|
|
On November 02 2012 03:39 sam!zdat wrote: I'm about ready to emigrate. I still got 6 years here, though...
edit: really what I want is an independent west coast. Hail Cascadia!
lol cascadia. almost as real as the state of superior.
|
I have Mexican and German citizenship, so I could certainly go elsewhere. Alas, I do not see myself leaving the good 'ole US of A.
|
On November 02 2012 03:39 sam!zdat wrote: I'm about ready to emigrate. I still got 6 years here, though...
edit: really what I want is an independent west coast. Hail Cascadia! Doing hard time? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/41f32/41f32ccbf9c308e87a90fa896d4fd874e9b79ee6" alt=""
I'm holding out for an independent New England myself... though we'd need a better name than that I suppose.
|
On November 02 2012 03:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 03:39 sam!zdat wrote: I'm about ready to emigrate. I still got 6 years here, though...
edit: really what I want is an independent west coast. Hail Cascadia! lol cascadia. almost as real as the state of superior.
let me have my fantasies
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
cascadia sounds too close to cascade. change it to something more optimistic, like rainbowland or new valinor
|
|
|
we'll frighten them off with our faggotry
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Faggotry is a word that is not used often enough. Too bad it is so politically incorrect (not that that has ever stopped me).
|
Sorry, xdaunt, you're on the wrong team to be able to use that word. you can take vicarious pleasure if you'd like, however
|
On November 02 2012 04:03 sam!zdat wrote: Sorry, xdaunt, you're on the wrong team to be able to use that word. you can take vicarious pleasure if you'd like, however Quit being a faggot, and suck that dick.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 02 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 03:21 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2012 01:41 armada[sb] wrote: xDaunt this forum is gonna eat you alive for your arrogancy if you're wrong. If you're right you should get some sort of icon. A prophetic one. Let's make something clear here. There would be absolutely nothing to praise about xDaunt's analysis if Romney ended up getting elected. Back when the Republican primary was still going on, xDaunt actually predicted Rick Perry would beat Romney and win the primary, and that he would then beat Obama in the general election. When it became clear Perry had absolutely zero chance of winning the primary, let alone the election, xDaunt switched horses to the obvious Republican candidate, namely Romney. He hasn't actually put forward any kind of valid analysis behind his choice (other than simplistic assertions like "Americans are tired of Obama's failed policies"), or tried to look objectively at the dynamics behind the race and the shifting momentums. Picking the winner does not make one's analysis right. Paul the Octopus used to be able to pick winners pretty often, but I'm not sure it would have had something interesting to say about his choices. edit: and btw, if Obama wins, that won't automatically validate the arguments of people who thought he would win either. I'm not sure that I affirmatively stated one candidate would win the republican party so much as I pointed out who the frontrunners were at various points. I'm sure, and you did. I distinctively remember the post in which you asserted that Perry would beat both Romney and Obama, and you were basing that assertion on the job creation record of Texas - instead of looking at the other factors which indicated Perry would likely have no chance of winning the election.
On November 02 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:When Perry entered the fray, I named him the frontrunner. Rick Perry would have won the nomination had he not self-destructed in the debates. In fact, when everyone talking about his "best" debate performance as the one that would turn his fortunes around, I stuck a fork him in him because I knew that his performance was horrible and would be perceived as horrible by the electorate. Please, everyone on these forums (and pretty much everywhere else) knew Perry was toast after his first debate performances. And it was pretty obvious from the start that, regardless of his performance in the debates and in the primary, he would stand no chance at the national level - especially for the people who were actually familiar with Perry (I personally did not know much about him, but his "prayer rally" and a few other things I read about him were more than enough).
On November 02 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:As for my presidential pick prediction, I stated that Romney would beat Obama and win big. I also stated that I would reevaluate my prediction after each debate. In short, I didn't see any reason to change my prediction after the debates. I know you did. My point is that you've refused to acknowledge the changes in momentum, refused to acknowledge how well Obama was doing before the first debate, and you basically have not put forward any real valid analysis of why Romney would, according to you, beat Obama. You basically replaced your initial pick, Perry, by Romney.
Mind you, I'm certainly not saying everyone else put more thought into the election than you. I'm simply pointing out that if Romney wins, it won't vindicate your "analysis".
|
The Economist is more libertarian than conservative though. Their type of "right" isn't the same as the American "right".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i think they are plenty rightwing. even blaming healthcare cost on liberals (rofl) and getting wet for reagan in 2012...
nevertheless the way things are, the "American right" you refer to now is not even a serious political position. it's just a mass of resentment misdirected.
|
On November 02 2012 04:10 oneofthem wrote: i think they are plenty rightwing. even blaming healthcare cost on liberals (rofl) and getting wet for reagan in 2012...
nevertheless the way things are, the "American right" you refer to now is not even a serious political position. it's just a mass of resentment misdirected.
Health care costs are going to go up because of the ACA. Maybe not for you and I, at the point of our pocketbooks, but the overall social costs will increase. I know the Democrats trumpet the good parts of it and use the figures that help them most, but the amount of burden it places on businesses is unacceptable imo. There are better ways to do it.
Those who think the ACA is a good piece of legislation are naive. It does some good things, but overall it is a mess.
|
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg just endorsed Obama because of his stand on climate change.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2012 04:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 04:10 oneofthem wrote: i think they are plenty rightwing. even blaming healthcare cost on liberals (rofl) and getting wet for reagan in 2012...
nevertheless the way things are, the "American right" you refer to now is not even a serious political position. it's just a mass of resentment misdirected. Health care costs are going to go up because of the ACA. Maybe not for you and I, at the point of our pocketbooks, but the overall social costs will increase. I know the Democrats trumpet the good parts of it and use the figures that help them most, but the amount of burden it places on businesses is unacceptable imo. There are better ways to do it. Those who think the ACA is a good piece of legislation are naive. It does some good things, but overall it is a mess. the point made here was that the left wanted a single payer system. so obama's move to the right on healthcare is to blame for not having cost down.
|
Climate change becoming a political issue was the dumbest thing ever so I say "up yours" Bloomberg, I already voted for Romney.
|
On November 02 2012 04:26 Darknat wrote: Climate change becoming a political issue was the dumbest thing ever so I say "up yours" Bloomberg, I already voted for Romney. Can you make this your sig? Pretty please, it speaks so highly of you.
|
|
|
|