Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

I don't know how that would cost anyone an election... I think that's Mayo's wishful thinking and/or fear of the reality of the presidential race speaking.

lol romney dum

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

Blaming this last round of violence on a movie is dishonest.

There were plenty of bombings before that movie was "released," if it ever was.

It's not a reason, its an excuse.

The White House put out a statement saying that the movie wasn't a good idea and that "using the freedom of speech to insult other people's religions is disgraceful", causing Romney to accuse Obama of apologizing for America and sympathizing with the people who attacked the embassy, even though the statement was made before the attack on the embassy.

Basically, Romney is trying to use the deaths of Americans for political gain.

EDIT: It wasn't a gaffe, because they made this statement in the middle of the night and then doubled down the next morning when more details came out.

EDIT2: What reality? Romney has zero percent of the black vote, a small amount of the latino vote, pissed off the old people (and by that extension the entire state of florida) by Ryan's ideas on medicare, pissed off women with his party's stances on birth control and abortion, and refuses to talk about what he did at Bain, his batshit insane cult, or any sort of serious plans as to what he'd do in office.

EDIT3: Oh yeah, the RNC also alienated every Ayn Rand face sitting libertarian out there when they refused to let Ron Paul speak at the convention.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

You didn't give two shits when Obama touted the deaths of Americans in Afghanistan during his 2008 campaign as a reason to have him elected over McCain.


With many polls being near even, and within the margins of error, I think you're being a little overly confident... especially since it looks like Obama's post-convention bump might be stalling. Obama hasn't been getting the same support he received in 2008. His funding has been trailing Romney for months, his ability to energize the youth isn't there, the economy is still performing to sub-par standards and the major promises he made leading up to his election have been unmet. The black vote... is this even an issue? When did Republicans ever get much of the black vote? (And you still think black people can't be racist? Fuck off.) I don't think people care as much about Romney's religion, his time at Bain (which many Democrats have already left alone since it's been a largely positive) or this fake 'war on women', when there are much greater issues to concern ourselves with. If they did, Romney would be doing much worse in the polls... but he's not.

Am I the only one who would pay to see Eturnal have to sit down to dinner with Michelle and Barack Obama?

The amount of shit that comes out of you is amazing.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

If you're right then why isn't the President doing better? Why is Obama only polling at +1.3 in Florida if old people hate Romney so much? Why is Obama polling at +0.3 in Virginia, when he pulled +6.3 in 2008, and do you really think Obama will carry Virginia as sequestration gets closer? Why is Obama only polling at +0.2 in Iowa, when he polled at +15.3 in 2008, pulling +9.5? Why is Obama, who narrowly won North Carolina with a +0.3, now polling -4.8 to Romney? Why is Obama, at this point, polling over ten points lower in Michigan than what he earned in 2008? Why is Obama polling +3.3 in Nevada (the state with the highest unemployment in the Nation) when he carried +12.5 over McCain?

This isn't 2008 and it's obvious Obama doesn't have the same showing in the battleground states. There's still months until the election and a lot can change between now and then... after all, four years ago today, Obama was trailing McCain in the polls by -2.4. How'd that end?

I find it odd that Azelma's sig is a quote of Aestu quoting The Watchmen.

McCain wanted to widen involvement. Therefore, citing the human cost is a reasonable response.



Pretty much this. If you're "almost losing" in a two-contestant race then who is winning? Never mind that polls are lol.

Mayo laid out the issues clearly. Romney has no real support outside:
1) religious freaks
2) the rapidly diminishing ranks of the willfully delusional middle class
3) fat cats
4) bigots

All of those groups combined just aren't enough to get someone elected fair and square. This is why the Tea Party was doomed from day one. And unlike Reagan, Romney can't leverage movie-star charm or appeal to suburban ennui. Which leads me to maintain my conviction that Romney will get something like 45-48% of the vote then steal what he needs to win.










So you're saying blacks voted for Clinton and Gore because they were black? I guess you think LBJ was black too, right?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If playing up death for political points was bad, I wouldn't have heard the guys who said they weren't going to spike the football say "Bin Laden" 1,734 times during the democrat convention.

I'm not willing to lay wagers yet, but if Romney is as lackluster as President Obama's supporters seem to think, he shouldn't be showing as close in the polls. President Obama's post-convention bump was tiny compared to past president's, and he didn't even get as far ahead of his opponent as Carter did in 1980 or Dukakis did in 1988...and neither Carter nor Dukakis turned their bumps into a victory. Having Sandra Fluke speak put the last nail in the "war on women" coffin because a lot of people went LOLWUT at that shit: 30-ish year old woman with a college degree (law degree?) demanding someone pay for her pills did not play well to people who are unemployed/underemployed and want a job to go to so they can get off unemployment before it runs out and are worrying how their going to pay their more essential bills like rent and food.

There are a lot of people who agree with Romney that the "apologize first" attitude isn't helping anything and just makes us look like a bunch of bitches.

It's Romney's race to lose, and despite what the echo chamber is telling you, this week was not a gaffe on Romney's part. American's don't want to hear that any exercise of free speech is "an abuse" from their government. They don't want their government apologizing for some asshat who doesn't speak for the government or US people.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

God forbid a President take credit for getting something done.



Stop watching FOX News. There are so many variables at work that these kinds of correlations are fallacy by way of selective reasoning.



Can't really argue with this, but I think you overestimate the number and extent of Americans put off by her.



Everyone speaks for the US government and people. What that guy did was not "free speech", and trying to cast it in that light is just an effort to take a war over resources and make it into a war over American values.

If Americans "don't want to hear" that offending other cultures is likely to result in violent response - because they, like us, like everybody, take certain things very seriously - then they're fuckin stupid. It's that simple.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I guess we've you only accomplished one thing worth talking about you've probably got to hold it up and make it shine as much as possible. Most of the other things President Obama "got done" only served to put a bad taste in many people's mouth.



I'm sorry, what did the BBC have to say about it? Gas is about to shoot up over four dollars a gallon again because of the fucking train wreck in the middle east. Don't think that's not going to kill President Obama's numbers.



No, "everyone" doesn't speak for the government and/or the people. For good or ill, there are official spokespeople, chief among them President Obama, and while he is definitely the spokesman for our government around the world, there's probably more than a few people who would stand up and say "he doesn't speak for me" when it comes to speaking for the American people.

This "what that guy did was not 'free speech'" bullshit spewing from every cesspool of media is completely and totally disingenuous. Let's do a little refresher about free speech, using the New York Times as a point-of-reference:





And it's enlightening how your statement meshes so well with that last NYT quote:



Which is the real point and why this hand-wringing and apology bullshit is so wrong: those who are condemning a legitimate yet thoughtless and juvenile exercise of free speech are condemning not so much because the speech is "wrong," but because they're fucking afraid of a bunch of thugs and they don't have the balls to tell them they need to grow the fuck up and join the rest of us here in the 21st century. The New York Times and it's writers could give less than a fuck about a "core principle of respecting all faiths," as the editorial from back in 1999 clearly shows. They not only don't care if they offend religious people...they believe religious people have an obligation to shut the fuck up and take the abuse, but only when they're decent civilized people who won't drag you out in the street just for being an obnoxious asshat, beat you senseless, mutilate your body, then set it on fire before hanging it up in public for everyone to see their handiwork. Once the pipes, chains, and torches come out, you smug pussies sing mea culpas and start kissing ass.

Those reporters from the NYT, and you, are doing nothing more than legitimizing what those fuckwits over there are doing. You wouldn't have excused Catholics/Christians/Protestants burning and looting Brooklyn over the Piss-Christ, but "oh my Gawd, thumbuddy thed thomthing nathty about Mohammed!!!" and being an uncivilized luddite thug somehow becomes excusable. It's not just a double-standard, it's a double-standard that shows just what sort of cowards people who hold your opinion are, because you have no problem with bullying people so long as you feel certain they won't knock you on your ass.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Quotes and other BS don't change the reality that no one person or authority has a monopoly on what is said by a culture - by our culture.

This is universal across every place and time. When we pass judgement on other cultures, living or dead, no authority vets what is or is not representative of that culture, we look at the whole. The fact that Dante was exiled from Italy doesn't change the fact that he is seen as representative of that culture. The fact that Twain, Steinbeck and Shaw made withering criticisms of American culture doesn't stop them from being recognized as examples of that culture. The fact that many Jews dislike Netanyahu or that many Muslims dislike bin Laden doesn't stop them from being seen as representative of their cultures either, because in the final analysis, they are, just as Bush is.

Whenever you travel abroad, you are an ambassador of your nation. That is the first thing every responsible traveler takes in mind. The fact that you don't have a consular commission doesn't change the fact that you are a representative of your nation and its values. The local embassy probably won't approve of your being an asshat (and may rescind your passport); and sure enough Americans get fighting mad about some things too. Burn a cross on your lawn or mock Americans about 9-11 or Pearl Harbor and see how that goes.

You talk about "restoring the Constitution" to its original meaning and form, yet this idea that free speech means "anything goes" is extremely contemporary. Laws against indecency did not seem strange to the Founding Fathers or anyone else until about the last 30 years. This trend is identifiable as part of our culture becoming morally unhinged. Any morally responsible culture sets definite boundaries on what is or is not acceptable.

If you can't grasp the difference between free speech and indecency, incitement to riot, slander, sedition, etc, then you don't know what free speech is. What defines it is exclusive to those things.

.........

The bit about Obama is just sour grapes. Just goes to show that the GOP is determined to maintain partisanship even to the exclusion of government actually doing anything well.

Oil prices are beyond the control of the President, and prices in the US are extremely low compared to most of the civilized world.

How would you go about lowering oil prices - and what benefit would there be to doing so?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

We do. Saying what you think/believe/feel is perfectly acceptable. Punching a guy in the nose, stabbing him, shooting him, vandalizing his property, looting, raping, and just generally being a hooligan because someone said something you didn't like isn't. Those are the boundary in our culture...at least until people starting wetting their fucking pants about a mob of jackals thousands of miles away who think their beliefs give them justification to kill.




A majority of the costs associated with energy in general and gasoline in particular are the result of bad regulation/policy. I don't remember how many different blends of gasoline are in use in the US, but it's way too many...something different for every region. The EPA should mandate a single blend for the entire nation, and any region where it's determined a different blend would be necessary, either through SCIENCE!!! or state law would be obligated to put up infrastructure (i.e. refinery capacity) to provide for their region. I'd also open up more drilling, and any company that has a federal land lease for the purpose of drilling would be required to produce and sell from their wells or they'd lose their federal lease. Then we'd need to find a way to discourage exporting oil and keeping it in the country...though with oil being the global market it now is, that would probably be difficult and entail some onerous and questionable policy. I'd also end the ethanol mandate, because ethanol is an inefficient fuel, it damages most engines it's burned in over time (even some of those designed for its use) and diverts food resources into the energy market. There are plenty of viable alternatives to making ethanol out of corn, such as scrub grasses. Unfortunately, the corn/farm/ethanol lobby is pretty powerful in DC, and the various subsidies and breaks for American ethanol has, as usual with protectionist policy, also driven up the cost.

Probably the first and best thing to do would be to pass legislation barring the states from regulating environmental policy and making it a federal matter. This would stop California from enacting ridiculous laws that, because of the size of the market in CA, ends up becoming the defacto rule elsewhere...as much as I'm usually for state's rights, there's not really any state's rights when one state can decide, without representation from the others, how certain products must be made/sold/used because that state's population is so large. I would not allow the EPA or other agencies to develop its own rules, either. Those rules usually carry the force of law, and some of them are more than a little ridiculous. The agencies could submit proposed rules, but the congress would need to debate on, alter, and approve any of those suggestions.

I'd build more refineries, move to using nuclear where it's possible, and make a contest out of alternative energy much the way the space prize thing had random citizens shooting Red Bull rockets into space it. Then I'll fall asleep sitting in my chair...be back in a few hours. Sleep now.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste