Be a Supporter!

4 more years!

  • 4,442 Views
  • 179 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
DaKnOb3
DaKnOb3
  • Member since: May. 6, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Movie Buff
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 18:12:49 Reply

You sir have made a good point and I congratulate you on being a voice of reason in a sea of madness and hyperbole.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 18:33:28 Reply

At 11/7/12 06:01 PM, CockGobbler wrote: Any voter of a losing side who was not in power prior to the election has no right to say anything about their candidate and how THEY would have handled the country. For all you know Romney could have been 10x worse than Obama. And if he was, what would be said by the Republican voters?
Fucking nothing. They would argue that he was golden. No human, especially the self-righteous people who act like their political opinion is law because they can talk down to people, can admit that they made mistakes bad enough to affect the world on a national level. Ranting conversations like this are not worth shit.

This argument goes both ways.

Obama has been overall terrible. It's been seen. And they argue he was golden. They argue he is a champion of civil rights, peace, and helping the impoverished.

DaKnOb3
DaKnOb3
  • Member since: May. 6, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Movie Buff
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 18:40:46 Reply

At 11/7/12 06:33 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
This argument goes both ways.

Obama has been overall terrible. It's been seen. And they argue he was golden. They argue he is a champion of civil rights, peace, and helping the impoverished.

Totally missed the point. Not surprised.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 18:49:59 Reply

At 11/7/12 05:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: They should be. The fact that they get away with so much is a reflection on the voting population, not the system itself.

The system the Founders envisioned was a world where people had EQUAL power to the government (hence the whole damn bill of rights). That power is still in place, people just don't give a shit.

Um no? They can check the governments power, but they don't control it.

Obama is a proven, admitted, and proud killer, and people still voted for him.

Um he commands the military, using this logic every soldier is a murderer (which is true).

He is a corporatist/crony capitalist in the worst possible way, and he still won.

blah blah blah people put that on every politician nowadays. Although I don't think he's the worst, since he's added more regulations.

People care more about media portrayals, and feel good words than they do actual observed actions and history.

Opposite actually, people care more about negative portrayals which is easy, since criticizing someone is easier than actually providing a solution.

They vote with their emotions, not their brains. I've heard people actually say they didn't vote for Romney because of ABORTION. An issue that no president, democrat or republican, even tries to touch.

So because people take some issues more seriously than others they're stupid? First off notice how in none of your attacks did you even mention what Mitt Romney would do to be any different which I think is what killed his campaign; too much focus on attacks not enough focus on an actual agenda. Secondly, that's the goddamn right to privacy and right to your own body I'd say that's more important than some economic policy since at this point they pretty much will pass the same one, although I do agree though since abortion is a question of rights, that shouldn't be something elected officials should decide because the majority is kept from stripping the rights of the minority. Thus it isn't something elected officials can really end. Lastly you're assuming everyone thinks he's done a bad job, not everyone does.

At the end of the day this was a winnable election for the Republicans just like 2004 was winnable for the Democrats, yet they blew it. The dominance of the far right in the party forced the candidates to be more right wing, thus making it harder for the candidates to appeal to the moderates, I mean seriously Romney was the only serious candidate who could have appealed to moderates and the party forced him to the right thereby crippling him. The only highlight of his campaign was the 1st debate, everything else was just either ineffective or a complete fuck up. During the primaries Romney got hit with criticisms, such as the whole Bain Capital thing, and he didn't respond to them, so they came back and stuck. When he actually got the candidacy he made a lacking and embarrassing convention, finally bringing forth some outline of all the issues to be tackled in an agenda in the form of an agenda. Sadly that was the best part of his convention, everything else Clint Eastwood's senile gaffe of a speech, speakers talking about how great they were and barely tying in Romney (such as Chris Christie) and finally basing the entire convention off an out of context quote all ruined the convention. His poll numbers didn't change at all, and this was because he was still too far to the right. Obama's convention conversely just showed how you do a convention, it was organized, the speakers spoke about Obama and the party in general and fact checked prominent Republican claims etc. so Obama got a boost from that. Everything between the conventions and the debate was merely a whole lot of gaffe's by Romney and others alienating more and more voters, he turned a fragile situation oversea's into a political issue, when asked about what his plans he dodged the questioning etc. etc. The only boost to his campaign was the 1st debate, and there was a fundamental problem there because the 1st debate wasn't a boost because he performed so well but because Obama performed so poorly. Which of course ties in to why his campaign wasn't good; he didn't say exactly what he would do, he had a hard time trying to paint himself different from Bush policies and he based his campaign off of attacks rather than actual platforms. I'd say this could've been a landslide like 1980, but because the party is to far right wing, because Romney is not a good campaigner, because he could not set an agenda because of his constantly changing stances this whole campaign failed.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 20:10:16 Reply

isn't there an electoral college vote or some second vote that's supposed to be announced later?
Geez even the Republicans admit self defeat already


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 20:42:23 Reply

At 11/7/12 06:40 PM, DaKnOb3 wrote:
Totally missed the point. Not surprised.

I did no such thing, dumbass.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 20:53:29 Reply

At 11/7/12 06:49 PM, Warforger wrote: Um no? They can check the governments power, but they don't control it.

What does that even mean? I said EQUAL. Neither one controlling the other.

Um he commands the military, using this logic every soldier is a murderer (which is true).

Which is exactly why we shouldn't be starting/supporting wars that have literally nothing to do with us

blah blah blah people put that on every politician nowadays. Although I don't think he's the worst, since he's added more regulations.

Don't think he's the worst...what?

Opposite actually, people care more about negative portrayals which is easy, since criticizing someone is easier than actually providing a solution.

That's pretty much what I said. Rhetoric matters more than issues.

They vote with their emotions, not their brains. I've heard people actually say they didn't vote for Romney because of ABORTION. An issue that no president, democrat or republican, even tries to touch.
So because people take some issues more seriously than others they're stupid? First off notice how in none of your attacks did you even mention what Mitt Romney would do to be any different which I think is what killed his campaign; too much focus on attacks not enough focus on an actual agenda. Secondly, that's the goddamn right to privacy and right to your own body I'd say that's more important than some economic policy since at this point they pretty much will pass the same one, although I do agree though since abortion is a question of rights, that shouldn't be something elected officials should decide because the majority is kept from stripping the rights of the minority. Thus it isn't something elected officials can really end. Lastly you're assuming everyone thinks he's done a bad job, not everyone does.

A) It's not the difference in values or anything. It's that they let a non-issue like abortion decide their vote
B) I didn't attack anyone
C) Romney outlined his plan and policy numerous times in debates. People didn't listen
D) If a "right to your own body" (btw, there is no right like that anywhere in the bill of rights or any amendment) is so damn important to, say democrats, why do they vote for a leader who won't touch the issue?
E) People who look at the economy and say "Oh this is good" are retarded

words

Romney is not far right dude lol. Obama is more like Bush than Romney is.

yinyangman
yinyangman
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 20:56:57 Reply

At 11/6/12 11:23 PM, gracik wrote: If the rumors hold up, then Obama will be here forever. Seeing as he wanted to abolish the term limit. Making him the permanent president.

Abolishing the term limit violates the constitution. If you really want President Obama gone, you'll just have to wait until 2016.

yinyangman
yinyangman
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 21:01:38 Reply

At 11/7/12 12:27 AM, LemonCrush wrote: More killing, more debt, less freedom. Obama voters are clinically retarded.

Bush did miserably as president by embezzling our tax money on a war that didn't need to be started, in spite of 9/11. So I'll have to consider you clinically retarded.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 21:15:30 Reply

At 11/7/12 09:01 PM, yinyangman wrote:
Bush did miserably as president by embezzling our tax money on a war that didn't need to be started, in spite of 9/11. So I'll have to consider you clinically retarded.

And Obama has done nothing but repeat Bush's failures to the letter. So like I said, democrats who bitch about Bush, but vote Obama, are retarded.

Here's another clue. Bush hasn't been president for FOUR YEARS. As Obama said HE is president and HE is responsible.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 21:15:48 Reply

At 11/7/12 09:01 PM, yinyangman wrote:
At 11/7/12 12:27 AM, LemonCrush wrote: More killing, more debt, less freedom. Obama voters are clinically retarded.
Bush did miserably as president by embezzling our tax money on a war that didn't need to be started, in spite of 9/11. So I'll have to consider you clinically retarded.

What he said is true for every president not just any one president.


BBS Signature
JeremyLokken
JeremyLokken
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 23
Animator
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 21:44:15 Reply

Gonna hit you with a hard exit poll. 42% of Obama voters believed the handling of Hurricane Sandy was a deciding factor! Unbelievable! There are cities still dealing with day 1 problems of that storm. Not to mention how easy it is to spend Federal money and show up and hug people. It's not a test of leadership, but of image.

I predict that the liberal excuse for Obama's lack of leadership in handling this recession in 2016 will be that "The House never agreed with him on anything."

It is the responsibility of the President, as a leader, to bring both sides to the table and compromise. This is what Romney did in Massachusetts. You know why this won't happen? Because Obama has already submitted his own budget that was rejected by his own party members, he can't even work with them on it. Unfortunately I see gridlock on major issues, and at a crucial time in our economy. If Obama wants a legacy to look forward to (Obamacare is not his legacy with 6 out of 10 fearing it), he will compromise. A narcissist would want a legacy.


Rainbow Animations <-- for my website.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 22:59:08 Reply

At 11/7/12 04:09 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:
Proof please. Otherwise, you can shut the hell up and get out. Plus, if you don't like our President so much, move to Canada. It's right there.

I don't see why I'm bothering with this. You're simply put, too blind and stupid to realize it.

here. now, it's time for you to start bleating about how great Obama is and how this is somehow out of context.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

JeremyLokken
JeremyLokken
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 23
Animator
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 23:13:24 Reply

At 11/7/12 10:59 PM, Korriken wrote:
At 11/7/12 04:09 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:
Proof please. Otherwise, you can shut the hell up and get out. Plus, if you don't like our President so much, move to Canada. It's right there.
I don't see why I'm bothering with this. You're simply put, too blind and stupid to realize it.

here. now, it's time for you to start bleating about how great Obama is and how this is somehow out of context.

Hey Korriken, I actually went back to this video today because I remembered him saying this. That once he's re-elected, he'll have more flexibility. "Whoa whoa whoa, what makes him think his record earns him a 2nd term?" I thought. Our only hope of a balance of power is in the House right now. Do Obama supporters even realize that a balance of power is one of the few things preventing us from becoming a complete dictatorship?


Rainbow Animations <-- for my website.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-07 23:53:53 Reply

At 11/7/12 09:44 PM, JeremyLokken wrote: Gonna hit you with a hard exit poll. 42% of Obama voters believed the handling of Hurricane Sandy was a deciding factor! Unbelievable! There are cities still dealing with day 1 problems of that storm. Not to mention how easy it is to spend Federal money and show up and hug people. It's not a test of leadership, but of image.

That seems like a much bigger percentage, last I checked it was around 15% which pretty much decided the election anyway. But at the very least this was a rather crucial time, he could either continue campaigning or he could have gone back and provided relief and ignore the politics. Bush in the middle of his 2nd term had a chance to respond quickly to Katrina and instead he mishandled it in the worst way possible, this killed his popularity and in turn the popularity of his party (which by then was already declining to begin with).

I predict that the liberal excuse for Obama's lack of leadership in handling this recession in 2016 will be that "The House never agreed with him on anything."

Depends, the economy is largely out of his control and all he can do to fix it is make more regulations and safety nets. So who knows maybe by next year the economy will pick up.

It is the responsibility of the President, as a leader, to bring both sides to the table and compromise. This is what Romney did in Massachusetts.

I'd like to point out Romney narrowly won election as a 1 term governor and was hugely unpopular by the end of that term. By the end of his term Mass. was 47th in job growth nationwide, not that this was his fault since Mass.'s economy was based around technology and he was governor during the effects of the dot.com burst, but he certainly wasn't able to turn the economy around there.

You know why this won't happen? Because Obama has already submitted his own budget that was rejected by his own party members, he can't even work with them on it.

It's more complex then that. What happened was that he worked with House Republicans on a budget, that budget got passed in the House of course but then Senate Republicans presented the appropriations bill as one of their own budgets so that Senate Democrats would shoot it down, and they themselves shot it down, so it got no votes. I'm not entirely sure exactly why that happened though, you'd assume that the Senate leaders aren't THAT full of shit or stupid.

Unfortunately I see gridlock on major issues, and at a crucial time in our economy.

Not his fault anyway.

If Obama wants a legacy to look forward to (Obamacare is not his legacy with 6 out of 10 fearing it), he will compromise. A narcissist would want a legacy.

Obama has tried to compromise, in fact he did that with Obamacare when the Democrats held the majority in both houses.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 00:03:23 Reply

At 11/7/12 08:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: What does that even mean? I said EQUAL. Neither one controlling the other.

Because it isn't really equal.

At 11/7/12 08:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Which is exactly why we shouldn't be starting/supporting wars that have literally nothing to do with us

He hasn't been supporting wars, in fact he's been leaving them.

blah blah blah people put that on every politician nowadays. Although I don't think he's the worst, since he's added more regulations.
Don't think he's the worst...what?

Worst corporate junky or whatever you were saying. My point was that his legislation wasn't too corporate-friendly.

A) It's not the difference in values or anything. It's that they let a non-issue like abortion decide their vote

You think it's a non-issue, it's not to everyone. It's like electing a racist, yah you can argue why it isn't that big of a deal BUT HE'S STILL A RACIST!

B) I didn't attack anyone

You were attacking Obama.

C) Romney outlined his plan and policy numerous times in debates. People didn't listen

I talked about them, he released some tax plan that was incomplete, his "plan" he talked about was pretty damn broad and just simple goals like get the economy going and Obama/Biden/Clinton shot them all down for that. Everyone listened.

D) If a "right to your own body" (btw, there is no right like that anywhere in the bill of rights or any amendment) is so damn important to, say democrats, why do they vote for a leader who won't touch the issue?

Because he's not the guy running on the platform of "ABORTION WILL BE ILLEGAL IN ALL CASES EVEN IN RAPE AND INCEST". The Tea party seems to have had candidates like that show killed their political careers such as Todd Akin and Murdouck.

E) People who look at the economy and say "Oh this is good" are retarded

Depends in which state you live in or your personal situation. Obviously it hasn't been that bad considering that Obama won re-election.

words
Romney is not far right dude lol. Obama is more like Bush than Romney is.

Oh he himself isn't, but during the primaries he positioned himself far right to get the nomination. This is mainly because of the witch hunt by the TEA party to weed out more moderate candidates. That was what I was referring to, the influence of too right wing forces on the Republican party is really holding them back in Presidential elections.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 00:50:15 Reply

At 11/7/12 11:13 PM, JeremyLokken wrote:
Hey Korriken, I actually went back to this video today because I remembered him saying this. That once he's re-elected, he'll have more flexibility. "Whoa whoa whoa, what makes him think his record earns him a 2nd term?" I thought. Our only hope of a balance of power is in the House right now. Do Obama supporters even realize that a balance of power is one of the few things preventing us from becoming a complete dictatorship?

it's simple my dear friend, allow me to explain. It's all about the message. the message is controlled by media which is controlled by humans who have an agenda. You go to China and the message is "Japan is squatting on our islands!" you go to Japan and the message is "China is trying to steal our islands!" you go to North Korea and the message is "Kim family is keeping us safe and free from South Korean oppression!"

same with anywhere else, whoever controls the media controls the message. whoever controls the message controls what people think. Not direct mind control, but subtle manipulations. There's a reason why in Russia people think Putin is awesome. the media portrays Putin as such and those who don't think for themselves will simply agree with what the radio and television tell them.

Same with Obama. The media (with the exception of Fox News) has put up a barrier of protection around Obama, shielding him from criticism and not making a big deal of his screw ups and failures. They may report what he does and says, but it goes no further than that if doing so would put him in a bad light.

remember Herman Cain's supposed women that all suddenly came forward and sunk his campaign? of course you do, it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. Do you remember Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house"? of course you do it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. Do you remember Obama claiming he visited 57 out of 58 (of 60 total, couldn't visit alaska and hawaii) states? only if you saw it on youtube. why? because apparently Obama isn't a retard for not knowing there are only (currently) 50 states in the union, but Palin is a retard for cracking a joke about being able to see Russia from her house. Do you remember the media frenzy about Obama being lost when his teleprompter breaks? of course not. apparently that wasn't a big deal either.

Do you remember the media frenzy when there were no WMDs found in Iraq? of course, it was headline news for a bloody month. it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL that Bush lied (despite being given the same intel everyone else got). do you remember the media frenzy when it was discovered that Obama lied about the Benghazi attack? of course not. there wasn't one. Apparently knowing there was a connection to an islamist militia within 24 hours and continuously harping on about a youtube video being blamed for it is not lying.

What's the difference between extravagant parties and magnificent parties? simple.
Bush - $42 million for parties - Extravagant party
Obama - $41.4 million for parties- Magnificent party
who decided this? the media. Bush's inaugural parties were an extravagant party for the rich elite, attended by the rich elite, Obama's parties were a magnificent display.... attended by the rich elite.

If the media gave Obama the same treatment Bush got, he would have never been elected and Hillary Clinton would be in the white house right now.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 01:23:16 Reply

At 11/7/12 05:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: They should be. The fact that they get away with so much is a reflection on the voting population, not the system itself.

What are they "getting away with" that you find unacceptable? I'm not suggesting their lily white, I just think specifics help us to work through issues and broaden understanding.

The system the Founders envisioned was a world where people had EQUAL power to the government (hence the whole damn bill of rights). That power is still in place, people just don't give a shit.

Uh no. The Founders only allowed white, male, land owners to vote initially. They wanted only the SMART people voting. I think an argument could be made that the Founders may actually be somewhat horrified by the idea of the system the way it is now. The book I'm currently reading on the subject that points to thoughts the Founders had on what expanded population does to our system (which is right in line with the Iroqouis who influenced it) seems to agree with this long held suspicion of mine.

Obama is a proven, admitted, and proud killer, and people still voted for him.

Huh what where how? If you're going to speak about the war, or ordered attacks, he's no more a killer then any other President whose done the same (and not gotten attacked), and less so then military Presidents (like Eisenhower) who served in the military and would have actually killed people in combat on their way up to their higher command positions.

He is a corporatist/crony capitalist in the worst possible way, and he still won.

Examples?

People care more about media portrayals, and feel good words than they do actual observed actions and history.

Some people also suck at facts and fact checking, and would rather stick to the lies and half truths their favorite pundits give them. Like the people who want to argue this President has done absolutely zero to get re-elected.

They vote with their emotions, not their brains.

Absurd over-generalization.

I've heard people actually say they didn't vote for Romney because of ABORTION.

I've heard people actually say they won't vote for Obama because he's BLACK. Or because he's a SOCIALIST (LOL!!!). Or because he wasn't BORN HERE (I can't lol...that one is just ridiculously sad). Or because he's a MUSLIM (totally not true).

Point is, there's retards on all sides, I'm tired of this one sided agenda based arguing. Dummies know no party boundaries.

An issue that no president, democrat or republican, even tries to touch.

Bullshit, they comment on it all the time in their primary campaigns. It's something they talk about all the time because they know that it is outside their bounds to touch or deal with, the Supreme Court ruled on it, game is over because of it. But since much of the electorate that gets fired up about the issue is ignorant of that fact, it's an easy hot button to push, and then never really have to be expected to do anything with.

Also, the direct flaming I'm seeing WILL stop. One ban has been handed out already, I'll do more, and I'll do them without hesitation or discrimination. Be civil and follow the forum rules or be gone. There's no reason to get personal with each other just because you disagree politically. Only warning.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 01:36:29 Reply

At 11/8/12 12:50 AM, Korriken wrote: remember Herman Cain's supposed women that all suddenly came forward and sunk his campaign? of course you do, it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. Do you remember Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house"? of course you do it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. Do you remember Obama claiming he visited 57 out of 58 (of 60 total, couldn't visit alaska and hawaii) states? only if you saw it on youtube. why? because apparently Obama isn't a retard for not knowing there are only (currently) 50 states in the union, but Palin is a retard for cracking a joke about being able to see Russia from her house.

Palin never actually said that. It also wasn't meant as a joke. She was being asked in an interview about her foreign policy experience, and she responded by saying basically that Russia being so close that you could see it from some parts of Alaska was some kind of experience. All she managed to do was bring attention to the fact that she had absolutely no foreign policy experience, and using such a memorably dumb excuse of an example only cemented the perception of her as a foreign policy lightweight.

Obama's comment was clearly a misstatement. I don't think even you could make the argument that Obama ACTUALLY thought there were 57 states when he made that comment.

What you seem to be missing is the fundamentals of why some gaffes causes damage to the candidate and why some gaffes don't. It's all about whether or not the gaffe reinforces a negative perception of the candidate that is already there. Palin was already being questioned about her level of knowledge before she was ever asked this question in the interview, so when she gave her comical response, it prompted another news cycle focused on her stupidity. And it's not like this was the only instance of her showing off her ignorance; she kept making gaffes to this effect over and over and over, and seeing as the being able to see Russia was one of the most memorable and silly ones, that was the one that stuck in the minds of people, becoming the meme it is today.

By contrast, Obama is pretty clearly an intelligent person, as was evidenced by his eloquent speeches, his Harvard education, and the fact that he had written two books, so it would never even occur to anybody to question whether or not Obama knew the number of states in the Union. Thus, trying to paint Obama as someone with such an immense lack of geographical knowledge was an exceedingly tough sell, which is why it didn't stick.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

JeremyLokken
JeremyLokken
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 23
Animator
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 02:26:25 Reply

At 11/7/12 11:53 PM, Warforger wrote: Bush in the middle of his 2nd term had a chance to respond quickly to Katrina and instead he mishandled it in the worst way possible, this killed his popularity and in turn the popularity of his party (which by then was already declining to begin with).

If you remember, Bush was clearly upset with the way Louisiana refused to handle Katrina responsibly. It was 3 days out, and the Governor had not started the process with FEMA. Bush contacted Blanco on requesting the proper process for Federal aid, and she refused, thinking it would be a state of martial law. All the mishandlings of Katrina in Louisiana fall upon the local officials.

Depends, the economy is largely out of his control and all he can do to fix it is make more regulations and safety nets. So who knows maybe by next year the economy will pick up.

Yeah, who knows, maybe unicorns will magically save the economy. It's regulations that are driving businesses out of CA, and preventing growth. Obama owns this economy, and he was in complete control of it from 2008-2009 with a full super majority. He did nothing to fix the economy. In fact, he jeopardized it with a radical healthcare plan. If you take the stance that Obama has almost no control over the economy, then you have to take the stance that Bush had almost no control over the economy. It's the same position handling the same job.

Unfortunately I see gridlock on major issues, and at a crucial time in our economy.
Not his fault anyway.

He is the leader of the United States and remains partisan. That is failure to negotiate and compromise. He demands the other side to go against their values and beliefs to get what he wants (example: public assisted abortion) without compromising his own, or sacrificing anything. This is not how government functions. That is a sign of narcissism and weakness.


If Obama wants a legacy to look forward to (Obamacare is not his legacy with 6 out of 10 fearing it), he will compromise. A narcissist would want a legacy.
Obama has tried to compromise, in fact he did that with Obamacare when the Democrats held the majority in both houses.

Obamacare was anything but compromise. Congress was pissed off they didn't have a chance to read the 2,000 pages in the few days given. Pelosi said, "we have to pass it before we know what is in it." It was reckless and radical. Very messy government. And it was rammed through in a partisan manner and still remains unpopular by the majority of Americans.


Rainbow Animations <-- for my website.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 10:09:01 Reply

At 11/8/12 01:36 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Palin never actually said that. It also wasn't meant as a joke. She was being asked in an interview about her foreign policy experience, and she responded by saying basically that Russia being so close that you could see it from some parts of Alaska was some kind of experience. All she managed to do was bring attention to the fact that she had absolutely no foreign policy experience, and using such a memorably dumb excuse of an example only cemented the perception of her as a foreign policy lightweight.

fine, let's, for argument sake go with this. How much foreign policy experience did Obama have beyond growing up in a foreign country and why didn't it keep getting brought up?


Obama's comment was clearly a misstatement. I don't think even you could make the argument that Obama ACTUALLY thought there were 57 states when he made that comment.

Point is, if the media made a big deal about it, it would have sunk his chances of being nominated and hillary clinton would have gotten the nomination. people are stupid and would have lapped up the words of the talking heads.


What you seem to be missing is the fundamentals of why some gaffes causes damage to the candidate and why some gaffes don't.

It's a simple matter of whether or not those people listen to make a huge deal out of it. It's like Romney's "binders full of women" and how the media pounced on it, torn the context away and began screaming "Sexist! Sexist Pig! Don't vote for this Sexist Pig!!" when there was nothing sexist about it. He wanted to hire more women seeing as all the resumes he had were from men. of course, NEVER let the truth get in the way of bashing the guy you don't like.

It's all about whether or not the gaffe reinforces a negative perception of the candidate that is already there. Palin was already being questioned about her level of knowledge before she was ever asked this question in the interview, so when she gave her comical response, it prompted another news cycle focused on her stupidity.

The media was already in bed fellating Obama and wanted anything and everything they could get their hands on to crush his opposition for him because he was a rookie with no real experience and wanted him in the white house.

By contrast, Obama is pretty clearly an intelligent person,

I suppose that's a matter of perception,

as was evidenced by his eloquent speeches,

written by his speechwriter and put on a teleprompter which he read from.

his Harvard education,

that he flat out refused to show the records from... wonder what he's hiding?

and the fact that he had written two books,

*shrug* so? I wrote a book once. doesn't make me a genius.

so it would never even occur to anybody to question whether or not Obama knew the number of states in the Union. Thus, trying to paint Obama as someone with such an immense lack of geographical knowledge was an exceedingly tough sell, which is why it didn't stick.

true, still, the media squashed and suppressed anything that would have hurt Obama. The only people that bothered to mention anything controversial about Obama were of course, Fox's political commentators. and the media squashed them and damned them as racists and idiots.

Can you just imagine the beating that, say Herman Cain would have had if he were affiliated with a pastor that spouted "not god bless american, god DAMN america!" among other things on camera? his political career would be over before it began. he'd be labeled as unamerican and would be beaten in the face with it until he dropped out. Much like he did when he his political campaign was beaten to death by women claiming he made sexual advances on them. The media saw it, focused on it, and shot him down because they did NOT want Obama running against another black man, especially one with some real life experience.

Obama's cocaine use and Preacher spouting anti american rhetoric, ACORN affiliation, among other things? "That's in the past and I'm sure Obama, despite being in his congregation for 20 years, does not agree with anything he says!" Cain's women? "Sexist Pig! Drop out now! No one wants you! May the past damn you!"

But no, no controversy, however damning has stuck to Obama because when one does arise, it might be report on, once, to say "see? i DID cover it!" and then bury it, then call anyone who keeps bringing it up as racist and republican shill.

The Media is free to use its power to report (or not) to manipulate politics to suit its own needs. Given the media is full of Unionized liberals, it's no wonder that Obama has survived all of his controversies, controversies that would have sank the career of just about anyone, except him.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 11:14:57 Reply

At 11/8/12 12:50 AM, Korriken wrote: remember Herman Cain's supposed women that all suddenly came forward and sunk his campaign? of course you do, it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL.

That sort of sexual harrassment IS a big deal.

Do you remember Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house"? of course you do it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. Do you remember Obama claiming he visited 57 out of 58 (of 60 total, couldn't visit alaska and hawaii) states? only if you saw it on youtube. why? because apparently Obama isn't a retard for not knowing there are only (currently) 50 states in the union, but Palin is a retard for cracking a joke about being able to see Russia from her house.

Can you not seriously see the difference here? Obama makes a small number flop here and there. Palin was NOTORIOUS for completely making up history. She was the Dan Quayle of the 2000s. If Obama was known to make so many stupid, egregiously stupid, responses it would have been different.

Do you remember the media frenzy about Obama being lost when his teleprompter breaks? of course not. apparently that wasn't a big deal either.

That is not a big deal. Who cares if he's lost when his speech, written by very intelligent people, crafted specifically for the situation goes down. Why not claim a serious gaffe when the motorcade breaks down?

Do you remember the media frenzy when there were no WMDs found in Iraq? of course, it was headline news for a bloody month. it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL that Bush lied (despite being given the same intel everyone else got).

Several trillion dollars, and thousands of American men down the toilet based on a political gambit.

do you remember the media frenzy when it was discovered that Obama lied about the Benghazi attack? of course not. there wasn't one. Apparently knowing there was a connection to an islamist militia within 24 hours and continuously harping on about a youtube video being blamed for it is not lying.

Some conservtives get miffed in a an attempt to stop the bleeding among the people of the Middle East.

See the difference?

What's the difference between extravagant parties and magnificent parties? simple.
Bush - $42 million for parties - Extravagant party
Obama - $41.4 million for parties- Magnificent party
who decided this? the media. Bush's inaugural parties were an extravagant party for the rich elite, attended by the rich elite, Obama's parties were a magnificent display.... attended by the rich elite.

I don't remember any big deal over the parties Bush had.

If the media gave Obama the same treatment Bush got, he would have never been elected and Hillary Clinton would be in the white house right now.

Seriously, Korriken, I know you're a die hard conservative, but could you at least TRY to inject some intelligence and rational thought into your ideas? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel comparing a Blood dealer to friggen Pablo Francisco and asking why the dealer isn't being treated as bad. It's pretty damn easy to see why.

Your media point may not be wrong, but the evidence you have provided has only served to prove your inability to properly assess evidence.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 11:21:15 Reply

At 11/8/12 02:26 AM, JeremyLokken wrote: If you remember, Bush was clearly upset with the way Louisiana refused to handle Katrina responsibly. It was 3 days out, and the Governor had not started the process with FEMA. Bush contacted Blanco on requesting the proper process for Federal aid, and she refused, thinking it would be a state of martial law. All the mishandlings of Katrina in Louisiana fall upon the local officials.

Bush shouldn't have waited for the local officials. FEMA should have at least been moibilized and waiting right after they knew it was a Category 5. It wasn't.

Yeah, who knows, maybe unicorns will magically save the economy. It's regulations that are driving businesses out of CA, and preventing growth. Obama owns this economy, and he was in complete control of it from 2008-2009 with a full super majority. He did nothing to fix the economy. In fact, he jeopardized it with a radical healthcare plan. If you take the stance that Obama has almost no control over the economy, then you have to take the stance that Bush had almost no control over the economy. It's the same position handling the same job.

No Obama was NEVER in control of the economy. The economy is a complex web and there is very little the government can do to directly hurt it. Don;t give me the "tax hurts busienss" bullshit. The only way tax hurts business is that the greedy owners cut out money that would otherwise go to the business to make up for their own taxes. It is actually owners who hurt business, not the taxes.

He is the leader of the United States and remains partisan. That is failure to negotiate and compromise. He demands the other side to go against their values and beliefs to get what he wants (example: public assisted abortion) without compromising his own, or sacrificing anything. This is not how government functions. That is a sign of narcissism and weakness.

Failure to negotiate and compromise? WTF? Is your definition of compromise "bend over and let your opponents fuck you"? Obama offered numerous compromises to which the Republicans said "If it's not exactly what we wanted to begin with, it was not a compromise."

Obamacare was anything but compromise. Congress was pissed off they didn't have a chance to read the 2,000 pages in the few days given. Pelosi said, "we have to pass it before we know what is in it." It was reckless and radical. Very messy government. And it was rammed through in a partisan manner and still remains unpopular by the majority of Americans.

Obamacare was a compromise. Obamacare was the creation of Republicans, from the Romneycare to the healthcare plan by the Republicans under Clinton. The ONLY reason the Republicans didn't like it now is because of the name on it (Hint: OBAMA).

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 13:03:30 Reply

At 11/8/12 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No Obama was NEVER in control of the economy. The economy is a complex web and there is very little the government can do to directly hurt it. Don;t give me the "tax hurts busienss" bullshit. The only way tax hurts business is that the greedy owners cut out money that would otherwise go to the business to make up for their own taxes.

Classic reasoning of Obama's ideal voter: taxes don't depress the economy, evil GREEDY businessmen do. You're chiding korriken for not making intelligent contributions to the discussion and here you are claiming that higher taxes don't negatively affect commerce.

Failure to negotiate and compromise? WTF? Is your definition of compromise "bend over and let your opponents fuck you"? Obama offered numerous compromises to which the Republicans said "If it's not exactly what we wanted to begin with, it was not a compromise."

Like what? When your starting proposal is totally outrageous, like raising taxes on anyone during a recession, watering it down a bit doesn't make it a compromise.

Obamacare was a compromise. Obamacare was the creation of Republicans, from the Romneycare to the healthcare plan by the Republicans under Clinton. The ONLY reason the Republicans didn't like it now is because of the name on it (Hint: OBAMA).

Created by republicans? As though "republicans" is one monolithic, homogenous group with no difference in opinion in its members?
Despite the similar goals, there's enough of a difference between what Romney helped bring about in MA and what Obamacare became to justify opposition to the bill, such as the dramatic cuts to Medicare reimbursements, the taxes on device manufacturers, the birth control mandates, the overreach into private companies' budgets, and the basic fact that the legislation, despite its trillion dollar price tag, does very little to actually bring down healthcare costs (the measures that could bring costs down cost relatively little to implement).

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 13:08:20 Reply

At 11/8/12 11:14 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
That sort of sexual harrassment IS a big deal.
Can you not seriously see the difference here? Obama makes a small number flop here and there. Palin was NOTORIOUS for completely making up history. She was the Dan Quayle of the 2000s. If Obama was known to make so many stupid, egregiously stupid, responses it would have been different.

I know the difference im just pointing out the media double standard. anything someone they don't like does becomes a huge massive problem however tiny, and yet major problems with people they do like gets buried. They even made McCain's age into a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. They even took shots at Governor Christie's weight when it was a mere rumor he might run for president. they were trying to shoot him down before he even got started.


Do you remember the media frenzy about Obama being lost when his teleprompter breaks? of course not. apparently that wasn't a big deal either.
That is not a big deal. Who cares if he's lost when his speech, written by very intelligent people, crafted specifically for the situation goes down. Why not claim a serious gaffe when the motorcade breaks down?

Unlike you, I'm not intellectually dishonest.

Several trillion dollars, and thousands of American men down the toilet based on a political gambit.

same intel as everyone else. Even Hillary Clinton said we should to go war with Iraq.

Some conservtives get miffed in a an attempt to stop the bleeding among the people of the Middle East.

this right here is why i have no respect for you. he lied for a month and a half. but that's not a big deal because he's obama, right?

I don't remember any big deal over the parties Bush had.

I do. the media basically portrayed them as an extravagant victory part for corporate america. That was a long time ago so I suppose it's easy to forget smaller things like that.


If the media gave Obama the same treatment Bush got, he would have never been elected and Hillary Clinton would be in the white house right now.
Seriously, Korriken, I know you're a die hard conservative, but could you at least TRY to inject some intelligence and rational thought into your ideas? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel comparing a Blood dealer to friggen Pablo Francisco and asking why the dealer isn't being treated as bad. It's pretty damn easy to see why.

Bush was bashed for 8 years on everything however small, including grammatical errors. Obama has gotten a pass on many many things. things like this end up being buried and him not being called out on it.


Your media point may not be wrong, but the evidence you have provided has only served to prove your inability to properly assess evidence.

eh, the real problem is I need to slow down and spend more time doing my posts instead of doing them as i go.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 13:09:48 Reply

At 11/8/12 01:08 PM, Korriken wrote:
Unlike you, I'm not intellectually dishonest.

I make crap analogies and express things in a less than perfect manner.

i also have a habit of hitting the post button without triple checking what I put in the post. *derp*


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

JMHX
JMHX
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 13:34:24 Reply

The Republican asspain evident in these threads is nourishing me even days later.


BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 13:38:32 Reply

At 11/8/12 01:34 PM, JMHX wrote: The Republican asspain evident in these threads is nourishing me even days later.

there's always 2016. Maybe we can get Bobby Jindal to run.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 13:58:13 Reply

At 11/8/12 01:34 PM, JMHX wrote: The Republican asspain evident in these threads is nourishing me even days later.

gloat all you want, but nothing is gonna get done for the next 4 years unless a lot of house republicans get voted out in the midterm elections.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

JeremyLokken
JeremyLokken
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 23
Animator
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 14:08:30 Reply

At 11/8/12 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Obamacare was a compromise. Obamacare was the creation of Republicans, from the Romneycare to the healthcare plan by the Republicans under Clinton. The ONLY reason the Republicans didn't like it now is because of the name on it (Hint: OBAMA).

Obama enjoyed a super majority for 2 years. Look at that picture, does that look like compromise? It looks like partisan politics. Many liberals are turning into zealots. They are completely committed to the cause, no-matter-what. They don't understand that power must be balanced and that people have to work together. Screw the other side and their beliefs. And they don't understand why thoughts of Hitler come into focus. He is an unchecked leader and gets a free pass on whatever he wants to do. Obamacare fucks EVERY American. And I'm glad the President finally accepted the term "Obamacare" during the debates. History will show that Obamacare crippled the country for decades to come.

A Real look at Obama's Health Care Plan

If compromises were made, there would be votes on both sides. Obama didn't give a shit.

4 more years!


Rainbow Animations <-- for my website.