Taft, you old dog!
I guess I was only half correct. Although Obama did win Ohio, it wasn't all that important given that by the time they counted those votes he had already won.Pochsy wrote:
I'm calling it: Obama wins Ohio. Ohio decides the election.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Yup. Bush 2000, Bush 2004, Romney primary, McCain 2008 and now Obama 2012. Washington didn't participate in the Republican primaries this year.Spearhead wrote:
ok so you voted for McCain and voted for Mitt Romney in the GOP primary in 2008. right? is that what you're saying?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm happy that the guy I voted against in 2008 beat the guy I voted for in 2008's Republican primaries. Unsure if to be confused. What do?
It's a battle of words. Look up "obama apology tour," "obama muslim," "reverend wright," and "obama health care cops." He's said some pretty stupid shit over the years that has made businesses cling to their spare cash with every last ounce of their strength. He attended church ministered by a twat who is viewed as an unapologetic racist, and then tried to excuse some of it before dramatically shoving away. People have spent a ton of energy trying to frame him as a secret Muslim who must be in league with terrorists. Americans have spent the past four years slammed by a shitty economy. It isn't surprising that the popular vote was that close at all. A lot of white American Christians have been convinced either by him directly or by their favorite talk show hosts that Obama hates them, so they return the favor. The mindset is that some hate no man on earth more than Barack Obama and would:Shocking wrote:
To not even touch on some ridiculous lines repeated by the GOP during the election campaign. Obama went around the world 'apologizing for America'? You what now? Where did they even come up with this shit. Several such ridiculous claims have been made on his presidency and I just can't believe people actually bought into that.
So why is it that almost half the voting population, voted for Romney? Obama's economic record? It isn't half as bad as it's been made out to be. 'Obamacare'? I really don't know.
a) rather be shot than vote for him
b) vote for anybody BUT him
e: time for bed
Over the last 4 years the only thing that was actually shady was his connection to this 'reverend wright'.
The rest of which you write I can only ascribe to the republican party going insane. TBH I hope that, for as long as their goal seems to be to frame their president, project strawmen on him and deliberately try and sabotage governance as much as they could, even having the nerve to openly state it was their objective to make the incumbent fail that the GOP will lose many elections to come. That until they get their act together, stop pandering to the ultra conservative religious extremist right and assume a more moderate stance on both foreign and domestic issues (honestly, Romney wasn't much of a moderate at all, maybe personally if we could ever figure out what his real views were but not for as long as he had to represent the GOP). Their appalling behavior should never be rewarded.
The rest of which you write I can only ascribe to the republican party going insane. TBH I hope that, for as long as their goal seems to be to frame their president, project strawmen on him and deliberately try and sabotage governance as much as they could, even having the nerve to openly state it was their objective to make the incumbent fail that the GOP will lose many elections to come. That until they get their act together, stop pandering to the ultra conservative religious extremist right and assume a more moderate stance on both foreign and domestic issues (honestly, Romney wasn't much of a moderate at all, maybe personally if we could ever figure out what his real views were but not for as long as he had to represent the GOP). Their appalling behavior should never be rewarded.
inane little opines
sure dude. He supported and signed the 2011 NDAA. He increased drone strikes (even for American citizens living abroad). His administration has supported further warrant-less wiretapping initiatives. Domestic surveillance has increased, not decreased under Obama. Your statement clearly indicates you don't follow American politics as closely as you represent. Less shady? That reverend Wright bullshit was the least of his worries because he was forthcoming with it (aka not shady). People just wanted to drag Obama's name through the mud for that one because Rev. Wright was controversial. Obama's been full of shit since the first day he was elected. Remember the hope and change rhetoric he campaigned on the first time? He's a politician, he's fucking shady.
It could be the very opinionated way that it's written but this looks absolutely terrifying:
http://www.naturalnews.com/037871_Obama … z2BWNI867g
http://www.naturalnews.com/037871_Obama … z2BWNI867g
NaturalNews wrote:
While all eyes were on Hurricane Sandy in the days leading up to the storm's breach on the mainland of the Northeast, the White House was busy devising new ways to enslave Americans under the guise of protecting national security. On October 26, 2012, Barack Obama quietly signed an Executive Order (EO) establishing the so-called Homeland Security Partnership Council, a public-private partnership that basically merges the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with local governments and the private sector for the implied purpose of giving the Executive Branch complete and limitless control over the American people.
One of the most effective ways by which the federal government has been able to spread its tendrils into every level of state, regional, and local governments in years past has been to continually convince the people that terrorism lurks around every corner, and that the federal government is needed to provide safety. This, of course, is how blatantly unconstitutional provisions like the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) were able to get passed with relative ease -- without these draconian expansions of federal control over American affairs, the terrorists will win, we were all told.
White House forming nationwide secret police to monitor lives of Americans
This is precisely the angle being taken with the new EO, except it goes even further in conflating federal power structures with local governments and the private sector. Based on the eery language contained in the EO, the federal government appears ready to begin rapidly expanding its command and control operations at the local level by establishing a vast network of homeland security "partnerships" throughout the country, which will be tasked with reporting back to the central command center and feeding "intelligence" information as requested by federal officials.
"[W]e must tap the ingenuity outside government through strategic partnerships with the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and community-based organizations," says the EO. It goes on to add that the merger between the federal government and the private sector is necessary to facilitate the government's desire to better "address homeland security priorities," which includes things like "responding to natural disasters ... (and) preventing terrorism by utilizing diverse perspectives, skills, tools, and resources."
An official Steering Committee will be established with representatives from virtually every single three and four-letter federal agency, and this committee will be guided by a separate council on how to best incorporate the federal government and DHS into every nook and cranny of American society. Once established, this council will maintain control over presumably all aspects of society by overseeing a secret police force comprised of spies from schools, community groups, churches, and various other local institutions.
"[W]e must institutionalize an all-of-Nation effort to address the evolving threats to the United States," adds the ominous EO, which was flown under the radar of the mainstream media.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037871_Obama … z2BYRTwStq
Perhaps that's because I can understand (read; not support) the increased use of drone strikes. If I recall correctly Romney supported this as well and it was to be expected that a republican president may even further increase their use (Obama probably will, too). While his foreign policy leaves much to be desired it is infinitely better than the years before him and better than what the republican party proposed for the coming presidency were they to obtain it (Romney did appear moderate in the FP debate and tailed the president on most issues).
I still stand by my comment made above yours. However many faults you can point out in Obama's presidency, the behavior of the GOP of the last decade and especially the last 4 years has been inexcusable.
I still stand by my comment made above yours. However many faults you can point out in Obama's presidency, the behavior of the GOP of the last decade and especially the last 4 years has been inexcusable.
inane little opines
but your comment had nothing to do with understanding the value or strategic need for drone strikes, nor Romney's position re: drone strikes or foreign policy - it was your comment on Obama's only 'shady' act over the last four years being his attachment to Reverend Wright. I pointed out a few instances where Obama strayed from his original campaign platform - essentially lying or 'being shady' about his true objectives/wants/positions. Politicians are shady - it's a disgusting reality in American politics that they say one thing to get elected and then do something completely opposed to their platform and/or campaign promises. To pretend Obama is cut from a different cloth or will not succumb to that political/campaign pressure is absurd.Shocking wrote:
Perhaps that's because I can understand (read; not support) the increased use of drone strikes. If I recall correctly Romney supported this as well and it was to be expected that a republican president may even further increase their use (Obama probably will, too). While his foreign policy leaves much to be desired it is infinitely better than the years before him and better than what the republican party proposed for the coming presidency were they to obtain it (Romney did appear moderate in the FP debate and tailed the president on most issues).
I still stand by my comment made above yours. However many faults you can point out in Obama's presidency, the behavior of the GOP of the last decade and especially the last 4 years has been inexcusable.
Yes, you're right. I used the wrong word. It wasn't my intention to paint him as some sort of saint rather to express that (imo) his only severe fuckup in profiling his public persona was getting himself associated with wright.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-11-07 09:32:10)
inane little opines
I wonder if this'll reduce the mass shooting rampages, as they'll have the option to now legally "just chill".AussieReaper wrote:
Colorado legalised possession and sale of marijuana for recreational use.
Who's moving state?
Wisconsin went blue? That must be really upsetting.
Not to mention, Wall Street.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
sure dude. He supported and signed the 2011 NDAA. He increased drone strikes (even for American citizens living abroad). His administration has supported further warrant-less wiretapping initiatives. Domestic surveillance has increased, not decreased under Obama. Your statement clearly indicates you don't follow American politics as closely as you represent. Less shady? That reverend Wright bullshit was the least of his worries because he was forthcoming with it (aka not shady). People just wanted to drag Obama's name through the mud for that one because Rev. Wright was controversial. Obama's been full of shit since the first day he was elected. Remember the hope and change rhetoric he campaigned on the first time? He's a politician, he's fucking shady.
I'm just waiting the result from Florida. If it falls Democrat my entire prediction will be correct. I think I should win a prize.Pochsy wrote:
I guess I was only half correct. Although Obama did win Ohio, it wasn't all that important given that by the time they counted those votes he had already won.Pochsy wrote:
I'm calling it: Obama wins Ohio. Ohio decides the election.
Ty wrote:
My prediction hinges on Florida but either way I'll call it for Obama. My guess is 332 to 206.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
That is actually pretty impressive. There aren't many ways you could arrive at those numbers without having predicted several other non-guaranteed states as well.Ty wrote:
I'm just waiting the result from Florida. If it falls Democrat my entire prediction will be correct. I think I should win a prize.Pochsy wrote:
I guess I was only half correct. Although Obama did win Ohio, it wasn't all that important given that by the time they counted those votes he had already won.Pochsy wrote:
I'm calling it: Obama wins Ohio. Ohio decides the election.Ty wrote:
My prediction hinges on Florida but either way I'll call it for Obama. My guess is 332 to 206.
I'll reserve my karma for the release of the Florida results.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
War Man is currently receiving therapy.mtb0minime wrote:
Wisconsin went blue? That must be really upsetting.
But how has the election results affected him?Jaekus wrote:
War Man is currently receiving therapy.mtb0minime wrote:
Wisconsin went blue? That must be really upsetting.
Yeah when he promised to stop the shit bush did, but nope increased drone strikes by A LOT and was the first US president to kill a US citizen with drones, hell even bush didn't go that far.Shocking wrote:
Perhaps that's because I can understand (read; not support) the increased use of drone strikes.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c … z2BZh73JYBWith those words attributed to Obama, Klaidman has reported what would appear to be the first instance in American history of a sitting President speaking of his intent to kill a particular U.S. citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial.
Last edited by Cybargs (2012-11-07 13:30:16)
At the risk of provoking sheep jokes (especially from the Aussies ), I'll just leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romney_(sheep)
We used to farm these. Yes, I've eaten romney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romney_(sheep)
We used to farm these. Yes, I've eaten romney.
Last edited by BVC (2012-11-07 14:28:35)
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Taft may have been over 300 pounds, but he was also 6' 4". He would have had to have been 410 pounds to have had a BMI of 50.jsnipy wrote:
Taft probably took the last oneglobefish23 wrote:
First black presidentDilbert_X wrote:
obesity levels
First female president
First homosexual president
First president with a body mass index of 50
Also, some faith in humanity has been restored.
Last edited by Narupug (2012-11-07 14:34:28)
On a related note, Taft would probably be appalled at the modern Republican Party.
reagan and nixon would be appalled at the modern republican party.
Destroy the EPA and ban abortion.Reciprocity wrote:
reagan and nixon would be appalled at the modern republican party.
Are there any previous presidents who would support the above?
BVC wrote:
At the risk of provoking sheep jokes (especially from the Aussies ), I'll just leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romney_(sheep)
We used to farm these. Yes, I've eaten romney.
Seems legit.Ty wrote:
Edit: A lot of Americans about to move to New Zealand it seems. #movingtonewzealand is a hash tag on Twitter.
Reagan and the new right.AussieReaper wrote:
Destroy the EPA and ban abortion.Reciprocity wrote:
reagan and nixon would be appalled at the modern republican party.
Are there any previous presidents who would support the above?