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!

The Obama Administration: Re-Elected! 332-206 (Probably)

12829313334102

Posts

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I think the idea is once you know, you'll be pissed.

    It's easy to not care if you're being told that there's nothing there go back to sleep.

    It would be nice if they gave the list of chemicals before starting their operations so locals could make an informed decision about selling their mineral/resource rights. Its not very helpful when they give you a list of chemicals after the fact that explain why your land is now worthless.

    Well, the next time I have my time machine I'll go back to the 1870s and stop this kind of thing from happening then.

    But I do agree with you.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Well call me a liberal (go ahead, I won't mind), but when I have the choice of killing people or killing jobs, I'll almost always choose to kill jobs. Also, if we got rid of all the regulations, man so many people at the EPA would be out of a job.

    Life isn't worth living without a jerb and the pursuit of wealth! Geez, you really do hate Amerka.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Well call me a liberal (go ahead, I won't mind), but when I have the choice of killing people or killing jobs, I'll almost always choose to kill jobs. Also, if we got rid of all the regulations, man so many people at the EPA would be out of a job.

    That's the point.

    The people funding the conservative movement aren't stupid. The just don't want to spend the money necessary to fix the problems. So I guess in a sense they are stupid. Hmm

    Lh96QHG.png
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Well call me a liberal (go ahead, I won't mind), but when I have the choice of killing people or killing jobs, I'll almost always choose to kill jobs. Also, if we got rid of all the regulations, man so many people at the EPA would be out of a job.

    That's the point.

    The people funding the conservative movement aren't stupid. The just don't want to spend the money necessary to fix the problems. So I guess in a sense they are stupid. Hmm

    They aren't stupid, they simply don't care. These people know they are poisoning water tables, just like the coal power plant industry knows that coal tar is killing people. The fact of the matter is: They don't care, even a little bit. They live in mansions hundreds or thousands of miles away from these ecological disasters. Most of the people who live near frac sites and plants are lower income, or rural. The people in charge just...don't...care. They are willing to sacrifice a "handful" of human lives in the pursuit of profit. It's not their families directly effected.

    If you forced CEO's and their families of a lot of these companies to live near where their company was doing work, they'd change their stance so fast your head would spin. Not that I support forcing people to live someplace, but you get my point.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I get your point, I just mean that it's fairly stupid to be so short sighted about this kind of thing. Take a shit in Minnesota and it's going to float down to New Orleans (not literally, but you get the point).

    I agree with you completely, of course, I just think it's a pretty stupid way to look at the world. If that makes sense.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    Agreed, it's stupid, but it's a special kind of stupid. It's willful stupidity, despite overwhelming evidence that you are wrong, all in the pursuit of profit. While that is technically "stupid", I generally like to reserve stupid for people who just don't know any better. That is not grammatically or technically correct, but in GnomeTankese, that's my thing.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Indeed, it's fine line between ignorant and stupid. I choose which word to use based on how I feel about the person or persons I'm addressing.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Well call me a liberal (go ahead, I won't mind), but when I have the choice of killing people or killing jobs, I'll almost always choose to kill jobs. Also, if we got rid of all the regulations, man so many people at the EPA would be out of a job.

    That's the point.

    The people funding the conservative movement aren't stupid. The just don't want to spend the money necessary to fix the problems. So I guess in a sense they are stupid. Hmm

    They aren't stupid, they simply don't care. These people know they are poisoning water tables, just like the coal power plant industry knows that coal tar is killing people. The fact of the matter is: They don't care, even a little bit. They live in mansions hundreds or thousands of miles away from these ecological disasters. Most of the people who live near frac sites and plants are lower income, or rural. The people in charge just...don't...care. They are willing to sacrifice a "handful" of human lives in the pursuit of profit. It's not their families directly effected.

    If you forced CEO's and their families of a lot of these companies to live near where their company was doing work, they'd change their stance so fast your head would spin. Not that I support forcing people to live someplace, but you get my point.

    jyFzw.jpg

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    emp123 wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Krieghund wrote: »
    Where we officially enemies with Iran or something? Selling weapons to your countries enemies is usually kinda treasonous.

    Certainly, but we werent. If Reagan actively tried to prevent the hostages from being released that would be treason, but selling weapons to a country youre not at war with, even if relations are strained, isnt treason.

    I think "they have taken hostages" is a little more severe than "strained".

    True, but still not "war were declared" bad.

    And didnt Iran-Contra start like 5 years after the hostages?

    Iran was in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war. The Contras were a right wing guerilla (read terrorist) force that was committing war crimes and atrocities to overthrow the elected leftist government of Nicaragua. The Reagan Administration plotted in contravention of US law to secretly sell at a profit weapons to an enemy of the United States in order to fund a group of war criminals who were also declared enemies of the United States in contravention of US law. Iran was an enemy of the United States. The Contras were enemies of the United States. In violation of law using government assets in secret, they gave aid to enemies of the United States.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    Is it sad that the scariest part of the oblongs to me is the moms boobs?

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Is it sad that the scariest part of the oblongs to me is the moms boobs?

    That was my first thought too. Must be because I like boobs and looked for boobs and thought, "Man those boobs are weird."

    ...

    Boobs

  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    And she was born in the clean wealthy part of town.

    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    @Spool32

    You were right, we can do it here.

    I think you're partially right.

    I think he does have a genuine personal conflict about the question of gay marriage. He's always been pro civil unions, but the party wants to go whole hog.

    And now I'm reading that there are some progressive who are holding off donating money until the same sex marriage question gets the answer they want it to.

    I think that the party will add it to the platform, but I'm not expecting Obama to voluntarily talk about it much.

    It amazes me that the tide can turn this fast, not five years ago this kind of thing would've been unheard of. I think people forget that a lot.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    He hasn't always been pro-civil unions. He used to be for full marriage rights. He just... stopped because his ambitions got bigger.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    He hasn't always been pro-civil unions. He used to be for full marriage rights. He just... stopped because his ambitions got bigger.

    1) Gay voters aren't going to vote Republican.
    2) Blacks and Hispanics aren't keen on gay marriage.
    3) Gays get thrown under the bus.

    My guess is President Obama will quietly disregard the issue of gay marriage until 2013.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    It always makes me shake my head when I see how strong anti-gay sentiment is in a lot of black communities.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    The CIA thwarted an ambitious plot by al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner using a bomb with a sophisticated new design around the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, The Associated Press has learned.

    The plot involved an upgrade of the underwear bomb that failed to detonate aboard a jetliner over Detroit on Christmas 2009. This new bomb was also designed to be used in a passenger's underwear, but this time al-Qaida developed a more refined detonation system, U.S. officials said.

    Yet another terrorist goes down before being able to blow up Americans. That continues the string of 0 attacks from foreigners on American soil under the socialist nazi commie who hates America.

    WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA SO

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    @Spool32

    You were right, we can do it here.

    I think you're partially right.

    I think he does have a genuine personal conflict about the question of gay marriage. He's always been pro civil unions, but the party wants to go whole hog.

    And now I'm reading that there are some progressive who are holding off donating money until the same sex marriage question gets the answer they want it to.

    I think that the party will add it to the platform, but I'm not expecting Obama to voluntarily talk about it much.

    It amazes me that the tide can turn this fast, not five years ago this kind of thing would've been unheard of. I think people forget that a lot.

    I don't believe the party wants to go whole hog - Dems will lose a solid chunk of the black and hispanic vote if they do, for at least a couple of cycles.

    If Obama believes the GOP will peel off 3-4% of the black vote as a result, gays will be thrown under the bus until after the election.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • 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
    From a practical standpoint, I'm ok with it not being a general election plank.

    Because that just takes one more thing away from the GOP to use as a bludgeon or a wedge.

    I get that the community wants a show of faith and friendship, but at the moment I can agree with the campaign keeping quiet.

    The less wedges available to the GOP, the stronger the Campaign will be.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    @Spool32

    You were right, we can do it here.

    I think you're partially right.

    I think he does have a genuine personal conflict about the question of gay marriage. He's always been pro civil unions, but the party wants to go whole hog.

    And now I'm reading that there are some progressive who are holding off donating money until the same sex marriage question gets the answer they want it to.

    I think that the party will add it to the platform, but I'm not expecting Obama to voluntarily talk about it much.

    It amazes me that the tide can turn this fast, not five years ago this kind of thing would've been unheard of. I think people forget that a lot.

    I don't believe the party wants to go whole hog - Dems will lose a solid chunk of the black and hispanic vote if they do, for at least a couple of cycles.

    If Obama believes the GOP will peel off 3-4% of the black vote as a result, gays will be thrown under the bus until after the election.

    They wouldn't vote for the GOP, they wouldn't show up. But it's not a motivating factor in minority communities, as far as I can tell. Actively working to ban gay marriage is a white people problem, minorities are more concerned with fundamental economic justice and what not. And for black people, not letting the first black President be voted out of office because the GOP made shit up about him.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    @Spool32

    You were right, we can do it here.

    I think you're partially right.

    I think he does have a genuine personal conflict about the question of gay marriage. He's always been pro civil unions, but the party wants to go whole hog.

    And now I'm reading that there are some progressive who are holding off donating money until the same sex marriage question gets the answer they want it to.

    I think that the party will add it to the platform, but I'm not expecting Obama to voluntarily talk about it much.

    It amazes me that the tide can turn this fast, not five years ago this kind of thing would've been unheard of. I think people forget that a lot.

    I don't believe the party wants to go whole hog - Dems will lose a solid chunk of the black and hispanic vote if they do, for at least a couple of cycles.

    If Obama believes the GOP will peel off 3-4% of the black vote as a result, gays will be thrown under the bus until after the election.

    They wouldn't vote for the GOP, they wouldn't show up. But it's not a motivating factor in minority communities, as far as I can tell. Actively working to ban gay marriage is a white people problem, minorities are more concerned with fundamental economic justice and what not. And for black people, not letting the first black President be voted out of office because the GOP made shit up about him.

    I think you underestimate the level of anti-gay sentiment in the black community, particularly in the southern black community. a 4% hit would be significant and Obama needs everyone to show up at the polls this year.

    There's a reason Obama supported Prop 8 during the 2008 election, and opposition to gay marriage is a component in GW Bush getting the level of support from southern black folks that he did.

    Let me put it like this: people have been talking about how Texas might get a lot more purple this year - if Obama comes out for gay marriage he will lose East Texas Democrats, and the state will stay bright red.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Justice.Registered User regular
    um did he support Prop 8? I don't remember that but I could be wrong.

    NOPE.
  • TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    Obama is not gonna win any state with a large Southern black contingent. You can tell, because the word "South" can be found in name.

    2008 was different. He had to win primaries then.

    Pokemon Black FC: 0518-7386-3511
    Pokemon Black 2: 0519-5108-3139
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    um did he support Prop 8? I don't remember that but I could be wrong.

    He more refused to actively campaign against it.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes Justice.Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    um did he support Prop 8? I don't remember that but I could be wrong.

    He more refused to actively campaign against it.

    ok, well I guess I'd say that's different than supporting it

    NOPE.
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    The Bush administration can be thanked for making a small amendment to the clean water act that allows them to frack without disclosing what they are pumping and also makes them immune to prosecution (not that the gov can grant a corporation immunity to poisoning people but meh laws are fickle)

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    The important part is the exemption to the clean water act. That is one of the few environmental regulations that still has teeth.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    um did he support Prop 8? I don't remember that but I could be wrong.

    He more refused to actively campaign against it.

    He also allowed Prop 8 supporters to use his likeness in mailers.

    Here is Obama back in 2008 dancing around the issue like crazy: http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/
    There's this interesting angle as well, suggesting he succeeded in squaring the circle: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/11/props_to_obama.html

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    People used his likeness without permission.

    Took 15 seconds on Google. This shit isn't hard.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    People used his likeness without permission.

    Took 15 seconds on Google. This shit isn't hard.

    Yes, and he declined to stop it, unlike a couple of other instances where he did stop people from using it.

    Don't be coy, we both know he was worried about depressing the black vote and did a good job of dodging the issue.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Justice.Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    People used his likeness without permission.

    Took 15 seconds on Google. This shit isn't hard.

    Yes, and he declined to stop it, unlike a couple of other instances where he did stop people from using it.

    Don't be coy, we both know he was worried about depressing the black vote and did a good job of dodging the issue.

    dodging isn't supporting, which is what you originally claimed

    NOPE.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Meanwhile, while I'm debunking stupid things you believe.

    Bush lost the black vote 90-9 against Gore. He lost the black vote 88-11 when there was a national fuck the gays campaign going on. And that's obviously with a dull white candidate no one was enthusiastic about. And I won't even go into margin of error issues here.

    EDIT: More facts: Dole got 12% of the black vote
    HW got 10% against Clinton
    And 10% against Dukakis.

    Yeah, gay marriage has affected the black vote exactly not at all. It was stable for 20 years, and then Obama got about half the black Republicans to vote for him, either because they're more moderate and he did a good job winning black Republicans or the obvious historical reasons they might have decided to vote for him.

    enlightenedbum on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    People used his likeness without permission.

    Took 15 seconds on Google. This shit isn't hard.

    Yes, and he declined to stop it, unlike a couple of other instances where he did stop people from using it.

    Don't be coy, we both know he was worried about depressing the black vote and did a good job of dodging the issue.

    1) Evidence, please. Google is not helpful
    2) Check the date. The election was in less than a week.

    EDIT: Here's an entire article (with links to more!) about how the black vote doesn't really give a shit about gay marriage when evaluating candidates.

    enlightenedbum on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Can there be substantive study on how gay marriage changes votes? This is really the first presidential election where it has anything close to the support necessary to change the status quo any time soon.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I stand corrected in re Bush and black support! At least partially - I'd like to see the state-by-state breakdown if you have it to hand because opposition to gay marriage is stronger across the board in the south, including in black communities.

    The best I can find for you EB is the slate article I already linked to, which showed both a strong surge in black participation in CA and a concurrent surge in support for prop 8. When you have a nontrivial cohort of new voters who support you and oppose gay marriage enough to vote for a ban, it's at least reasonable to conclude that gay marriage might factor into the political identity of that cohort.

    Is it enough of a factor to cause that cohort to vote Romney? I'm going to guess no. Is it enough to turn them lukewarm on Obama and depress turnout, or at least contribute to a weakening of enthusiasm? I'm going to guess yes.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I should take this opportunity to say that I'd love to see gay marriage be a non-issue in voting preference - it would enable committed activists to move the ball far downfield while eliminating the apparent Republican need to pander to what is becoming a smaller and smaller fringe.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I should take this opportunity to say that I'd love to see gay marriage be a non-issue in voting preference - it would enable committed activists to move the ball far downfield while eliminating the apparent Republican need to pander to what is becoming a smaller and smaller fringe.
    The problem with the republican party is that it's painted itself into a corner with regards to the "fringe" (I would describe it as the base to be honest), and can't "move the ball downfield" without losing essential voting blocks.

    Spoiler:
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    The black vote has been permanently lost to the Republican party after you know they took the knife to the back of "The Party of Lincoln" and let in a bunch of out and out racists.

    You'd think time would have dampened this, but you'd be wrong.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The black vote has been permanently lost to the Republican party after you know they took the knife to the back of "The Party of Lincoln" and let in a bunch of out and out racists.

    You'd think time would have dampened this, but you'd be wrong.

    Turns out people aren't idiots, and look out for their interests.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't get why people should have the right to vote on marriage law, honestly. Seems like a coward's way out for state legislatures.

    Lh96QHG.png
This discussion has been closed.