U.S. Presidential Election page 28 (locked)

1843 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Cdr_CROWface:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Schools teaching whatever the hell they want to kids?

It seems like you’ve forgotten the politically idiotic southern United States—where, as you’ll know, they teach creationism.

It’s funny how the states influenced mostly by Fox and the Republican Party are the ones that are the most politically idiotic, huh? And before “politically idiotic” is disputed by anyone: teaching creationism as a fact and discarding evolution as bogus in the EDUCATION SYSTEM is politically idiotic. Southern USA: it is your own fault for voting in Republicans whose goal it is to eliminate evolution and rationality reform education.

I both laugh at the southern USA and am significantly appalled by the vitriol and ignorance those states spew.

>complains about southern states being ignorant
>proves himself ignorant of how things are in southern states

lol irony.

First: YOU, Cdr_CROWface have done the same thing YOU accuse JaumeBG did.
Second: Yes, likely he merited SOME “chastisement” for (exorbitantly?) commenting on the “politics” of the southern United States. Maybe he should have stated it: It seems like you should consider just how politically AND SOCIALLY idiotic radical a lot of the southern United States—at the very least, a huge proportion of them & the ppl in them—are because of their religious viewpoints,,,,many of which are rabidly extreme in conservatism & consider them selves to be die-hard Republicans…REAL Republicans, NOT Rhinos.

So, Cdr, regardless of how Jaume COULD HAVE stated it, if ya’ll take the time to watch the whole hour of this eyes just might behold that he is at least right about the idiocy resident there.

Second: If ya notice, even Colorado was in it. Kansas certainly has a lot of rabidly-right “conservatives” that are quite (in MY opinion) pretty fucking zealously ignorant and “socially” (as a result of said ignorance?) pretty “rightish”, also. See this to better understand that the world over has such levels of “conservatism”. In the U.S., Minnesota (far north) is mentioned.

Third: For evangelists, RELIGION AND POLITICS DO MIX. And, these ppl strongly consider them selves to be strong representatives of Republican Ideology. This is because of the closely related religious views to the social agendas of the extremist GOP.

In Kansas, our Governor doesn’t believe in Evolution. He believes in Adam & Eve, the Earth is only 7,000 years old, etc. His agenda for Kansas is to gut PUBLIC education and allow parochial schools that can teach from religious standpoints.

Fourth: This “push” for extremism all across the U.S. by the “evangelistic movement” began to gain momentum about 3 decades ago when “religion” discovered that via the political arena they could better advance their agenda than by merely shouting shit from the pulpit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:Because homophobes like you have beaten my mother up, mocked her, punched her, or at least discriminated against her. You are despicable. Fuck you. Honestly. I am not fucking exaggerating. Fuck you, mate. My mother should be allowed to live in HAPPINESS, and you not allowing her to do so make me really angry. Please stop discriminating against my mother and other LGBT. They have done nothing against you; yet you are.

I’m going to stop there because you enrage me. But seriously, fuck you for hating my mother. Fuck you.

Oh wait, it was your mother who was gay? Oh, sorry man, our bad, total mistake there, just-just forget what we said, she’s got amnesty now, ‘cause that’s just hot.

Alright, hopefully someone gets my point

First: Jaume…I certainly understand YOUR “spleen” on this and can understand why ya direct a lot of it at jake-o. His “stance” on Gays—while (likely? hopefully?) is not anything more than bigoted discrimination rather than any of those other despicable behavior ya mention—is worthy of disgust. I don’t recall YOU being in on the discussion (a couple of months back) on Gays,,,,BUT, jake-o displayed a whoooole lot of “thinking” that is quite exemplary of the extreme “rabid-right” GOP.

Second: jake-o further demonstrates the “poor quality of rational thinking” on social issues when he blasts YOU & I about how we utilize the plight of Gays:

Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

THE SAME thing will happen for homosexuals. Initially they were executed, now in the modern world we are in the later stages. The same for women, who are now accepted in society. The same for blacks—and hell, even left-handed people.

I don’t know what you your and Karma’s hangup on gays is. You two bring it up in every thread and contrary to what you two think, {{SOME?}} people don’t want to discuss gays constantly. You really need to get a handle on that, it is starting to sound a little odd.

Aside from his really, REALLY ridiculous penchant for hyperbole (doesn’t he “understand” how much it diminishes his point?),,,all he is doing w/ that pathetic attempt to disguise it is HIS bigotry against Gays that is ALREADY ""sounding a little odd"".

HE certainly doesn’t mention (very often?…at all?) many of the other EXAMPLES of intolerance, bigotry, social ills, etc. that are often brought up to support particular points being made about areas of society that certainly could use some “improvement”.

AND, while I’m on the subject of HIS “thinking” being displayed on this forum,,,when I say “society”, I guess I should say that very often I’m going beyond that of America…to include our “global society”. jake-o’s obtuse penchant to discount the opinions of//critismens by ppl of other nations regarding American social behavior merely demonstrates also—hmm, what was is that a poster gave me in a PM…oh, yeah—his possible//LIKELY? ethnocentricity.

Third: Please,,,PLEASE, Jaume….don’t endeavor to diminish an “ally” like tenco because ya didn’t “get” his “sarcasm” (< at least that’s what I thought he was “going for”). I think I did “get” his point. Esp. after he went further and said:

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

EDIT: and seriously, tenco1, you openly making fun of my mother on an Internet forum? What are you, 12?


Yeah, I thought this would happen….
I was basically parodying the “gay men should burn in a fire, gay women are hot as a fire,” attitude that’s strangely prevalent in some of society.


I would “explain” this as: Just take a look at the hugely differing attitudes of men & women when it comes to LGBT. Mostly, women just don’t have much in the way of serious objections to these ppl (of course, I’m ruling out the zealot religious & bigots like jake-o). But,,I SAY BUT,,when it comes to Gays (& bi’s, trannies….but, w/ trannies, men seem to be somewhat “confused” there),,men are lividly rabid in their bigotry. HOWEVER, as far as lesbians (NOT “dykes”) go, they certainly do find it “hawt” to see two really sexually attractive to them (the men) to observe, talk about, desire participation w/, etc.

At least,,from my "understanding of tenco,,is what he means…..eh, tenco? Please correct me in any way that I’m mistaken. I don’t think I am cuz of this post of his:

Originally posted by tenco1:

I was basically parodying the “gay men should burn in a fire, gay women are hot as a fire,” attitude that’s strangely prevalent in some of society.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Ouch! He really needs a bit of Ritalin.

Per usual, jake-o has his facts “somewhat confused”. “…because it has a stimulative effect that is in opposition to the calming effects the drug has on hyperactive kids…” Could this be why he demonstrates similar “confusion” in # 2 above?

I think jake-o’s “opinions” on theory have been well debunked by Jaume, tenco, & Dark. Thus adding to MY “theory” that he soooo often doesn’t know a whole lot about which he opines….or is somewhat “confused” about it. But, I want to show support for their input by saying—from a very simplistic “lay” view—that a theory IS pretty much ALL FACTS. Facts being what has been “observed” in an UNBIASED manner and recorded as best as is possible by fallible Man.

 
Flag Post

I would definitely vote for Obama. I mean, who would want someone who did poorly in job creation in one state?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Entertaining he may be.
Problem is he’s taken at his word by lots of people.
Same applies to “personalities” like Olbermann and Maddow.

News is facts. Everything else is spin and opinion, and the line should be clearly demarcated.
Unfortunately, that line is intentionally blurred by some networks, to the public detriment.

A free and accurate press was one of the key tenets of a functional democracy, in Thomas Jefferson’s ideal.
We’ve lost sight of that.

I’m late to the party on this, but this was said perfectly.

 
Flag Post

Apparently the Huffington Post has made the same prediction as I did here a couple of pages ago: 332 electoral votes for Obama. They currently have North Carolina as tossup, but there’ll be less liberal voting this year in that state, unfortunately. Also, North Carolina in general does not believe in egalitarianism, separation of church and state, etc., so there is no way they’ll be voting for Obama this time.

I’ll probably get my prediction bang on right, because much to the dislike of jhco there is no way your plutocratic muppet of a candidate has a chance at winning. And that honestly, makes me really happy. No matter what jhco or issendorf do in life, there is no way Romney is going to win. :)

Also, Christians out there:

 
Flag Post
No matter what jhco or issendorf do in life, there is no way Romney is going to win.

I suppose the brightside with your scenario is that if the President wins and trashes things for another 4 years, we’ll have a fantastic chance of seeing President Scott Walker in 2016!

 
Flag Post

This right-wing media-created conspiracy of Obama absolutely changing everything and destroying America in his second term is complete bogus. And yeah, Americans will prefer Hillary Clinton to Scott Walker. Hillary Clinton will easily win, especially if they put someone like Scott Walker.

Also, Texas will become a swing state—hopefully more Latinos immigrate there and vote Democrat. Maybe not by 2016 it’ll become a swing state, but the year Texas becomes a swing state, Republicans are going to find it near impossible to win the election.

 
Flag Post
This right-wing media-created conspiracy of Obama absolutely changing everything and destroying America in his second term is complete bogus.

I didn’t say he would change everything, I said he’d bumble around and do nothing productive for four more years while the costs of Obamacare begin to rev up, our debt continues to skyrocket, and we suffer inflation from the Fed continually flooding the market with dollars. So maybe not destroy America, but cripple/trash the poor gal. It’s like when you’re running, and someone cuts your ACL in half. It doesn’t destroy you, but it hampers you and you have a lot of PT ahead of you before you get back to speed. I really would prefer the US not having to have to go to PT.

Also, Texas will become a swing state—hopefully more Latinos immigrate there and vote Democrat. Maybe not by 2016 it’ll become a swing state, but the year Texas becomes a swing state, Republicans are going to find it near impossible to win the election.

/yawn

 
Flag Post

Let me put this to you. The lefties on here are talking big about how loved Obama and the democrats are. If they are so loved, why didn’t the people leave a completely dominated congress in 2010? Why did they change the house to republican controlled instead of leaving completely democratically controlled? The democrats lost by a landslide, 63 seats in federal and state positions.

Now think about this. Democratic senators are distancing themselves from Obama for the upcoming elections. Have you noticed how all of a sudden, the democrats have gone silent in the congress? There is a reason for this. The are afraid Obama is going to drag them down with him. The senate is up for grabs and it wouldn’t take a landslide to change the control of the senate. I think 3 seats would do it.

Obama has the media on his side, why I have never figured out. The pollsters are fudging the polls to make Obama look way better than he is really doing. The reason for this is to try and demoralize the conservatives and get them to stay home instead of voting. It isn’t working. Democrats also own businesses and homes. They are in the same boat as republicans and they are going to vote accordingly.

I had to laugh (but it is really a serious thing) about the latest interview with an Obama supporter. When asked who she was going to vote for she got excited and in a loud voice said, “Obama because he gave me a free phone!. I got a Obama phone and all of the poor people in Cleveland gots a Obama phone!” HE then asked why she wouldn’t vote for Romney and she said, “cause he sucks! I got a Obama phone, yes I does!” There is your typical liberal in action.

 
Flag Post

i would vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan because they can and will do a better job then our current socialist President

 
Flag Post

Amen

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Amen

So are you just jokingly agreeing with his way-too-far-right-to-be-real posts, or seriously agreeing with them?

 
Flag Post

Actually, I agree with him.

 
Flag Post

Jhco, are you seriously defining Obama as a socialist? He is a plutocrat, a corporatist, and a capitalist. Please define socialism and explain how Obama is a socialist.

 
Flag Post

Yes, I am calling him a socialist. He wants our government to be all powerful over the people and their lives.

 
Flag Post

You have no understanding of the words “socialism” or “socialist”. Please inform yourself via the Oxford English Dictionary, Google, or your local library.

 
Flag Post

Barack Obama, we’re getting our obama phones.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

You have no understanding of the words “socialism” or “socialist”. Please inform yourself via the Oxford English Dictionary, Google, or your local library.

Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by whyudievoid837:

Barack Obama, we’re getting our obama phones.

I want me one of dem Obama phones too

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

The Obama phone thing is a lie, as you should be well aware by now, jhco.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

You have no understanding of the words “socialism” or “socialist”. Please inform yourself via the Oxford English Dictionary, Google, or your local library.

Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You didn’t post a source, therefor you just made up those definitions.

Also, I lol’d at socialism being the transition between capitalism and communism

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Let me put this to you. The lefties on here are talking big about how loved Obama and the democrats are. If they are so loved, why didn’t the people leave a completely dominated congress in 2010? Why did they change the house to republican controlled instead of leaving completely democratically controlled? The democrats lost by a landslide, 63 seats in federal and state positions.

Well, perhaps it was that we were in a shit-storm of a recession & it was being blamed on “govt.”. When this happens, there is often a “toss-out-ALL-them-office-holders” AND, the Tea Party et.al was making some very good SOUNDING “promises”.
Now think about this. Democratic senators are distancing themselves from Obama for the upcoming elections. Have you noticed how all of a sudden, the democrats have gone silent in the congress? There is a reason for this. The are afraid Obama is going to drag them down with him.

Aside from the hyperbole, I’d like to see some “proof” about all of this conjecture.

Obama has the media on his side, why I have never figured out.

Neither of those points surprise me…for several very good “reasons”.

The pollsters are fudging the polls to make Obama look way better than he is really doing.

I wonder if he has CREDIBLE sources to back this up?

The reason for this is to try and demoralize the conservatives and get them to stay home instead of voting. It isn’t working.

Tin foil hat time.

Democrats also own businesses and homes.

No shit, Captain Obvious.

They are in the same boat as republicans and they are going to vote accordingly.

I think we are ALL in the same boat (country). And, the way his sentence is constructed…one would think he’s inferring that ALL Democrats who own businesses & homes are voting for Romney.

I had to laugh (but it is really a serious thing) about the latest interview with an Obama supporter. When asked who she was going to vote for she got excited and in a loud voice said, “Obama because he gave me a free phone!. I got a Obama phone and all of the poor people in Cleveland gots a Obama phone!” HE then asked why she wouldn’t vote for Romney and she said, “cause he sucks! I got a Obama phone, yes I does!”

The form of speech there certainly “smack” of a Black. Could there be RACISM involved here? Couldn’t there have been much more to that persons reasons for their opinions? Using that interview as “proof” of an opinion is really fucked up.

There is your typical liberal in action.

And, there ya have it…the ultimate hyperbole.
Originally posted by Redem:

The Obama phone thing is a lie, as you should be well aware by now, jhco.

He doesn’t let the truth get in the way of his biases.
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

You have no understanding of the words “socialism” or “socialist”. Please inform yourself via the Oxford English Dictionary, Google, or your local library.

Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

He merely, in a biased manner…per usual, “cherry-picked” a def he found that would support his craptrap opinions.

I’ve presented this to him 4 or 5 times already: “Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,1 and a political philosophy advocating such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.2 There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.3 They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.4"

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker’s control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic system.”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by whyudievoid837:

Barack Obama, we’re getting our obama phones.

I want me one of dem Obama phones too

Determined to stay ignorant, aren’t you?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Determined to stay ignorant, aren’t you?

You haveto give him top marks for stubbornness. He clings to what he ‘knows’, for without it he would have nothing.