President Obama does it again!

Jacks:Revenge · Jun 23, 2012

Sir_Brizz said:
So you were saying [...] he could have raised less money than McCain/Palin and still won.

no.
I didn't say he could have raised less than McCain and won.

I said that he could have raised a lot less than he did and still won.
get it now?

Historical precedent makes people feel good but it doesn't actually do anything valuable for the country, which is all I really care about out of our President.

whoah, whoah.
back up there Brizz.

do you...
do you not know what "precedent" means?

maybe I'm reading this statement wrong, but your grammar would imply that you're using a completely different definition of "precedent" than I am. look:
"historical precedent makes people feel good."
makes people feel good?
so you think I'm talking about electing the first black president?

that's not what I'm talking about when I refer to precedent.
historical precedent is not the fact that Obama is a black man. the precedent has to do with the entire circumstance of the election. Obama was black, but (as I just finished explaining to Hal) he was a real/serious contender. unlike Herman Cain and unlike Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama had the kind of pedigree that most candidates would kill for no matter what side of the aisle they were on or what color their skin was.

the precedent includes the full spectrum of factors that led to Obama's victory; the state of the economy (after being led by 2 conservative administrations), the war(s) on terror, the competition from the rest of the field of candidates, and yes Sarah Palin + John McCain getting a little nasty and away from his principles.

I dare say the color of his skin is the least of the reasons for Obama's success. maybe a few ignorant black people voted for him JUST because he's black, but that doesn't win you a national election.

Should we have Hobo Joe running for President this year because it would set a historical precedence?

no, see, this is why I'm afraid that you don't understand what "precedent" means. it doesn't simply mean "anyone who hasn't been there before." that's absurd.

Hypocrisy is disagreeing with the system, and then berating one candidate for utilizing that system while giving the order candidate a pass simply because you like him.

what?
I'm not berating Romney for raising money. you can't quote me saying anything like that because I never did.

I've been berating the Citizens United ruling.
not Romney.

I berate Romney because he's a horrible candidate for reasons having nothing to do with money.

Hermskii · Jun 24, 2012

dotnetbeast said:
Because I want this thread to die.

Who gives a shit about politics?
Seriously.

I don't give a fuck. Call me a thread crapper, give me an infraction, but this thread needs to die.

No way. This is a pretty good topic. Nobody is being nasty or at least not on that least page. LOL. This topic is going to catch on fire next Wednesday and Thursday for sure!

I recall Mondale and his lady VP choice. They were doomed and not because of her in my opinion. Sorry but true.

I hate to say it but John McCain and Sarah Palin gave it their best shot and lost. I voted for them and we lost. His age and old school "vibe" buried him more than any thing else. I think the young folks thought he was creepy with his jacked up teeth and mangled little body. I doubt half of them knew how he came to be that way. The half that did know didn't care. Being tortured isn't a Presidential qualification but I'm starting to think it might not be a bad idea. LOL.

I felt that Palin was a big plus for McCain's candidacy. I never saw the media go after anyone the way they did after Palin but she made mistakes and they smelled blood. It would have happened to any VP candidate. I still never saw anything like that before though. They are still after her too! LOL. I feel the media is "on the left-ish side" a little. LOL.

Obama was magic. I told my wife if he continued as he was during the primaries that he'd win the White House.

Hermskii · Jun 24, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
I dare say the color of his skin is the least of the reasons for Obama's success. maybe a few ignorant black people voted for him JUST because he's black, but that doesn't win you a national election.

Did you type that with a straight face? Care to rephrase that or post your source?

Zxanphorian · Jun 24, 2012

Hermskii said:
I hate to say it but John McCain and Sarah Palin gave it their best shot and lost. I voted for them and we lost. His age and old school "vibe" buried him more than any thing else. I think the young folks thought he was creepy with his jacked up teeth and mangled little body. I doubt half of them knew how he came to be that way. The half that did know didn't care. Being tortured isn't a Presidential qualification but I'm starting to think it might not be a bad idea. LOL.

Well, as a 'young folk,' I actually liked his old school vibe before his candidacy. Old school vibe in the sense of how I liked that he was once a moderate voice of reason during the Bush years and older, and would reach across to anyone for support. And it is a shame that some people didn't know about his service and torture that left him permanently disabled.

That being said, I think that McCain's downfall was two-fold. It wasn't his old school vibe of his past that didn't sink him, I think it is simply he was becoming the stereotypical bitter old man (becoming increasingly bitter after Obama won). Much of this bitterness probably stemmed from him catching the Tea Party 'bug,' that pretty much tarnished my support for him during his candidacy and beyond. It is a shame that a man that was a moderate voice in the Senate was dragged father to the right. Although I don't totally blame him, it was more of the toxic environment that caused this shift.

I felt that Palin was a big plus for McCain's candidacy. I never saw the media go after anyone the way they did after Palin but she made mistakes and they smelled blood. It would have happened to any VP candidate. I still never saw anything like that before though. They are still after her too! LOL. I feel the media is "on the left-ish side" a little. LOL.

You best be joking. Palin was plucked from an obscure Governorship in a remote state and thrust into national spotlight in which she was not seasoned in. Her interviews with Katie Couric were disasters, and she couldn't coherently and intelligently answer questions. When asked about what she reads for news, she says 'any of them' without even being able to name a single source. When asked by the media difficult questions, she accuses the "left wing 'lame'stream media" of asking 'gotcha' questions.

And all of Palin's blunders of epic frequency wouldn't happen as much with any VP candidate. She was clearly agitated and would resort to the 'liberal media' card and her pre-rehearsed talking points while Joe Biden would sit back cool as a cucumber during debates. Not to mention her writing notes down ON HER HAND. She was simply not prepared for the VP, and to think she would be in control of the nuclear football if McCain croaked. As long as she makes blunders and thinks she is still relevant in the public sphere, she will still be rebuffed for the aforementioned reasons.

Sir_Brizz · Jun 24, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
no.
I didn't say he could have raised less than McCain and won.

I said that he could have raised a lot less than he did and still won.
get it now?

You said "half of what he did" and seeing as he only raised about double McCain, the implication of your post should have been obvious especially to you.

that's not what I'm talking about when I refer to precedent.
historical precedent is not the fact that Obama is a black man. the precedent has to do with the entire circumstance of the election. Obama was black, but (as I just finished explaining to Hal) he was a real/serious contender. unlike Herman Cain and unlike Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama had the kind of pedigree that most candidates would kill for no matter what side of the aisle they were on or what color their skin was.

the precedent includes the full spectrum of factors that led to Obama's victory; the state of the economy (after being led by 2 conservative administrations), the war(s) on terror, the competition from the rest of the field of candidates, and yes Sarah Palin + John McCain getting a little nasty and away from his principles.

I dare say the color of his skin is the least of the reasons for Obama's success. maybe a few ignorant black people voted for him JUST because he's black, but that doesn't win you a national election.

no, see, this is why I'm afraid that you don't understand what "precedent" means. it doesn't simply mean "anyone who hasn't been there before." that's absurd.

Bleh. All of this semantic blabbering doesn't even matter. You are stretching quite far on your limited definition of the word "precedent" here. Specific instances of the 2008 election cycle were notable because they were the first time they happened or were taken seriously.

I don't know or care why people voted for Obama. Well, I have my theories but it is seriously irrelevant to this topic.

Setting a precedent means "setting a standard that may be used in future instances". The state of the economy and a bunch of the other things you mentioned is pretty irrelevant.

what?
I'm not berating Romney for raising money. you can't quote me saying anything like that because I never did.

I've been berating the Citizens United ruling.
not Romney.

I berate Romney because he's a horrible candidate for reasons having nothing to do with money.

It would have been beneficial to finish reading my post where I addressed this issue exactly.

It has to do with being a hypocrite (and I can't think of a single instance where you have done that whether you have or not, which is why I stated in my post that it wasn't necessarily directed at you).

cryptophreak · Jun 24, 2012

This thread is so far gone that people are arguing with Hermskii like he's a real person. Time for boobs.

hal · Jun 24, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
don't play dense Hal.

Herman Cain didn't stand a chance from day one.
token black guy all the way.

the reason there's a difference between Cain and Obama is simple.
Obama is serious. no one with a lick of sense believed Cain would go anywhere. Cain himself might have thought he was serious but he was the only one who did. and even that notion is suspicious; I think he knew exactly what he was doing (like Donald Trump); more than anything he was just raising his profile and making money.

I'm not playing dense. I'm asking you what you mean by saying Herman Cain was a token black guy.

Are you implying that he was somehow manipulated into running so that the the Republican party gave the appearance of being racially inclusive?

It seemed like a rather outlandish statement so that is why I asked you to clarify.

Look, I've heard the jokes that even Cain was surprised he did as well as he did. I just don't think that's basis for implying his support or run was based on race.

dotnetbeast · Jun 24, 2012

cryptophreak said:
This thread is so far gone that people are arguing with Hermskii like he's a real person. Time for boobs.

I believe...yes I'm certain that's Faye Reagan.

Jacks:Revenge · Jun 24, 2012

Sir_Brizz said:
You said "half of what he did" and seeing as he only raised about double McCain, the implication of your post should have been obvious especially to you.

then you'll have to excuse me.
it was a turn of phrase more than anything. when I said it, it was about getting the point across; the point that money was perhaps less important in 2008 than any other election in recent memory. I didn't really mean for the figure itself (when I said "half") to be that literal of an interpretation.

You are stretching quite far on your limited definition of the word "precedent" here.

yeah I don't think so.
I think you slightly misunderstood me and now you're walking your reply back a little.

Setting a precedent means "setting a standard that may be used in future instances". The state of the economy and a bunch of the other things you mentioned is pretty irrelevant.

ok I'm sorry.
the fact that you even have the balls to say that "the state of the economy is .... irrelevant" when considering the implications of the 2008 election (or any election) just further reinforces my concern that you're confused.

It would have been beneficial to finish reading my post where I addressed this issue exactly.

look I heard you loud and clear.
you're not "necessarily" referring to me (about berating Romney), I got it.

I'm simply clarifying my stance since the same issue was also brought up by Herm and TWD.
I don't want to hold the issue of money against Romney. every candidate has more money than I do, that's why they're candidates.

I have much better (and more important) reasons for disliking Romney.
just sayin'.

Zur · Jun 24, 2012

Immigration: Pulling in foreigners to do work that is too dangerous or too low-paid for nationals to do.

Why: Something along the lines of a stupid government running up a massive debt, cronyism, taxing the shit out of people and then expecting the average Joe to pay for what is a major fuckup.

theabyss · Jun 24, 2012

Hermskii said:
I felt that Palin was a big plus for McCain's candidacy.

What?
Sorry, but...

BAAAWHHWWAHAHAAHAHAHAA

Sir_Brizz · Jun 24, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
then you'll have to excuse me.
it was a turn of phrase more than anything. when I said it, it was about getting the point across; the point that money was perhaps less important in 2008 than any other election in recent memory. I didn't really mean for the figure itself (when I said "half") to be that literal of an interpretation.

That's fair. I thought it was intentional at the time and obviously it was not.

yeah I don't think so.
I think you slightly misunderstood me and now you're walking your reply back a little.

ok I'm sorry.
the fact that you even have the balls to say that "the state of the economy is .... irrelevant" when considering the implications of the 2008 election (or any election) just further reinforces my concern that you're confused.

I'm not walking my point back at all. The state of the economy in 2008 might have made the election cycle "notable" but it didn't set a precedent. The economy has been much worse during a Presidential election cycle before, in fact it is worse this year for all intents and purposes. I'm not sure why you are stuck on that word.

Sure, there was a precedent and it's a feel good moment when tradition is broken, I simply disagree that that has any relevance whatsoever. We shouldn't elect a person because it sets a precedent, we should elect a person because they are the right person for the job (which is what I said before). If Obama was full white instead of half-white, chances are good he still would have won, primarily due to the amount of money he had available to his campaign. Likewise, if he was full-black it probably would have been the same outcome. The color of his skin was likely not really a factor, like you previously said, which is why it is irrelevant when talking about that election cycle.

All I'm saying is that electing a President isn't supposed to make us look or feel good, it's supposed to be to get someone in office that can affect change and get real crap done. In a lot of ways, we are doing better than we were 50 years ago, but in a lot of other ways we are in the crapper about to get flushed compared to 50 years ago. I want a President that can get us back on the right track, I don't give two craps about the historical precedence of such a thing.

I'm simply clarifying my stance since the same issue was also brought up by Herm and TWD.
I don't want to hold the issue of money against Romney. every candidate has more money than I do, that's why they're candidates.

I have much better (and more important) reasons for disliking Romney.
just sayin'.

That's fair, you just should have pointed that out before

The way you quoted/responded just made it look like you didn't read the rest of my post.

Big-Al · Jun 25, 2012

dotnetbeast said:
I believe...yes I'm certain that's Faye Reagan.

yep

-Jes- · Jun 25, 2012

Hermskii said:
I felt that Palin was a big plus for McCain's candidacy.

Did you type that with a straight face?

Vaskadar · Jun 25, 2012

She destroyed his campaign from within by being a stubborn fundie hick (representative of everything I hate about the teaparty) and completely disagreeing with what McCain was putting forth. If anything, she was the reason NOT to vote for McCain.

Zxanphorian · Jun 25, 2012

Vaskadar said:
She destroyed his campaign from within by being a stubborn fundie hick (representative of everything I hate about the teaparty) and completely disagreeing with what McCain was putting forth. If anything, she was the reason NOT to vote for McCain.

But how is that hope-y change-y thing doing for ya?

Vaskadar · Jun 25, 2012

I knew shit wasn't going to change, but anything was better than the possibility of Palin.

Zxanphorian · Jun 25, 2012

Vaskadar said:
I knew shit wasn't going to change, but anything was better than the possibility of Palin.

Nah, I was saying that because Palin said that during the 2010 midterm elections.

TWD · Jun 25, 2012

On the heels of the supreme court decision, Obama has ordered the DHS to suspend all agreements with Arizona to enforce federal immigration laws. So first Obama decided he doesn't need congress. Now he's decided that he doesn't need the supreme court either. Makes you wonder what he will do when his healthcare mandate gets struck down as well.

Zxanphorian · Jun 25, 2012

TWD said:
On the heels of the supreme court decision, Obama has ordered the DHS to suspend all agreements with Arizona to enforce federal immigration laws. So first Obama decided he doesn't need congress. Now he's decided that he doesn't need the supreme court either. Makes you wonder what he will do when his healthcare mandate gets struck down as well.

Your wording of what the Obama Administration did is a bit misleading. He is no longer accommodating the parts of the very law that was struck down as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS decided that states rights do not usurp standing federal law concerning immigration laws. Pretty much what now is happening is that the DHS isn't going to need to comply with Arizona, now Arizona has to comply with the DHS.

It isn't like what you are implying that the DHS will no longer be willing to enforce federal immigration laws in Arizona (out of spite, I suppose).

About your 'Obama doesn't need X branch of government' remarks, that is just ludicrous. He is merely adapting, and enforcing (which the Executive branch does, enforces laws and constitutionality) what the SCOTUS decided. To say that Obama is enacting a grand conspiracy to become a dictator and trample on the Constitution's separation of powers is just absurd.

-----

Still, this decision is going in the right direction. (Although it still retains the Gestapo-like "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS" provision.) But the decision isn't the end of the debate, there has to be more to do. Everyone has to get on board and work together (Congress, SCOTUS, POTUS, States) to solve it. Currently, the issue is met with inactivity , Obama not fulfilling his promise for immigration reform in his first year (realistically that was a pipe dream anyway) and Congress's failure to act on the DREAM act or simply the ability to discuss the issue, or states taking the law into their own hands because of the inactivity and penning these monstrosities like Arizona's.

-----

But hey, TWD, they upheld the Citizens United decision! So now you have your all-positive unlimited anonymous money flooding in from possibly outside the country or even the state in which the election is held!

President Obama does it again!

╠╣E╚╚O

www.Hermskii.com

www.Hermskii.com

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Administrator

unbalanced

Dictator

Mood Muzik

╠╣E╚╚O

surrealistic mad cow

No One Here Gets Out Alive

Administrator

amateur de bière

Tastefully Barking

It's time I look back from outer space

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

It's time I look back from outer space

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Cute and Cuddly

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)