In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.
If you're not Republican, then I'm baffled at your ludicrous statements that Bush would have won a 3rd term. That kind of stunning disregard for the feelings of the country, reflected in the approval ratings, is hard to explain otherwise. But whatever, I'm tired of beating this dead horse.
?? All you damn people are blaming us for the whole Bush presidency because we didn't vote for Gore.
I was only responding to your argument that Bush would have won a third term, which is Karl Rovian "Math You Do As a Republican to Make Yourself Feel Better".
Nevermind Gore, you've got to be living in some magical bubble to think Bush would have won a 3rd consecutive term. People were fed up with the Iraq war and the economy was collapsing around his knees. His presidency was in tatters.
And I'll bet you a dollar that, if he could have run a third term, he would have won again.
You're dreaming. Bush was around 50% approval rating in Oct. 2004 and barely won that election. In Oct. 2008, his approval rating was less than 30%. He wouldn't have stood a chance.
The question of why "we" have even been allowed to come into existence to ask this question really is baffling. Are we truly alone, and if not, where's the party at?
You can find drivel in any age. Plenty of movies with car chases, explosions, and shootouts were made in the 60s and 70s. War films, mafia films, westerns, etc (not that they were all bad, but they fit the mold). And that bit about older people, you think this is a new thing with Hollywood?
That said, you can find tons of movies that don't follow the stereotypes you are complaining about, but since you've got nostalgic blinders on you don't notice them.
If trains became the main mode of travel you can bet your genitals that the TSA would be there either giving you a virtual strip search or a groping. Airports already serve any purpose that trains would, and are faster.
No it didn't -- it was 48% to 46%, in favor of Obama..
Sorry, I was looking at all respondents instead of just registered voters.
And no I can't be certain of it, but considering how strongly Romney fared, I have a great degree of confidence.
Yet Romney failed, and they were at the same position in the polls.
Ron Paul had Romney licked in practically every category Romney failed to materialize voters (such as the youth vote, the moderates/independents, and across-the-aisle support).
For him to be equal in the polls that means he was losing in other categories.
Moreover, there's the fact that the deficit/economy was the public's #1 concern and that was Ron Paul's whole spiel (whereas for Romney it was more of an afterthought).
Ok, this is completely backwards. Romney was the economic candidate because he had the business pedigree. That's why the Republicans held their nose and chose him. Ron Paul's who spiel was Libertarian, not just the economy.
Also Ron Paul had nothing to fear of the "flipflop" accusations, because he's rock solid. And he's far more personable than Romney
I agree, and this is ultimately what held Romney back as a candidate. That and his tough stance on illegal immigration he took to win the primary drove away the Latino vote.
All these facts together summed up with the closeness of the existing race...I'm fairly certain Ron Paul would have taken it.
Again, ignoring the polls, and also ignoring Ron Paul's downsides which would help explain them. He advocated an isolationist foreign policy, a return to the gold standard, and the legalization of drugs. It's so far off the current status quo that it would be a hard sell. Only running the gauntlet would tell you how this played out.
If the Republicans didn't coup him into nonexistence, he would have beat Obama.
You can't say that with any confidence. First of all, the poll had him 50% to 45% losing to Obama. Second, you have to run the gauntlet. Who knows what would have happened, but it definitely would have been an interesting race, at least offering a stark contrast.
Go talk to any economist and he will tell you that during a recession you should NEITHER reduce spending nor raise taxes.
Raise taxes and use that to provide jobs if the private sector won't. If the "job creators" want to invest in American jobs, then they won't be taxed on their money hoarding. Close the offshoring loopholes. The idea that the US can just deficit spend it's way out of trouble is unsustainable.
There's a range of phoniness. For example, when Kerry in 2004 strapped on a ridiculous looking hunting outfit, that's at the extreme range of phony. When Mitt tries to look like one of the common folk by wearing a flannel or talking about how he loves cheesy grits in the South, it's in the same range. People are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.
You've got that totally backwards. Obama would have trounced any of the other candidates. Romney had the best chance because of the economy, despite his flaws of being a flip-flopper, money-grubbing elitist. I challenge you to cite any poll that shows one of the other candidates doing better than Romney in a comparison poll.
There's no need to kill the mold if you're just going to trap it in the filter. Also, you say the test on TV compares filters versus no filter, not HEPA versus HEPA+zapper.
Usage Discussion of LITERALLY Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.
All a 3rd party president could do is VETO stuff and talk.
The President has a lot of power in who he appoints to run agencies and set agendas. If he wanted to stop the Feds from raiding states that have legalized, he could. A simple phone call would likely suffice.
please try to suppress the urge to talk about pot - it doesn't matter if you call it "medial marijuana" it's still pot and your candidate is a long haired hippie.
An Aspie wouldn't even understand the social cues of the situation. She didn't "dare to talk to me" for kicks, she was asking to cut in line in front of a whole bunch of people, and picked me because I was a young guy and she was an attractive woman. That you are defending her only proves the point being made.
it's even worse to watch guys who I thought were rational and mature experience omg-shes-hawt-brain-leak-out-ear syndrome and decide that despite all facts and evidence that he's going to somehow get laid by taking her side.
I remember this attractive woman asking me to cut in line. She looked confused and hurt when I indifferently told her no.
Good point about that term being awkward - would "agnostic atheist" be better?
Better, but I wouldn't go around calling myself an agnostic non-believer in fairies or such. It reminds me of those "evolution is just a theory" sticker on science textbooks.
Perhaps it would be worth bringing another term into use then? Maybe we need to educate people about the difference between an "atheist" and an "anti-theist"?
Honestly, I don't know. What I have settled on is describing myself as an atheist as a one word label and providing details when appropriate.
Is the answer then to not assume you understand someone simply from their label...?
I think this is where our terminology gets a little confusing: what he described (and you quoted) is the "atheistic agnostic"
Yes, it is a problem, but I don't see a good solution. "Atheistic agnostic" is awkward.
"I do not think there is a god, and I'm not going to go look", which is different from an atheist ("There is no god").
Now we are getting into the lack of integrity. He says he has no opinion, and you say "not going to look", but an opinion was already made based on the current claims and evidence, and a strong claim was made that the evidence that people have for believing in religion doesn't hold up.
If, in fact, there was indisputable and clear evidence for some supernatural being dabbling in our lives, there wouldn't be this big debate. Instead what we have is ephemeral evidence that looks like people all around the world making shit up, that is, mythology. Calling yourself an agnostic is like saying you don't believe in vampires, or fairies, Thor, or any number of ludicrous things, but you can't know for sure. Well duh. There is always room for more evidence to come in.
I personally would like to see more people title themselves agnostic - I immediately have more respect for that than for someone who introduces themselves as an atheist.
Again, there is the problem of connotation. It is like somebody shrugging there shoulders and saying "Who knows?", where this is true of many people who have not looked critically at the evidence, and the capability for a supernatural being to present itself unambiguously is lost on them. Compare this to people who have critically looked at the claims and evidence and found it extremely lacking, which is what the quote I posted amounted to.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't Ted Nugent be dead or in prison by now?
In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.
Check Cartman's house.
If you're not Republican, then I'm baffled at your ludicrous statements that Bush would have won a 3rd term. That kind of stunning disregard for the feelings of the country, reflected in the approval ratings, is hard to explain otherwise. But whatever, I'm tired of beating this dead horse.
?? All you damn people are blaming us for the whole Bush presidency because we didn't vote for Gore.
I was only responding to your argument that Bush would have won a third term, which is Karl Rovian "Math You Do As a Republican to Make Yourself Feel Better".
Nevermind Gore, you've got to be living in some magical bubble to think Bush would have won a 3rd consecutive term. People were fed up with the Iraq war and the economy was collapsing around his knees. His presidency was in tatters.
And I'll bet you a dollar that, if he could have run a third term, he would have won again.
You're dreaming. Bush was around 50% approval rating in Oct. 2004 and barely won that election. In Oct. 2008, his approval rating was less than 30%. He wouldn't have stood a chance.
The question of why "we" have even been allowed to come into existence to ask this question really is baffling. Are we truly alone, and if not, where's the party at?
And one of the more disturbing answers is The Great Filter.
You can find drivel in any age. Plenty of movies with car chases, explosions, and shootouts were made in the 60s and 70s. War films, mafia films, westerns, etc (not that they were all bad, but they fit the mold). And that bit about older people, you think this is a new thing with Hollywood?
That said, you can find tons of movies that don't follow the stereotypes you are complaining about, but since you've got nostalgic blinders on you don't notice them.
If trains became the main mode of travel you can bet your genitals that the TSA would be there either giving you a virtual strip search or a groping. Airports already serve any purpose that trains would, and are faster.
No it didn't -- it was 48% to 46%, in favor of Obama..
Sorry, I was looking at all respondents instead of just registered voters.
And no I can't be certain of it, but considering how strongly Romney fared, I have a great degree of confidence.
Yet Romney failed, and they were at the same position in the polls.
Ron Paul had Romney licked in practically every category Romney failed to materialize voters (such as the youth vote, the moderates/independents, and across-the-aisle support).
For him to be equal in the polls that means he was losing in other categories.
Moreover, there's the fact that the deficit/economy was the public's #1 concern and that was Ron Paul's whole spiel (whereas for Romney it was more of an afterthought).
Ok, this is completely backwards. Romney was the economic candidate because he had the business pedigree. That's why the Republicans held their nose and chose him. Ron Paul's who spiel was Libertarian, not just the economy.
Also Ron Paul had nothing to fear of the "flipflop" accusations, because he's rock solid. And he's far more personable than Romney
I agree, and this is ultimately what held Romney back as a candidate. That and his tough stance on illegal immigration he took to win the primary drove away the Latino vote.
All these facts together summed up with the closeness of the existing race...I'm fairly certain Ron Paul would have taken it.
Again, ignoring the polls, and also ignoring Ron Paul's downsides which would help explain them. He advocated an isolationist foreign policy, a return to the gold standard, and the legalization of drugs. It's so far off the current status quo that it would be a hard sell. Only running the gauntlet would tell you how this played out.
If the Republicans didn't coup him into nonexistence, he would have beat Obama.
You can't say that with any confidence. First of all, the poll had him 50% to 45% losing to Obama. Second, you have to run the gauntlet. Who knows what would have happened, but it definitely would have been an interesting race, at least offering a stark contrast.
Go talk to any economist and he will tell you that during a recession you should NEITHER reduce spending nor raise taxes.
Raise taxes and use that to provide jobs if the private sector won't. If the "job creators" want to invest in American jobs, then they won't be taxed on their money hoarding. Close the offshoring loopholes. The idea that the US can just deficit spend it's way out of trouble is unsustainable.
By that standard, every politician is a phony.
There's a range of phoniness. For example, when Kerry in 2004 strapped on a ridiculous looking hunting outfit, that's at the extreme range of phony. When Mitt tries to look like one of the common folk by wearing a flannel or talking about how he loves cheesy grits in the South, it's in the same range. People are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.
You've got that totally backwards. Obama would have trounced any of the other candidates. Romney had the best chance because of the economy, despite his flaws of being a flip-flopper, money-grubbing elitist. I challenge you to cite any poll that shows one of the other candidates doing better than Romney in a comparison poll.
There's no need to kill the mold if you're just going to trap it in the filter. Also, you say the test on TV compares filters versus no filter, not HEPA versus HEPA+zapper.
If people just followed the first two rules, and didn't use them for plurals, they'd be doing well.
What's the benefit over a good HEPA filter?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally :
Usage Discussion of LITERALLY
Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.
All a 3rd party president could do is VETO stuff and talk.
The President has a lot of power in who he appoints to run agencies and set agendas. If he wanted to stop the Feds from raiding states that have legalized, he could. A simple phone call would likely suffice.
please try to suppress the urge to talk about pot - it doesn't matter if you call it "medial marijuana" it's still pot and your candidate is a long haired hippie.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx
50% of Americans now favor legalizing marijuana. Times are changing. We need to keep talking about it for change to happen.
An Aspie wouldn't even understand the social cues of the situation. She didn't "dare to talk to me" for kicks, she was asking to cut in line in front of a whole bunch of people, and picked me because I was a young guy and she was an attractive woman. That you are defending her only proves the point being made.
Liers, sucurity, coffe, stea, confort, thier, oparking
Doesn't your browser have a spell checker function?
it's even worse to watch guys who I thought were rational and mature experience omg-shes-hawt-brain-leak-out-ear syndrome and decide that despite all facts and evidence that he's going to somehow get laid by taking her side.
I remember this attractive woman asking me to cut in line. She looked confused and hurt when I indifferently told her no.
Good point about that term being awkward - would "agnostic atheist" be better?
Better, but I wouldn't go around calling myself an agnostic non-believer in fairies or such. It reminds me of those "evolution is just a theory" sticker on science textbooks.
Perhaps it would be worth bringing another term into use then? Maybe we need to educate people about the difference between an "atheist" and an "anti-theist"?
Honestly, I don't know. What I have settled on is describing myself as an atheist as a one word label and providing details when appropriate.
Is the answer then to not assume you understand someone simply from their label...?
That's the safest bet.
I think this is where our terminology gets a little confusing: what he described (and you quoted) is the "atheistic agnostic"
Yes, it is a problem, but I don't see a good solution. "Atheistic agnostic" is awkward.
"I do not think there is a god, and I'm not going to go look", which is different from an atheist ("There is no god").
Now we are getting into the lack of integrity. He says he has no opinion, and you say "not going to look", but an opinion was already made based on the current claims and evidence, and a strong claim was made that the evidence that people have for believing in religion doesn't hold up.
If, in fact, there was indisputable and clear evidence for some supernatural being dabbling in our lives, there wouldn't be this big debate. Instead what we have is ephemeral evidence that looks like people all around the world making shit up, that is, mythology. Calling yourself an agnostic is like saying you don't believe in vampires, or fairies, Thor, or any number of ludicrous things, but you can't know for sure. Well duh. There is always room for more evidence to come in.
I personally would like to see more people title themselves agnostic - I immediately have more respect for that than for someone who introduces themselves as an atheist.
Again, there is the problem of connotation. It is like somebody shrugging there shoulders and saying "Who knows?", where this is true of many people who have not looked critically at the evidence, and the capability for a supernatural being to present itself unambiguously is lost on them. Compare this to people who have critically looked at the claims and evidence and found it extremely lacking, which is what the quote I posted amounted to.
In fact, the patent system has stayed pretty true to its constitutional footings.
It's been abused 6 ways from Sunday. At this point, I'm convinced if it dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow, the world would be a better place.