US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (2 Viewers)

[Seven]

and everything has to go through congress, which, btw, is majority democrat, run by a witch on a broomstick named Nancy Pelosi



yeah...that really qualifies him



if you want to believe that....


I support neither of these 2 clowns, but the lesser of 2 evils here is Mc Cain

Obamas got too many friends that are anti-American like that terrorist Ayers (google him if you dont know what he's about), and the "good" reverand Jeremiah Wright

On Sept 11, while I saw all the tributes, and had the (dis)pleasure of watching a few programs on the History Channel showing a lot of never before seen footage of the tragedy, I thought about the news story I saw earlier in the day, with Mc Cain and Obama being down at ground zero, paying tribute to the innocent lives taken that day....and then I thought about that motherless piece of shit Jeremiah Wright , and his "sermon" about " the chickens coming home to roost" and "God damn America", and realized right then and there that Obama is no different than his mentor, and if both of them died in the same manner as all the innocent people who did on Sept 11, then I would sleep better at night

Fuck Obama, and Fuck that piece of shit Wright !!!

He might be an idiot, but that was taken completely out of context. But hey, that's what American politics are about: ignorant quotes. So you go right ahead, Vinman. But do realise that a Republican in office is far more likely to recreate another 9/11 than a Democrat is. If you're really so scared of terrorism, you might want to think twice about what actually caused it in the first place.

But I don't expect you to vote after having thought about it. Because that's not what you're about. You're an okay guy, but reasoning isn't exactly what you're good at. We can only hope that enough people do think for a minute.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[.zero]

He might be an idiot, but that was taken completely out of context. But hey, that's what American politics are about: ignorant quotes. So you go right ahead, Vinman. But do realise that a Republican in office is far more likely to recreate another 9/11 than a Democrat is. If you're really so scared of terrorism, you might want to think twice about what actually caused it in the first place.

But I don't expect you to vote after having thought about it. Because that's not what you're about. You're an okay guy, but reasoning isn't exactly what you're good at. We can only hope that enough people do think for a minute.

i think you look at the entire 911 scenario through a kaleidoscope.

ppl need to understand that it would have happened no matter who was in office. The problem is that if Al Gore was our president at the time then we would not have gotten any sort of reaction or emotion from the man. GWB was the right leader at the right time. Whether you like to hear it or not.

Barak Obama as great as you think he is, is a rookie senator who got the right people behind him to run in a weak election. Its like serie A in 2007 where Inter ran away with it because there was no competition. Obama has not accomplished anything during his term as senator that is noteworthy enough to validate him as president of the U.S. 1 term alone is not enough to make the jump from congress to the executive office!

Since obama's knock against McCain is that he is the 'same' as GWB and there will be nothing new or different offered to the people if McCain is elected then I will give you this analogy to ponder:

(With all things being equal and everyone here thinking the past 8 years have been horrible for the people of the U.S.)

If you have been eating garbage for the past 8 years, and someone finally says you can either choose to keep eating garbage or switch to eating shit which would you prefer?

 

[Vinman]

He might be an idiot, but that was taken completely out of context. But hey, that's what American politics are about: ignorant quotes. So you go right ahead, Vinman. But do realise that a Republican in office is far more likely to recreate another 9/11 than a Democrat is. If you're really so scared of terrorism, you might want to think twice about what actually caused it in the first place.

But I don't expect you to vote after having thought about it. Because that's not what you're about. You're an okay guy, but reasoning isn't exactly what you're good at. We can only hope that enough people do think for a minute.

really ?

have we been attacked since ??

how many times were our interests around the world (including the first WTC bombing) attacked while a democrat was in office ??

now who's not good at reasoning, Seven ?

 

[Vinman]

i think you look at the entire 911 scenario through a kaleidoscope.

ppl need to understand that it would have happened no matter who was in office. The problem is that if Al Gore was our president at the time then we would not have gotten any sort of reaction or emotion from the man. GWB was the right leader at the right time. Whether you like to hear it or not.

Barak Obama as great as you think he is, is a rookie senator who got the right people behind him to run in a weak election. Its like serie A in 2007 where Inter ran away with it because there was no competition. Obama has not accomplished anything during his term as senator that is noteworthy enough to validate him as president of the U.S. 1 term alone is not enough to make the jump from congress to the executive office!

Since obama's knock against McCain is that he is the 'same' as GWB and there will be nothing new or different offered to the people if McCain is elected then I will give you this analogy to ponder:

(With all things being equal and everyone here thinking the past 8 years have been horrible for the people of the U.S.)

If you have been eating garbage for the past 8 years, and someone finally says you can either choose to keep eating garbage or switch to eating shit which would you prefer?

int:

Thank you sir....you saved me 10 minutes of typing !!

 

[GordoDeCentral]

If you have been eating garbage for the past 8 years, and someone finally says you can either choose to keep eating garbage or switch to eating shit which would you prefer?

that is one ridiculous comment, if you only knew what these people(current administration) are doing to you...

 

[Bjerknes]

really ?

have we been attacked since ??

how many times were our interests around the world (including the first WTC bombing) attacked while a democrat was in office ??

now who's not good at reasoning, Seven ?

Terrorist attacks shot up exponentially both against ourselves and our other interests as soon as we went into Iraq. So again... the blood is on the hands of the people you voted for. And don't give me this bullshit about it's Clinton's fault because it happened on Bush's watch and he had intel telling that something was going to happen.

 

[Martin]

Dru, you had me until the last paragraph. Where do you get the ridiculous inference from?

The reason people like Obama even though he's so "new" is that he's the Google of politics. For once a politician who isn't overtly evil like most of the others.

 

[Martin]

Now for something different.

===

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid. From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out yesterday:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

If you've ever gotten in an argument with your conservative friends (assuming you haven't offered each other a mutual Carville-Matalin-style political ceasefire to preserve the friendship), you've probably seen this "backfire effect" in action. The more you try to tell people that Sarah Palin is lying when she says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the more they believe she was telling the truth. The more you try to explain how similar McCain's policies are to Bush's, the more they maintain he's "the original maverick."

The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?

I ain't got the answers, ace, except to say this: When arguing with conservatives in front of on-the-fence independents, remember that you're not trying to convince the conservative to actually buy into silly notions like facts and reason. You're highlighting the differences between left and right for the outside observer. If the other guy insists on political views that belong only in Disney World's Fantasyland, other folks will realize what's happening.

But if there is no third party, do yourself a favor and save your breath. As the study demonstrates, you're only making matters worse. Consider that aforementioned ceasefire. It is football season, after all. There's plenty of other things to argue about. Go Mizzou!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

===

I've noticed this too. A lot of people are reasonable and willing to change their mind based on a sound argument, but some have decided never to waiver regardless of any new information, like it's a religion to them.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

really ?

have we been attacked since ??

how many times were our interests around the world (including the first WTC bombing) attacked while a democrat was in office ??

now who's not good at reasoning, Seven ?

3000 americans killed in the WTC attack. 4000 americans killed in iraq. it appears to me that one can quite clearly point out that more americans have been killed during these non-attack times

 

[Firestarter]

Oh and speaking of Palin...
http://www.zshare.net/audio/1893566548664996/

 

[Enron]

i think you look at the entire 911 scenario through a kaleidoscope.

ppl need to understand that it would have happened no matter who was in office. The problem is that if Al Gore was our president at the time then we would not have gotten any sort of reaction or emotion from the man. GWB was the right leader at the right time. Whether you like to hear it or not.

Barak Obama as great as you think he is, is a rookie senator who got the right people behind him to run in a weak election. Its like serie A in 2007 where Inter ran away with it because there was no competition. Obama has not accomplished anything during his term as senator that is noteworthy enough to validate him as president of the U.S. 1 term alone is not enough to make the jump from congress to the executive office!

Since obama's knock against McCain is that he is the 'same' as GWB and there will be nothing new or different offered to the people if McCain is elected then I will give you this analogy to ponder:

(With all things being equal and everyone here thinking the past 8 years have been horrible for the people of the U.S.)

If you have been eating garbage for the past 8 years, and someone finally says you can either choose to keep eating garbage or switch to eating shit which would you prefer?

When you say that GWB was the right leader for 911 your post loses all credibility. To say that a man who actually fought in Vietnam would have no reaction to 911 is just retarded, especially when compared to the current President whose military credentials come just short of spelling AWOL. Your analysis is completely unfounded.

The rest of your post is nonsense. Reread it. Think. And come up with a better analogy.

What he have is a message of something better v. a message of more of the same. Bottom line. If you want to call it eating garbage or eating shit, then your just falling into the conservative lie.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

which according to the research posted by martin, is only natural

 

[Martin]

which according to the research posted by martin, is only natural

It's funny that the old enemy (fundamental beliefs) reappears in a new cloak, isn't it? The more you try to convince someone, and the more convincing you are being, the more defensive they become and stick to their beliefs despite everything.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

what i firmly believe we need, is a price on human life, so that all arguments end in a math problem that can be solved by which policy had the best cost-benefit ratio. you know what i mean

 

[Martin]

what i firmly believe we need, is a price on human life, so that all arguments end in a math problem that can be solved by which policy had the best cost-benefit ratio. you know what i mean

Desperate times, desperate measures. Except you couldn't get this off the ground, because people would argue that (to take a completely random example) Iraqi lives can't possibly be worth the same amount as our lives, in fact we shouldn't have to "pay" for them at all, they're not our people.

 

[.zero]

For once a politician who isn't overtly evil like most of the others.

Overtly? So if he is secretly evil that’s ok? Keep in mind that he hasn't been in Washington to develop his own personal agendas and goals. He is still working to pay off his campaign sponsors for his senate election. The guy is a new kid on the block on capitol hill.


And to everyone else that thinks Obama is so great and what not, just because something is new doesn't make it automatically better. Its sad to see people caught up in the political b.s. going on in this day and age. You should all know that either way the people of the U.S. will not benefit from any of this.

OBAMA ISN'T THAT GREAT, JUST BECAUSE HE IS NEW AND DIFFERENT DOESN'T MAKE HIM ANY BETTER, THUS IT’S THE LESSER OF 2 EVILS

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

Desperate times, desperate measures. Except you couldn't get this off the ground, because people would argue that (to take a completely random example) Iraqi lives can't possibly be worth the same amount as our lives, in fact we shouldn't have to "pay" for them at all, they're not our people.

oh i agree completely, what we need is an excel table where you plug in the information (you know, kids, income, potential for promotion, assets v. debts) for each INDIVIDUAL and HOW they were affected and excel would spit out the amount

 

[Martin]

Overtly? So if he is secretly evil that’s ok?

If you want a president who is not evil, whom do you choose? One who says "I'm not evil" or one whose every action smacks of evil? In the former you can never be sure but you can at least hope that's his actual character you're seeing. The latter case is obviously lost.

Saying that Obama "could" turn evil at any moment is pointless, because so could I and so could you. Calling this out as a flaw is irrelevant, because it's an unattainable guarantee.

And to everyone else that thinks Obama is so great and what not, just because something is new doesn't make it automatically better. Its sad to see people caught up in the political b.s. going on in this day and age. You should all know that either way the people of the U.S. will not benefit from any of this.

OBAMA ISN'T THAT GREAT, JUST BECAUSE HE IS NEW AND DIFFERENT DOESN'T MAKE HIM ANY BETTER, THUS IT’S THE LESSER OF 2 EVILS

So because you not willing to buy into the Obama idea you're going to vote for the alternative, which is obviously horrible? The lesser of evils is the evil you know, not the evil that may or may not be? What a fun perspective on life you have.

Btw I see that you're working to confirm the story I posted earlier.

 

[.zero]

If you want a president who is not evil, whom do you choose? One who says "I'm not evil" or one whose every action smacks of evil? In the former you can never be sure but you can at least hope that's his actual character you're seeing. The latter case is obviously lost.

Saying that Obama "could" turn evil at any moment is pointless, because so could I and so could you. Calling this out as a flaw is irrelevant, because it's an unattainable guarantee.



So because you not willing to buy into the Obama idea you're going to vote for the alternative, which is obviously horrible? The lesser of evils is the evil you know, not the evil that may or may not be? What a fun perspective on life you have.

Btw I see that you're working to confirm the story I posted earlier.

i'm not voting for either, and i have yet to vote in any U.S. presidential election since i've become eligible of age.

i am neither republican or democrat although based on my views i would be categorized as a flake democrat. and i'm tryin to watch the match right now but i will look into your post earlier and respond accordingly

 

[.zero]

I've noticed this too. A lot of people are reasonable and willing to change their mind based on a sound argument, but some have decided never to waiver regardless of any new information, like it's a religion to them.

ok martin, if you are expecting me to defend conservatives and bush initiative followers then you are not understanding what i've been saying this entire time.

i have been giving my incognito conservative p.o.v. but not as a conservative unlike vinny. i am speaking as a lightly garnished liberal who sees what the democrats have brought to bat the past 8 years and can confidently say that they were not better candidates than the RPN.

i have not supported or referenced any of senator McCain's propoganda or initiatives or views. but i have targeted Obama's obvious weaknesses and inexperience.