This is topic Congratulations President-elect Obama in forum Politics/Religion/Current Affairs at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000457

Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 04, 2008, 20:19:
 
[Happytears] [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Snaggy (Member # 123) on November 04, 2008, 20:26:
 
[Applause] [Happytears] [Applause]

This is a first man on the Moon moment. I am sooo proud of the USA right now... congrats TO ALL!

MAGNIFICENT VALOUR!
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 04, 2008, 20:36:
 
YES WE DID! [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]
 
Posted by SpazGirl (Member # 4915) on November 04, 2008, 21:09:
 
I am so unbelievably proud of my country right now...just wow. [thumbsup] [Happytears]
 
Posted by maximile (Member # 3446) on November 04, 2008, 21:18:
 
Well done everyone!
 
Posted by Bibo (Member # 1959) on November 04, 2008, 21:34:
 
Woo Hoo! [Applause]
 
Posted by macmcseboy (Member # 1232) on November 04, 2008, 21:34:
 
W00T!!!!
 
Posted by shparks (Member # 20945) on November 04, 2008, 21:40:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snaggy:
[Applause] [Happytears] [Applause]

This is a first man on the Moon moment. I am sooo proud of the USA right now... congrats TO ALL!

MAGNIFICENT VALOUR!

Me too. I think the country is maturing, finally.


[thumbsup]
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 04, 2008, 21:50:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
YES WE DID! [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]

Well...ahem...yes *we* did, but yeah! [Big Grin] [Smile]
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on November 04, 2008, 22:00:
 
I thought his victory speech was quite good, too. (not that I expected any less)
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on November 04, 2008, 22:25:
 
I liked this article from The Onion. Kind of sums it up.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 04, 2008, 22:33:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
I thought his victory speech was quite good, too. (not that I expected any less)

It was fantastic...and I'll also point out that John McCain's concession speech was quite good. I tip my hat to him for being good about it, as well as his great roles on SNL. (He completely pwned the real Sarah Palin...humorless _______ that she is.)

/me looks forward to a country that might get a bit less fscked up!
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on November 04, 2008, 23:21:
 
[Applause] [Applause] What a relief! [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]

Thank you to all those 'merkins who chose change. [Smile]

Oh... and ASM?.... HA HA HA HA HA [Razz]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 05, 2008, 00:19:
 
I feel like I can walk a bit taller now. I have no idea what happens next, but we just elected a guy who, instead of campaigning on hate and/or fear, campaigned on hope. And he won.

He also happens to be black, which is a huge, historic milestone.

McCain gave a classy concession speech. I wish he'd shown more of that class during campaign season, but, then again, the tone he took contributed to his loss so maybe I shouldn't bitch too much about that. I wanted a decisive Obama win.

*phew*
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 05, 2008, 01:34:
 
quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
YES WE DID! [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]

Well...ahem...yes *we* did, but yeah! [Big Grin] [Smile]
Hey, I voted.
Twice.
I picked up some voter registration forms from the local mosque.
I'm officially a 23 year old black woman from Ohio, and a 64 year old Cuban man from Miami.
 
Posted by geekygoddess (Member # 15702) on November 05, 2008, 03:58:
 
To the victor go the spoils!!! [Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on November 05, 2008, 04:45:
 
...enter socialism [Eek!]

Jonathan just asked, "Can Obama make it to the inauguration without getting assassinated?"

That got me wondering, if that were to happen, would Biden become president? If so, would Biden get to select a VP or would the Democratic party? Or would we have to have a whole 'nuther election?
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on November 05, 2008, 04:45:
 
This is a great day for socialist terrorism! [Wink] [Wink]
 
Posted by neotatsu (Member # 1429) on November 05, 2008, 05:56:
 
I try to avoid political debate... Religion and politics, you know.

This election was especially hard for me. I can't say I'm glad Obama won. I can't say I would have been glad if he'd lost either.

To me, it's a South Park moment. "Oh Stan, don't you see? All elections are a choice between a giant douche and a sh*t sandwich" [ohwell]
 
Posted by skylar (Member # 1422) on November 05, 2008, 06:17:
 
/me does the happy dance

I cannot adequately express how good this makes me feel... not because I am confident that Obama will be a great President (whilst hopeful, I could never be confident of such a thing with any Presidential candidate), but because of how so many millions of people have been inspired to think that good things are possible, that change is possible. If we can keep believing in democracy, equality and justice, and we prove our commitment to this belief by actually acting and voting, then all is not lost quite yet, I think.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 05, 2008, 06:31:
 
It's a new day, a new dawn, and I'm feeling gooooood!

And Rhonnie, the best way to ensure Obama is not assassinated would be for responsible Republicans like yourself and your husband to speak out against the poisonous smears that circulated during the election that painted a picture of Obama as some foreigner, a supporter of terrorism, with ambitions to overthrow your democracy and become a dictator. Your candidate Senator McCain has set a splendid example with his generous and graceful concession speech.

And I see nothing in Obama's policies that resembles, for example the socialism of pre Thatcher Britain. The Democrats are a right wing party, they only look left wing if you compare them with mad rolling eyes, neo fascist, right wing nut jobs. On the other hand it is a Republican administration that has just nationalised the commanding heights of the US economy. So who's the socialist?
 
Posted by DoctorWho (Member # 392) on November 05, 2008, 07:36:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Jonathan just asked, "Can Obama make it to the inauguration without getting assassinated?"

That got me wondering, if that were to happen, would Biden become president? If so, would Biden get to select a VP or would the Democratic party? Or would we have to have a whole 'nuther election?

If by some horrible circumstance Obama were assassinated, Biden would be President and just like any other President he would pick his Vice President. The only way there would be another election would be if both of them were killed, then it would be Hillary Clinton vying for the Presidency because she was second runner up and she would undoubtedly beat McCain as well.

I can't say I'm glad Obama won, but then again I can't say I'd be happy if McCain won either. I didn't really like either choice and haven't liked any of the choices offered to me since I have been of voting age, but you've got to vote for somebody or you've no reason to complain. [ohwell]
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on November 05, 2008, 07:51:
 
Happy here too!

As for "socialism", I heard about that old Cuban woman from Florida who voted McCain because "Cuba showed that wealth repartition doesn't work." It may not have worked in Cuba, but there is more than extremes on a line - there are moderates ways of implementing an idea. I'd say socialism works pretty well in Canada and many european countries. But it's communism that killed Cuba's (and the USSR's) economy. Socialism != communism; thus Obama having socialist tendencies doesn't make him a communism. Anything in moderation can be a good thing; anything in excess is a bad thing.

Anyway: congratulations from a little citizen from Up North to the new President of the United States for a campaign well done and the triumph of ideas over fear. [Applause]

Now the world is watching. [Geek]
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on November 05, 2008, 08:48:
 
I think that a lot of people forget that the US is a Democratic republic, with socialistic tendencies. What else do you call Social security, welfare, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, low income housing, etc, etc...?

Look, Obama may be a full on Marxist, but do you really and honestly think that Americas would allow for a second term if he proved to have ideals like Chavez in Venezuela?

Wouldn't happen.

Now as far as it goes, whether you voted for or against Obama, no one can say that this was not a history making election. Look at what was possible...

The first female president,
The first female vice-president
The first black president.

However you tossed that ballot, your vote was creating true history.

All I truly hope is that Obama can keep his promises. And that those promises do our country some good.
 
Posted by Oz, the Wizard of (Member # 1454) on November 05, 2008, 09:19:
 
Seattle was basically the most peaceful Ragnarok ever. Such celebration there was.
 
Posted by snupy (Member # 1211) on November 05, 2008, 09:21:
 
I stayed up until 4am, until they officially called it. I had tears in my eyes-I really thought when it came down to it, America would not elect a black man. I'm so glad I was wrong...and so incredibly proud.

[hearts]
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on November 05, 2008, 10:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by snupy:
I stayed up until 4am, until they officially called it. I had tears in my eyes-I really thought when it came down to it, America would not elect a black man. I'm so glad I was wrong...and so incredibly proud.

[hearts]

I was surprised how quickly it was called, though. It wasn't even 9pm here when I was driving home and turned the radio to a news station hoping to get an update on how things were going. Instead, I caught the beginning of McCain's concession speech. I wasn't expecting that for at least another hour or two.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 05, 2008, 10:57:
 
They called it as soon as the West Coast polls closed. I was surprised too.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 05, 2008, 10:59:
 
Rhonwyyn: I don't really give a flying fsck what your [seemingly] racist husband† thinks. If you have an opinion, let us hear it - but don't espouse your spouse's views here. It's an utter waste of your education if you've abandoned your free thought for the ideas of your husband. If he wants to express those views here, let him sign up for an account and exercise his free speech‡. In the meantime, I'd much rather hear *your* opinion on this election.

† A presumption, I realize...but it's my view that most people who give weak excuses for disliking Obama are quietly hiding their real opinions.

‡ Of course, if they involve hate speech, don't be surprised if someone clicks "Report this post to a Moderator."
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on November 05, 2008, 11:19:
 
Dman,

Not sure if I can totally agree with your post. Who knows how Rhonwynn's husband feels.

Honestly I have the same concerns. While yes, Obama did win by majority vote. There are certainly pockets of people that would kill rather than have a black man as a president.

Me and T were just discussing that ourselves this morning.

And I guess it boiled down too, "Is everyone ready enough to have a black president?"
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 05, 2008, 12:50:
 
 -

[Applause]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 05, 2008, 12:51:
 
The short answer is no, but that's why Homeland Security basically foisted Secret Service protection on him before they even offered it to any other candidate.

Not only is he black, but he's going in as a reformer. Reformers the world over have a history of violent deaths. We can only hope Obama remains protected.
 
Posted by DoctorWho (Member # 392) on November 05, 2008, 13:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
And I guess it boiled down too, "Is everyone ready enough to have a black president?"

Everyone is not ready to have a black president. In fact the 57,286,790 people who voted for McCain and the other candidates are not ready since they did not vote for Obama. I wouldn't call Rhonnie's husband racist for his remark. In fact, I can't remember where, I myself made the comment on this board that I feared for Obama's safety should he be elected. Now that he is elected, I am quite certain there are quite a few hate groups who are not happy and will not be happy unless he is dead. I am also quite sure that some of them would be willing to die if they could take him with them, all the while thinking they are doing the American populace a favor.
 
Posted by snupy (Member # 1211) on November 05, 2008, 14:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
It's a new day, a new dawn, and I'm feeling gooooood!


Thanks, Calli-that really made me smile-LOVE that song, and it sums things up perfectly.
[Smile]
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on November 05, 2008, 14:21:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
The short answer is no, but that's why Homeland Security basically foisted Secret Service protection on him before they even offered it to any other candidate.

Not only is he black, but he's going in as a reformer. Reformers the world over have a history of violent deaths. We can only hope Obama remains protected.

"They're expecting a landslide, and if that doesn't get him, the CIA will have to find some other way". -- Ian Hislop.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 05, 2008, 14:27:
 
Actually...it's not the murder speculation that elicited that remark from me...
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 05, 2008, 14:51:
 
What was it then?
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 05, 2008, 15:53:
 
I don't think there was anything in Rhonnie's post in this thread that could directly lead to the dragon's conclusion, but in another thread halfway through a political discussion Rhonnie bowed out rather shyly, claiming that she found politics far too difficult to understand and that in such matters she deferred to her husband's greater understanding. Some of us found this hard to understand, as in most matters Rhonnie does not come across as a "don't bother your pretty little head about it" type, but it seems to be part of the "traditional" relationship she has negotiated with him, which I fear may be connected with their flavour of Christianity, and I have a hunch, but no more than a hunch, so I may be wrong, that he isn't even comfortable with her discussing politics with third parties.

I might be completely wrong, but this is the impression I have, which dragon shares.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 05, 2008, 16:08:
 
Obama's announces new team

Barack Obama has announced his new cabinet team, and a number of terminology changes, for his new administration.


Barack Hussein Obama al Jihad: Grand Caliph of the Socialist Islamic Caliphate of America: .

Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Council
-----------------------------------------------

Kholin bin Powell: Caliph for Jihad - with special responsibility for the destruction of Israel.

Michael Moore al Flint: Caliph for Culture:
Comrade Moore will be compiling a list of approved film-makers. Any film-makers not on the approved list will become the responsibility of...

William Ayers al Tehran: Caliph for re-education.
Comrade Ayers will be responsible for the administration's "No Infidel Left Behind" policy. A network of re-education camps will teach Christians, Republicans, and other America-haters proper submission to Allah.

Ellen bin Generes: Caliph for destruction of the family.
Comrade bin Generes will be in charge of making gay marriage compulsory, encouraging promiscuity in teenagers (within a strict Islamic framework of course) and the new compulsory-abortion policy.

Hugo Chaves al Caracas: Caliph for Energy and Transportation.
Comrade Chaves will oversee the dismantling of the oil industry, and the distribution of camels to all Americans.

Warren bin Buffett: Caliph for wealth re-distribution.
Comrade Buffett will conduct a full inventory of the nations wealth. Any left over after the mosque-building program will be distributed equally to all Americans not in the custody of the Bureau of Re-Education.


William bin Clinton: Caliph for Internal Security.
Comrade bin Clinton will be in charge of the Secret Police, including the new SVUs (Sneaky Video Units), who sneak into peoples homes and tamper with their video collections when they're not looking.


That's it guys, it looks like ASM was right.
He tried to warn us, but we just wouldn't listen. [Frown]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on November 05, 2008, 16:14:
 
(I just got home from work, so I'm only now responding to posts.)

Nah, that's not right, Calli. We've had plenty of political discussions with all sorts of people. Actually, I dropped by Jonathan's work to see him on my way home, and one of the servers asked if I voted for Obama. Ryan quickly added, but then, Jonathan wouldn't have let you. To which Jonathan replied, "Oh, she would have if she wanted to."

There are definitely gaps in my knowledge about politics, which is why I am not very vocal. I read, but I usually don't have too many opinions about things. I posted Jonathan's question because I thought it was interesting. It wasn't an original thought, so I gave credit where it was due. We don't want Obama to be killed, so I hope nobody thought that, but there are plenty of nutsos out there who don't feel the same way.

Re: the socialism comment. I work for a small business. If I work hard, I receive a bonus. From what I understand, Obama's platform of ideas says that he wants to cut taxes for employees and increase taxes for businesses. So while I may get a $1000 tax cut, I'll lose out on a $1000 bonus from my employer because they got taxed heavily. It's a lose-lose situation. Also, you need to have wealthy people in the world, because it's those who have money who employ people. As someone from some Wall Street investment firm said, "Poor people never employed anyone."

I don't think McCain would have been much better. I didn't vote for him in the primary. Given the choice between two scary people (McCain's ideas about health care are frightful), I went with the one whose stance on values (abortion, sanctity of life, traditional marriage, etc.) most closely aligned with mine.

Granted, Obama can't make all the changes he wants to because he has the House and Senate to contend with, but since both have Democratic minorities, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of them go through.

I hope I'm wrong about all this and that Obama will be a great president and have an overall positive term in office, but I doubt that will be the case. Only time will tell.
 
Posted by Oz, the Wizard of (Member # 1454) on November 05, 2008, 16:14:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Obama's announces new team
-bucket of lulz follows-

OH TEH NOES!
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 05, 2008, 17:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
( As someone from some Wall Street investment firm said, "Poor people never employed anyone."

Which might be why no one's working on Wall Street anymore. [Wink]
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on November 05, 2008, 17:31:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Also, you need to have wealthy people in the world, because it's those who have money who employ people. As someone from some Wall Street investment firm said, "Poor people never employed anyone."

Well, I'm sorry Rhonnie, but that's bullshit. Look at the numbers, and it's small and medium business who creates the most jobs.* Big companies grows by buying other businesses (and often downsize them to maximize profits). The bigger one grows, the less chances one takes. That's what greed is about.

But hey, that's what rich want the people to believe in order to keep winning more and more money, while the poor grows poorer from all those things they can't afford, like higher schooling or health care. (Believe me, as long as your company doesn't make obscene profits, your bonus is probably safe.)

And there I thought the American Dream was all about starting poor and growing rich...


*At least, that's what I learned in my high school economics class, and was repeated in my economics for engineer course. If someone has greater knowledge about that, I'd love to hear it.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 05, 2008, 18:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
while I may get a $1000 tax cut, I'll lose out on a $1000 bonus from my employer because they got taxed heavily. It's a lose-lose situation.

Um, no it's not.

I'd happily take a $1,000 cut in before-tax income in exchange for a $1,000 tax cut, I'd come out several hundred dollars ahead.

</maths-pedant>
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 05, 2008, 18:21:
 
I think Rhonnie is making the trickle down argument, the one which says that a rising tide lifts all ships, a favourite theory since the Reagan years. Unfortunately there is no economic data to support this, and that which we have tends to indicate the opposite effect, that society (like the world) is becoming ever more divided, and a huge underclass has been created which sees none of the fruits of economic growth. Indeed in the last few years in America only the very wealthy have seen any increase in their income.

I am curious as to why Republicans see Tax cuts which benefit only the wealthy as desirable, while any attempt to redress the growing imbalance they have created is that scary S word - shh musn't frighten the children - whisper "socialism". [Eek!]

I am also at a loss to understand why the idea of any kind of state run medicine is such anathema too. We all accept that the Police and Military are funded by the state, not even ASM thinks the Military should be disbanded and replaced by mercenaries. So why not doctors and hospitals? Medicine is a vocation, and most Doctors are not profit driven, or they would all be plastic surgeons. The results they seek are also not easily translated into cash incentives either. In addition the US spends more on medicine per capita than anyone else without actually getting better results so private enterprise is not even efficient at this.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 05, 2008, 19:41:
 
Others have alredy commented that McCain was gracious in defeat.

Not so Ms Palin.

I just heard her on aussie radio, pointing the finger of blame in all directions, and denying any responsibility for "John McCain's defeat".

Classy broad.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on November 05, 2008, 20:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Indeed in the last few years in America only the very wealthy have seen any increase in their income. I am curious as to why Republicans see Tax cuts which benefit only the wealthy as desirable,

I say, cut taxes for the lower and middle classes because they need all the help they can get, don't increase taxes on the upper classes, and see what happens. Don't decrease taxes, but don't increase them.

TFD, maybe the bonus thing was a bad example. In my company's industry, we're hurt by other businesses being hurt. As the company's bottom line shrinks, my paycheck may not decrease, but my raises will. If enough small businesses get hurt, my job may disappear altogether (which is a niggling concern in the back of my mind).

If we give everybody handouts by leveling off the socio-economic statuses, will anyone want to work? When there are no incentives to work hard and perform effectively, why will anyone want to invest themselves in anything except selfish pursuits?

These are just random thoughts I've had. Who knows if they make any sense at this hour of the night.
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 05, 2008, 20:23:
 
From the outside of this thread (seen enough new guy vs. the well entrenched 6 or 10 posters), it sure appears that lizard and mono's reactions to Rhonwynn has more to do with their inner-monologue than with the actual words used in her posts. I was accused of hijacking a simple "Yay go vote" thread for calling Obama "pro-death", and of course some of these same vultures swooped in to feast on the carrion, err, lend their support. I chose to just ignore the thread from that point...But to call someones spouse racist based on some unfathomable subtext you see in their post...grow up. Really.
Racism exists. In fact, I believe it exists in everyone to some degree. You cannot live in this world, in this time, without coming into contact with racism in one form or another, and not be affected by it. To be affected by it is to be changed, and your perceptions to be forever altered.
By the way, to all of the Obama supporters...congratulations. Most of you have conducted yourselves in just the way I would expect. Here's hoping I am surprised in the future, by you and by our next president.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 05, 2008, 21:12:
 
Please stop arguing and making inflammatory statements in this topic.

For once, I would like us to set aside our tendancy to be assholes towards one another and simply celebrate what is probably the most historic election result any of us will see in our lives.

If you can't do that, please start your own topic to bitch and whine.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 05, 2008, 21:27:
 
A hearty number of times that I've heard bunk like 'socialism' brought up in regards to Obama, it seems like the people talking about it don't even *know* what socialism is...let alone know whether or not this is a valid claim. It certainly seems like certain people will come up with any excuse possible to dislike Barack Obama, and to /me/ that reeks of latent racism.

In this day and age, it's awfully hard to speak up and say "I won't vote for him because he's black." However, it's super-easy to say "I won't vote for him...because he's going to bring us socialism!"

Also...Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Death. I would like to think that the same people who speak about being deeply Pro-Life would ask Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush why we are in Iraq, killing thousands of people, innocent or otherwise, and why these numbers have come to be:
quote:
As of Monday, Nov. 3, 2008, at least 4,190 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
...
As of Monday, Nov. 3, 2008, at least 554 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to the Defense Department. The department last updated its figures Monday at 10 a.m. EDT.

(source)

Are those lives not sacred, too?
(It also goes without saying that John McCain was pro-choice until he wanted to be elected into office by conservative voters....lalalalalalala....)
Edit/P.S. Ooops...maybe not.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on November 05, 2008, 22:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Others have alredy commented that McCain was gracious in defeat.

Not so Ms Palin.

I just heard her on aussie radio, pointing the finger of blame in all directions, and denying any responsibility for "John McCain's defeat".

Classy broad.

From what I posted in another thread, McCain's staff seems to be striking back quite effectively.
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 06, 2008, 08:13:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Please stop arguing and making inflammatory statements in this topic.

For once, I would like us to set aside our tendancy to be assholes towards one another and simply celebrate what is probably the most historic election result any of us will see in our lives.

If you can't do that, please start your own topic to bitch and whine.

[Applause] Thank you Steen for breaking ranks and calling out Dragon for his inflammatory remarks to Rhonwyyn. [Applause]

If you were directing those remarks at me, perhaps you should reread the posts, and see that *I*, while not entirely innocent of being argumentative, certainly hold no monopoly on that tendency.
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 06, 2008, 08:34:
 
Liz, I won't be responding to derailing the pro-life argument into a war discussion.

When people say "It goes without saying" that is a red flag that says to me: "Warning, opinions spewing without facts ahead"

quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
(It also goes without saying that John McCain was pro-choice until he wanted to be elected into office by conservative voters....lalalalalalala....)

How about I send you to the Pro-Choice website to see how they view McCain

"Sen. John McCain served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983 to 1986 and in the U.S. Senate from 1987 to present. During his four years in the House, then-Rep. McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. Ten of these votes were anti-choice. In the Senate, Sen. McCain has cast 119 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues, 115 of which were anti-choice.

In addition to his solidly anti-choice record, Sen. McCain has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce the need for abortion"

That is from his opponents. Now you run off and find something to contradict it. I am sure in this world of twitter and blogs and everyone with a keyboard a reporter, you can find someone with a quote to support almost any view.

With all of this said, I did congratulate Obama on his win, and his campaign. I support many of the things he is promising to do. My opinion has always been that you don't get to be president without owing too many people too many favors. I hope he can prove me wrong. But I simply cannot vote for a candidate that does not support the basic human rights of everyone, born or unborn.

PS: It goes without saying that lizard is a racist hate spewing thread-jacker. [Wink]
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on November 06, 2008, 08:44:
 
Here is my diatribe of sorts.

I think there are some serious disconnect between Social Conservatives and classic Conservatives. I have often wondered about this.

My rejection of the Republican Party was their shift to social conservationism. I understand the want for people to be moral, or their wish for the country to have a true moral compass. This is honestly a good thing. What has often bothered me and still does is how people consider that religion should be inserted into politics.

Here is my main question. Who's religion do you want?

Sorry Catholics, the Baptists think you are crazy. Sorry Baptists, the Catholics think you guys are heretics. Who's God does the Republican party represent?

Yes there are things both groups agree upon, but think about it, how much do you also disagree on? And what happens if Jews or the (gasp!!) Muslims become the predominant religious force in the US? Do you really want them pushing their religious ideals on your life?

This is what I really don't get about bringing god into our capitol. Who's God is that person really representing? And you can see what happens when extremist religious factions take a country over. This concerns me a lot more than anything.

My concerns with the Pro-Death comment is this. Pro-choice does not equal to Pro-Death. No matter how you cut it. There may be people that think that babies should be unceremoniously dispatched. I cannot deny that there isn't a nutjob in every faction. But pro-choice does not equate having 5 minute drive-thu placenta removal centers. But instead, from my personal viewpoint, equals free choice in the matter that concerns your life.

I personally detest the idea of abortion. But this doesn't mean I think that it should be illegal. Instead I wish that there was a social structure that offered help for people in a situation where abortion is an option. Not condemnation.

The Socialist slant that I have seen is a case of stupidity in right-wing politics. Anyone that truly understands how the government works, knows we already have some socialistic mechanisms in place. There is seriously no way to deny it. It is just the way it has been. Hell if you really think about it, government road works projects are a form of Socialism. Why does the government do this? It should be everyone's personal responsibility to make their own roads.

The argument that taxes should be lowered for low and middle-class Americans but not raised for upper-class Americans simply cannot work. A government works off of revenue. You can't run a business by giving away fruit to the hungry and charging a penny to the rich. Something has to give. Do I believe in fleecing the rich? Absolutely not! But I do believe that those that have, can take give a bit more than those that don't.

Here is the thing, some things simply cannot work. We are a nation of many. We are a nation of the haves and the have-nots. I don't believe for one second you will be able to legislate morality, I do however believe that people can pay their fair share.

Just look at the media to see what happens when people become super-rich. How many really give to help those below them. Sorry, taxation is relatively low for many large-scale businesses. Look at current cost of living studies and how far our dollar goes. Does it look like employers are passing their savings on to the little guy?

This election is the first one where I have not voted Libertarian. I still believe in many of their ideals. And in many ways it is wishful thinking that a true Libertarian government would be great. But in light of current political, financial and worldwide trends, I cannot sit back and think that the time is now.

NoRealReason, my issue with the Pro-Death line is that it is a standpoint of hate. I do not have issues if you have the pro-life stance. There needs to be people that disagree with the pro-choice stance to balance the scales. It is just the right-wing version of the left wings yell of racist and hate-monger. It is simply not the whole truth. It is glorified overbearing catchphrases to make the soul shake. This I think is a pitiful thing that anyone would stoop to such a level.

If you had said, I will vote for the pro-life candidate, instead of the one that thinks abortions should be legal, I would have had no issues. I wouldn't have agreed, but I would not have made any comment.

That was where my concerns came to light.

My disagreement with DMan was the racist line. There may be plenty of other things that I am not aware of that caused him to make his comment. They may even be true. I am not aware of it, and if it is not something of common knowledge, it really shouldn't have been drug out into this public forum.

Here is my small article on personal beliefs, I do hope that it clarified my reasoning to everyone.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on November 06, 2008, 08:55:
 
NoRealReason: it's hard to be considered inflammatory when one readily admits the possibility of being wrong. Something you do not do, as far as I can tell. (But the Dragon did.)

The emitter's responsibility is to make sure the signal reach the receptor within the acceptable error margin. If the message is lost or corrupted, then the emission must be adapted to the environmnet the signal travels through. End of "theory of communication 101" course for today.

So nobody is asking you to change your opinions, just to present them in a more acceptable way. Drop the "pro-death", will you? [shake head]
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 06, 2008, 09:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by NoRealReason:
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Please stop arguing and making inflammatory statements in this topic.

For once, I would like us to set aside our tendancy to be assholes towards one another and simply celebrate what is probably the most historic election result any of us will see in our lives.

If you can't do that, please start your own topic to bitch and whine.

[Applause] Thank you Steen for breaking ranks and calling out Dragon for his inflammatory remarks to Rhonwyyn. [Applause]

If you were directing those remarks at me, perhaps you should reread the posts, and see that *I*, while not entirely innocent of being argumentative, certainly hold no monopoly on that tendency.

My comment was directed at everyone including you.
 
Posted by DoctorWho (Member # 392) on November 06, 2008, 10:55:
 
Some pro-lifers have abortions too.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 06, 2008, 11:29:
 
Ah yes. Gut-wrenching decisions are always easy until you're the one making them.
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 06, 2008, 13:53:
 
Shroom,
Thank you for one of the most levelheaded and lucid posts I have read on these issues. I do apologize to you and anyone else who were offended by my use of "pro-death", everyone, that is, except mono and lizard. [Razz]

I think the problem is that I was characterizing Obama himself, the candidate, as pro-death, not those who supported or voted for him. If that did not come through, it was my fault, and again, sorry.

As for you, mono (because I only hear one-channel from you)
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
NoRealReason: it's hard to be considered inflammatory when one readily admits the possibility of being wrong. Something you do not do, as far as I can tell. (But the Dragon did.)

Lizard did put in pithy little comments that may absolve him from libel, but the intent, and the belief, were both clear. The way I read his post, he thinks, for reasons unknown to me, that Rhonwyyn's husband, and indeed, anyone not voting for Obama apparantly, stand a good chance of being racist. Evidently McCain (and Nader, and whoever else) supporters are trying to hide their racism behind other frivolous arguments like basic human life, experience, and economic theories. This is my opinion, based on the way I have interpreted what I have read here. I could be completely wrong. By the way, I sprinkled my previous posts with phrases like 'it appears', 'I believe' and 'my opinon'. Maybe my way of expressing that I leave room in my life for the possibility that I could be wrong didn't come through, but man, I thought that was what those words meant.

PS: It goes without saying that arguing with mono and lizzy is a waste of time, and people observing the argument may not know which of you are the real idiot, so I will refrain from said activity from now on. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 06, 2008, 14:01:
 
Contrary to what appears to be a popular belief, calling people names does not make you look clever or more intelligent.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on November 06, 2008, 14:29:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Contrary to what appears to be a popular belief, calling people names does not make you look clever or more intelligent.

Echoed. NoRealReason, your attempts to belittle Dragonman and Stereo only make you look petty, and do not come off as remotely clever.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 06, 2008, 14:34:
 
It probably makes him feel good though. [Razz]
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 06, 2008, 15:02:
 
Nowhere near as good as irritating the 3 of you. More of the new vs. the stale on this board.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 06, 2008, 15:04:
 
Well well...I suppose it goes without saying that I was wrong on McCain and being pro-choice! [Wink]

I know I've seen things that suggested that McCain's prior views were much more center-leaning and that he was not distinctly pro-life, but I would have to guess that those things that I saw were mistaken. Either that, or the Tubes have been whitewashed.

The closest some cursory searching gets to McCain being moderate is the following:
quote:

Schecter quotes an August 1999 speech that McCain delivered to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

"I'd love to see a point where [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force x number of women to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/04/11/mccain_abortion/

To paraphrase, McCain is against abortion, but thinks it would be a bad idea to ban it now, as it could be very dangerous to women who seek abortion anyway. Taking a pro-life point of view into account, this is actually a sensible perspective.

I do not care for the idea of abortion, but I think the idea of government dictating religious policy on women's health is considerably worse. This echoes my previous comment of "Pro-Choice is not Pro-Death." Supporting the right to choose does not mean you have to actively recommend abortion, and there's the big grey area of 'where life starts' which is not a discussion for here, but rather that you let the allow the woman the choice to decide how she will take care of herself. If you believe in Christianity, you believe in Free Will, and this requires you to let people make their own decisions, heavy as they may be. I really don't think you're going to find many women who go for an abortion who take it lightly...but the alternative is quite possibly far worse, and at the end of the day, that's their decision to make.

Those are my pinko-commie two cents, so if you'll excuse me, I believe it's time for me to slither away and slurp up coffee.
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 06, 2008, 15:15:
 
Wait, I thought I was the pinko-commie [Wink]
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 06, 2008, 15:21:
 
Perhaps Norealreason you should find something more concrete than their forum name if you want to criticise the dragon and Stereo. People in glass houses etc etc

Actually you might do better to select other targets, as they are both well respected here as highly intelligent members of long standing.

Even better still, why not stop trying to start a flame war, and actually discuss some of the arguments presented to you in a civil manner. Give some respect and you might get it back. Pro or anti abortion are more accurate labels which do not insult those who hold the opposing view.

I do not share your views on abortion but would be interested to explore how far you take them. I presume you view abortion as murder - correct? Do you think that if abortion is no longer permitted, should anyone discovered to have had an abortion be charge with that that crime? Should they face the death penalty?
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on November 06, 2008, 15:29:
 
quote:
Originally posted by NoRealReason:
Nowhere near as good as irritating the 3 of you. More of the new vs. the stale on this board.

You know, if only you'd ask nicely I'm sure you'd find that there are people around who would gladly collect your toys from the floor and place them back in your pram. If all this amuses you, then fair enough -- knock yourself out. Just don't expect anyone to treat your comments with any more respect than they would a bad noise.
 
Posted by DoctorWho (Member # 392) on November 06, 2008, 15:55:
 
quote:
Originally posted by NoRealReason:
Nowhere near as good as irritating the 3 of you. More of the new vs. the stale on this board.

Do you feed on goats and live under a bridge?
 -
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 06, 2008, 15:57:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
It probably makes him feel good though. [Razz]

It still won't make his penis any bigger......poor little thing.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on November 06, 2008, 16:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by NoRealReason:
As for you, mono (because I only hear one-channel from you)

He he! Like I'm going to feel offended by that! [Big Grin] After all, I do apply my own lessons:

I tried, with a PM, to explain why the use of "pro-death" is offensive to designate the pro-choices (and explain my own position along the way - clearly that part was a mistake). You said it again. So yes, I went to mono channel [Wink] with a simpler, stronger message. Still no ACK from you. So what option do I have left? Telling that calling Obama "pro-death" is calling me, along with everyone who shares his opinion on abortion, just the same? That it is not only disrespectful, but offensive, and the repetition an evident attempt at raising tempers (trolling)? Or will I have to conclude that there is too much noise, and I should wait for better transmission conditions? Or just give up?

Now, please do point me to where I have been disrespectful to Rhon or her husband. Or are you mixing up "message" and "emitter", and think that by attacking her arguments, I attack her? I think she's an intelligent person, and able to do her own research if her opinions are shaken. Don't you?

Hey, I'm a big girl, and I do not feel a lesser person by admitting wrongdoing on my part - when there is one. Rhonwyyn, if by any way you have felt hurt or insulted by anything I have said, I am very sorry. Know that I respect you, even if we have very different views on some touchy subjects. If I tend to defend my opinions heatedly, it is in no way meant to belittle nor insult my opponent. I consider you a friend (the kind I love to argue with, then five minutes later go shopping with), and would love to know that you feel the same toward me. Do you forgive me? And if you show me how exactly I have offended you, I will do my best to avoid it from now on.

Last thing: yes, NRR, I did notice the effort in using those moderate words, and I appreciate it. You sound a lot less aggressive this way. Now, if you could stop those childish attempts at insulting people, who knows, you could turn out to be a nice person to discuss with!
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on November 06, 2008, 16:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by NoRealReason:
Nowhere near as good as irritating the 3 of you. More of the new vs. the stale on this board.

If thinking you irritated me makes you feel better about yourself, have a ball. I'll admit to being a little confused as to what you think is so new about yourself... or are you supposed to be the stale one? That would make more sense.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 06, 2008, 16:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
It probably makes him feel good though. [Razz]

It still won't make his penis any bigger......poor little thing.
Of course not. Nothing's going to do that. All we can do is try to be compassionate. Most men go in for a fancy toy of some kind, but perhaps a big fscking penis-mobile is out of NoRealReason's price range. So he's resorting to cheaper sources of male enhancement, such as trolling.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on November 06, 2008, 17:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
I consider you a friend (the kind I love to argue with, then five minutes later go shopping with), and would love to know that you feel the same toward me. Do you forgive me? And if you show me how exactly I have offended you, I will do my best to avoid it from now on.

We get to go shopping?! Yay!!! [Applause]

Hey, no worries, Stereo. I can't remember what you said, so apparently it didn't offend me. [Big Grin]

I was rather annoyed at dman's assertion that Jonathan and I are racist. I couldn't have cared less if the candidates had been spotted with purple polka dots. Granted, I was rather intrigued by Palin and would choose her and her supposed ignorance about affairs of state over Hilary Clinton any day. I can't put it into words, but Hilary just scares me. Maybe it's 'cause she looks and acts like my dad's second ex-wife? Heh. I guess that makes me some sort of -ist for feeling that way. [ohwell]

I was thinking about what Calli said earlier about me being intelligent but bowing out of political conversations. I liken it to the talking about computers. I know the differences between Mac and PC, and I know about of how they both work, and I know many of their pros and cons. However, I can't talk about the issues surrounding those two kinds of computers like many of you can. My knowledge is limited. I've tried to learn more, but I get lost because there's just so *much* to learn and understand. After a while, I start feeling like this: [Confused] [crazy]

It's the same way with politics. I can handle it on a basic level, but some issues, I just don't know what to think about them because they're so complicated. That makes me feel like this: [weep] [Mad] So I step back and just watch and listen.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 06, 2008, 17:27:
 
Anyway as we were saying... the long night of unreason is over, and however bad the situation, or seemingly insurmountable the problems, at least we won't have those movement conservative fruit loops there in Washington to screw it up even more.

Contrary to all that socialist scare talk Obama will govern from the centre, first because that is the stance he has taken right from the start, and secondly because that is the way to secure a second term.

There is a subtext in Rhonnie and NRR's posts that those who voted for Obama, did so because of they were seduced by his rock star charisma and believe he will solve all the worlds problems with a sprinkling of fairy dust. Actually nothing could be further from the truth. He won because America has had enough of the radical right wing political experiment, which has led us to the sorry pass we are in now. I would be interested to know what you in the US think of this analysis of the political forces behind Obama's victory.
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 06, 2008, 19:09:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:

Actually you might do better to select other targets, as they are both well respected here as highly intelligent members of long standing.

Give some respect and you might get it back. Pro or anti abortion are more accurate labels which do not insult those who hold the opposing view.

Interesting....I believe that when confronted with reasoned words and opinions, I had responded in kind. Are you also speaking to CpnVic and Xanthine, both of whom resorted to the old stand-by, the penis joke. Not only childish, but vulgar as well, a 2 for 1 deal. They are part of what I refer to as the stale vs the new. Anything they, or anyone else averaging 4299+ posts says, will be viewed with a much softer focus than anything I, or anyone with and average of 55 posts, might say. Heavens forbid I say something ill-tempered, or churlish, directly to them...it's circle the wagons time. I understand that, it is natural. It does not make it any more infuriating for a 'new' member here though.

A bit more on topic though, I did read the article Callipygous referred to....after a once through, it seems to be true, in the ideal, but reality I suspect is far messier than what I took his message as: "America decided a black man was needed at this time to show the world how far we have come"
I could be completely wrong about what he intended. I know this is an historic election, the first of anything like this is, but isn't it some measure of how far we haven't come that he will be still known as the first 'black' president? It is easy to classify him thus, but if we were as evolved as we wish, would it be right?
That is probably too much to ask, especially before his first day in office. I can only hope he is remembered as president for something other than being first, or being black.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on November 06, 2008, 19:56:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
I consider you a friend (the kind I love to argue with, then five minutes later go shopping with), and would love to know that you feel the same toward me. Do you forgive me? And if you show me how exactly I have offended you, I will do my best to avoid it from now on.

We get to go shopping?! Yay!!! [Applause]
Sure, whenever! Actually, just the other day, I spent an awful amount here (although you may prefer this location). Yeah, the steampunk wave got me hard, with its elegant Victorian style. I'm planning a few costumes for next August... [crazy]

quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Hey, no worries, Stereo. I can't remember what you said, so apparently it didn't offend me. [Big Grin]

Good! I was pretty sure I hadn't been offensive, but it's good to hear my message wasn't distorted in some unexpected way.

quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
I was rather annoyed at dman's assertion that Jonathan and I are racist.

I think the Dragon's comment was rather an exemplification of something he has seen generally, that is people not voting for Obama out of racism, but hiding behind more socially acceptable explanations for their choices. Something you said probably hit a sensible spot, and he answered with his gut feeling. But you know him already, so you know he is not the kind to hurt purposefully.

quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
So I step back and just watch and listen.

And that's a good way to learn. (BTW, you have been very quiet lately. I hope with the election over, we'll get to hear more from you!)
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on November 06, 2008, 20:15:
 
I've been quiet since I've discovered the Fatosphere, a whole wealth of information and encouragement about fat acceptance. It's definitely helped me learn to love and appreciate my body and believe that it's something for which I need to care for well. Good Web sites to get an introduction to the 'sphere are Shapely Prose, Big Fat Deal Blog, and my favorite, Fatshionista. Take a gander at them, even if you're not fat. It's lost of fun! (And educational.) [Big Grin]
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 06, 2008, 21:13:
 
For the record, I *never* said that Rhonwyyn is a racist...I only made that presumption about her husband because of the views she attributed to him.

Rhonwyyn: I'm sorry if I irked you with that, but I do stand by my points about wanting to hear /your/ views, not your husband's. You're definitely smart enough to handle these thoughts yourself...so such posts are kind of disappointing.

Personally, I have always been considerably more interested in technology, but as the years have gone by, I've come to realize that the other things are much too important to let them slide by...so I've taken to keeping a lot more current.

I'm going to be a good ice-breathing dragon† and not touch the Palin/Clinton comments with a 10' pole, despite my pretty strong views on the matter. [Smile]

† Xanthine, you're right...I need to stay true to my roots and ignore the things under the Fremont bridge. [Smile]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 06, 2008, 21:18:
 
Lizard? Last time we met you were a warm-blood, dman. What happened?

quote:
Originally posted by NoRealReason:
Interesting....I believe that when confronted with reasoned words and opinions, I had responded in kind. Are you also speaking to CpnVic and Xanthine, both of whom resorted to the old stand-by, the penis joke. Not only childish, but vulgar as well, a 2 for 1 deal. They are part of what I refer to as the stale vs the new. Anything they, or anyone else averaging 4299+ posts says, will be viewed with a much softer focus than anything I, or anyone with and average of 55 posts, might say. Heavens forbid I say something ill-tempered, or churlish, directly to them...it's circle the wagons time. I understand that, it is natural. It does not make it any more infuriating for a 'new' member here though..

First of all, your belief was just wrong. That happens with beliefs sometimes.

Second of all, penis jokes are fun and subversive and sometimes even required. Particularily when dealing with a confessed troll.

Third of all, regarding the respect given to members with larger post counts, it's called signal to noise. At 55 posts, we're still not sure what your signal and what your noise is. Frankly it looks like your signal is lost in the noise of troll. We may need some fresh faces around here, but not the kind of fresh you're offering.
 
Posted by neotatsu (Member # 1429) on November 06, 2008, 21:21:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
It probably makes him feel good though. [Razz]

It still won't make his penis any bigger......poor little thing.
/me proceeds to laugh so hard a noodle comes out his nose


Tch.. I'm so immature -_-'
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 06, 2008, 21:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Lizard? Last time we met you were a warm-blood, dman. What happened?

Fixed.

Cheers,

dragon
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on November 07, 2008, 03:33:
 
Dman is the center of attention of the newbie. Gosh, disappear for a few weeks and I find that you get a groupie. Go figure. Although it seems you do have to share with stereo. ah well. Good thing you got an A+ in kindergarten.

Not everyone who did not vote for Obama is a racist. I agree that many are, and that there is a current of racism that runs through this country. It varies from hardcore rabid evil to subtle and sneaky, but not voting for obama does not make one a racist automatically. I compare it to Hillary clinton. Just because I would have gouged my eyes out of their sockets with my son's baby teeth rather than vote for her, does not mean I automatically think a woman should not hold high office.

The one argument many were making that made my jaw muscles hurt were the assassination comments, and making this into a done deal therefore Biden v. Palin were the deciding factors. UGH. Yes, there may be attempts just like there may be attempts during any other president's term, but these people who threw that crap around like it was some deep and shocking thought keep neglecting the secret service. There may be an attempt, but they will do everything to make sure it doesnt happen, and quite frankly I am looking forward to rubbing their noses in it 4 years down the road when obama is running for re-election and the crowd is shouting 4 more years.

I was not thrilled with any of my choices but I must admit when i was listening to his acceptance speech that I was happy to have given him my vote. I just hope that everyone's expectations are not so high that disappointment follows.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 07, 2008, 03:57:
 
quote:
Originally posted by NoRealReason:
...A bit more on topic though, I did read the article Callipygous referred to....after a once through, it seems to be true, in the ideal, but reality I suspect is far messier than what I took his message as: "America decided a black man was needed at this time to show the world how far we have come"
I could be completely wrong about what he intended.

Yup completely utterly 100% wrong. The absolute polar opposite of the clear intent of my post, and of the arguments made in the article I linked to, which you say you have read. This debating technique is known as the straw man, and is not widely admired.

You say that we are not debating with you, but conducting interior monologues with ourselves. Hmmm... checked the mirror lately?

To answer the argument you raise in this post, I don't believe, and can find no evidence in the demographic statistics that race influenced the votes of many this time. The actual results tallied closely with opinion polls, so there was no evidence of the "Bradley effect". This is unsurprising, because with the critical issues at stake this time, there were plenty of vital and immediate reasons to cast your vote for or against either candidate without needing to fall back on race. That is not to understate the huge significance of Obama's campaign and victory, which rather than being founded on race, instead points to a new politics where race is no longer an issue. The significance of this raises some uncomfortable questions for the Afro American community, as well as giving them comfort and encouragement.

Neither am I saying that racism is dead, or that it was not present during this election campaign. Though of course not officially endorsed, the background noise on talk radio, and on the Internet in places such as forums, blogs, YouTube comments, and even a few posts here, showed a lot of utterly vile racial scaremongering, based on ludicrous smears, that attempted to plant suspicions that Obama was actually some kind of Manchurian candidate, a secret Arab terrorist with ambitions to become a dictator, who had smuggled himself into the election. I still am disgusted that I have not heard any responsible Republican supporters condemn this behaviour or contradict those smears, apart from McCain himself, and to a chorus of boos, and yes Rhonnie, protesting that you do not want him assassinated is NOT the same thing. If some ignorant redneck inflamed with this intemperate nonsense, is equipping himself with a sniper rifle at the moment, which you have acknowledged as a possibility, believe me, you all share the blame. However as far as the ballot goes, luckily such nonsense has little resonance outside the most ignorant part of the core Republican vote, and so had I believe little or no effect on the result.
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 07, 2008, 07:04:
 
quote:
Yup completely utterly 100% wrong. The absolute polar opposite of the clear intent of my post, and of the arguments made in the article I linked to, which you say you have read. This debating technique is known as the straw man, and is not widely admired. [/QB]
To be clear, the beliefs I stated were my understanding of the views of the article only, not your views nor what you were trying to convey in your post. And I am finding that there is no such thing as "clear intent" when it comes to posting here. I will have to look up straw man, as I do not know what that is.


I keep trying to be done with this, I really do, but I am finding it hard to see the difference between making a play on words when referring to someone's board name in order to express disdain, and calling someone names while questioning their penis size. So far, the only difference I see is the 'who' who says it. I would be willing to bet that had I called D-man small dicked, I would be getting beat up even more vehemently than I am now from the same people throwing those words at me.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 07, 2008, 08:52:
 
Ah, now, I see your problem. You don't know how to make an effective argument. You think you do, but really you're so off the mark the rest of us think you're trolling. I suggest you stick to social threads until you've gotten yourself up to speed (which isn't that hard to do - just do some reading and listening and practicing and expect to get shot down until you've learned to get it right).

In other words: Debating...you're doing it wrong.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on November 07, 2008, 09:07:
 
Calli,

Here is my take on this last election.

We have finally gotten to a point where the concept of a black president is no longer vehemently disallowed by a majority of voters. While racism possibly accounted for some votes going to McCain, I do not think it was the main concern of the voters. I think white/black/male/female played a much smaller role that media wanted it to.

I think it was more of a dissatisfaction with the current situation and lay of the government land that caused this election possible.

I heard something, and I think it was Obama's talk on the Daily Show, where he mentioned that the U.S. is pretty conservative in its governance. Basically it takes a disaster to see any big changes in the way the government works. Otherwise we tend to stick to the status quo. I think there is a huge amount of truth in that statement.

I think that recent troubles in the world financial and security arenas have paved the way for a possible shake-up with the way things have run.

I think, while a tad bit simplistic, there is a lot of truth in the article. The middle-class has steadily grown over the years, but in some cases I think people have realized that being in the middle is a lot tougher than being on the bottom or on the top. Many people, through both a mixture of their own bad choices and the bad choices of others are now watching this class suddenly getting squeezed in ways they never thought were possible.

With the recent collapse in housing and the world markets in response to the credit and housing crunches, we began to look at our current deficit and the way the government is spending money. Now some of this groundwork was laid before Bush ever got a chance to sit in the oval office, so I will not lay the blame on him in totality. However, the collapse came full swing under his watch, and was ignored.

So the people concerned with our fiscal solvency now look back at the surplus we once had and are naturally saying "A little 'tang in the oval office doesn't look to be nearly as terrible as having to owe everyone and their world loan shark brother."

You have people tired of two wars and government intervention. Thinking that in 8 years we have overstepped our bounds and rather than the smaller, more efficient government we were promised by the Republicans, we have crept into a police state mentality.

There are scores of other issues and little nuances within. But as the numbers are beginning to suggest, it was not the youth, the hispanics, the blacks or any other single demographic that made it possible for Obama's win. But a large set of issues that sweep across the board.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 07, 2008, 14:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
I don't believe, and can find no evidence in the demographic statistics that race influenced the votes of many this time.

Map of counties where the Republicans increased their % of the vote...

 -

Map of the Confederate States of America.
 -
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 09, 2008, 18:31:
 
quote:
... and ASM?
I'll try to be gentle, since some of you have very fragile little minds.

The "motto" of the 2008 US Election should go down in history as:
quote:
All the cool kids are voting for Obama!
    If you don't vote for Obama -- YOU'RE NOT COOL!!!
      Vote for Obama!

 

Many who voted for Obama probably don't know what "centrist" means. (Hint: It wasn't named after a man named "Centr.")

Did you read how Obama voted in the US Senate, or did you accept the TV coverage as everything you needed to know?

Do you know the examples of Obama unifying Democrats and Republicans, or was "the TV said so" good enough?

When and where did Obama learn his economic policies?

When and where did Obama learn his foreign policies?
 

quote:
November 05, 2008, 16:08
That's it guys, it looks like ASM was right.
He tried to warn us, but we just wouldn't listen.   [Frown]

For the majority of government issues, I've said fraud is the problem to fix first.

That aside, ask yourself did you let $650 million in "advertising" buy your vote? Was the slogan "he's not Bush" more important than the candidate's voting record? Were you more influenced by hearing the motto "Change We Can Believe In," or by reading analysis of how he made changes in previous offices and whether the changes were progress, impediments, or simply irrelevant?

What do you know about him from Occidental College, or Columbia College? What do you know about his Harvard College activities, or anything he wrote as President of the Harvard Law Review? Was he the studious and dedicated "geek" or was he the "jock" using his popularity for the easy ride?
 

quote:
November 05, 2008, 06:31
... the best way to ensure Obama is not assassinated would be <blah blah blah blah blah>

Please refrain from smears against America and its people. Knowing the open hatred and rhetoric against Bush, and the protection Obama has received for many months, don't expect assassination attempts to get far. (I dare you to say something stupid like "Oh yeah, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a country where people are a million times more peaceful than Americans.")

Here's something for the conspiracy nuts:

A "lone gunman" killing Obama (on a $367 budget) is highly unlikely. Also, an assassination would not give Republicans (or "Conservative" groups) the White House, nor would it improve their numbers in Congress.

Consider a "special" group of people making a "$650 million investment" on who gets to be "the most powerful man in the world":
 

Third scenario: Assassination appears "successful" except there's a "miraculous recovery" from the injuries sustained. Well, that wouldn't be conspiracy, because the correct classification would be "Bible prophecy."   [Eek!]
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on November 09, 2008, 19:00:
 
Just cleaning up the "Today's Active Topics" page.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 09, 2008, 19:02:
 
*ROTFLMAO at ASM's obvious angst*

ASM:
Obama won. Deal with it.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 09, 2008, 19:30:
 
<smug>
Poor ASM, he can't cope with the fact that the majority of Americans preferred a black arab muslim socialist America-hating cut-and-run coward faggot-loving gun-grabbing terrorist anti-christ to 4 more years of ASM's lunatic-right pals.

</smug>

/me wanders off to tamper with ASM's video collection...
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 09, 2008, 19:52:
 
Dude, he's, like, having a seizure!
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 09, 2008, 23:05:
 
Ya know, that was in the back of my mind for a bit, but now I see it happening in real life.

/me chuckles and goes to sleep with a silly grin on his face...
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 09, 2008, 23:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by TFD:
<smug>
Poor ASM, he can't cope with the fact that the majority of Americans preferred a black arab muslim socialist America-hating cut-and-run coward faggot-loving gun-grabbing terrorist anti-christ to 4 more years of ASM's lunatic-right pals.
</smug>

Just to give you a little more perspective about the current state of society in the US: Out of 11 Congressmen under investigation -- 9 were reelected.

There are two simple explanations (possibilities):
  1. Voters are absolutely CLUELESS about criminal charges that any given candidate may be facing.
          - or -
  2. Voters want criminals to have authority over them (taxation, law making, etc).
 
Between "The Sopranos" and "Grand Theft Auto" (not to mention other "entertainment"), probably "half" of Americans have been convinced that life without crime would be unbearable (boring). Maybe the answer is as simple as drug addiction -- why would a drug addict vote for someone who would eliminate his narcotics supply? Expect his vote to go to the local drug lord instead.

I'm really not having trouble "coping" with the situation. In the course of almost 30 years, I've only had my car broken into on two occasions, neither time in my own neighborhood. My "lunatic-right pals" are boring, but at least I don't worry about them stealing stuff to pay for crack, or vandalizing the property of others for a "good time."

After all I've seen and the news I've read in the past decade, I no longer care about the suffering that people bring upon themselves. Attempting to stop the self-destructive behavior of someone is a losing proposition, and the rule seems to apply to self-destructive society as well. In all honesty, the most effective curse upon "Liberals" these days is "may you get what you have asked for" (with laws and politicians).
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 10, 2008, 00:02:
 
Hmmm, interesting pr0n collection ASM, I had no idea your tastes were so...

...unorthodox.

You know, there are laws against some of that stuff.

btw - I wouldn't drink the milk in your fridge, one of the other Men In Black...

...nah, you don't want to know, just don't drink it, m'kay?

Oh, and you might like to get a new toothbrush.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 10, 2008, 00:38:
 
Wow. It's, like, status epilepticus...
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 10, 2008, 06:34:
 
ASM I know you are angry now, but it will be for the best. I sincerely hope the Republican Party rebuilds itself as something which decent people can vote for without holding their noses. That will mean upsetting the extreme right, but it will make the party electable again, and you cannot have a healthy democracy without effective opposition. Even you must recognise that the Republican Party has drifted far too close to outright fascism for comfort, and your simplistic politics of deregulation, tax cuts, and trickle down economics, are discredited at best, and in some cases the source of much of our current problems.

 -

The world has turned.
 
Posted by Oz, the Wizard of (Member # 1454) on November 10, 2008, 15:36:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Poor ASM, he can't cope with the fact that the majority of Americans preferred a black arab muslim socialist America-hating cut-and-run coward faggot-loving gun-grabbing terrorist anti-christ to 4 more years of ASM's lunatic-right pals.

You know, buddy, I think there's a medication you can get for that.

Or you could move to a proper Theocratic country, but the list on Wikipedia suggests there's only one really solid proper Theocracy these days -- and I somehow doubt you'd be any happier in Iran.
 
Posted by NoRealReason (Member # 6992) on November 10, 2008, 19:06:
 
Sounds like someone has a small penis

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 10, 2008, 20:12:
 
ASM's got more problems than that. We're not sure if he's human, some whacked out AI script, or a combination.

Just trust us on this one. When it comes to ASM, for the sake of your own sanity, laugh but do not engage. You'll never regret it. The alternative is life-long scarring.

/me twitches
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 10, 2008, 22:35:
 
quote:
November 10, 2008 06:34
ASM I know you are angry now, but it will be for the best.

I'm not angry. It's more like "shock and awe" (about the dismal lack of critical thinking among US citizens of voting age).   [ohwell]

As an experiment, think. (see "Part I" below)
 

Part I: Change Has Come (to the Media)
quote:
Pre-Election:

"Indianapolis Has 105% Of Its Population Registered To Vote" -- October 8, 2008
    According to STATSIndiana ... So we have 644,197 people eligible to be registered in Marion County/Indianapolis, and 677,401 people registered. Congratulations go to Indianapolis for having 105% of its residents registered!

"FBI Probes ACORN Over Voter Registrations" -- October 17, 2008
    Law-enforcement agencies in 11 states have been investigating former ACORN canvassers -- investigations that have involved the FBI in Nevada and New Mexico.

From "old" news, there must be at least 11 investigations, right?

The Experiment: Search the news for articles on ACORN investigations ... you got at least a couple thousand hits, right?

Now, how many articles give new information on charges and legal action against ACORN _since_the_election_? I know, conservative bloggers are talking about ACORN, but where is the mainstream media reporting?

FYI: Obama cannot use "Executive Power" because he hasn't been sworn in. He's not "part of ACORN" so he'll still be Prez regardless of how many convictions leaders and workers of ACORN receive. Right? I hope you do realize that registering "Mickey Mouse" to vote is illegal, and that 105% voter registration clearly indicates some sort of "wrongdoing." By the way, a few Obama related videos (YouTube) have disappeared recently, ones made by journalists.

Look up "memory hole" ... ah, don't we love the feel of "1984"? Don't see any similarities? Well, you'll do quite well at the Ministry of Truth!
 

Part II: What Will Happen to the GOP after Nov 4?
quote:
November 10, 2008 06:34
I sincerely hope the Republican Party rebuilds itself ... it will make the party electable again.

Originally posted by ASM (November 03, 2008 23:51)
It's irrelevant. The point is moot.
...
It's pretty clear -- "the Media" chose the 2008 US President several months ago.

Still don't understand?

1992 Election --   $192 Million
1996 Election --   $239 Million
2000 Election --   $343 Million
2004 Election --   $717 Million
2008 Election -- $1,324 Million, and then some....

See the trend? Remember "Campaign Finance Reform"? If you think "Campaign Finance Reform" during Obama's administration will favor Republicans, I assure you that it will not.

From the news I'm reading since the election, my guess for the number of high level ACORN leaders who get convicted of felonies will be ... zero. This should be a very clear sign of exactly what to expect in 2012 when Democrats have even more power and pass more legislation (to secure their gains). Still don't understand? Good for you, ignorance _IS_ bliss (or so "they" say).
 

Part III: The Curse -- "May You Get What You Have Asked for"
quote:
November 10, 2008 06:34
You cannot have a healthy democracy without effective opposition.
Even you must recognise that ____ has drifted far too close to outright fascism for comfort

Apparently you didn't notice, Bill Ayers never lost his "freedom of speech" in spite of being a known terrorist and making treasonous psychotic rants against the US. The only thing that happened to Rev Jeremiah Wright for his ranting was that Obama finally "disowned" him in public. "You" have been able to call Bush a "NAZI" as much as you like, and what retribution came of it?

As for Obama, three reporters that wrote favorable articles on McCain were "booted off" the campaign plane. Biden didn't like the questions from Barbara West, so a scheduled Jill Biden appearance at the station was canceled. How about the way "the Media" went after "Joe the Plumber"? If they put one-tenth as much effort into checking into Obama's past, we would know exactly what Obama did at Columbia College.

If Rahm Emanuel (with "a disposition likened to that of a mobster") is a good indicator of the rest of the Obama administration, don't be surprised if Americans seek political asylum in Cuba (and anywhere else).

Congratulations, people -- you got what you asked for. Who knows, maybe you'll get to see what Biden meant by "tested."   [shake head]
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on November 10, 2008, 22:58:
 
Did you hear something?
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 10, 2008, 23:04:
 
Don't worry Peebs, I've put ASM on the 'noisy infidel' list.
Once Comrade Sheik Obama is in the Whitehouse, ASM will just 'disappear'.

Jihad!
Jihad!
Obama Achbar!

</smug>
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 11, 2008, 07:18:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:

Part I:Twaddle
Nonsense

Part II: Paranoid drivel
Nonsense in bullet points

Part III: "How much longer Oh Lord?"
Parts I & II recycled through the Cone of Irrelevance

Dear me ASM! You really must try and distil your frustration into coherent thought, critical thought even, the lack of which you detect in others, but curiously cannot see when you gaze lovingly into the mirror each morning.

Critical thinking ASM is the ability to analyse dispassionately and in detail both sides of an argument. A critical thinker should be as aware of the weaknesses in his own position, and the strengths in his opponents, as much as he is aware of his strengths and their weaknesses. Above all a critical thinker should have the mental flexibility to change his opinion when either he is wrong or the facts change, and the humility to both recognise when this is so, and to admit it to himself and others. You are someone who, in all the years I have been here, has never once conceded a single point, let alone an argument, and who is completely frozen in his political views. So perhaps you are not the right person to teach critical thinking. However because I believe in the unlimited capacity of the human soul for redemption, and just in case you are feeling adventurous enough to venture out of your comfort zone, let me give you some examples of critical thinking, so that you too might try this exciting intellectual experience.

In my opinion the most compelling balanced and clear case for Obama came from conservatives sources, in the interview in which Colin Powell gave his endorsement and condemned Republican racism and Islamophobia, in this discussion with David Brooks, in this editorial from the Economist, and this piece by Wick Allison. These are all calm logical clear eyed judgements, and also contain an admirably unsentimental analysis of the very serious problems that confront the Republicans. That all the Republican supporters on this board seem to imagine that those who voted for Obama did so in the main for frivolous reasons such as his charisma, or to look cool, or because it would be jolly good fun to elect someone black, rather than for the serious reasons outlined in these three articles tells me to add denial to that list of your party's problems.

P.S. ACORN, Bill Ayers, and liberal bias in the media are all nonsense, and if you had the slightest shred of objectivity you'd know that. As you don't, it shows you are completely blinded by your ideology, so any argument about these non topics would be pointless. I'm sure you have seen and ignored the links that demolish these trivial but very unpleasant smears anyway. Wouldn't it be nice if the Republican Party stopped being the party of smears and fears and returned instead to being the party of ideas. As that last link put it “Every great cause, begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” How sad.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 11, 2008, 09:33:
 
ASM:
Why do you insist on repeating the same tired arguments when nobody is responding? The election is over and you can't change it. Posting on a forum that has no interest in your message accomplishes nothing, so why do you persist?
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 11, 2008, 12:29:
 
ASM left out one part of the conspiracy, behold - the Carbon nanobamas
 -
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 11, 2008, 12:31:
 
Shhh... you're not supposed to tell about those until -after- he's been injected with them
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on November 11, 2008, 12:41:
 
Okay - I shamelessly nicked this from FAILblog, but it seemed to fit in just right in this thread.....


 -
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 11, 2008, 12:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Shhh... you're not supposed to tell about those until -after- he's been injected with them

And yet, here I am talking about them.

Draw your own conclusions, Comrade bin Steen.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 11, 2008, 16:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
P.S. ACORN, Bill Ayers, and liberal bias in the media are all nonsense.....

In that case, you should be able to easily defend your position (by answering questions below, and without resorting to hypocrisy).

Given that "Joe the Plumber" was not running for public office, and there was no "probable cause" indicating civil or criminal wrongdoing, state officials of Ohio ran numerous checks on him, which (oddly enough [shake head] ) came to the attention of "the Media." FYI: Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (a department running checks) donated the maximum $2,500 this year to the Obama campaign.

(Rhetorical Question) Why didn't "the Media" put far more effort into looking at Obama's past (since he's not just a plumber)?

Question #1: Why do you feel that a presidential candidate who deliberately conceals the following records should be accepted as qualified and trustworthy?
FYI: Don't play the "grain of sand" fallacy (if it's not "bad" for the case of "one", then it must not be "bad" for the case of "all"), it would indicate that you've drank too much Kool-aid. As for hypocrisy, I KNOW you don't blindly trust Republican political candidates.
 

(Next, assuming "Dreams of My Father" is not a fabrication/lie)
Given the claims of attending Islamic classes as a boy, and visiting Pakistan (not legal for Americans at the time), the only reasonable explanation is that Obama was strictly an Indonesian citizen (because dual citizenship was impossible).

Question #2: When did Obama reinstate his US citizenship (which requires swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States and proper paperwork filed through the U.S. State Department), and why has the document not been provided as proof of eligibility for President of the US?

FYI: If you claim Obama never lost his citizenship, then that indicates "Dreams of My Father" contains "a plethora of big, fat, juicy lies" (in which case, no one should consider him trustworthy).

In case you're confused by these questions, I'm curious why you place so much trust in someone with such a secretive background. After that, aren't journalists SUPPOSED to ask questions, get answers, and act as the public watchdog?
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on November 11, 2008, 16:41:
 
Hey look, a funny website.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 11, 2008, 17:10:
 
ASM65816 wrote:
Various idiotic things

I'll ask again, ASM
Why do you insist on repeating the same tired arguments when it's obvious that nobody here believes them? The election is over and nothing you post here will change the results.
 
Posted by neotatsu (Member # 1429) on November 11, 2008, 17:40:
 
ASM reminds me of my step-dad.

He's actually talking about Obama "not being born in the US" right now.

Actually, I'm curious about that bit myself. Heck, they won't even let me and my mom join the indian tribe because the birth records for my mom were destroyed many years ago. /shrug [Confused]
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on November 11, 2008, 19:05:
 
What happened to not engaging?
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 11, 2008, 19:27:
 
I'm actually curious about what it is that ASM hopes to achieve by posting. I don't think it'll be nearly as entertaining as his Tivo-SNL conspiracy, but I'm still curious. *shrug*
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 11, 2008, 19:29:
 
Some people just can't resist. Steen, it's also amusing when he cites SNL as a source of news.

Ah well.

I know Americans who've been to Cuba even though it's illegal for Americans to go there. They either flew in via Canada or Mexico. If Obama went to Pakistan illegally, he probably did it the same way these people I know did it: he went to some other country first and then crossed the border. Though I've never heard of a travel ban on Pakistan. The US has been historically friendly with Pakistan and propped up their right-wing quasi-democracy all through the Cold War (which basically overlaps Pakistan's entire existence until the early 90's...). I can imagine there were advisories against traveling in certain parts of Pakistan and I know that the Pakistani government has layers upon layers of bureacracy mountaineers are subjected to (partially because the big mountains are in or near Kashmir), but I don't think we've ever severed ties with the whole country and forbid people from setting foot over the border. Even so, you can be a US citizen carrying a US passport and enter a country you're not supposed to be in. It's a very dicey business, breaking a travel ban like that, because if you lose your passport or otherwise run into trouble you're fscked. But Americans do it.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 11, 2008, 22:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by neotatsu:
He's actually talking about Obama "not being born in the US" right now.

Actually, I'm curious about that bit myself.

Your step-dad has Obama confused with McCain, who actually was born outside the USA.

As for the birth certificate thing, it's a complete furphy, Obama's birth certificate was made public months ago, there's even a birth announcement from a 1961 Hawaii newspaper.
 
 -
 

ASM, like most of the right-wing tinfoil-hat brigade, is completely impervious to anything as mundane as evidence.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 12, 2008, 00:58:
 
quote:
November 11, 2008 17:10
I'll ask again, ASM
Why do you insist on repeating the same tired arguments when it's obvious that nobody here believes them? The election is over and nothing you post here will change the results.

Sometimes, people using my name will draw my attention, and I post. Other times, people being "just plain wrong" (or spreading propaganda) gets my attention, and I counter the Leftist rhetoric. GC may be more than 95% Leftists, but I've bet against it.

I really find it sad that "critical thinking" is in such decline. For example, the following incorrect statement:
quote:
November 11, 2008 17:40
He's actually talking about Obama "not being born in the US" right now.

I didn't say "Obama wasn't born in the US" (a moot point, whether true or not).

If "someone" had read about "Adoption records (Lolo Soetoro - stepfather)" -- then he could have realized that an Adopted Child (generally) gains the citizenship of the country of the adopting parent(s), assuming permanent residence declared for the child as well. The countries which allow dual-citizenship are limited. Dual-citizenship for Obama (or anyone) was not valid in Indonesia -- his adoption made him an Indonesian citizen. Therein lies the problem.

quote:
November 11, 2008 19:29
Though I've never heard of a travel ban on Pakistan.

Pakistan was under martial law from 1977 to 1988 under General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. That would certainly explain the US State Department issuing a "Don't Go There" policy.

(IMNSHO) Since Obama made the claim of traveling to Pakistan in 1981 (college years), some things come to mind:
 
EDIT:
quote:
Obama's birth certificate was made public .....
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

That image is regarded as a forgery. A sloppy one. Look at the borders, in the corners. The horizontal line is "offset" as it crosses the vertical bars. There isn't a Notary Seal on the document. "Negro" not "African" was the common legal term for "Black" at that time. Finally, we all know about PhotoShop, so let a court official view the physical document.

Instead of taking 10 minutes to provide a court official authority to access to the original document, Obama has the document sealed to prevent access. Obama has denied access to dozens of his records. Why hide a document that shows you're telling the truth?   [Confused]

One theory: his birth name is "Barry Sunflower-Anne-Stanley Obama" (it was a sixties thing)
(Boy, wouldn't that be embarrassing, but it would explain why he was called "Barry", and the bit about moving to Indonesia to escape the taunting of other children.)
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 12, 2008, 01:22:
 
Carbon Monoxide is a colourless, odourless gas that is toxic at concentrations as low as 1:10,000. It's knows as 'the silent killer'. Unless the coroner knew what to look for, it would be unlikely to show up on a autopsy, the victim would be assumed to have died of heart failure.

I'm just sayin, people who would sneak into a mans home and tamper with his video collection, there's no telling what they might do to someone who's smart enough to have figured out a 37 year Al Qaeda conspiracy that fooled the CIA and FBI...
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on November 12, 2008, 01:40:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Sometimes, people using my name will draw my attention, and I post. Other times, people being "just plain wrong" (or spreading propaganda) gets my attention, and I counter the Leftist rhetoric. GC may be more than 95% Leftists, but I've bet against it.

 -
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 12, 2008, 05:38:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
P.S. ACORN, Bill Ayers, and liberal bias in the media are all nonsense.....

In that case, you should be able to easily defend your position (by answering questions below, and without resorting to hypocrisy).

ASM I'd be delighted to answer your questions if you will answer mine. And please - no hypocrisy from you too.

A few posts back you reminded me that the Nazis were the National Socialist Party, bravely revealing their hidden identity as communists. Thank you for that, it explains a lot, like why both Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, but significantly NO BEARD. Now I'm not saying they were false moustaches, or that all moustaches hide a totalitarian dictator, but it makes you think doesn't it? But I am getting distracted, my real worry is about the Republican Party, and particularly the Texas Republicans, often cruelly caricatured as extremists, but they speak to you ASM, and I suppose like you, they think of themselves as simple country boys,

Or do they?

It is significant, is it not, that France is a Republic <significant pause - twilight zone theme tune>? And there's more. France is a Catholic country, and the Catholic terrorists in Ireland call themselves the Irish <significant pause> Republican Army. Furthermore Texas contains a town called Paris, which is not only the name of the Hilton heiress, but also (and I've checked this on an atlas) the capital of France!!!!! And no I haven't finished yet - one of the most distinguished Texan Republicans is a Mr Tom Delay, which translated from the French, is Tom Of Sex. While you let that sink in, ask yourself this - could this be a coded reference to Tom of Finland? Now any one of things might be a coincidence, but taken together it makes any reasonable man suspicious does it not? I'm not claiming that all Texan republicans are secretly degenerate homosexual Roman Catholic French terrorists, but these questions will remain until they are conclusive answered by the incontrovertible evidence, birth certificates, STD tests, membership rolls of gay organisations in Texas, and so on. How do we know if once inside their ranches, it's off with the Stetsons and on with the berets as they slurp onion soup with a degenerate "ooh lala!' instead of a sturdy American "Yeehaw!"? Why have the annual sales figures for berets in Texas been concealed? Why is there no information on the amount of Semtex these people hold? What are they hiding?

But seriously, far from there being liberal media bias, if your media is guilty of anything it is of taking stuff like this too seriously, of too often describing Republican claims like this as controversial instead of as lies or nonsense. Thus even now there is currency to the myth that Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. This has poisoned your political discourse, and I hope that the Obama era not only signals an end to the monster years, but might also result in a media with more balls and independence ready to tell it like it really is. The poison spread in this election has resulted in too many Republican supporters who say they are scared of Obama, so although these vile smears have no effect outside the core Republican vote, indirectly it affects us all. It was not insignificant that as McCain was giving his gracious concession speech, and quite correctly encouraging his supporters to accept Obama as their President, this was greeted with boos, and the camera cut away to a woman who was shaking her head, and mouthing "No..never". McCain never looked comfortable with the negative campaign he was required to run, and it was refreshing to see the man he is at heart re-emerge at the end. The Republicans did not deserve a candidate of such innate decency and honour, qualities they seem to neither recognise nor value.

That ASM, is why your behaviour in spreading these insidious lies is both despicable, and, if you believe in democracy, your constitution, and the Presidency, profoundly unpatriotic. I have nothing but scorn for what you are doing.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on November 12, 2008, 06:55:
 
_______________ Hi All __ I am not sure where these people get their info. On the ABC network there is a female show called the View, one of the panelists is a Elisabeth Hasselbeck, while very pretty she is almost a female ASM same bullets same talking points even when disproved she always comes back to the same statements over and over again, ARE THEY ONE AND THE SAME? Last night I got an E-Mail with the same talking points and same old tired arguments that we hear from ASM, again I ask was the E-mail from Elisabeth/ASM? I am starting to think so.
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on November 12, 2008, 07:25:
 
No, ASM is Ann Coulter, because everyone knows she looks like a man. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Oz, the Wizard of (Member # 1454) on November 12, 2008, 08:42:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
No, ASM is Ann Coulter, because everyone knows she looks like a man. [Big Grin]

If by "looks like" you mean...
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 12, 2008, 12:33:
 
quote:
Calli:
That ASM, is why your behaviour in spreading these insidious lies is both despicable, and, if you believe in democracy, your constitution, and the Presidency, profoundly unpatriotic. I have nothing but scorn for what you are doing

Now now Calli, don't be so harsh.

ASM is providing a valuable service to his nation.

Voters memories are notoriously short, ASM and his ilk serve as a constant reminder to ordinary, decent Americans, of what a bunch of loony dingbats the Republicans have become.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 12, 2008, 17:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
ASM I'd be delighted to answer your questions if you will answer mine.
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>

Callipygous, why don't you strip out everything except "the questions" you want answered from November 12, 2008 05:38, and repost only "the questions."
 

quote:
... but they speak to you ASM, and I suppose like you ...
You STILL don't know me. You cite an article where people are offended by nude statues. I do not "fret" over nude sculpture (ancient Greek works) in public. "You people" say that you're not "listening" -- guess what, it REALLY shows.
 

quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
... your behaviour in spreading these insidious lies ...

[Confused]   Tell me if I got this wrong.... YOU have the articles with in depth coverage of Obama's academic and social life at Occidental College, Columbia College, and Harvard College. YOU have the articles with in depth coverage of Obama's Student Loans and Tuition Payments. YOU have the articles with in depth coverage of Obama's College Thesis and Law Review Articles. YOU have the articles with in depth coverage of Obama's Law practice client list and Illinois State Senate schedule. ... And all these articles are from independent sources, not Obama nor his "good buddies."

I don't think you have any such articles. If you do, post their links; otherwise, drop the slander/libel against me.

Ok ... I'm ready for those questions.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 12, 2008, 18:07:
 
Ya know, I don't think any sane person wants a detailed account of ANYONE'S undergrad social life. Unless you're into voyeurism.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 12, 2008, 19:03:
 
I used to have all of the information ASM wants, but the Republicans snuk into my home in the middle of the night and replaced those files with pictures of women and goats.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 12, 2008, 19:49:
 
ASM65816 wrote:
"You people" say that you're not "listening" -- guess what, it REALLY shows.

And yet you keep posting irrational rants aimed at the people who don't listen and only reply because it's amusing to get you all wound up.

Also...

posted November 09, 2008 18:31
posted November 09, 2008 23:49
posted November 10, 2008 22:35
posted November 11, 2008 16:17
posted November 12, 2008 00:58
posted November 12, 2008 17:51

I don't "hang out" here.
...
For the most part, I don't post on weekdays, because I have more important things to deal with.


 -
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 12, 2008, 20:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
I used to have all of the information ASM wants, but the Republicans snuk into my home in the middle of the night and replaced those files with pictures of women and goats.

Was it on your Tivo?

I don't have a TV and so not Tivo. My files are safe. neenerneenerneener
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 12, 2008, 20:40:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
My files are safe. neenerneenerneener

We live in a world where evil conspiracies can plant a 9 year old black muslim kid in America, falsify all his documents in a way that fooled even the FBI and CIA, (but not ASM of course, he's far too clever) and arrange for him to become president 38 years later.

Do you really think that $5 lock on your kitchen window will stop them?
 
Posted by neotatsu (Member # 1429) on November 12, 2008, 21:24:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:

As for the birth certificate thing, it's a complete furphy, Obama's birth certificate was made public months ago, there's even a birth announcement from a 1961 Hawaii newspaper.
 
 -
 

First, I have to note I think it's funny ASM thought I was in any way talking about anything he has to say. Honestly, I couldn't care less. The election is over and I personally am just looking forward to see what will happen.


Anyhow, on to the nitty-gritty. My dad is well aware of the document which was scanned and posted on the internet. He buys into the theory it's bullshit, since -he says though I haven't seen it myself- they put one up and after a lot of people screaming it was a fake, they took it down and posted a new one.

Throw in the fact that the birth announcement doesn't list what hospital he was born, or any other such detail and was printed several days after the fact, and you've got my step dad. An in-person version of ASM. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 12, 2008, 22:52:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
My files are safe. neenerneenerneener

We live in a world where evil conspiracies can plant a 9 year old black muslim kid in America, falsify all his documents in a way that fooled even the FBI and CIA, (but not ASM of course, he's far too clever) and arrange for him to become president 38 years later.

Do you really think that $5 lock on your kitchen window will stop them?

No, but that's why I smeared white powder on the lock.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 12, 2008, 22:52:
 
quote:
Originally posted by neotatsu:
Throw in the fact that the birth announcement doesn't list what hospital he was born, or any other such detail and was printed several days after the fact, and you've got my step dad. An in-person version of ASM. [Roll Eyes]

Please, encourage him to tell this theory to everyone, as often and loudly as possible. If he wants to start a web site, (www.paranoidnuttersbattlingtheislamictakeoverofusa.com?) I may even chip in some cash to cover ISP costs.

I honestly believe nutters like ASM were a major factor in Obama's victory, they made the entire Republican party look like a bunch of tinfoil-hat-loonies.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 12, 2008, 23:53:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
[QUOTE]
self righteous bollox

So ASM you don't take the French Roman Catholic Homosexual (FRCH) threat seriously. Perhaps you don't care if your country is taken over by FRCH terrorists. Have you learned nothing from 9/11?

Answer my questions seriously and in detail, and I will be quite happy to answer yours with equal seriousness.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 13, 2008, 00:29:
 
You may be on to something Calli.

Here's the Republican Party logo...
 -
 
and here's a logo from a gay bar in Ireland, a Catholic country well known for its support of terrorism...
 
 -

Plus, Kevin Bacon's barber is Irish, and his gardener is a Republican from Texas. (and you can't prove that they're not gay)

Proof that the Republicans are part of the International Catholic Sodomite Conspiracy.

ASM: will you produce the tax, education, medical and dental records of every Republican politician, and every patron of the Pink Elephant Bar, to prove that none of them are IRA terrorists???

Poor ASM, he's so deep in denial it's a wonder the crocodiles haven't eaten him yet.

As Sir Walter Raleigh said to Pope Margaret III at the battle of The Somme, "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, your lot lost!"
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 13, 2008, 02:10:
 
Thanks for that serious piece of research Druid. It clearly raises further questions, but to my mind, though it has international dimensions, it is at root a French movement. Over here we take the French threat seriously, as the Duke of Wellington famously said,
quote:
We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France.
I am surprised ASM does not take this more seriously, after all look what the French influence has done to Canada, it's made a beautiful country into a liberal hellhole and turned it's inhabitants into mumbling sex obsessed socialist zombies, drifting through meaningless lives, and created Celine Dion.

And now they are secretly infiltrating the Southern states of the US. No wonder GWB left New Orleans to rot, at least he sees the enemy within. All I can say is ASM should not be surprised if he wakes up 5 years from now and finds himself having to wax his chest after a breakfast of snails, and then putting on tight leather hotpants and a sailor hat, before going to work in a French Gay brothel.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 13, 2008, 02:44:
 
More proof of the French/Irish conspiracy: "Baraques O'Bama"
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 13, 2008, 07:56:
 
You mean this?

It's just a slur to distract you from the problems in the Republican Party
 
Posted by Snaggy (Member # 123) on November 13, 2008, 11:11:
 
... after all look what the French influence has done to Canada, it's made a beautiful country into a liberal hellhole and turned it's inhabitants into mumbling sex obsessed socialist zombies, drifting through meaningless lives, and created Celine Dion.

I can't dispute any of that! [Big Grin]

[Applause]
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 13, 2008, 14:22:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snaggy:
... after all look what the French influence has done to Canada, it's made a beautiful country into a liberal hellhole and turned it's inhabitants into mumbling sex obsessed socialist zombies, drifting through meaningless lives, and created Celine Dion.

I can't dispute any of that! [Big Grin]

[Applause]

I can. Celine Dion is the spawn of Satan.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 13, 2008, 15:59:
 
So Hell is in Charlemagne, Quebec? Good to know.
 
Posted by neotatsu (Member # 1429) on November 13, 2008, 19:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
a liberal hellhole and turned it's inhabitants into mumbling sex obsessed socialist zombies, drifting through meaningless lives

As opposed to... what exactly? Maybe that's why I'm constantly asked if I'm Canadian...
 
Posted by Mister Boo (Member # 1419) on November 14, 2008, 10:02:
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
_______________ Hi All __ I am not sure where these people get their info. On the ABC network there is a female show called the View, one of the panelists is a Elisabeth Hasselbeck, while very pretty she is almost a female ASM same bullets same talking points even when disproved she always comes back to the same statements over and over again, ARE THEY ONE AND THE SAME? Last night I got an E-Mail with the same talking points and same old tired arguments that we hear from ASM, again I ask was the E-mail from Elisabeth/ASM? I am starting to think so.

OF course, the day after the election Elisabeth put her support behind Obama as MCCain did in his concession speech. The other difference between Elisabeth and ASM is any red blooded man would do Elisabeth 5 ways from Sunday given the opportunity. Of course, some of us would do in ASM given the opportunity and an untraceable firearm [evil]
 
Posted by Seppo (Member # 3362) on November 30, 2008, 03:15:
 
Ehllo!

Even if late, thank You for a democratic president.It´s a chance to change, and many people in Europe and Sweden are hoping for it.

best wishes

Seppo
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0