Presidential Campaign: 2012

[eccentrictinker]

Originally Posted by roni

No. I voted for President Obama and I will again. Has to do with his policy preferences lining up closer to mine than those of his opponents.

There is no anointed one. There is the President who won the election exactly like our previous presidents have, namely by having more Electoral College votes than his opponent.

The MSM seem to disagree with you on that.

[roni]

Originally Posted by eccentrictinker

The MSM seem to disagree with you on that.

I think it is mostly the far right who refers to our President that way

[Mercy]

Originally Posted by roni

No. I voted for President Obama and I will again. Has to do with his policy preferences lining up closer to mine than those of his opponents.

There is no anointed one. There is the President who won the election exactly like our previous presidents have, namely by having more Electoral College votes than his opponent.

Thanks for the Social Studies lesson.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Mercy

Thanks for the Social Studies lesson.

Anytime '

I hope Ryberg does not take it as a call for his occasional Electoral College essay

[bearcat]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think this might be an issue for some voters. I dunno. We haven't had a significantly overweight president since the age of optics. Clinton had a pudgy era, and got a lot of grief for it (some of it good-natured; I still recall the SNL skit of him taking a side trip from a secret service jog into a McDonald's where he stole french fries from children and waxed racial politics with the patrons).

Is morbid obesity any more or less of a health risk than being a smoker? That is, would you also object to a smoker veep or prez on the same grounds?

Sorry, I just saw your question. I would say they are both issues to consider but it is how the general electorate perceives the smoking, obesity or other health issues and whether it poses a threat to that candidates longevity. It did not impact Obama, a smoker, in the election. However, he looks in great shape. My personal feeling is that a certain percent of the electorate may have a concern over Chris Christie's weight. How much I don't know.

[ProfessorPibil]

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Ah yes the great genocide, many cultures throughout history suffered the same fate ,for instance i bet not to many here know that far more Yugoslavs were killed by the Nazis during world war 2 than US, French and United kingdom combined for a total of 1.7 million But i am sure Yugoslavs don't need to bring up their holocaust when you discuss US politics or American foreign policy. Many cutures and religions suffered similar fate. Native indians were massacred by the millions on and on. So again i ask you with all due respect why are you so special compared to any one else. I with all honesty have no problems with whomever you are whether your black ,white, hispanic, Jew ,Muslim or Christian my problem is when lobbies in Washington influence our foreign policy not for the good of America but for their self serving interests. And yes i am not ashamed to say that includes AIPAC and Wall Street bankers. You can and should be proud of your heritage just as i am of mine but first and foremost your allegiance is to the constitution and whats best for the US OF A and its citizens Not your former country or religion. If that's not the case than excuse me for pointing it out .

Blah, blah, blah. You're just digging yourself into a hole here. We've already heard the Jews control the banks, now the Jews control Washington and the holocaust was nothing special really. If I wanted to make you look like a huge asshole I'd tell you my family history, but I think you're doing a great job yourself.

But the most ridiculous part, the part that puts you solidly in the camp of people like Mikey* is your very explicit argument "you support X (which I don't, anyway) because you're a Jew.", accompanied by the bizarro-world allegation of Israeli patriotism.

That's just not cool.

* by the way, without exception the worst soldiers I ever had were the most unquestioningly patriotic ones.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Thats not funny ,but this...now thats funny. Get It?

Not sure I follow your train of thought, here....so people who aren't conspiracy theories are blind sheeple?

hahaha....yeah, okay.

This is you to a tee:

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair (NASA) etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Robinhood, you are a textbook case.

it would almost be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[ryberg]

I particularly like #5.

[ProfessorPibil]

I even have a small test:

1. Do you believe 9/11 happened as the MSM tells us?

2. Do you believe fracking is poisoning the water?

3. Do you believe Obama is an American?

4. Do you believe the dollar will be around in a decade?

5. Do you expect inflation to stay moderate?

6. Do you think it's coincidence that Bernanke's middle name is Shalom?

Count the number of negative answers:

0-1: You're a well adjusted citizen, keep on working to pay your mortgage.

2-3: You don't believe everything you read, this could be good or bad.

4-5: Maybe do some less online reading, some more walking outside in the sunshine?

6: Your last name is Paul

7 and above: Yes, that is a black government helicopter you're hearing. Duck!

[ryberg]

Anybody wanna give this a whirl?

Compare your tax rate to Mitt Romney's -- and see how the Buffett Rule makes him pay his fair share.

Delmy & I are paying around 1/2 again what Romney pays, according to that. Unless the Buffett Rule is applied, at which point the situation reverses itself and Romney pays about 1/2 again what we pay.

I can live with that.

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil

Blah, blah, blah. You're just digging yourself into a hole here. We've already heard the Jews control the banks, now the Jews control Washington and the holocaust was nothing special really. If I wanted to make you look like a huge asshole I'd tell you my family history, but I think you're doing a great job yourself.

But the most ridiculous part, the part that puts you solidly in the camp of people like Mikey* is your very explicit argument "you support X (which I don't, anyway) because you're a Jew.", accompanied by the bizarro-world allegation of Israeli patriotism.

That's just not cool.

* by the way, without exception the worst soldiers I ever had were the most unquestioningly patriotic ones.

So then a Solider questioning Obama's legal status as Commander would be a Great Patriot then ? Seems to me the left and Obama don't like the questioning ... unless they are the ones asking the questions.. It could just be me...

this should be intresting..

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Anybody wanna give this a whirl?

Compare your tax rate to Mitt Romney's -- and see how the Buffett Rule makes him pay his fair share.

Delmy & I are paying around 1/2 again what Romney pays, according to that. Unless the Buffett Rule is applied, at which point the situation reverses itself and Romney pays about 1/2 again what we pay.

I can live with that.

Ok do you think Obama paid his fair share ?
Do you think Obama's secretary paid a higher % than Obama and Michele ? see answers below




Nation & World | Obama's secretary pays higher tax rate than he and first lady do | Seattle Times Newspaper

[ProfessorPibil]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

So then a Solider questioning Obama's legal status as Commander would be a Great Patriot then ? Seems to me the left and Obama don't like the questioning ... unless they are the ones asking the questions.. It could just be me...

this should be intresting..

I know it's hard for you to concentrate, but let's try together:

RH suggested that A => B

I replied that in my experience, A => ~B

You seem to be saying saying that Banana => Elephant.

Why?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

So then a Solider questioning Obama's legal status as Commander would be a Great Patriot then ? Seems to me the left and Obama don't like the questioning ... unless they are the ones asking the questions.. It could just be me...

this should be intresting..

I don't think the left has any problem with the questioning, per se. I think what they have a problem with is the utter idiocy, the bizarre denial of obvious facts, the racist/xenophobic element, and those sorts of things things.

Questioning in and of itself is fine, and that was done and everything was proved. Time to accept reality after 3+ years of this completely eligible and fairly elected president being in office and get on with things of substance. We do have things of substance to deal with, you know.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

Ok do you think Obama paid his fair share ?
Do you think Obama's secretary paid a higher % than Obama and Michele ? see answers below




Nation & World | Obama's secretary pays higher tax rate than he and first lady do | Seattle Times Newspaper

So, you're also in support of the Buffett Rule, then? OK!

Now just to convince Romney and the GOP, you know.