Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Duh Bates

Duh Bates (Page 9)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 05:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Would you say this is equal to the level of negligence on the part of the Bush administration with respect to the warnings he had prior to the September 11, 2001 attack?
Yes, which is why we generally refer to this phenomena as a pre-9/11 or post-9/11 mentality. i.e. We're supposed to be smarter now.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
On April 6th a couple of people threw explosives over the compound wall.
On June 6, a bomb was planted near the American Mission’s outer wall, blowing out a 12-foot-wide hole.
On June 11, the lead vehicle of the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by an armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a British medic and driver. The British envoy left Benghazi the next day, and the British post in the city was closed on June 17.
Ah. You meant attacks in previous months. Preceding implies immediately before.

/pedant


Is your issue with the strategy of maintaining a low profile? Ignoring warnings? Listening to warnings but deciding to risk continuing the low-profile strategy?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 05:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is your issue with the strategy of maintaining a low profile? Ignoring warnings? Listening to warnings but deciding to risk continuing the low-profile strategy?
Yes.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 06:06 AM
 
You can't both listen to and ignore the warnings.

Did they ignore the warnings or choose not to act on them?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 07:32 AM
 
Here's a really cool interactive graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html

EDIT:

It makes it pretty clear how close to victory Obama really is. Assessing the swing states:

Even if Romney takes six of the nine swing states (Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire), Obama needs only Ohio and either Colorado or Nevada to still win.

Obama is leading in Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada.

EDIT:

This is so fun!

Even if Obama lost both Ohio and Florida, he could win with Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

Obama is leading in all those states.

EDIT:

If Obama wins Ohio, Romney needs to win at least 6 other states to win, and Florida has to be one of them.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You can't both listen to and ignore the warnings.
Did they ignore the warnings or choose not to act on them?
I don't see a difference between the two. Can you tell me why it matters?
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Think about that for a second.
Might it be related to knowing the hurricane was coming for a whole week?
Like knowing Katrina was coming?

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Would you say this is equal to the level of negligence on the part of the Bush administration with respect to the warnings he had prior to the September 11, 2001 attack?
Using the standard of responsibilty used by the press in regards to Benghazi, no

Bronco Bama also has this looming:



Someone is going to leak the audio and video of the attack.

The parents of the SEALS aren't getting fawned over like Cindy Shehan did when she camped out when W was at his ranch.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 07:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Here's a really cool interactive graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html
EDIT:
It makes it pretty clear how close to victory Obama really is. Assessing the swing states:
Even if Romney takes six of the nine swing states (Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire), Obama needs only Ohio and either Colorado or Nevada to still win.
Obama is leading in Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada.
I just spent entirely too much time playing with that....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't see a difference between the two. Can you tell me why it matters?
Because one is an accusation of having a strategy which wasn't the best idea. The other is an accusation of negligence.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 08:26 AM
 

     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Would you say this is equal to the level of negligence on the part of the Bush administration with respect to the warnings he had prior to the September 11, 2001 attack?
What does Bush have to do with Obama, in this instance, or are you just trying to change the subject? They were both negligent in each instance, but few are willing to hold Obama's feet to the fire.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Ahh, the "I'm a douch-bag" look. He does that better than Romney.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Ahh, the "I'm a douch-bag" look. He does that better than Romney.
Tell us again that you're a Democrat. We all love that story.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Tell us again that you're a Democrat. We all love that story.
Because you're a Canadian and it's none of your ****ing business, so kiss my ass you syrup-sucking wanker?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 12:01 PM
 
I think Shaddim spent some time at the website I posted above (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html) and is now in a very bad mood.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 02:53 PM
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDxOSjgl5Z4

Gotta love Chris, no matter what your political persuasion.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I think Shaddim spent some time at the website I posted above (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html) and is now in a very bad mood.
I'm in a great mood. I'm elbow deep in a 351 Cleveland, singing Sesame Street songs with my papoose. Very few things could be better.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2012, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Here's a really cool interactive graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html
EDIT:
It makes it pretty clear how close to victory Obama really is. Assessing the swing states:
Even if Romney takes six of the nine swing states (Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire), Obama needs only Ohio and either Colorado or Nevada to still win.
Obama is leading in Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada.
I think we have another thread for this, but... No it doesn't. Ohio-Nevada-Wisconsin is the easiest route, but that's a minimum (he gets 271 with that). Wisconsin is almost safe blue, though - barring a serious bias in the polls, of course.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
EDIT:
This is so fun!
Even if Obama lost both Ohio and Florida, he could win with Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire.
Obama is leading in all those states.
Or by replacing any of them (or even two in some cases) with Virginia, where he is also ahead, but that doesn't help much. If Romney does win Ohio, that indicates that there is some bias in the polling. If that bias is consistent across the nation, Colorado and Virginia drop over the line before Ohio, and Iowa is very close behind. If the bias is big enough to make Ohio red, there are quite few scenarios where Obama wins. It's not quite game over, but it is very close.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
EDIT:
If Obama wins Ohio, Romney needs to win at least 6 other states to win, and Florida has to be one of them.
Including NC, yes, but NC is almost safe red. The number of states is not the main problem, however - even if he manages to get say FL, NC, CO, VA, he then needs to pick up states that are much safer blue than Ohio. Either he grabs Wisconsin and one more, or Nevada-Iowa-New Hampshire. Neither of those seem likely if the polling was close enough to put Ohio on the blue side.

What this comes down to is that the states are in a rough order from red to blue, and polling bias will mainly just shift the line along that scale - not reorder the states. Only the basic uncertainty can do that, and Ohio is big enough and perched almost perfectly on the 270 line that it would take a massive amount of uncertainty to reorder the other states enough to put Ohio in the loser's corner.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 12:12 AM
 
Silver has Obama up another point.

Think he'll break 90% before the (real) polls open?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 08:41 AM
 
Republicans Lay The Groundwork To Blame Hurricane Sandy If Romney Loses

Blame anyone but themselves. Typical Republicans.

Yes, the hurricane gave Obama a chance to look Presidential.

But a lot of people are saying to themselves: If Romney had been President when Sandy hit, we wouldn't have FEMA, and NY and NJ would be left to their own devices.

So yes, in a way, Sandy has helped Obama, because Sandy demonstrates how defective the Romney vision for America really is.

EDIT: if I were a believer, I'd say that God sent Hurricane Sandy to remind Americans to support one another, and not embrace the selfish individualism of severe conservatism. I certainly wouldn't blame a hurricane on gays and abortion.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Silver has Obama up another point.
Think he'll break 90% before the (real) polls open?
I have to guess no.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 03:32 PM
 
not embrace the selfish individualism of severe conservatism.
You'd have to be mentally damaged to believe Romney represents "severe conservatism". There are no "severe conservatives" in this election.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 03:55 PM
 
Romney isn't anything.

If elected, his policy will be what he thinks will improve his chances of reelection. If that is "severe conservatism", then that's what he'll do.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Romney isn't anything.
If elected, his policy will be what he thinks will improve his chances of reelection. If that is "severe conservatism", then that's what he'll do.
So, you're saying he'll do what Obama did?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 04:05 PM
 
Of course not. Obama's a socialist.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 04:06 PM
 
This is juvenile, but I honestly think he looks good with the 'stache.

     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Obama's a socialist.
who does what he thinks will improve his chances of reelection.

Frankly, my biggest issue with him is the Patriot act. I can handle his shaky and inconsistent economic platform, but his abuse of civil liberties is worse than Bush's.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Romney isn't anything.
If elected, his policy will be what he thinks will improve his chances of reelection. If that is "severe conservatism", then that's what he'll do.
Severe conservatism doesn't get anyone elected. Romney will be just to the right of Obama, with a few hallmark social conservative items inserted to make the severe electorate happy.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
who does what he thinks will improve his chances of reelection.
Frankly, my biggest issue with him is the Patriot act. I can handle his shaky and inconsistent economic platform, but his abuse of civil liberties is worse than Bush's.
He's a Muslim.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He's a Muslim.
Bush is a Muslim? Wow.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You'd have to be mentally damaged to believe Romney represents "severe conservatism". There are no "severe conservatives" in this election.
You mean the guy who would direct the Supreme Court to rip up Roe v Wade, who would give another unfunded tax cut to the uber-rich, who would rip up ObamaCare, who would support a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage, who would turn Medicare into a voucher program that deliberately didn't keep pace with rising health care costs, and who wants to bloat the Pentagon budget in peacetime to nine-tenths of the inflation-adjusted expenditures during the war against Germany and Japan, and who thinks the Cold War is still happening, that guy isn't a "severe conservative" ??



Besides, I used the expression "severe conservative" because those are the words Romney used to describe himself.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

You'd have to be mentally damaged to believe Romney represents "severe conservatism". There are no "severe conservatives" in this election.
There aren't, but severe conservatives have *far* more influence on Romney's platform and the national conversation than severe liberals to Obama's. It's not even close.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There aren't, but severe conservatives have *far* more influence on Romney's platform and the national conversation than severe liberals to Obama's. It's not even close.
Right. So that's why Obama did a 180 on gay marriage? They both brown nose their base, even if it does go against their personal views.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Right. So that's why Obama did a 180 on gay marriage? They both brown nose their base, even if it does go against their personal views.
Obama didn't 180 on anything. He didn't change a single thing in what he was doing.

Obama has always opposed the DOMA act, and he has never had a federal policy on gay marriage, for or against. He has always regarded it as a state's issue.

He changed his personal views on the matter (and presumably how he would vote as a state-level voter), but his policy as President hasn't changed at all.

The same thing can be said about DODT. People complained that Obama was fighting in court to prevent DODT from being ruled unconstitutional. He said, and always said, DODT needs to end in the legislature, not the courts. If the courts were to strike down DODT, the Federal gov't would be on the hook for millions in civil rights damages, and Obama didn't want that.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You mean the guy who would direct the Supreme Court to rip up Roe v Wade, who would give another unfunded tax cut to the uber-rich, who would rip up ObamaCare, who would support a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage, who would turn Medicare into a voucher program that deliberately didn't keep pace with rising health care costs, and who wants to bloat the Pentagon budget in peacetime to nine-tenths of the inflation-adjusted expenditures during the war against Germany and Japan, and who thinks the Cold War is still happening, that guy isn't a "severe conservative" ??

Besides, I used the expression "severe conservative" because those are the words Romney used to describe himself.
Romney just said he wants the States to decide, and on the issue of abortion it's a sound decision, due to cultural and moral differences in areas of the country. What works in Boston doesn't always work in Dallas, that's simple common sense. Of course I don't agree with him on his gay marriage stance. That, along with his support for the Patriot Act, makes him an unfit candidate, in my eyes.

This is "peace time"? Iran is 6 months from building nukes and you say it's "peace time"? It's almost to the level of the Cuban missile crisis, and if people weren't so wrapped up in other issues they'd likely be more worried about it. Obama has already cocked the gun, that's how severe it is. As much as the world bitches about the USA being the international police force, they still count on us to do it and point fingers when we don't. I'd rather just see us close 90% of our foreign bases and have those soldiers do domestic work, like disaster relief and border security.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

Right. So that's why Obama did a 180 on gay marriage? They both brown nose their base, even if it does go against their personal views.
Like I said before, gay marriage support is not the domain of the extreme left-wing, there are plenty of moderate left-wingers in support of this issue.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 08:00 PM
 
This can't be real, can it? It's too ridiculous to believe possible.

Romney staff refusing to let frostbitten children leave PA rally

TL,DR: Romney is late for a rally, but organizers don't let people leave even though it's very cold.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Of course not. Obama's a socialist.
More like a post modernism Neomarxist
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Obama didn't 180 on anything. He didn't change a single thing in what he was doing.
Obama has always opposed the DOMA act, and he has never had a federal policy on gay marriage, for or against. He has always regarded it as a state's issue.
He changed his personal views on the matter (and presumably how he would vote as a state-level voter), but his policy as President hasn't changed at all.
The same thing can be said about DODT. People complained that Obama was fighting in court to prevent DODT from being ruled unconstitutional. He said, and always said, DODT needs to end in the legislature, not the courts. If the courts were to strike down DODT, the Federal gov't would be on the hook for millions in civil rights damages, and Obama didn't want that.
Did Obama personally oppose gay marriage at one time? In `96 he was for, `98 he was against, `04 he was for, `08 he was against (but said he'd support same-sex civil unions). He was a US Senator and was against gay marriage (but for SS civil unions) as his position, that's a matter of federal policy. He's turned whichever way the wind blows on this, tacking to where he can get the most support without pissing people off. That's brown nosing.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Romney just said he wants the States to decide, and on the issue of abortion it's a sound decision, due to cultural and moral differences in areas of the country. What works in Boston doesn't always work in Dallas, that's simple common sense.
Hey, how about the cultural and moral differences from individual to individual? If "moral differences" are relevant, who gives a sh!t if a liberal woman is living in a conservative state? The only "moral differences" that matter are the person being affected, not the entire damn state.

This is "peace time"? Iran is 6 months from building nukes and you say it's "peace time"?.
Iran is not 6 months from building nukes. Even if Iran were capable of creating weapons-grade material (uncertain), they still have no way to deliver it. Haven't you seen the photoshops from Iran? Their rocket program is on the cutting edge of the 1920s.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Did Obama personally oppose gay marriage at one time? In `96 he was for, `98 he was against, `04 he was for, `08 he was against (but said he'd support same-sex civil unions). He was a US Senator and was against gay marriage (but for SS civil unions) as his position, that's a matter of federal policy. He's turned whichever way the wind blows on this, tacking to where he can get the most support without pissing people off. That's brown nosing.
He's turned the way the wind blows, eh? So the wind has changed direction on gay marriage (by your count) at least 5 times?

My point stands: Obama's position as President hasn't changed on gay marriage.

In my opinion, like you, I think gay marriage should be recognized everywhere. I doubt Obama will be the person who spearheads it. But if he does, I won't be complaining about flip-flopping.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post


More like a post modernism Neomarxist
Who wears the wrong kind of US flag pin.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Hey, how about the cultural and moral differences from individual to individual? If "moral differences" are relevant, who gives a sh!t if a liberal woman is living in a conservative state? The only "moral differences" that matter are the person being affected, not the entire damn state.
No one is going to overturn Roe V Wade, no matter what is said. However, the particulars about how long a woman has to decide, and the factors allowing late-term abortion (woman's life is in danger, severe health issues with the baby), people have the right to define those parameters in their state.

Iran is not 6 months from building nukes. Even if Iran were capable of creating weapons-grade material (uncertain), they still have no way to deliver it. Haven't you seen the photoshops from Iran? Their rocket program is on the cutting edge of the 1920s.
You don't need rockets to deliver nukes. If Top Gear can sneak trucks across borders in the ME, so can Jihadists, or anyone, for that matter.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2012, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
He's turned the way the wind blows, eh? So the wind has changed direction on gay marriage (by your count) at least 5 times?
My point stands: Obama's position as President hasn't changed on gay marriage.
In my opinion, like you, I think gay marriage should be recognized everywhere. I doubt Obama will be the person who spearheads it. But if he does, I won't be complaining about flip-flopping.
As a politician, he's flip-flopped on it, and if it were politically expedient, I think he'd do it again. Like most politicians, he's been caught in lies and broken promises too.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2012, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
This can't be real, can it? It's too ridiculous to believe possible.
Romney staff refusing to let frostbitten children leave PA rally
TL,DR: Romney is late for a rally, but organizers don't let people leave even though it's very cold.
Looks to be the Secret Service, not Romney.

AFAICT, it was the backstage security area, where it's SOP to not let anyone out until the person being protected arrives.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2012, 07:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You mean the guy who would direct the Supreme Court to rip up Roe v Wade,
Its BS like this that means you don't know what powers a US president has.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2012, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Obama didn't 180 on anything. He didn't change a single thing in what he was doing.
Obama has always opposed the DOMA act, and he has never had a federal policy on gay marriage, for or against. He has always regarded it as a state's issue.
He changed his personal views on the matter (and presumably how he would vote as a state-level voter), but his policy as President hasn't changed at all.
The same thing can be said about DODT. People complained that Obama was fighting in court to prevent DODT from being ruled unconstitutional. He said, and always said, DODT needs to end in the legislature, not the courts. If the courts were to strike down DODT, the Federal gov't would be on the hook for millions in civil rights damages, and Obama didn't want that.
List of Obama lies?

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2012, 08:04 AM
 
538 says there's a 7% chance of an Obama electoral/Romney popular vote split.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2012, 10:27 AM
 
Wrong thread
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2012, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its BS like this that means you don't know what powers a US president has.
The President nominates members to the Supreme Court, and Romney would only nominate people who would rip up RvW. I know exactly what I'm talking about here.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,