What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

pirate said:
I think both sides are victimized...real and imagined. Each party attacks the other, usually with gross exagerations, broad brushes and anecdotes. Thus, each party is constantly being attacked and each party is constantly victimized for offenses of little factual accuracy, much less real impact on anything.

And each party uses those 'attacks' to do what? Justify their attacks. What is better than a reactive attack? A proactive attack, of course....but since each side is still responding to attacks from 1996, it will be a while before we see a proactive attack again.

So, the attacks are real, the issues may not be but the attacks are real...of course the responses would make an Italian soccer player jealous. No, not the cheating, the writhing and screaming at all contact, all near contact and all imagined contact.

Does that mean there are no real offenses? Not in the least. But how would you know above the din?

And like people at professional wrestling, the public eats it up, doesn't look behind the curtain and just keeps waiting for their side to smack the other with a chair when they aren't looking.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that libtards' first line of attack is to suggest racism on the part of their opponants is not claiming victim status. It is merely the truth. As is demonstrated here, day after day after day.

Of course the smug, condescending, arrogant Kepler says people who disagree with him are "fascists," with "frustrated violent impulses." What could be more reasonable? After all, His Racistness' pal, Al Sharpton, said over the weekend that Republicans are like Nazis, and want to wipe out innocent people. So these two are drinking Kool-aid from the same glass.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

leswp1 said:
Just sick of the constant spin doctoring (this goes for both sides about multiple issues). If anything is positive the other side immediately leeps to eay why life still stinx.
Click to expand...
There's a great poll that right now 75% of Republicans think the president can affect the price of gas while only 25% of Democratic voters can. Roll the poll back 6 years and... the numbers are exactly reversed. That isn't a matter of people thinking "their side" has better policies -- it means that people literally change their perception of what is possible based on whether it benefits their team or not.

It may just get to the point where people stop listening, like we have when a corporation makes a public statement about an issue. We know from the experience of our entire lifetime that those statements are totally fabricated self-serving garbage. We are (finally) learning the same about both parties, which are after all merely corporations that turn our votes into power for their "shareholders," the people who bribe them.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Kepler said:
There's a great poll that right now 75% of Republicans think the president can affect the price of gas while only 25% of Democratic voters can. Roll the poll back 6 years and... the numbers are exactly reversed. That isn't a matter of people thinking "their side" has better policies -- it means that people literally change their perception of what is possible based on whether it benefits their team or not.

It may just get to the point where people stop listening, like we have when a corporation makes a public statement about an issue. We know from the experience of our entire lifetime that those statements are totally fabricated self-serving garbage. We are (finally) learning the same about both parties, which are after all merely corporations that turn our votes into power for their "shareholders," the people who bribe them.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, we'll still have you to point out the error of our ways. On the other hand, I have "frustrated violent impulses," so what do I know?
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Kepler said:
There's a great poll that right now 75% of Republicans think the president can affect the price of gas while only 25% of Democratic voters can. Roll the poll back 6 years and... the numbers are exactly reversed. That isn't a matter of people thinking "their side" has better policies -- it means that people literally change their perception of what is possible based on whether it benefits their team or not.

It may just get to the point where people stop listening, like we have when a corporation makes a public statement about an issue. We know from the experience of our entire lifetime that those statements are totally fabricated self-serving garbage. We are (finally) learning the same about both parties, which are after all merely corporations that turn our votes into power for their "shareholders," the people who bribe them.
Click to expand...
Kepler

If the president or his administration has policies that affect the supply of domestically produced crude or implements policies that impose additional regulations on the crude oil industry then, yes, he can. For example, if there is a 1 billion barrel oil field under 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and the president/EPA/DOI say no drilling, that would have an impact on supply. If the EPA wrote a regulation that no refinery could be within 5 miles of a maternity hospital, that would be another. And, if the legislature doubled the gas tax, that would be a third.

So they can, just as much as the Sheik of Araby and the CEO of Standard Oil.

WeWantMore said:
Killing 5 hookers just doesn't pay off electorally like it used to.
Click to expand...

Depends how he killed them.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

joecct said:
Kepler

If the president or his administration has policies that affect the supply of domestically produced crude or implements policies that impose additional regulations on the crude oil industry then, yes, he can.
Click to expand...
My point is the same voters switch their opinion of whether or not the president has control over it based on whether or not their guy is in office.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Kepler said:
My point is the same voters switch their opinion of whether or not the president has control over it based on whether or not their guy is in office.
Click to expand...

How about the matter of military service? In '92 the GOP ran a true war hero (a guy who flew combat missions when he was 17) against a certified draft dodger. Democrats didn't seem to mind. Who cares about combat all those years ago?

In 1996 the GOP ran another genuine war hero against that draft dodger. Again, Democrats weren't concerned. Who cares about combat all those years ago?

In 2000 the GOP ran a guy who flew fighter jets for the Texas National Guard against a Spec 4 with his own bodyguard and an abbreviated tour in "Nam, and that mattered greatly in the minds of Democrats. He had served in Vietnam!

In 2004, that same former Texas National Guard pilot ran for re-election against a guy who served honorably and bravely in Vietnam (who presented himself and was treated by his fellow Democrats like the reincarnation of Audie Murphy). And his service mattered enormously. That service, in fact, was evidently more predictive of the kind of president he would be than the several terms he'd served in the senate. That candidate even said "reporting for duty" in the first sentence of his acceptance speech.

In 2008 the GOP again ran a war hero against a guy who had never served. And, once again, service wasn't so important for Democrats. Who cares about combat all those years ago?
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Old Pio said:
Meanwhile, out in front of the fort, at the infected blankets stand, Brian McGrory of the Boston Globe takes a look at both senate candidates.


http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/0...rable-start/axFG4tCE6tdo1FWd0JTQcP/story.html
Click to expand...


Integrity? We don't need no stinkin' integrity.


And now Tufts and BC are 'elite' institutions? I 'got it' when people referred to Harvard as elite. Many would say that Tufts and BC are schools that were second on the list below the Ivies, can they also be elite? Or will we soon be in a world where only community college or UPhoenix is regular and every 4 year institution is 'elite'?
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

pirate said:
And now Tufts and BC are 'elite' institutions? I 'got it' when people referred to Harvard as elite.
Click to expand...
Tufts certainly has particular programs (Medicine) that qualify as "elite." Once upon a time at least BC's Philosophy department was very strong.

I have a problem with calling any particular university "elite." It all comes down to what you study. When I was an undergrad (insert dinosaur joke here) there were a hundred schools with better math programs than Cornell or better hard science programs than Harvard. And of course once you get to graduate school the university label becomes literally meaningless -- it's just a matter of who you study with.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

pirate said:
Integrity? We don't need no stinkin' integrity.


And now Tufts and BC are 'elite' institutions? I 'got it' when people referred to Harvard as elite. Many would say that Tufts and BC are schools that were second on the list below the Ivies, can they also be elite? Or will we soon be in a world where only community college or UPhoenix is regular and every 4 year institution is 'elite'?
Click to expand...

Only Commies need some fancy book learnin'! Real 'Muricans can do fine with just a high school diploma or a GED before starting their career at McDonald's or Wal*Mart.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Kepler said:
Tufts certainly has particular programs (Medicine) that qualify as "elite." Once upon a time at least BC's Philosophy department was very strong.

I have a problem with calling any particular university "elite." It all comes down to what you study. When I was an undergrad (insert dinosaur joke here) there were a hundred schools with better math programs than Cornell or better hard science programs than Harvard. And of course once you get to graduate school the university label becomes literally meaningless -- it's just a matter of who you study with.
Click to expand...

Customer is always right + corporatization of higher ed = customer is always elite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top