecure, obsessed, hesitant, needy, desperate, or obsequious. My point is that a friendly, generous, considerate, and kind man will come off in certain negative ways to women. I think we all know nice guys who hot girls just aren't attracted to, despite the fact that said guys are genuinely good people. Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:49 kmillz wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women. Wow..so what would be your adjectives for douche bag? "Jerks" present themselves to women in the opposite way; they display confidence, strength, security, aloofness, initiative, lack of caring, indifference, and assertiveness.
Sunprince figured it out. You are either an overbearing douche who women want to fuck, or you are a spineless, obsessive, lonely hermit who they wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.
It's so simple!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
