PDA

View Full Version : The bright side of Obama being reelected...



Bittersweet
November 7th, 2012, 12:00 PM
Now the economy will begin repairing itself, the national debt will start paying itself off, gay marriage will be legalized, Bush's evil patriot act will be repealed, the TSA and HLS will be abolished, civil rights wont be infringed, the top 2% won't be allowed to keep scamming everyone else, Dodge and GM will suddenly start building cars that aren't garbage, banks wont screw anyone over any more, pot will be legalized across the country, violent crime rates will drop to practically zero (except those committed by those evil millitias out on Montana and Nebraska), warrantless wiretapping will be a thing of the past, and America will cease Bush's pattern of meddling in foreign affairs!

This is a great day for America!

SeiKeo
November 7th, 2012, 12:07 PM
http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ironicat.gif

Bittersweet
November 7th, 2012, 12:22 PM
Oh, Leo and his endless supply of weird looking cats... >.<

SeiKeo
November 7th, 2012, 12:25 PM
I honestly can't tell if you're serious.

Lycodrake
November 7th, 2012, 12:27 PM
Me neither, Leo.

Then again, over half of the population still blames Bush for the economic crisis, and I find that, to put it nicely, foolish.
But what do I know, I'm a Romney-supporter.

HYuy
November 7th, 2012, 01:08 PM
Me neither, Leo.

Then again, over half of the population still blames Bush for the economic crisis, and I find that, to put it nicely, foolish.
But what do I know, I'm a Romney-supporter.

Well yeah, isn't that Obama's S.O.P.? When in doubt, blame Bush?

If there's any silver lining at all, it's that he won't be able to play that card anymore since he's had 4 years already..... too bad he won't have to care though since he doesn't have to worry about re-election anyways -_-

ZidanReign
November 7th, 2012, 01:15 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm part of the people that depend on Food Stamps. Supporting Three Families living in one household essentially your going to need some help if your relatives from your Father's side are stingy money grubbers.

Obama go-go.

Romney no-no.

Neir
November 7th, 2012, 01:27 PM
Gyahaha suck it repubbies!

Bittersweet
November 7th, 2012, 01:30 PM
I honestly can't tell if you're serious.

Are you referring to my initial post or what I said about your cats?

SeiKeo
November 7th, 2012, 01:31 PM
The OP.

Lycodrake
November 7th, 2012, 01:36 PM
Well yeah, isn't that Obama's S.O.P.? When in doubt, blame Bush?

If there's any silver lining at all, it's that he won't be able to play that card anymore since he's had 4 years already..... too bad he won't have to care though since he doesn't have to worry about re-election anyways -_-
Quite true, on both accounts.

Apple
November 7th, 2012, 01:48 PM
http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ironicat.gif

This is a rare occasion, I have only seen this incredu-Leo-cat once before.

Bittersweet
November 7th, 2012, 01:56 PM
The OP.

Ohhh... Gotcha.

RadiantBeam
November 7th, 2012, 02:01 PM
I personally think we would have been screwed no matter who we got as president, so now it's just a matter of enduring the next four years.

Kelnish
November 7th, 2012, 02:03 PM
But Bitter, the age of eligability for the draft board is still going to be three years lower than the drinking age! America is going to be hideous place from now on because Obama hates conscripts.

Bittersweet
November 7th, 2012, 02:18 PM
But Bitter, the age of eligability for the draft board is still going to be three years lower than the drinking age! America is going to be hideous place from now on because Obama hates conscripts.
Servicemen (and women) under 21 are allowed to drink on base when they are off duty.

Seika
November 7th, 2012, 02:28 PM
(How the hell do states think they can still have drinking ages of 21?)

Bittersweet
November 7th, 2012, 02:29 PM
What.

In-N-Out Double-Double & Animal Fries
November 7th, 2012, 02:55 PM
(How the hell do states think they can still have drinking ages of 21?)
21st amendment

Kelnish
November 7th, 2012, 02:58 PM
(How the hell do states think they can still have drinking ages of 21?)

Because MADD tied it to highway funding, thats how. They're also the reason soldiers under 21 can't drink.

ZidanReign
November 7th, 2012, 03:03 PM
(How the hell do states think they can still have drinking ages of 21?)

Wait, what?

oh dear...

Mike1984
November 7th, 2012, 03:04 PM
Me neither, Leo.

Then again, over half of the population still blames Bush for the economic crisis, and I find that, to put it nicely, foolish.
But what do I know, I'm a Romney-supporter.

What, you mean the economic crisis that he caused (well, in so far as anyone who isn't an Investment Banker did) and that Obama has been blocked by the Republican House from actually fixing? Gee, how terrible that he's being blamed for something that is his fault....

Also, the rest of the world isn't doing such a great job of coming out of it. Obama is at least making progress, even if it's still not gone entirely.

TypeWannabe
November 7th, 2012, 03:07 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm part of the people that depend on Food Stamps. Supporting Three Families living in one household essentially your going to need some help if your relatives from your Father's side are stingy money grubbers.

Hazama, I'll admit, I don't see eye to eye with you alot, but I know exactly how you feel. Worse part of it is, food stamps aren't enough.

ZidanReign
November 7th, 2012, 03:15 PM
Hazama, I'll admit, I don't see eye to eye with you alot, but I know exactly how you feel. Worse part of it is, food stamps aren't enough.

We don't? I know my opinions are shitty ones, doesn't mean I don't want to get along with everyone.

Your a okay guy in my book.

And yeah, I know what ya mean. It's never enough

I3uster
November 7th, 2012, 04:13 PM
Do we really need a seperate Republican whine thread, can't you just like, keep this in the other one?

TypeWannabe
November 7th, 2012, 04:39 PM
We don't? I know my opinions are shitty ones, doesn't mean I don't want to get along with everyone.

Yeah, I know, which is why instead of "we don't always see eye to eye" I put "I don't see eye to eye with you".

Vigilantia
November 7th, 2012, 07:58 PM
Now the economy will begin repairing itself, the national debt will start paying itself off, gay marriage will be legalized, Bush's evil patriot act will be repealed, the TSA and HLS will be abolished, civil rights wont be infringed, the top 2% won't be allowed to keep scamming everyone else, Dodge and GM will suddenly start building cars that aren't garbage, banks wont screw anyone over any more, pot will be legalized across the country, violent crime rates will drop to practically zero (except those committed by those evil millitias out on Montana and Nebraska), warrantless wiretapping will be a thing of the past, and America will cease Bush's pattern of meddling in foreign affairs!

This is a great day for America!

Can't tell if being fun or being sarcastic serious. However, your post reminds me of this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

Also, I thought the patriot act was repealed, or at least modified to be less... bush-era like...

The Geek
November 7th, 2012, 09:02 PM
What, you mean the economic crisis that he caused (well, in so far as anyone who isn't an Investment Banker did) and that Obama has been blocked by the Republican House from actually fixing? Gee, how terrible that he's being blamed for something that is his fault....

Also, the rest of the world isn't doing such a great job of coming out of it. Obama is at least making progress, even if it's still not gone entirely.

The thing is, people see Obama, they don't see the legislature. Therefore, they blame everything on the president. It's unintelligent, but it's the way things are.

Mike1984
November 7th, 2012, 09:10 PM
The thing is, people see Obama, they don't see the legislature. Therefore, they blame everything on the president. It's unintelligent, but it's the way things are.

Well, I don't think that's entirely true (the last Congress had an approval rating of something like 18% IIRC, which suggests that people knew damn well they were not being helpful), but Obama will always get some of the blame. Evidentially, though, he didn't get enough of it to prevent him getting re-elected....

KooriRenchuu
November 7th, 2012, 09:15 PM
I love the fact that my Senator put limiting Obama to a one term presidency as the major goal of the Republican party after he got in the saddle. Mister McConnell must be really pissed right now~

RadiantBeam
November 7th, 2012, 09:18 PM
Obama was plenty disliked when the re-election campaign started. Romney was just a moron who exposed several of his fatal flaws way too early in the game, and the Republicans as a whole really fucked up the whole race.

Chaos Greyblood
November 7th, 2012, 09:19 PM
If I were Bill Maher, I'd have a huge party over all of this, especially in light of Trump's Tweeter rage.

Aiden
November 7th, 2012, 09:28 PM
If I were Bill Maher, I'd have a huge party over all of this, especially in light of Trump's Tweeter rage.He's going to, come Friday when he has his little talk panel on HBO.

Chaos Greyblood
November 7th, 2012, 09:38 PM
Wow, sweet!

Aiden
November 7th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Wow, sweet!

Yeah, he's been doing these most Friday nights at around... 10 Eastern? And he's been having a ball with the elections.

Techlet
November 7th, 2012, 11:58 PM
Obama was plenty disliked when the re-election campaign started. Romney was just a moron who exposed several of his fatal flaws way too early in the game, and the Republicans as a whole really fucked up the whole race.

Truth be told, I kind of liked Romney before he put on his magic underpants.

Rowanism
November 8th, 2012, 12:02 AM
Watching this hilarity that was the election from Europe. Screw afternoon TV, screw everything, this is top tier entertaining.

Where's mah popcorn?

Raven2785
November 8th, 2012, 12:58 AM
Obama was plenty disliked when the re-election campaign started. Romney was just a moron who exposed several of his fatal flaws way too early in the game, and the Republicans as a whole really fucked up the whole race.

While Republicans made many mistakes, the biggest one was not telling me why I should vote for Romney. the PR machine of the republican party focused too much on "Obama Out" that they forgot to tell us who Romney is in the first place. I think he would have made a nice president but they never build him up. Instead they let Obama's PR machine define him as a moron and his many instances of putting his foot in his mouth just confirmed that for many voters.

Vigilantia
November 8th, 2012, 02:43 AM
While Republicans made many mistakes, the biggest one was not telling me why I should vote for Romney. the PR machine of the republican party focused too much on "Obama Out" that they forgot to tell us who Romney is in the first place. I think he would have made a nice president but they never build him up. Instead they let Obama's PR machine define him as a moron and his many instances of putting his foot in his mouth just confirmed that for many voters.

I dunno, for me as a non-American, my biggest issue with Romney is I never knew who he really was. He was everything at the same time, he took every position which made it difficult for me to see if he was actually a powerhungry rich guy or if he decently believed in fixing the economy. Obama, from his record, I knew he tried in his termed but was blocked by Republicans in the house. He decently tried just like he said he would and you could be sure he'd do his best next time.

Romney, you couldn't say that because you never really knew who he was. My only guess to Romney's true character was that he was a moderate Republican that had to change his beliefs and what he said to jive with hard rightwing supporters (from a documentary on PBS Frontline).

Bittersweet
November 8th, 2012, 10:35 AM
Can't tell if being fun or being sarcastic serious.
Lol, you and Leo both? I'm wondering if I should go back and edit my OP to make it easier to understand. >_<


Also, I thought the patriot act was repealed, or at least modified to be less... bush-era like...

I was oversimplifying. Even if the Patriot Act was repealed, there is enough secondary legislature in place now to where it wouldn't really change anything.

RadiantBeam
November 8th, 2012, 10:57 AM
Well, we'll see how Obama manages our next looming financial crisis. Which is coming up like, right now.

jwang
November 8th, 2012, 11:13 AM
Doesn't matter, Congress will cockblock and everything will get slashed. Credit rating will take another dive, and shit gets worse.

Mike1984
November 8th, 2012, 11:22 AM
Doesn't matter, Congress will cockblock and everything will get slashed. Credit rating will take another dive, and shit gets worse.

Yeah, this about sums it up....

Aiden
November 8th, 2012, 12:50 PM
Well, we'll see how Obama manages our next looming financial crisis. Which is coming up like, right now.

Let's see if the rest of the political system will cooperate, too. Lots of potential failure points here. As stated above.

Lycodrake
November 8th, 2012, 03:20 PM
Well, we'll see how Obama manages our next looming financial crisis. Which is coming up like, right now.
It isn't "looming", though.
It's been around for years.

I3uster
November 8th, 2012, 03:32 PM
Should have listened to Rand when you had the chance. Now feel the parasites draining the last lifeblood out of your once glorious nation.
(Crying eagle goes here)

SeiKeo
November 8th, 2012, 03:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q9TYUr-Teo

I3uster
November 8th, 2012, 03:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/5FhZO.png

Arch-Magos Winter
November 8th, 2012, 06:09 PM
7079

RadiantBeam
November 8th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Let's see if the rest of the political system will cooperate, too. Lots of potential failure points here. As stated above.

Oh, I'm well aware. I nearly slammed my face into a wall when I learned the Senate and Congress were split between parties again. That's what made Obama's first four years such a mess in the first place.

Mike1984
November 8th, 2012, 06:44 PM
Oh, I'm well aware. I nearly slammed my face into a wall when I learned the Senate and Congress were split between parties again. That's what made Obama's first four years such a mess in the first place.

Yeah, I do find it rather amazing that, despite Congress having approval ratings of about 18%, the US people still decided to re-elect virtually every member of said Congress, and keep the structure just the same....

SeiKeo
November 8th, 2012, 06:49 PM
Yeah I know, R should have taken the Senate :3

^ Google >>> Gerrymandering

Mike1984
November 8th, 2012, 06:57 PM
^ Google >>> Gerrymandering

Well, yeah....

Vigilantia
November 8th, 2012, 08:27 PM
Yeah, I do find it rather amazing that, despite Congress having approval ratings of about 18%, the US people still decided to re-elect virtually every member of said Congress, and keep the structure just the same....

The solution is simple: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3rpemc/

Yeah... no matter who was voted in, the economy wouldn't have improved by that much. It'd still be cockblocking for 4 years.

BlackField
November 8th, 2012, 09:14 PM
I'm not American but didn't the democrats control both the congress and the senate for the first 2 years of his term?

SeiKeo
November 8th, 2012, 09:16 PM
Yep yep.

RadiantBeam
November 8th, 2012, 09:22 PM
They did, then we had our Senate/Congress elections and the next two years ended up split between the Democrats and the Republicans.

BlackField
November 8th, 2012, 09:27 PM
So at the very least Obama wasn't cockblocked for 2 years, is it better to have congress than lost or never congressed at all?

Vigilantia
November 8th, 2012, 10:29 PM
I'm not American but didn't the democrats control both the congress and the senate for the first 2 years of his term?

Well, you have to remember, control does not mean instant control and 100% efficiency. When you have control of congress, those democrats aren't YOUR democrats but representatives that fit in the 1 of 2 slots for a party. Therefore, some policies the president submits might not be liked by a few seats you control so you'll have to convince them or modify the bill to their liking to get their vote. That's also not including the seats that go "you know, I could use new bridges in my state. How about you give me 20 million and I'll sign it."

Control, from what I understand, means you 'theoretically' can get something through rather than the "snowballs chance in hell" situation of a contested Congress/Senate.

The only time something gets passed through at the speed of the public is when everyone agrees and no one questions it like what happened after 9/11. Everyone agreed so many bills were passed relatively quickly.

Knick
November 8th, 2012, 11:24 PM
Also the fact was that Obama was actually trying to reason with the republicans rather then just running bills though, he legitimately wanted to work together. But no, the republicans decided that even if the policies are ones we have enforced in the pass (Health care reform almost identical to what Obama proposed) we want to just prevent Obama from getting a second term (This was actually said by republicans, sad isn't it).

Chaos Greyblood
November 8th, 2012, 11:41 PM
And now they should just suck it up, take it like men and get to work or that Presidential chair won't receive another butt from a Republican for a looooooooong time.

Vigilantia
November 9th, 2012, 12:15 AM
Hey, who knows. If they go full Derp for another 4 years maybe Congress public approval will finally reach 1% (Hey oh!)

Aiden
November 9th, 2012, 01:10 AM
Oh, I'm well aware. I nearly slammed my face into a wall when I learned the Senate and Congress were split between parties again. That's what made Obama's first four years such a mess in the first place.

Yep, basically this. Gonna be a whole lot of bullshit for a while here.

Bittersweet
November 9th, 2012, 10:16 AM
is it better to have congress than lost or never congressed at all?

Lol.

KENTA
November 10th, 2012, 10:12 AM
Oh, I'm well aware. I nearly slammed my face into a wall when I learned the Senate and Congress were split between parties again. That's what made Obama's first four years such a mess in the first place.

Two years. Obama's first two years he had a democratic House and Senate.

Mcjon01
November 10th, 2012, 10:17 AM
Wasn't an obnoxiously long part of that eaten up by that stupid Franken senate race?

KENTA
November 10th, 2012, 10:18 AM
Not that long.

Mcjon01
November 10th, 2012, 10:20 AM
It felt long. Especially since in Senate-time, two years is only what, about six months of actual work?

RadiantBeam
November 10th, 2012, 11:14 AM
Two years. Obama's first two years he had a democratic House and Senate.

Two years or four years, it doesn't make much of a difference. And the split now is right from the start, so unless that changes two years down the line we're now looking at four years of a split Senate and House.

Mike1984
November 10th, 2012, 02:32 PM
Two years or four years, it doesn't make much of a difference. And the split now is right from the start, so unless that changes two years down the line we're now looking at four years of a split Senate and House.

Which it won't, because the Republicans have fiddled the House to make sure they have little or no chance of losing control....

Chaos Greyblood
November 10th, 2012, 07:49 PM
CIA director Col. David Petraeus has resigned due to an extramarital affair.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/sns-rt-us-usa-petraeusbre8a81fp-20121109,0,163213.story

Techlet
November 10th, 2012, 09:13 PM
CIA director Col. David Petraeus has resigned due to an extramarital affair.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/sns-rt-us-usa-petraeusbre8a81fp-20121109,0,163213.story

So this one did have sexual relations with another woman.

Vigilantia
November 10th, 2012, 09:33 PM
So this one did have sexual relations with another woman.

Technically unknown. If its like Clinton and the woman only did oral, it wouldn't be sexual relations in court...

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 10:48 AM
The CIA director should resign not for having the affair, but for letting it become public. If that guy can't manage to keep such a simple secret, what else is he letting through?

Note: Bittersweet does not endorse cheating, she is making an ironic and semi-serious joke.

Mcjon01
November 12th, 2012, 10:51 AM
The CIA director should resign not for having the affair, but for letting it become public. If that guy can't manage to keep such a simple secret, what else is he letting through?

Note: Bittersweet does not endorse cheating, she is making an ironic and semi-serious joke.

Makes more sense than the people I've seen insinuating that it was all a setup by the Obama administration to keep him from testifying about Benghazi.

Seika
November 12th, 2012, 10:54 AM
Makes more sense than the people I've seen insinuating that it was all a setup by the Obama administration to keep him from testifying about Benghazi.

Oh, for goodness' sake! They just cannot let go, can they?

RadiantBeam
November 12th, 2012, 10:56 AM
You would be shocked by the amount of people who think every government upset is somehow a conspiracy set up by the other guy to get rid of someone.

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 11:26 AM
You would be shocked by the amount of people who think every government upset is somehow a conspiracy set up by the other guy to get rid of someone.

I've watched thousands of movies and if they are anything to go by, it's the only rational assumption. What else could it possibly be but blackmail/conspiracy?

Seika
November 12th, 2012, 11:29 AM
What else could it possibly be but blackmail/conspiracy?

Aliens!

(Or does that come under 'conspiracy?')

SeiKeo
November 12th, 2012, 11:30 AM
Only if the feds are helping them repair their ship.

Aiden
November 12th, 2012, 11:30 AM
Aliens!

(Or does that come under 'conspiracy?')

It comes under conspiracy, but it's worth mentioning in its own right.

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 11:33 AM
What if... the ship has been here the entire time and hidden in plain sight?

WASHINGTON MONUMENT, PENTAGON, WHITE HOUSE, CAPITOL BUILDING, GATTAI!

SeiKeo
November 12th, 2012, 11:36 AM
God damn that would be a hideous Greco-Roman monstrosity.

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 11:38 AM
The Lincoln monument is actually a mech suit that the pilot needs to wear to control the mothership.

Techlet
November 12th, 2012, 12:00 PM
The Lincoln monument is actually a mech suit that the pilot needs to wear to control the mothership.

Which is disguised as the moon.

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 12:01 PM
Which is disguised as the moon.

No, the mothership is what is formed when all the landmarks of DC gattai. Do try and keep up, would you?

Techlet
November 12th, 2012, 12:12 PM
The real DC is actually on the moon. The one we think we see is just a shadow.

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 01:15 PM
Antispiral did 9/11!

Vigilantia
November 12th, 2012, 02:38 PM
Washington monument for death laser? NOD Obelisk of light style?

Five_X
November 12th, 2012, 03:10 PM
No, the mothership is what is formed when all the landmarks of DC gattai. Do try and keep up, would you?

*takes notes for MPII*

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 03:38 PM
What the heck happened to this thread, anyway? o.o

Seika
November 12th, 2012, 03:45 PM
Resigning CA director -> Sex -> conspiracy -> aliens -> all sorts of other outlandish things. An obvious chain of subjects, no? Even mostly on topic, since we're talking about Washington D.C mecha. :p

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 03:46 PM
Thread is now about Dark Pulse. What exactly DO we know about this guy?

Gaia
November 12th, 2012, 03:52 PM
Thread is now about Dark Pulse. What exactly DO we know about this guy?

He likes pizza.

Aiden
November 12th, 2012, 04:01 PM
Washington monument for death laser? NOD Obelisk of light style?

Bah. Small time.

CABAL's version of the Obelisk.

RadiantBeam
November 12th, 2012, 04:06 PM
Thread is now about Dark Pulse. What exactly DO we know about this guy?

http://www.silverfishlongboarding.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=91732&d=1346523125

I3uster
November 12th, 2012, 04:18 PM
He doesn't work on the banners.

RacingeR
November 12th, 2012, 04:19 PM
Darples is a CIA agent keeping watch on us.

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 04:22 PM
Well I meant more personality wise... Behavioraly speaking. But I guess some of these things work too.

RadiantBeam
November 12th, 2012, 04:35 PM
Darples has a personality?

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 04:36 PM
I can't even tell what side you're supposed to be playing... <_<

Vigilantia
November 12th, 2012, 04:39 PM
Thread is now about Dark Pulse. What exactly DO we know about this guy?

He's old. According to the leopard bear hybrid admin.

Aiden
November 12th, 2012, 04:40 PM
I can't even tell what side you're supposed to be playing... <_<

She's on her own side?

Vigilantia
November 12th, 2012, 04:41 PM
Darples is a CIA agent keeping watch on us.

What? That's bs. I'm the only agent supposed to be stationed here. Belh. I need to talk to my handler.

I3uster
November 12th, 2012, 04:41 PM
Can't we just close the thread before all the Republican tears flow out.

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 04:41 PM
He's old. According to the leopard bear hybrid admin.

But LeoBe is the biggest troll on the forum!

- - - Updated - - -


Can't we just close the thread before all the Republican tears flow out.

Republican tears?

RacingeR
November 12th, 2012, 04:46 PM
Darples has a personality?

Darples is not a figment of our imagination?

SeiKeo
November 12th, 2012, 04:51 PM
But LeoBe is the biggest troll on the forum!


Ha ha ha.

Bittersweet
November 12th, 2012, 04:59 PM
Urk! o_o

I was just teasing, Leo. I didn't mean any thing by it, honest! ^_^

Gaia
November 12th, 2012, 06:02 PM
Well I meant more personality wise... Behavioraly speaking.

Like I said, he likes pizza. A person who likes pizza can't be bad!

terraablaze
November 12th, 2012, 06:07 PM
I don't know what you guys are talking about this Obama guy for, J.J. Rockets was elected president right?

Vigilantia
November 12th, 2012, 06:39 PM
Like I said, he likes pizza. A person who likes pizza can't be bad!

Hitler liked pizza. :P

Gaia
November 12th, 2012, 07:26 PM
:(

Kelnish
November 12th, 2012, 07:49 PM
Hitler liked pizza. :P

No he didn't. You're thinking of the ninja turtles, not the leader of Nazi Germany. I get them confused sometimes too.

Vigilantia
November 12th, 2012, 07:59 PM
No he didn't. You're thinking of the ninja turtles, not the leader of Nazi Germany. I get them confused sometimes too.

No, man. Hitler loved his pizza.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSD0Mjt64LQ

Wow, talk about a derail...

Spinach
November 12th, 2012, 08:39 PM
Thread is now about Dark Pulse. What exactly DO we know about this guy?

Dark Pulse
Dark/Electric
"The Oldfag Pokemon"

Long winded and large footed, the Dark Pulse is one of the legendary pokemon of BL. Known for his crude humor and his (attempts at) elitism, it is generally agreed that Dark Pulse has bad taste. Is confirmed to have existed since the creation of the Earth, and has great knowledge of video game history (but still has bad taste). Is weak to people calling him old.

Techlet
November 12th, 2012, 09:54 PM
Darples needs to write more Akiha porn.

RadiantBeam
November 12th, 2012, 10:17 PM
There is never enough Akiha porn.

Arch-Magos Winter
November 12th, 2012, 10:21 PM
There is never enough porn ever. Period.

RadiantBeam
November 12th, 2012, 10:22 PM
You clearly haven't spent enough time on the internet if you believe that.

Bittersweet
November 13th, 2012, 10:36 AM
Dark Pulse
Dark/Electric
"The Oldfag Pokemon"

Long winded and large footed, the Dark Pulse is one of the legendary pokemon of BL. Known for his crude humor and his (attempts at) elitism, it is generally agreed that Dark Pulse has bad taste. Is confirmed to have existed since the creation of the Earth, and has great knowledge of video game history (but still has bad taste). Is weak to people calling him old.
Darpies is always sleeping, so wouldnt he just be a Snorelax?

Spinach
November 13th, 2012, 11:05 AM
Are you calling him fat? That's rude.

SeiKeo
November 13th, 2012, 11:09 AM
Yeah, only Spinach gets to call people fat.

Bittersweet
November 13th, 2012, 11:14 AM
How am I supposed to know how fat Darpies is or isn't? I've never seen a picture of him. All I know is that he is "Big, tall and hairy" so I assumed he looks like a wookiee.

RadiantBeam
November 13th, 2012, 12:53 PM
How am I supposed to know how fat Darpies is or isn't? I've never seen a picture of him. All I know is that he is "Big, tall and hairy" so I assumed he looks like a wookiee.

Stereotypes are bad, m'kay.

Aiden
November 13th, 2012, 01:43 PM
Stereotypes are bad, m'kay.

What is bad about being a wookiee? O_o

Theocrass
November 13th, 2012, 01:44 PM
Why is bad about being a wookiee? O_o

LEARN TO ENGLISH AIDEN

Aiden
November 13th, 2012, 02:07 PM
LEARN TO ENGLISH AIDEN

For that, the honey bees go away. Forever.

Flame
November 13th, 2012, 02:11 PM
"Global preferences for Obama and Romney in the 2012 election, by country"


http://www.statista.com/statistics/245772/global-preferences-for-obama-and-romney-in-the-2012-election/

Chaos Greyblood
November 13th, 2012, 02:17 PM
Just found this on this recent column (http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8624420/tmq-evaluates-top-teams-heading-playoff-race):

"I Promise to Make Even More Promises": Between now and New Year's Day, there will be a competition among politicians, nearly all of whom have both endorsed reducing the national debt and demanded more subsidies to campaign donors, to avoid actually cutting any programs. If we can't manage minor spending reductions, how will we ever tackle the big-ticket items such as entitlements and defense spending? Consider a proposed minor reduction:
In January, Barack Obama promised tocut government overhead by consolidating (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/r-i-p-department-of-commerce-president-obama-seeks-to-consolidate-government-agencies) the Commerce Department, Small Business Administration, Office of the Trade Representative and Export-Import Bank. Sounds great! But since then nothing has happened. All these agencies continue merrily wasting money.
The year before, at his 2011 State of the Union Address, Obama said, "In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote -- and we will push to get it passed." Sounds great! But nothing was done. Obama talked about saving money, then what he actually did was spend.
Overlap and featherbedding are rampant in federal agencies: Details are in this GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf). There is tremendous potential to use streamlining and consolidating to cut the cost of government, while maintaining services. Twice Obama has promised this, then never followed up. Talk is cheap.



- - - Updated - - -

And for the other side of the rainbow...

Is Paul Ryan the New Sarah Palin?Last week, Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan became the first presidential ticket since 1972 to fail to carry the home states of either candidate. In 1972, George McGovern and Sargent Shriver carried neither South Dakota nor Maryland; last week, Romney and Ryan carried neither Massachusetts nor Wisconsin. Romney's chance in the very-blue Bay State was always slim. That made a running mate who could bring a swing state to the ticket especially important. But Ryan not only failed to carry his state, he failed to carry his own home county (http://www.co.rock.wi.us/results11062012). This suggests Romney's choice of Ryan was the fatal mistake of his candidacy.
Many expected Romney to choose Sen. Rob Portman, who since the retirement of John Glenn has been Ohio's most respected politician. For Republicans, the relationship between carrying Ohio and winning the White House is not some closely guarded secret. Portman wanted to be on the Romney ticket; this presence would have given Republicans a terrific chance to win Ohio.
Equally important, as a moderate, Portman would have given the ticket appeal to independents and moderates. The Republican need to appeal to independents and moderates is not a carefully guarded secret, either. Obama drew more than 90 percent of the Democratic vote, Romney drew more than 90 percent of the Republican vote. The candidates basically split the independent-and-moderate vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/sunday-review/the-building-blocks-of-re-election.html). Because Democratssomewhat outnumber Republicans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/Democratic-Party-Drops-2010-Tying-Year-Low.aspx), Romney needed clear victory among independents and moderates. When he merely split those blocs, Obama retained the White House.
[+] Enlargehttp://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1112/play_g_wiscts_200.jpg (http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1112/play_g_wiscts_400.jpg)Encyclopaedia Britannica/UIG Via Getty ImagesPaul Ryan lives here and could not even deliver his own home county.


Ryan may be the economic genius he claims to be, or may be a self-promoting crackpot. But how could anyone think his finger-jabbing fact-inventing persona would appeal to the middle? Ryan didn't even appeal to his hometown! A Romney-Portman ticket could have presented itself as calm voices of reason and skill. The Romney-Ryan ticket presented itself an accomplished man plus a loose cannon.
Ryan may been a champion to the far-right base, but most members of the far-right base live in states the Republican ticket would have carried regardless. To top it off, Ryan simultaneously ran for vice president and for reelection to the House. This all but announced Ryan expected Romney to lose, and was in the campaign solely for self-promotion. When, in 1988, Michael Dukakis's running mate Lloyd Bentsen simultaneously ran for vice-president and for reelection to the Senate, then failed to carry his own state, the Democratic Party was widely ridiculed. This year, Republicans stepped on the same land mine.
If Romney had picked Portman, there's a good chance he would have carried Ohio, and his odds in Florida would have been better. Romney might today be preparing for his inauguration. That he did not pick Portman suggests Romney has poor political instincts -- which means he shouldn't be president.

Techlet
November 13th, 2012, 08:30 PM
How am I supposed to know how fat Darpies is or isn't? I've never seen a picture of him. All I know is that he is "Big, tall and hairy" so I assumed he looks like a wookiee.

Darples is as generously proportioned as he is verbose.

BlackField
November 14th, 2012, 08:51 AM
Interestingly enough, on the Republicans winning the House debate, it appears that the republicians would've won without gerrymandering and even Barney Frank agrees(after saying without gerrymandering the Democrats would've won). http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rep-barney-franks-claim-about-a-should-be-democratic-house-majority/2012/11/13/8fc42b0a-2dd8-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_blog.html

Typed in small font for offtopic or is it ontopic, not sure anymore.

Mike1984
November 14th, 2012, 08:59 AM
Well, it is still true that they gained quite a few seats as a result, and they were also favoured by other factors.

Plus, the main point is that the Democrats did actually win the popular vote. The reason why that didn't translate into more seats isn't really that important, it just shows that the reason the Republicans still control the house is due to the layout of the seats rather than them actually being popular.

BlackField
November 14th, 2012, 09:10 AM
The seat layouts, even ignoring gerrymandering, were probably done that way for a reason. Now why, well that is a question I can't answer but I imagine it might have something to do with area sizes.

And popular vote deciding elections would be awful, every election would end in coalitions. And Obama would have won by a lot less with popular vote, so its one of those thing where you hate it when it opposes you but love it when it works for you.

Mike1984
November 14th, 2012, 09:13 AM
The seat layouts, even ignoring gerrymandering, were probably done that way for a reason. Now why, well that is a question I can't answer but I imagine it might have something to do with area sizes.

Yes, but you're completely missing my point. The Republicans won because the system is biased towards them, not because they were actually popular.


And popular vote deciding elections would be awful, every election would end in coalitions.

And?

How is that any different from what you have now, where one party controls the Senate and the other controls the House? Except, of course, in that the parties would actually be required to work together, rather than being incentivised to fight each other at every turn....


And Obama would have won by a lot less with popular vote, so its one of those thing where you hate it when it opposes you but love it when it works for you.

He'd have still won, so what's the problem?

Conversely, Bush in 2000 would not have won, which would have saved the world from a hell of a lot of problems.

BlackField
November 14th, 2012, 09:24 AM
Mike I think you missed the point. Republicans for some reason managed to win the votes of the people in certain districts, the democrats failed to win those areas, its not some huge conspiracy and there is no information to suggest it was gamed. Popular vote wasn't part of the design of the system for elections for a reason, its working as intended.

Just look at Britain and how awful that coalition is or my home country Australia, where the coalition has been used as an excuse to break every election promise and has lead Australia to become the backwater of politics.

The republicans might have challenged his win in the courts and it could've taken months to learn the winner.

Just to underline this I'm happy Obama won and I wish he won the house and all I wanted to do was post an interesting article.

Mcjon01
November 14th, 2012, 09:24 AM
There you liberals go again, blaming Bush for the things Bush did.

SeiKeo
November 14th, 2012, 09:26 AM
Conversely, Bush in 2000 would not have won, which would have saved the world from a hell of a lot of problems.

This isn't true at all, though, electoral strategy is based around the College to basically the exclusion of all else - a campaign without the College would basically be a totally different one.

Mike1984
November 14th, 2012, 09:36 AM
Mike I think you missed the point.

No, I didn't. I am well aware of the "point" you are making, but the point that I am making is that the Republicans still won because of the system and not because they were genuinely popular.


Republicans for some reason managed to win the votes of the people in certain districts, the democrats failed to win those areas, its not some huge conspiracy and there is no information to suggest it was gamed.

Actually, even the article you linked says it was gamed, and the Republicans gained substantially as a result. It doesn't explain them having a majority, but it did give them a bigger majority.


Popular vote wasn't part of the design of the system for elections for a reason, its working as intended.

Yeah, and equal rights for non-white people wasn't part of the design of the US either. Doesn't make it any less desirable.

Besides, the original reason for having an Electoral College was for them to be chosen by the people or the state governments and then to decide who they vote for. Having political parties and "pledged electors" like you have now totally defeats the point of the system.


Just look at Britain and how awful that coalition is or my home country Australia, where the coalition has been used as an excuse to break every election promise and has lead Australia to become the backwater of politics.

As opposed to the alternative, which is that a party gets to impose its policies despite over half of the country being violently opposed, like Thatcher did....

At least having the Tories in coalition with the Lib Dems means that the Tories can't completely destroy the country. As bad as the coalition is, having a Tory majority government would be way worse.


The republicans might have challenged his win in the courts and it could've taken months to learn the winner.

Not really, it's not close enough for that. And, honestly, the electoral college system makes doing that easier.


This isn't true at all, though, electoral strategy is based around the College to basically the exclusion of all else - a campaign without the College would basically be a totally different one.

Well, yes, this is admittedly true. I guess that a campaign without the Electoral College would be more about getting as many Californias/Texans to vote as possible.

Still, Bush did lose the popular vote, so based on the best information that we have he would have lost the election. We cannot, of course, be certain of that, but that doesn't invalidate the point I was trying to make.

eddyak
November 14th, 2012, 09:40 AM
There is never enough Akiha porn.
Perhaps somebody should get to work on that.

Not that I'm hinting at that, or anything...

I am hinting at that.

BlackField
November 14th, 2012, 09:46 AM
I'm not even going to argue those points because it is meaningless. The system wasn't gamed for the republicans in the house, that's all that matters.

You might find that politics based around the tyranny of the minority isn't such a good thing after all and a system designed for politicians to be directly accountable to people rather than parties might be not as bad as you think.

And bringing up racism is just unnecessary, I might as well say Hitler was a good ruler cause he won the popular vote consistently while he lead germany(I'm deliberately invoking Goodwin cause of racism)

- - - Updated - - -


There is never enough Akiha porn.
True but Tsukihime gets shafted for porn(hehehe).

Seika
November 14th, 2012, 09:47 AM
At least having the Tories in coalition with the Lib Dems means that the Tories can't completely destroy the country. As bad as the coalition is, having a Tory majority government would be way worse.

Mike, dare I say that inserting an obviously biased political point/example into the argument isn't the best way to put it forward? No matter how much you think it's true, that condemnation is very partisan.

Nothing else to say, just wanted to nit-pick on that. :p

Mike1984
November 14th, 2012, 09:51 AM
I'm not even going to argue those points because it is meaningless. The system wasn't gamed for the republicans in the house, that's all that matters.

Actually, yes, it was. It just didn't cause them to take control.


You might find that politics based around the tyranny of the minority isn't such a good thing after all

What?

A first past the post system invariably leads to tyranny of the minority. At least with a proportional system you need a majority....


a system designed for politicians to be directly accountable to people rather than parties might be not as bad as you think.

No, I agree entirely that that is a good thing, which is why I support an electoral system such as STV, which ensures that people have a choice of candidates rather than parties.


And bringing up racism is just unnecessary

No, it really wasn't, because it is a good example of the idiocy that arises if you consider the opinions of the founding fathers to be sacrosanct.


I might as well say Hitler was a good ruler cause he won the popular vote consistently while he lead germany(I'm deliberately invoking Goodwin cause of racism)

What?

That analogy is completely spurious....

- - - Updated - - -


Mike, dare I say that inserting an obviously biased political point/example into the argument isn't the best way to put it forward? No matter how much you think it's true, that condemnation is very partisan.

Nothing else to say, just wanted to nit-pick on that. :p

No, because, whilst it is obviously a very biased opinion, it illustrates the issue very well. You could just as easily swap "Tories" with "Labour" in that statement and the same logic would hold, if you're a right-winger.

Further, I made that point because he used the coalition in the UK as an example of why coalitions are bad in general. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he agrees with me on this, and I was just pointing out that, as bad as the coalition is, a majority Tory government would have been worse (from the viewpoint of someone on the left, anyway).

The point I was making was not that the Coalition sucks or the Tories suck, the point I was making is that, if you believe the Coalition sucks, then it sucks because of the Tories, not because it is a coalition. Having a system which gives a party a (large) majority with a minority of the votes only exasperates that problem, it does not make it better.

BlackField
November 14th, 2012, 10:01 AM
You know what I'm not stupid enough to comment anymore. Mike, the system is in place for a reason and Americans are happy with it enough that it hasn't been removed, thats what matters. I'm not American, you certainly aren't, our opinion is meaningless and bitching isn't going to do anything.

I3uster
November 14th, 2012, 10:25 AM
But he has a valid point, coalitions are far more democratic than a two-party system. The only thing that has going for it is "efficiency", and that's funnily enough also a good argument for a dictatorship :V

Seika
November 14th, 2012, 10:29 AM
Mind, 'efficiency' also goes out the window once there's such strong opposition that neither side can get anything done. And if they're working together in a spirit of bipartisanship ... well, that's like a much looser coalition, no?

(I honestly don't have much of an opinion here, I'm just playing advocate to any argument I see fit. ;))

I3uster
November 14th, 2012, 10:32 AM
Well, it needs more competition than two parties, but once coalitions become a real thing people can vote for smaller parties without thinking that it's throwing a vote away.

Of course this is all brainwanking since a change in the system is probably not wanted by the population in the first place, and by the lobbyists which after all have the real power in any goverment :V

SeiKeo
November 14th, 2012, 10:34 AM
It's almost like a federal system works really badly once you start treating it like a unitary state half the time.

Mike1984
November 14th, 2012, 08:27 PM
You know what I'm not stupid enough to comment anymore. Mike, the system is in place for a reason and Americans are happy with it enough that it hasn't been removed, thats what matters.

I'm not at all convinced the system is in place for a "reason", aside from "no-one can be bothered to fix it". Also, I'm not convinced Americans are happy with it, but the people in charge are, because it entrenches their power. Plus, the government is very good at conning people into keeping the status-quo by scare-mongering, like happened when Britain voted on AV.


I'm not American, you certainly aren't, our opinion is meaningless and bitching isn't going to do anything.

Yes, and?

ratstsrub
November 14th, 2012, 09:37 PM
I'm not even going to argue those points because it is meaningless. The system wasn't gamed for the republicans in the house, that's all that matters.

You might find that politics based around the tyranny of the minority isn't such a good thing after all and a system designed for politicians to be directly accountable to people rather than parties might be not as bad as you think.

And bringing up racism is just unnecessary, I might as well say Hitler was a good ruler cause he won the popular vote consistently while he lead germany(I'm deliberately invoking Goodwin cause of racism)

- - - Updated - - -


True but Tsukihime gets shafted for porn(hehehe).

The system itself isn't gamed for Republicans:

The system itself is susceptible to gaming. Which the Republicans have done. The Democrats could do it too, and they have, but that doesn't change the fact that gerrymandering is gaming the system, and that Republicans have gerrymandered their way into retaining the House.

Pennsylvania, for example, is popularly Democratic. But, look at the district map, what do you see?

Red red red.

Also, Ohio. Virginia.

So what you have is that although the majority of those states are Democratic, its Representatives are skewed majorly towards Republican. Or...not representative of the state distribution.


Reform of the districting system is something I'd like...but which probably won't get done because it's against the interest of both parties, and especially to any party currently in power.

Mike1984
November 14th, 2012, 09:51 PM
The system itself isn't gamed for Republicans:

The system itself is susceptible to gaming. Which the Republicans have done. The Democrats could do it too, and they have, but that doesn't change the fact that gerrymandering is gaming the system, and that Republicans have gerrymandered their way into retaining the House.

Well, it's apparently not actually true that they retained the house due to gerrymandering, although they did definitely gain quite a few seats.


Reform of the districting system is something I'd like...but which probably won't get done because it's against the interest of both parties, and especially to any party currently in power.

Well, that's not entirely true, because gerrymandering is done by the states and not by the federal government, so in theory it could be disadvantageous to the party in power. Of course, that would require the federal government to take control of the allocation of districts, which I'm not sure is even constitutionally allowed.

SeiKeo
November 14th, 2012, 10:00 PM
The manner in which states choose their representatives is a sovereign state power, so, yeah, the federal government would probably need an amendment to do it...

Or possibly a SCOTUS decision that ruled most methods of districting unconstitutional. But that seems unlikely.

ratstsrub
November 14th, 2012, 10:08 PM
Well, it's apparently not actually true that they retained the house due to gerrymandering, although they did definitely gain quite a few seats.



Well, that's not entirely true, because gerrymandering is done by the states and not by the federal government, so in theory it could be disadvantageous to the party in power. Of course, that would require the federal government to take control of the allocation of districts, which I'm not sure is even constitutionally allowed.

I disagree.

And:

Parties exist at the state level as well.

BlackField
November 15th, 2012, 03:26 AM
I disagree.

And:

Parties exist at the state level as well.
Well I did post a thing from the washington post fact checkers and they say it wasn't gerrymandering, and Barney Frank came out and said he was wrong to say gerrymandering won the house, well I'd say gerrymandering didn't win the house for the republicians.

It seems like America has a system where rural areas have more seats per capita than urban areas, Democrats have mainly urban support, Republicans rural.

Bittersweet
November 15th, 2012, 10:20 AM
I'm not at all convinced the system is in place for a "reason", aside from "no-one can be bothered to fix it". Also, I'm not convinced Americans are happy with it, but the people in charge are, because it entrenches their power. Plus, the government is very good at conning people into keeping the status-quo by scare-mongering, like happened when Britain voted on AV.


Yeah, siding with Mike here.

Knick
November 19th, 2012, 03:07 PM
OK, I can only say this, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." (Winston Churchill).