Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

112th Congress: Everybody's Angry At Everybody

13839404244

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I was trying to figure out the right unicorn analogy. Something to do with virgins, I think.

    EDIT: Really, we need Jeffe.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I think if you're claiming that voter fraud doesn't and hasn't existed at all, then you're being unreasonable, especially about something you can't prove. What has been shown in this thread is that there is no widespread systematic voter fraud. Basically no conspiracies of fraud. This is very different from what you're saying.

    I said you were bullshitting me on the 'lack the ability to measure the fraud', and you were. You were putting words in his mouth he didn't say to make his position look worse. He's never implied that there is fraud, that we just can't measure it. He's said we don't know how much fraud there is. This can include a possibility of zero fraud!

    The ONLY difference between what he and you are saying is that you are denying that there has been ANY FRAUD EVER. Which is completely unprovable.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I think if you're claiming that voter fraud doesn't and hasn't existed at all, then you're being unreasonable, especially about something you can't prove. What has been shown in this thread is that there is no widespread systematic voter fraud. Basically no conspiracies of fraud. This is very different from what you're saying.

    I said you were bullshitting me on the 'lack the ability to measure the fraud', and you were. You were putting words in his mouth he didn't say to make his position look worse. He's never implied that there is fraud, that we just can't measure it. He's said we don't know how much fraud there is. This can include a possibility of zero fraud!

    The ONLY difference between what he and you are saying is that you are denying that there has been ANY FRAUD EVER. Which is completely unprovable.

    No, it's basically the equivalent of saying "There are no unicorns". Can't prove a negative, yes, but your logic is still being brutally waterboarded while you pretend we can't say for certain that there are no unicorns.

    FYI?

    There are no unicorns.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Back to things in reality, 70% of american think the rich should pay higher taxes and that social programs should not be taxed. Good thing Paul Ryan's budget does the opposite of that!

  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Yeah, but then you look at the numbers on who voters trust to deal with the deficit and it's evenly split, and almost a majority of independents think Obama should be doing more to compromise with Republicans.

    The disconnect is frustrating. I guess this is a bit of new issue though, since it probably only broke upon the unawares in the last few weeks. Maybe more time will bring their policy preferences into line with political reality.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    I think if you're claiming that voter fraud doesn't and hasn't existed at all, then you're being unreasonable, especially about something you can't prove. What has been shown in this thread is that there is no widespread systematic voter fraud. Basically no conspiracies of fraud. This is very different from what you're saying.

    I said you were bullshitting me on the 'lack the ability to measure the fraud', and you were. You were putting words in his mouth he didn't say to make his position look worse. He's never implied that there is fraud, that we just can't measure it. He's said we don't know how much fraud there is. This can include a possibility of zero fraud!

    The ONLY difference between what he and you are saying is that you are denying that there has been ANY FRAUD EVER. Which is completely unprovable.

    No, it's basically the equivalent of saying "There are no unicorns". Can't prove a negative, yes, but your logic is still being brutally waterboarded while you pretend we can't say for certain that there are no unicorns.

    FYI?

    There are no unicorns.

    If my logic is being waterboarded then please point it out, instead of making inane non-sequiters. Saying 'there has never been voter fraud in the us' is not 'there are no unicorns'. I'm going to assume I don't need to detail all the reasons, but I will if you're unwilling to yield the point.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Speaker wrote: »
    Yeah, but then you look at the numbers on who voters trust to deal with the deficit and it's evenly split, and almost a majority of independents think Obama should be doing more to compromise with Republicans.

    The disconnect is frustrating. I guess this is a bit of new issue though, since it probably only broke upon the unawares in the last few weeks. Maybe more time will bring their policy preferences into line with political reality.

    You quoted me in the other thread! Gas prices!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Speaker wrote: »
    Yeah, but then you look at the numbers on who voters trust to deal with the deficit and it's evenly split, and almost a majority of independents think Obama should be doing more to compromise with Republicans.

    The disconnect is frustrating. I guess this is a bit of new issue though, since it probably only broke upon the unawares in the last few weeks. Maybe more time will bring their policy preferences into line with political reality.

    Yeah that was the bad part of that, but I think with the house vote on the ryan plan on the books, you could hammer that % in the election.

    "Republicans want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and cut medicare, do you support them?"

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    I think if you're claiming that voter fraud doesn't and hasn't existed at all, then you're being unreasonable, especially about something you can't prove. What has been shown in this thread is that there is no widespread systematic voter fraud. Basically no conspiracies of fraud. This is very different from what you're saying.

    I said you were bullshitting me on the 'lack the ability to measure the fraud', and you were. You were putting words in his mouth he didn't say to make his position look worse. He's never implied that there is fraud, that we just can't measure it. He's said we don't know how much fraud there is. This can include a possibility of zero fraud!

    The ONLY difference between what he and you are saying is that you are denying that there has been ANY FRAUD EVER. Which is completely unprovable.

    No, it's basically the equivalent of saying "There are no unicorns". Can't prove a negative, yes, but your logic is still being brutally waterboarded while you pretend we can't say for certain that there are no unicorns.

    FYI?

    There are no unicorns.

    If my logic is being waterboarded then please point it out, instead of making inane non-sequiters. Saying 'there has never been voter fraud in the us' is not 'there are no unicorns'. I'm going to assume I don't need to detail all the reasons, but I will if you're unwilling to yield the point.

    I believe he's saying that voter fraud (wherein a bunch of people show up to vote for a specific candidate, whether they're properly registered or not, and supposedly do so at multiple polling places) is realistically impossible. The method is far too unwieldy to actually warrant serious thought. There are six or seven easier ways to rig elections that are cheaper, more efficient, more likely to net a win, and less likely to be exposed.

    Yet the old Voter fraud thing keeps getting put out there like it's a systemic problem when that has never, ever, been shown to be the case. Acting like it MIGHT be a serious issue is disengenuous. Acting like it IS one is just being a dick. Making laws that disenfranchise people (who are likely to vote Democrat, conveniently) under the guise of preventing Voter fraud is just plain wrong.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think if you're claiming that voter fraud doesn't and hasn't existed at all, then you're being unreasonable, especially about something you can't prove. What has been shown in this thread is that there is no widespread systematic voter fraud. Basically no conspiracies of fraud. This is very different from what you're saying.

    I said you were bullshitting me on the 'lack the ability to measure the fraud', and you were. You were putting words in his mouth he didn't say to make his position look worse. He's never implied that there is fraud, that we just can't measure it. He's said we don't know how much fraud there is. This can include a possibility of zero fraud!

    The ONLY difference between what he and you are saying is that you are denying that there has been ANY FRAUD EVER. Which is completely unprovable.

    No, it's basically the equivalent of saying "There are no unicorns". Can't prove a negative, yes, but your logic is still being brutally waterboarded while you pretend we can't say for certain that there are no unicorns.

    FYI?

    There are no unicorns.

    If my logic is being waterboarded then please point it out, instead of making inane non-sequiters. Saying 'there has never been voter fraud in the us' is not 'there are no unicorns'. I'm going to assume I don't need to detail all the reasons, but I will if you're unwilling to yield the point.

    I believe he's saying that voter fraud (wherein a bunch of people show up to vote for a specific candidate, whether they're properly registered or not, and supposedly do so at multiple polling places) is realistically impossible. The method is far too unwieldy to actually warrant serious thought. There are six or seven easier ways to rig elections that are cheaper, more efficient, more likely to net a win, and less likely to be exposed.

    Yet the old Voter fraud thing keeps getting put out there like it's a systemic problem when that has never, ever, been shown to be the case. Acting like it MIGHT be a serious issue is disengenuous. Acting like it IS one is just being a dick. Making laws that disenfranchise people (who are likely to vote Democrat, conveniently) under the guise of preventing Voter fraud is just plain wrong.

    Bingo.

    Like the unicorn, voter fraud of the sort voter ID laws deal with are so unrealistic and unlikely and the like that we can safely say "They do not exist". That's it's unprovable to 100% certainty in either case is irrelevant. You can't prove a negative.

    If you want further clarification on this rather common argument, see any religion thread ever in DnD. It'll be in there at least once.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think if you're claiming that voter fraud doesn't and hasn't existed at all, then you're being unreasonable, especially about something you can't prove. What has been shown in this thread is that there is no widespread systematic voter fraud. Basically no conspiracies of fraud. This is very different from what you're saying.

    I said you were bullshitting me on the 'lack the ability to measure the fraud', and you were. You were putting words in his mouth he didn't say to make his position look worse. He's never implied that there is fraud, that we just can't measure it. He's said we don't know how much fraud there is. This can include a possibility of zero fraud!

    The ONLY difference between what he and you are saying is that you are denying that there has been ANY FRAUD EVER. Which is completely unprovable.

    No, it's basically the equivalent of saying "There are no unicorns". Can't prove a negative, yes, but your logic is still being brutally waterboarded while you pretend we can't say for certain that there are no unicorns.

    FYI?

    There are no unicorns.

    If my logic is being waterboarded then please point it out, instead of making inane non-sequiters. Saying 'there has never been voter fraud in the us' is not 'there are no unicorns'. I'm going to assume I don't need to detail all the reasons, but I will if you're unwilling to yield the point.

    I believe he's saying that voter fraud (wherein a bunch of people show up to vote for a specific candidate, whether they're properly registered or not, and supposedly do so at multiple polling places) is realistically impossible. The method is far too unwieldy to actually warrant serious thought. There are six or seven easier ways to rig elections that are cheaper, more efficient, more likely to net a win, and less likely to be exposed.

    Yet the old Voter fraud thing keeps getting put out there like it's a systemic problem when that has never, ever, been shown to be the case. Acting like it MIGHT be a serious issue is disengenuous. Acting like it IS one is just being a dick. Making laws that disenfranchise people (who are likely to vote Democrat, conveniently) under the guise of preventing Voter fraud is just plain wrong.

    Well if that's what he's saying, then could you kindly tell him:

    The discussion is not about the best method of voter fraud, or even whether voter fraud is likely. It's about whether or not it has ever happened, or is even possible.

    No one in this conversation has said it's a systemic problem. No one has implied it. No one has said it's a serious issue. No one has advocated any laws that disenfranchise people.

    So in short, please go back and read the discussion before making biased assumptions about what we're talking about.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think if you're claiming that voter fraud doesn't and hasn't existed at all, then you're being unreasonable, especially about something you can't prove. What has been shown in this thread is that there is no widespread systematic voter fraud. Basically no conspiracies of fraud. This is very different from what you're saying.

    I said you were bullshitting me on the 'lack the ability to measure the fraud', and you were. You were putting words in his mouth he didn't say to make his position look worse. He's never implied that there is fraud, that we just can't measure it. He's said we don't know how much fraud there is. This can include a possibility of zero fraud!

    The ONLY difference between what he and you are saying is that you are denying that there has been ANY FRAUD EVER. Which is completely unprovable.

    No, it's basically the equivalent of saying "There are no unicorns". Can't prove a negative, yes, but your logic is still being brutally waterboarded while you pretend we can't say for certain that there are no unicorns.

    FYI?

    There are no unicorns.

    If my logic is being waterboarded then please point it out, instead of making inane non-sequiters. Saying 'there has never been voter fraud in the us' is not 'there are no unicorns'. I'm going to assume I don't need to detail all the reasons, but I will if you're unwilling to yield the point.

    I believe he's saying that voter fraud (wherein a bunch of people show up to vote for a specific candidate, whether they're properly registered or not, and supposedly do so at multiple polling places) is realistically impossible. The method is far too unwieldy to actually warrant serious thought. There are six or seven easier ways to rig elections that are cheaper, more efficient, more likely to net a win, and less likely to be exposed.

    Yet the old Voter fraud thing keeps getting put out there like it's a systemic problem when that has never, ever, been shown to be the case. Acting like it MIGHT be a serious issue is disengenuous. Acting like it IS one is just being a dick. Making laws that disenfranchise people (who are likely to vote Democrat, conveniently) under the guise of preventing Voter fraud is just plain wrong.

    Bingo.

    Like the unicorn, voter fraud of the sort voter ID laws deal with are so unrealistic and unlikely and the like that we can safely say "They do not exist". That's it's unprovable to 100% certainty in either case is irrelevant. You can't prove a negative.

    If you want further clarification on this rather common argument, see any religion thread ever in DnD. It'll be in there at least once.

    You sound pretty sassy for someone who just dismantled his own argument. So then admit that you don't know for sure whether voter fraud has ever occurred? And so it's a reasonable statement to say that we don't know the level of voter fraud occurring?

    Whuh oh! Sound like you just agreed with spool!

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Perhaps there should be a split for the voter fraud discussion?

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    We know the level of voter fraud that's occurring.

    Voter fraud level: 3 orders below statistical noise.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    So then it's far too low to be worth making any new laws about?

    This was also Spool's point. He just never said that there was ZERO fraud occurring.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Just ... wow. I don't think you are actually parsing what anyone else is saying here. And this is getting pointless and off-topic though.

    Voter fraud of the type mentioned is a unicorn. It doesn't and can't exist. To entertain it's existing merely perpetuates laws and policies that disenfranchise voters for no reason.

    And that is the end of it.

    EDIT:
    So then it's far too low to be worth making any new laws about?

    This was also Spool's point. He just never said that there was ZERO fraud occurring.

    And there, you show you get it and that you see that he said it. You just pretend not to.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Just ... wow. I don't think you are actually parsing what anyone else is saying here. And this is getting pointless and off-topic though.

    Voter fraud of the type mentioned is a unicorn. It doesn't and can't exist. To entertain it's existing merely perpetuates laws and policies that disenfranchise voters for no reason.

    And that is the end of it.

    And what TYPE is that? The TYPE you're talking about is something ONLY YOU are talking about!

    This is what YOU'RE not parsing. I'm not saying it's a SIGNIFICANT amount, just a POTENTIALLY NON-ZERO amount.

    Everyone got their panties all bunched up because spool never said ZERO fraud, and I'm just showing how incredibly stupid and pedantic that distinction is.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Just ... wow. I don't think you are actually parsing what anyone else is saying here. And this is getting pointless and off-topic though.

    Voter fraud of the type mentioned is a unicorn. It doesn't and can't exist. To entertain it's existing merely perpetuates laws and policies that disenfranchise voters for no reason.

    And that is the end of it.

    And what TYPE is that? The TYPE you're talking about is something ONLY YOU are talking about!

    This is what YOU'RE not parsing. I'm not saying it's a SIGNIFICANT amount, just a POTENTIALLY NON-ZERO amount.

    Everyone got their panties all bunched up because spool never said ZERO fraud, and I'm just showing how incredibly stupid and pedantic that distinction is.

    The type everyone has been talking about. Voter fraud is a fairly wide-ranging set of activities, not all of which are applicable to the laws being discussed. Thus, we specify. In this case, the type of voter fraud that could be combated with voter ID laws.

    What type is that?
    Taramoor probably put it best:
    wherein a bunch of people show up to vote for a specific candidate, whether they're properly registered or not, and supposedly do so at multiple polling places
    Although there's probably a few similar activities.

    All though are as equally impossible.

    This isn't hard to understand and has been made quite clear several times here.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    If you think it's impossible for someone to make a vote in an area where they're not registered and doesn't check id's, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not even saying that they have to do it multiple times.

    Failure of imagination contributed to 9-11!

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2011
    Hey, you know what?

    We're going to stop arguing about voter fraud now, because it's gone well past the point of being A) on-topic, B) interesting, or C) civil.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Preacher wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Yeah, but then you look at the numbers on who voters trust to deal with the deficit and it's evenly split, and almost a majority of independents think Obama should be doing more to compromise with Republicans.

    The disconnect is frustrating. I guess this is a bit of new issue though, since it probably only broke upon the unawares in the last few weeks. Maybe more time will bring their policy preferences into line with political reality.

    Yeah that was the bad part of that, but I think with the house vote on the ryan plan on the books, you could hammer that % in the election.

    "Republicans want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and cut medicare, do you support them?"

    Which is still a year and a half away. I'm skeptical anyone will remember it even this summer

    camo_sig2.png
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Spoit wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Yeah, but then you look at the numbers on who voters trust to deal with the deficit and it's evenly split, and almost a majority of independents think Obama should be doing more to compromise with Republicans.

    The disconnect is frustrating. I guess this is a bit of new issue though, since it probably only broke upon the unawares in the last few weeks. Maybe more time will bring their policy preferences into line with political reality.

    Yeah that was the bad part of that, but I think with the house vote on the ryan plan on the books, you could hammer that % in the election.

    "Republicans want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and cut medicare, do you support them?"

    Which is still a year and a half away. I'm skeptical anyone will remember it even this summer

    Wasn't there some big kerfuffle like a week ago when a bunch of Democrats in the House didn't vote and almost destroyed the economy? They wanted presents, if I remember correctly.

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    So, was the debt ceiling raised? I just want to know if the chicken they are playing with the world economy has ruined us all this week or if it will be postponed a week.

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Nah, they're still on vacation I think. Either way don't expect the debt ceiling to be raised til the last second.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2011
    And it will absolutely be raised, because a majority of the House is sane enough to realize it has to be.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    And it will absolutely be raised, because a majority of the House is sane enough to realize it has to be.

    I believe there are enough extreme crazies for a sustained filibuster though. And they've been vowing all over the place.

    You only need like five who can keep tossing the floor back and forth right? DeMint, Paul, Paul, Lee, and I think there was one more.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Well, you need 40 to sustain it. 53 Dems + Maine + 5 more.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Well, you need 40 to sustain it. 53 Dems + Maine + 5 more.

    I thought you need 60 Yea votes to bring something to a final vote, but you can't ask for cloture if they're reading the phone book.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Well, you need 40 to sustain it. 53 Dems + Maine + 5 more.

    I thought you need 60 Yea votes to bring something to a final vote, but you can't ask for cloture if they're reading the phone book.

    From what I can tell, the House is different, and put a rule in that limits the total time of debate on a subject, so a filibuster is essentially impossible there.

    edit: wait, you mean in the senate. Have any of the senate critters made a serious claim to filibustering it? All the crazy I've seen about it has been from the house. The Senate was pretty quietly just hoping nobody noticed that they were bipartisan against stupid this one time.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Well, there's obviously no filibuster in the House so that's irrelevant. But certain assholes (Jim DeMint) have threatened one in the Senate.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    In that case, you can force a cloture vote while they're talking. There doesn't seem to be anything that says "if dude's just rambling, you're fucked"

  • adventfallsadventfalls Why would you wish to know? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    kildy wrote: »
    In that case, you can force a cloture vote while they're talking. There doesn't seem to be anything that says "if dude's just rambling, you're fucked"

    Actually, that's the entire *idea* of why the filibuster has become the kiss of death in the Senate.

    Officially, the Senate relies on a majority vote. But with the filibuster being used more and more, it essentially takes 60 senators to get anything done, since that's the number required for cloture.

    OF course, voting for cloture can be translated into support for the bill- but again, for a bill like this it's *possible* that cloture would be invoked fast.

    NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I'm honestly expecting an ad like this to show up pretty soon.
    My name is Dave Reichert. I am a Republican, and a Conservative, from the state of Washington. On Friday, April 12th, two hundred and thirty-five congressmen voted to end Medicare as we know it.

    I was not among them.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    kildy wrote: »
    In that case, you can force a cloture vote while they're talking. There doesn't seem to be anything that says "if dude's just rambling, you're fucked"

    Actually, that's the entire *idea* of why the filibuster has become the kiss of death in the Senate.

    Officially, the Senate relies on a majority vote. But with the filibuster being used more and more, it essentially takes 60 senators to get anything done, since that's the number required for cloture.

    OF course, voting for cloture can be translated into support for the bill- but again, for a bill like this it's *possible* that cloture would be invoked fast.

    The minute a nose count with less than sixty names on it is circulated for a cloture vote on the debt ceiling, the stock market starts hemorrhaging shares. It'll be just like when Congress failed on its first attempt to pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act in September '08, only worse.

    The next day, everyone will be surprised when, contrary to the earlier whip count, eighty Senators vote in favor of cloture.

  • DacDac Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Obama's townhall at Facebook today was great. One question-answer in particular stood out to me.
    Spoiler:

    Mostly that final paragraph. His point and the way he delivered it was just superb.


  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    there are moments when I really deeply do love my president.

    that answer right there, that's one of those moments.

  • ClevingerClevinger Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Is there a link to the whole video? Thanks.

  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    there are moments when I really deeply do love my president.

    that answer right there, that's one of those moments.

    Are those moments followed by crushing despair when you realize congress will shit out something halfway in between Ryan's ideas and his?

    Basically one half moderate rational one half FUCK IT ROAD WARRIOR LOOKED LIKE A GOOD BASIS FOR A GOVERNMENT

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    there are moments when I really deeply do love my president.

    that answer right there, that's one of those moments.

    Are those moments followed by crushing despair when you realize congress will shit out something halfway in between Ryan's ideas and his?

    Basically one half moderate rational one half FUCK IT ROAD WARRIOR LOOKED LIKE A GOOD BASIS FOR A GOVERNMENT

    Damnit we will never get to Road Warrior that way, way to half ass it.

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    there are moments when I really deeply do love my president.

    that answer right there, that's one of those moments.

    Are those moments followed by crushing despair when you realize congress will shit out something halfway in between Ryan's ideas and his?

    Basically one half moderate rational one half FUCK IT ROAD WARRIOR LOOKED LIKE A GOOD BASIS FOR A GOVERNMENT

    Nah, the crushing despair happens on facebook.

    I'm still a fairly optimistic woman, hopeful for better things and that cooler heads will prevail.

    Of course I'm also not living in the states right now and occasionally I look at the news and these threads and my brain goes "ohfuckinghell thank god we got out when we did"

    but then I feel guilty. Like any good liberal.

This discussion has been closed.