NationStates Jolt Archive

What the fuck man. I hated the leftists that wished the U.S. ill, harm and misfortune during the Bush years. That said "he's your President, not mine" and that said "I don't feel ashamed to be an American anymore" when Obama won. Okay, whatever.

That caused us nothing but disunity and projected nothing but the image of a fractured nation to the world. What fucking good did that bring? An election has happend and the Commander in Chief will be so until the next one comes along. You're welcome to back Hussein and wish him well. But, no matter what you say, I refuse to be a part of it. I'm going to sit back and laugh at the misfortunes of the next 4 years. Good luck! you're going to need it.

It's time to start a new. Obama has done nothing yet in his job as President that should make us doubt him. Instead, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. No way. Not a chance in hell.
He's actually already restored global pride in America I couldn't care less and has lifted the spirits of literally more than half our nation, The dumb half, sure.

So let's just relax, and look at the good in this. There is no good in this. We stand, once again, united. Dream on. There is about a half of this nation that spits on your "hope" and "change." And we're going to do everything we can in the next 4 years to undermine Hussein.
So you're right, we can't force you to respect President Obama. But we can tell you this. If you hold yourself to be a proud American, who in his heart knows that unity, strength and national pride are much more important than holding a grudge that will bring you literally nothing, then you will know in your heart and in your mind that it would be honorable for you, as a citizen who can see beyond petty politics but rather into the success or failure of our people and nation, to stand by our new President and give him the respect he deserves. The respect he deserves is less than zero. He is not my President, and never will be. And there is nothing you can ever do to change my mind on this. I'm not going to drink your kool-aid.
Wishing ill, harm and failure on your fellow countrymen and country, simply because your representative didn't get elected, compares to treachery in my book. Then have me arrested for treason. Otherwise, I'm going to keep speaking my mind on this. He is your President. No, he's not.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/NS%20forum%20macros/trollbridge-katdancer.jpgNice, Kat. Though, I do wonder how he let his bridge get into such bad condition.

...Spending a little too much money on the weapons, friend? :p

Seriously.
Isn't there a term for that? It eludes me at the moment.

Pig-eyed sack of hyena offal?

Okay, whatever.

You're welcome to back Hussein and wish him well. But, no matter what you say, I refuse to be a part of it. I'm going to sit back and laugh at the misfortunes of the next 4 years. Good luck! you're going to need it.

No way. Not a chance in hell.
I couldn't care less The dumb half, sure.

There is no good in this. Dream on. There is about a half of this nation that spits on your "hope" and "change." And we're going to do everything we can in the next 4 years to undermine Hussein.
The respect he deserves is less than zero. He is not my President, and never will be. And there is nothing you can ever do to change my mind on this. I'm not going to drink your kool-aid.
Then have me arrested for treason. Otherwise, I'm going to keep speaking my mind on this. No, he's not.



How about you present a real arguement kid? Outside of "OMG I HATEZ TEH EBIL BLACK MAN HE IS TEH MOSLEM!!!!!111!" I thought you Hanity folks all thought America was the best country on earth? Whats the matter? The minute 54% of the population disagree with you we're not the best anymore?

Otherwise go to bed. Im sure its passed your bed time.

When history looks back on him with pride, Ill be able tell my kids "I volunteered for his first campaign" with a smile on my face. While racist bigots like you cry into your cornflakes and beer.

Okay, whatever.

You're welcome to back Hussein and wish him well. But, no matter what you say, I refuse to be a part of it. I'm going to sit back and laugh at the misfortunes of the next 4 years. Good luck! you're going to need it.

No way. Not a chance in hell.
I couldn't care less The dumb half, sure.

There is no good in this. Dream on. There is about a half of this nation that spits on your "hope" and "change." And we're going to do everything we can in the next 4 years to undermine Hussein.
The respect he deserves is less than zero. He is not my President, and never will be. And there is nothing you can ever do to change my mind on this. I'm not going to drink your kool-aid.
Then have me arrested for treason. Otherwise, I'm going to keep speaking my mind on this. No, he's not.

Get out of my country, jack.

Nice, Kat. Though, I do wonder how he let his bridge get into such bad condition.

...Spending a little too much money on the weapons, friend? :p

Maybe that's the Bridge Uncle Ted was trying to earmark money for?

:D

Nope. Just rejecting your boy Hussein.


Then you are a traitor to America. One with very few people who think like you, despite your imagination fueled claims.

Your death, ultimately alone, bitter and dejected, will be something of a case study I think.

There is no good in this. Dream on. There is about a half of this nation that spits on your "hope" and "change." And we're going to do everything we can in the next 4 years to undermine Hussein.
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/tv_pix/tvland/i_pity_the_fool/mr__t/fool20.jpg
Seriously.

Pig-eyed sack of hyena offal?

traitorous flip flopping?

There is no good in this. Dream on. There is about a half of this nation that spits on your "hope" and "change." And we're going to do everything we can in the next 4 years to undermine Hussein. Then have me arrested for treason. Otherwise, I'm going to keep speaking my mind on this.

We don't have to arrest you. We can 'detain' you indefinitely and maybe use 'harsh interrogation techniques' to obtain intelligence on this "we" you mention. *nod*

And you keep referring to the President Elect as "Hussein." Are you still trying to push that "Obama is a Closet Muslim Terrorist Supporter" tripe that was shot down on November 4th? I'm just using his middle name. What's wrong with that? Is Hussein ashamed of his background?

I'm just using his middle name. What's wrong with that? Is Hussein ashamed of his background?

He has shown he isnt. But dont pretend like you dont intend implications behind it. Your being a fear mongering bigot. Have the intellectual honosty to admit it.

Nope. Just rejecting your boy Hussein.

No. Stop making crap up.

What exactly is rejecting him going to do? I personally voted for McCain, but I'm not going to reject the person who won the election fair and square. The people spoke, and for the sake of the country that you should be supporting, you should accept it. Refuse to? You're welcome to leave. I hear Canada looks quite nice around January.

What exactly is rejecting him going to do? I personally voted for McCain, but I'm not going to reject the person who won the election fair and square. The people spoke, and for the sake of the country that you should be supporting, you should accept it. Refuse to? You're welcome to leave. I hear Canada looks quite nice around January.

There is no KKK in Canada. Whatever will he do there?

Isnt it past your bed time? Normally, yes. I have to get up early to work and support the Hussein voters. But, unfortunately, my son has been cranky the last couple of days, so I have to stay up and do my best to rock him to sleep. I guess he's upset about the future of America. Can't say that I blame him.

I'm just using his middle name. What's wrong with that? Is Hussein ashamed of his background?It's not proper etiquette.
His title, as of now, is President-elect Hussein, if you so wish to address him.
That's right, he's our President-elect.
I don't know a person named just "Hussein".
Unless you mean Saddam Hussein. But that's his last name, not his middle name.

Normally, yes. I have to get up early to work and support the Hussein voters. But, unfortunately, my son has been cranky the last couple of days, so I have to stay up and do my best to rock him to sleep. I guess he's upset about the future of America. Can't say that I blame him.

This is funny because I know youre 13.

I love debating with Blouman because he makes rational arguments.

Aww, thank you. :$

Back to topic: We're not always talking about welfare when we talk about the economic plan. We're talking about families who work 2 or more jobs to make ends meet having a little more money. Perhaps they spend this money on new clothes, a new car (or a newer car) or even to take their family on a vacation they haven't had in years. They will put this money back into the businesses in their local area. People who wouldn't have been able to come out to my restaurant may actually enjoy a meal out with their family. This means I make more $, the company makes more money, and we can afford to hire people because we have new revenue coming in. This means my employees have more money and can spend it elsewhere. This is how the economy cycles. Face it, we are a consumerist nation and we need people to spend.

Yes that is how the economy is able to grow more people with more money allows them to spend more which increase the economy as you said.

Now when I was saying generally, it is not always the best thing if the government does this. During an economic boom a government should try and limit the amount of spending if the government and the consumers continue spending like this and more and more money is pumped into the economy and is circulating then inflation begins to kick in this can have an effect as wages are sticky and do not automatically adjust to these changes where as prices change almost automatically. Now this means that people have less money to spend in real terms as to will companies so business' start laying off people, the economy begins to slow down and decline and we may go into recession. Now this is why it isn't always a good thing, during those times of an economic boom the government can do one of two things it can increase taxes and/or decrease government spending, in either case they need to slow down the amount of money people are spending and sometimes may need to take some away from them so they don't have less money, but keeps the economy growing and keeps these people from actually being worse off then if they gave them more money to keep spending.

This is funny because I know youre 13.

Well you never know.

Get out of my country, jack. No. What are you going to do about it?

Well you never know.

15 at most.


I love his implication that Obama supporters all dont work. I didnt know 54% of the country was unemployed. God, Bush must have realy fucked that one up.

There is about a half of this nation that spits on your "hope" and "change." And we're going to do everything we can in the next 4 years to undermine Hussein.

Bullshit. Just because quite a good number of people voted for McCain doesn't mean they're going to do everything they can to undermine Obama. Once again, the good of the nation should be in mind, but of course, it seems you're being selfish about everything just because you didn't get what you wanted. Seems to me like you're acting like some spoiled child after their parent refused to buy them something.

The fact that you're allowed to speak your mind like this is something you should keep in mind. In other nations, if you had said such a thing about a regime in power, ...well, it wouldn't look good for you at all. Free speech is a valuable thing.

I'm just using his middle name. What's wrong with that? Is Hussein ashamed of his background?
Doesn't bother me at all. After all it's his name. In fact, it's millions of people's name.

I just wonder why you keep using it in favor of his first name, Barack, or his last name, Obama?

When you post it, what effect do you think it has?

Or is it just easier for you to type?

I'm just using his middle name. What's wrong with that?

It's not usually done in this country (United States of America). Usually you refer to someone by their title, their first and/or last name.

Even you, unless you can show me where you've ever referred to President Bush as "Walker."

You can't, cuz you don't.

By the way, I love how you just ignore it when your pathetic 'arguments' are thoroughly trashed and stomped into the ground. I guess denial and dishonesty are really the only ways you can continue your whining bigotry.

No. What are you going to do about it?

Just laugh at your pathetic posts and your rage over a black man running the country.


And laugh over the next four years as the country gets better and better.

And finally, laugh at you as you are old and dejected, nursing your racism and hate while history counts Obama as one of the great US presidents.

Then you are a traitor to America. One with very few people who think like you, despite your imagination fueled claims. Almost half of the electorate of this country rejected your boy Hussein. You can try to pretend this country is united, but you're lying to yourself.

Doesn't bother me at all. After all it's his name. In fact, it's millions of people's name.

I just wonder why you keep using it in favor of his first name, Barack, or his last name, Obama?

When you post it, what effect do you think it has?

Or is it just easier for you to type?
I think it makes it even clearer that he is a Caliphate-loving Muslim Baddie if you call him Hussein. I, for one, cannot wait for him to be sworn in as the first American Ayatollah.

15 at most.


I love his implication that Obama supporters all dont work. I didnt know 54% of the country was unemployed. God, Bush must have realy fucked that one up.

lol, well you know those crack dealing nigs they don't work :p I meant with having a kid but yeah.

Just laugh at your pathetic posts and your rage over a black man running the country.


And laugh over the next four years as the country gets better and better.

And finally, laugh at you as you are old and dejected, nursing your racism and hate while history counts Obama as one of the great US presidents.
Didn't know you dealt in fortune telling.

Didn't know you dealt in fortune telling.

I do have that power.


Besides, whats wrong with a little optimism? If these troglodytes can keep saying that America is doomed now that it elected that ******, Im allowed to be optimisitic.

You're welcome to back Hussein and wish him well. But, no matter what you say, I refuse to be a part of it. I'm going to sit back and laugh at the misfortunes of the next 4 years. Good luck! you're going to need it.
Can I get streaming video of that? :D

There is no good in this. Dream on. There is about a half of this nation that spits on your "hope" and "change." And we're going to do everything we can in the next 4 years to undermine Hussein.

Oh, really? Like what, Captain Amerika?

I do have that power.

Besides, whats wrong with a little optimism? If these troglodytes can keep saying that America is doomed now that it elected that ******, Im allowed to be optimisitic.
I don't think that either side predicting what will come if Obama makes it to office is valid. Obama is going to have to deal with a financial clusterfuck. It'd be like FDR taking his presidency in 1930 instead of 1932 - this crisis has nothing like run its course.

Almost half of the electorate of this country rejected your boy Hussein. You can try to pretend this country is united, but you're lying to yourself....Dude, did you pass Math? o_0

What exactly is rejecting him going to do? Probably nothing, at this point. But I'm not getting on the Obama ride, no matter how popular it might be. The people spoke, and for the sake of the country that you should be supporting, you should accept it. Again, no. Refuse to? You're welcome to leave. I hear Canada looks quite nice around January. No thanks. I'm going to stick around and remain involved in politics and do the best I can to undermine Hussein. That's not much on an individual level, I admit, but there are tens of millions of people who agree with me. Anyway, I'm familiar with Canada's climate in January- I'm actually a dual citizen.

You're welcome to back Hussein and wish him well. But, no matter what you say, I refuse to be a part of it. I'm going to sit back and laugh at the misfortunes of the next 4 years. Good luck! you're going to need it.
You'd think that with Obama being so awful, you'd help the country to counter his awfulness.....

No way. Not a chance in hell.
Why not though?
I couldn't care less The dumb half, sure.
Most people in this nation are dumb. Most people in this world are dumb. That doesn't mean you should ignore their wishes when playing the game we like to call Democracy. If you would truley oppose our democratic system delivering results to the majority, then you are anti-American in the sense that you disapprove of the very thing we value most. Our free-democracy.

There is no good in this. Dream on. There is about a half of this nation that spits on your "hope" and "change."
First of all, it's not my hope and change. It's just that I respect the democratic wishes of my nation and am glad that our Democratic institution is so strong. Also, you'd have to be blind deaf and dumb to assume that all McCain voters were backing McCain fanatically and hated Obama fanatically. They do not. I, as a McCain voter, know many many many who think like me on this issue.

And we're going to do everything we can in the next 4 years to undermine Hussein.
You can call him by his middle name, but I don't really care. I don't think you'll find someone as critical of Islam on this forum as me, and I know, like every other non-troll, that he is not Muslim. (God I can't believe I'm arguing this side of the debate):rolleyes:
Anyway, why would you want to undermine him? He is not a dictator. If he tries to institute bad policies, (and being a Right Winger, I'm sure he will try to), we will just have to oppose those. Which is how our system works. But that does not equal outright hate and disrespect of our leader. Our commander of our armed forces. You wouldn't hate and disrespect our military would you? You may oppose a certain conflict they are in, but you wouldn't outright hate and disrespect them.

Apply the same logic to the leader of our military.

The respect he deserves is less than zero. He is not my President, and never will be. And there is nothing you can ever do to change my mind on this. I'm not going to drink your kool-aid.
I am the last one who'd have you drink a hypothetical kool-aid to convert you to the "Church of Obama". But as long as you are a citizen of this great nation, he shall be your President.

If that is a problem with you, then you know where the door is. Surely the outside world isn't too scary for you. :p

Then have me arrested for treason.
No, I wouldn't. I'd just acknowledge that sad fact that you hate our country enough to feel treacherous, resentful and hurtful wishes towards it.

But I'd also acknowledge the fact that most Americans, whether Right or Left, are not like you, in this regard.

Almost half of the electorate of this country rejected your boy Hussein. You can try to pretend this country is united, but you're lying to yourself.

That's what elections do here. They give one person success over the other. Doesn't mean that the people who voted for the person who didn't win are going to stay bitter and angry at their nation. It's called adaptation. At least give the president elect their chance to prove that they should be there. I have hope.

It's not proper etiquette. I don't care
His title, as of now, is President-elect Hussein, if you so wish to address him. I'll call Hussein whatever I want, thanks.
That's right, he's our President-elect. Yours, maybe. But not mine.

I'm going to stick around and remain involved in politics and do the best I can to undermine Hussein.

I hear there's an international organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) that has the exact same goal you do.

That's not much on an individual level, I admit, but there are tens of millions of people who agree with me.

Delusions of grandeur much?

Anyway, I'm familiar with Canada's climate in January- I'm actually a dual citizen.

The weather is much more pleasant in Argentina.

Probably nothing, at this point. But I'm not getting on the Obama ride, no matter how popular it might be. Again, no.
I think these arguments would carry more weight if you held your breath till you turned blue.

No thanks. I'm going to stick around and remain involved in politics and do the best I can to undermine Hussein. That's not much on an individual level, I admit, but there are tens of millions of people who agree with me.
Are there?

Anyway, I'm familiar with Canada's climate in January- I'm actually a dual citizen.
Well, what are you waiting for then? Need bus fare? I'll chip in.

Listen, you're free to hold and express your opinion -- even if I do think it's juvenile -- but I'm sorry but there is just no way you are going to be taken seriously.

Probably nothing, at this point. But I'm not getting on the Obama ride, no matter how popular it might be.
Guess what? You're already on it, like it or not. The only way to get off would be to leave the country and give up on it. Even if you actively resist, you're still on the ride.
Please remain inside the ride vehicle at all times.

Again, no. No thanks. I'm going to stick around and remain involved in politics and do the best I can to undermine Hussein. Then you're on the ride. Good on you for sticking it out

That's not much on an individual level, I admit, but there are tens of millions of people who agree with me. Anyway, I'm familiar with Canada's climate in January- I'm actually a dual citizen.
So you're okay with Canada, but not an Obama USA?

Strange...

That's what elections do here. They give one person success over the other. Doesn't mean that the people who voted for the person who didn't win are going to stay bitter and angry at their nation. It's called adaptation. At least give the president elect their chance to prove that they should be there. I have hope.

Apperantly in the history of the US, the people who's candidate lost have always worked to undermine the opposition, rather than work with the new president.


The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Then again, I doubt New Potomac cares what the founding fathers thought.

Almost half of the electorate of this country rejected your boy Hussein. You can try to pretend this country is united, but you're lying to yourself.

Hmm, hmm, and yet, half that electorate isn't making the same fuss Potomac here is.

Indeed, his eventual death alone and embittered will be a fascinating psychological study on the breakdown of mental states linked to denial.

Well, what are you waiting for then? Need bus fare? I'll chip in.

Im telling you, he wont go to Canada, there is no Klan in Canada.

So you're okay with Canada, but not an Obama USA?

Strange...

He's scared of the United States of Americaliphate.

I don't care
I'll call Hussein whatever I want, thanks.
Yours, maybe. But not mine.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't change reality.

Speaking of, reality is wonderful this time of year. May we book you a hotel room?

Apperantly in the history of the US, the people who's candidate lost have always worked to undermine the opposition, rather than work with the new president.


The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Then again, I doubt New Potomac cares what the founding fathers thought.
Well, duh. They are Old Potomac. He is New Potomac. So... he replaces them.

Something like that, I guess.

I don't care That's obvious. In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't care how unintelligent it makes you look. Makes your whole "I hate teh ebil Muzlim" thing seem even more petty than it is.
I'll call Hussein whatever I want, thanks.Dead? :p
Because, you know, Saddam Hussein is, sort of, dead.

Yours, maybe. But not mine. Hah. Yours whether you like it or not. You cannot say that he was not legally elected, and expect to be believed. End. Fin. Nothing farther than that. Obama won. And you just seem like a really sore loser. :p

Im telling you, he wont go to Canada, there is no Klan in Canada.
Yeah, but, if, as he claims -- and why should we doubt him? -- tens of millions think as he do, then there soon could be Klan in Canada. Especially if he sets the example by going first and showing them the way. He could be like Moses. :D

I don't care
I'll call Hussein whatever I want, thanks.

Regardless of the US First Amendment, we DO have rules of etiquette here. If you continue to flamebait and troll threads, you'll find yourself banned.

Agree or disagree, either is fine with us. But you'll do it in a civil manner, or you won't do it here.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Regardless of the US First Amendment, we DO have rules of etiquette here. If you continue to flamebait and troll threads, you'll find yourself banned.

Agree or disagree, either is fine with us. But you'll do it in a civil manner, or you won't do it here.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

OMG libruhl mod bias!!!

You'd think that with Obama being so awful, you'd help the country to counter his awfulness..... I'm going to do my best over the next 4 years. What are you looking for here?


Why not though? Um, because I loathe Hussein and can't stand the sight of him?
That doesn't mean you should ignore their wishes when playing the game we like to call Democracy. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just disagreeing, in the strongest possible terms, with the deicision of the electorate.

Anyway, why would you want to undermine him? Because I want to see him fail. But that does not equal outright hate and disrespect of our leader. He's not my leader, but I do hate and disrespect him. You wouldn't hate and disrespect our military would you? Of course not. I feel pity for out military, since they are bound by oath to follow the decisions of whoever sits in the Oval Office. But I'm not in the military and am not bound to respect Hussein.
But as long as you are a citizen of this great nation, he shall be your President. Again, no.
If that is a problem with you, then you know where the door is. Surely the outside world isn't too scary for you. :p I'll stay right where I am, thanks.

Regardless of the US First Amendment, we DO have rules of etiquette here. If you continue to flamebait and troll threads, you'll find yourself banned.

Agree or disagree, either is fine with us. But you'll do it in a civil manner, or you won't do it here.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules ShopDamn, KoL beat me to it. :p

I'm going to do my best over the next 4 years. What are you looking for here?


Um, because I loathe Hussein and can't stand the sight of him?
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just disagreeing, in the strongest possible terms, with the deicision of the electorate.

Because I want to see him fail. He's not my leader, but I do hate and disrespect him. Of course not. I feel pity for out military, since they are bound by oath to follow the decisions of whoever sits in the Oval Office. But I'm not in the military and am not bound to respect Hussein.
Again, no.
I'll stay right where I am, thanks.


Whats that behind you? Is that a....burning cross?

I'm going to do my best over the next 4 years. What are you looking for here?

Second time I'm asking this: You'll do your "best"? Like what, for instance?

But I'm not in the military and am not bound to respect Hussein. Thank whatever higher power for that. We don't need people like you in our military.

Um, because I loathe Hussein and can't stand the sight of him?

And that would be why you continually refer to him as "boy."

Pure, simple racism.

I'm not ignoring anything.

This will be like the tenth post of mine you'll ignore.


Because I want to see him fail. He's not my leader, but I do hate and disrespect him.

Ugh.

Of course not. I feel pity for out military, since they are bound by oath to follow the decisions of whoever sits in the Oval Office. But I'm not in the military and am not bound to respect Hussein.

Nor yourself, apparently.

Second time I'm asking this: You'll do your "best"? Like what, for instance? Like, be involved in local, state and national politics in an attempt to become part of an opposition movement in the hopes of winning back Congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012.

What do you think I was going to say? I fully support the democratic system and the rule of law, even when it comes to decisions I don't like.

Hey, guys and gals, anybody taking bets on how long it will take Potomac to figure out that him calling President-elect Obama "Hussein" doesn't bother us at all?

Like, be involved in local, state and national politics in an attempt to become part of an opposition movement in the hopes of winning back Congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012.

What do you think I was going to say? I fully support the democratic system and the rule of law, even when it comes to decisions I don't like.
No, you don't. If you did, you would accept that Barack Obama is, in fact, your president.

Like, be involved in local, state and national politics in an attempt to become part of an opposition movement in the hopes of winning back Congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012.



Good luck with that wing nut. The American people have given a referendum of Republican policy. They dont like it.


What do you think I was going to say? I fully support the democratic system and the rule of law, even when it comes to decisions I don't like.

Really? Because everything youve been saying indicates otherwise.

Tell your Klansmen buddies this, maybe they wont try and assassinate him then.

Agree or disagree, either is fine with us. But you'll do it in a civil manner, or you won't do it here. What about the people who are accusing me of being a member of the KKK? I have not accused anyone of this thread of anything, yet other posters feel free to accuse me of being a member of a racist organization.

Hey, guys and gals, anybody taking bets on how long it will take Potomac to figure out that him calling President-elect Obama "Hussein" doesn't bother us at all?

Or that it paints him as being part of the ignorant redneck McCain crowd like that old hag who actually believes President Elect Obama is a dirty Arab Muslim who's going to make Bin Ladin Secretary of State?

What about the people who are accusing me of being a member of the KKK? I have not accused anyone of this thread of anything, yet other posters feel free to accuse me of being a member of a racist organization.

Stop acting like it and Ill stop accusing you of being in the Klan.

Hey, guys and gals, anybody taking bets on how long it will take Potomac to figure out that him calling President-elect Obama "Hussein" doesn't bother us at all?

When people stop calling him up on it.

Or that it paints him as being part of the ignorant redneck McCain crowd like that old hag who actually believes President Elect Obama is a dirty Arab Muslim who's going to make Bin Ladin Secretary of State?That, too.
This is what I imagine he looks like right now.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/3/th_la128622246810909574.jpg

Tell your Klansmen buddies this, maybe they wont try and assassinate him then.Your resorting to ad hominems says a lot about you. You'll notice I've never made this discussion personal, but you have very quickly stooped to accusing me of being a member of a racist organization that I am ethnically and religiously not qualified ot join. Which is funny to me.

When people stop calling him up on it.

I just want him to show some intellectual honosty and admit hes just scare mongering.

Whats that behind you? Is that a....burning cross?
Hey, come on. He hasn't said anything (that I've seen) that should make us assume he's in the KKK. He's being unfair, a sore loser, un-American and from what I can tell, showing the intentions of a domestic terrorist (plotting to undermine our national government is 100% a no-no)...but he hasn't said anything KKK-like....
I'm going to do my best over the next 4 years. What are you looking for here?
What am I looking for where? I'm looking for Obama, who is very intelligent, to do his best. I'm hoping that it works out for our nation. I'm hoping that in the meantime, the Republican party rebuilds itself to be a nice conservative small government party that has the balls to deal with immigration issues and ditches the religious politics. And I'm hoping that we win in the next election.

In the meantime, however, I hope all the best for our nation and I hope nothing for success for our President. Because his success means that we as a nation are succeeding. That's how the job of President works. To wish failure and harm to him is to wish it to all of us, our entire nation.

Of course not. I feel pity for out military, since they are bound by oath to follow the decisions of whoever sits in the Oval Office.
But I'm not in the military and am not bound to respect Hussein.
I noticed you stated "our" military, even though you misspelled 'our'. Whether you have realized it or not, you still, without thinking about it, show your loyalty to President Obama. You have called the American military your own, by using the possesive 'our'. President Obama is the Leader of the American military of the near future.
I'll stay right where I am, thanks.
I'd be careful though. You are honestly showing the rantings and desires of a domestic terrorist, and that's not something that my fellow countrymen nor my country take lightly.

Like, be involved in local, state and national politics in an attempt to become part of an opposition movement in the hopes of winning back Congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012.

What do you think I was going to say? I fully support the democratic system and the rule of law, even when it comes to decisions I don't like.
So, in other words, you're going to carry on being a normal American and even working with the government who is led by the person you hate so much in order to effect change in the exact same, legal, Constitutional way we all do? Thought as much.

And all this crying and fuming is just a temper tantrum because you didn't get the outcome you wanted in this election? Thought as much on that, too.

And in a day or two you'll be over it and start acting as if it never happened, and be shocked -- SHOCKED -- that people who read your performance here don't take you seriously later on? Heh, I'd be willing to bet on that one, too.

Hey, guys and gals, anybody taking bets on how long it will take Potomac to figure out that him calling President-elect Obama "Hussein" doesn't bother us at all?
I'm not sure when, but we'll be able to tell it has happened when he starts denying he ever did it -- "oh, not the way you people are implying" or words to that effect.

Your resorting to ad hominems says a lot about you. You'll notice I've never made this discussion personal, but you have very quickly stooped to accusing me of being a member of a racist organization that I am ethnically and religiously not qualified ot join. Which is funny to me.

Stop acting like it and Ill stop saying it.

What about the people who are accusing me of being a member of the KKK? I have not accused anyone of this thread of anything, yet other posters feel free to accuse me of being a member of a racist organization.

I'll start this by saying I'm not a mod.

To my knowledge, calling someone a racist is not considered flaming or flamebate. It can cross the line into such, but it is not inherently problematic.

If you feel that there is a problem, don't post it here...the mods are unlikely to see it. Go to moderation, explain your case, and include links to posts. the mods aren't psychic, and don't see everything.

Your resorting to ad hominems says a lot about you. You'll notice I've never made this discussion personal, but you have very quickly stooped to accusing me of being a member of a racist organization that I am ethnically and religiously not qualified ot join. Which is funny to me.Hatred is a pesonal emotion. You have admitted to hating the President-elect of the United States of America, and you have admitted to wishing him not only political failure, but personal failure as well.
Please, point out the non-personal parts.

Hey, come on. He hasn't said anything (that I've seen) that should make us assume he's in the KKK. He's being unfair, a sore loser, un-American and from what I can tell, showing the intentions of a domestic terrorist (plotting to undermine our national government is 100% a no-no)...but he hasn't said anything KKK-like....


No, see, he hasnt really given any reasons for his irrational fear of Obama. He just keeps crying about his victory and calling him "Hussein".

So far, his reasons for being so fuming over an Obama win seem to be racial rather then policy based. When he addresses real issues hes opposed to, Ill stop implying hes in the Klan.

EDIT: Anyway, Im going to bed. Night all.

and from what I can tell, showing the intentions of a domestic terrorist (plotting to undermine our national government is 100% a no-no) Nice try, but, as I have posted above, I am a firm believer in the rule of law. Working to undermine the government through legal means is the right of every American. You seem to be trying to project intentions onto me that do not exist.

I'd be careful though. You are honestly showing the rantings and desires of a domestic terrorist. Really? Where have I posted that? Please be specific.

Your resorting to ad hominems says a lot about you. You'll notice I've never made this discussion personal, but you have very quickly stooped to accusing me of being a member of a racist organization that I am ethnically and religiously not qualified ot join. Which is funny to me.
And you criticizing another for the ad hominem fallacy says a lot about you, after you have referred to Obama voters as "dumb" and have made a list of baseless personal accusations against Obama himself. Your entire argument is nothing but a continuous personal attack against someone who is not here to defend himself.

No, see, he hasnt really given any reasons for his irrational fear of Obama. He just keeps crying about his victory and calling him "Hussein".

So far, his reasons for being so fuming over an Obama win seem to be racial rather then policy based. When he addresses real issues hes opposed to, Ill stop implying hes in the Klan.

EDIT: Anyway, Im going to bed. Night all.
I would be careful with that...I have seen the mods rule before that saying it once or twice may be legit, but harping on it could qualify as flamebait

Just friendly advice:)

This whole "Who, me?" routine could fill this thread for hundreds more posts. I'm feeling tired, I'm hitting the sack, wake me when it's done with. :)

You know, when FOXNews and TAI are defending Obama you know the man seems to be on a Mission From God. He could be another Blues Brother for all we know.

Nice try, but, as I have posted above, I am a firm believer in the rule of law. Working to undermine the government through legal means is the right of every American. You seem to be trying to project intentions onto me that do not exist.

Really? Where have I posted that? Please be specific.
working within the system to change it is NOT undermining. It wasn't "undermining" the system to elect Obama. It was not "undermining" the system to get Democrats elected. It was not "undermining" the system to get Republicans into Congress under Clinton.

Your choice of words implies means outside of the system, which can range from deceitful practices like false ballots and spreading false information about voting rights to domestic terrorism.

This whole "Who, me?" routine could fill this thread for hundreds more posts. I'm feeling tired, I'm hitting the sack, wake me when it's done with. :)

See you in 8 years ;)

Your resorting to ad hominems says a lot about you. You'll notice I've never made this discussion personal,
Because I want to see him fail. He's not my leader, but I do hate and disrespect him.I'm sorry, what was that about not being personal?

I'm sure he'll ignore this post, as well.

What about the people who are accusing me of being a member of the KKK? I have not accused anyone of this thread of anything, yet other posters feel free to accuse me of being a member of a racist organization.

And why do you think that is? Maybe you should stop posting things that sound racist.

I'm sorry, what was that about not being personal?

I'm sure he'll ignore this post, as well.

To be fair, there is a distinct difference between attacking the candidate, and attacking your fellow debater.

Both are bad form, but one is slightly worse.

Your choice of words implies means outside of the system, which can range from deceitful practices like false ballots and spreading false information about voting rights to domestic terrorism. You are free to come to whatever conclusions you want. But I do not, and have never, supported any non-legal means of fighting political opponents.

I'm sorry, what was that about not being personal? I've never accused any poster on this thread of anything. My attacks are limited to public officials and politicians. That's the difference between my posts, and people accusing me of being a member of the KKK.

...Aren't the reason people are losing houses because of a democrat letting anyone be able to by a house?
Only by about 10% or so. The rest is on the private sector, happily spurred on by specific deregulation. Have any other republican bullshit myths needing disspelling?

You are free to come to whatever conclusions you want. But I do not, and have never, supported any non-legal means of fighting political opponents.

Then you are not going to be undermining the system, a word that inherently means working outside of the established system (literally, to go beneath)

Then you are not going to be undermining the system, a word that inherently means working outside of the established system (literally, to go beneath) I never said I wanted to undermine the system. I'm fine with our political system in this country.

Contrary to popular Internet opinion, Americans are not total idiots. :p
A miracle, right?

The counterargument can be found in the electoral results of 2000 and 2008. "American Idol:The White House".

I never said I wanted to undermine the system. I'm fine with our political system in this country.
You said you would be doing your best to undermine Obama. I asked you what you meant by that. You said you'd be working on political opposition by working within the system -- just like everybody else does.

So I ask you again, more clearly this time: Just how do you intend to undermine Barack Obama as president?

I never said I wanted to undermine the system. I'm fine with our political system in this country.
No...you said undermine Obama's presidency. Which STILL implies illegal means.

There is a difference between "I will do my best to challenge Obama's presidency" and "I will do my best to undermine Obama's presidency".

Words have specific meanings for a reason. And while these meanings may be somewhat fluid, they aren't that fluid.

I never said I wanted to undermine the system.

Actually, yeah, you did.

This whole thing started because someone said raising taxes would stimulate growth. Well no it doesn't, raising taxes and taxing money away from people to spend does not stimulate growth as they can't spend the money that has now been taken away.
I'm mainly talking about the tax cuts that only really affected the wealthy. An increase in government spending is often done in a down economy, which leads to deficit spending. This can be mitigated once the economy picks up that starts generating surpluses.

Unfortunately we are already deficit spending due to war. Wars are expensive. We have no money and are massively in debt already. Increasing public spending without more money seems a bad idea. As previously mentioned, we're still in that war, so cutting taxes even more so that we have even less revenue coming in to try to pay for the war also seems a bad idea. The government needs money to function. I'm of the opinion that you basically get what you pay for in most things. That includes governments.



And that exactly what a strong econmy should do it should bring about a better standard of living for its populance.
And our economy has failed to do that for the last eight years. I would say economic policies need to be completely changed.

By taking money away from them?

That's some strange logic you have there, boy.

Yes because the U.S. is going to have many more people that are unemployed.

Now if the government creates jobs with new programs (ones that may even help the unemployed:eek:), the unemployed will (hopefully) take these government jobs and spend money on shit that they need/want, or maybe even save it in banks.

After all, it's hard for people to earn money without holding a job.

How many people are ALREADY employed by the government? There's a point of diminishing returns with the whole "Government created jobs" thing-Makework still has to be funded, and the money's just not there.

I'm mainly talking about the tax cuts that only really affected the wealthy. An increase in government spending is often done in a down economy, which leads to deficit spending. This can be mitigated once the economy picks up that starts generating surpluses.

Unfortunately we are already deficit spending due to war. Wars are expensive. We have no money and are massively in debt already. Increasing public spending without more money seems a bad idea. As previously mentioned, we're still in that war, so cutting taxes even more so that we have even less revenue coming in to try to pay for the war also seems a bad idea. The government needs money to function. I'm of the opinion that you basically get what you pay for in most things. That includes governments.




And our economy has failed to do that for the last eight years. I would say economic policies need to be completely changed.

Those bolded parts; they make sense. I agree with this as well. The war is the first thing that needs to go.

And yes, increase taxes on the wealthy, but no tax increase with the poor. It would hopefully act like a redistribution of wealth (increase taxes on the wealthy to create jobs for the poor).

How many people are ALREADY employed by the government? There's a point of diminishing returns with the whole "Government created jobs" thing-Makework still has to be funded, and the money's just not there.

"Government created jobs" are not just jobs working for the government. They include jobs created through government research grants, infrastructure improvements, etc.

How many people are ALREADY employed by the government? There's a point of diminishing returns with the whole "Government created jobs" thing-Makework still has to be funded, and the money's just not there.

Well from what I understand from Obama's ideas, the money would come from the wealthy in this country in the form of tax increase.

For the record, no, I did not vote Obama.

NP, you are illogical, irrational and inconsistent. I don't believe for a minute that you're an attorney. I suspect that you have not yet graduated from middle school. If this is what you consider an ad hominem attack, report it. But be assured that your ad hominem attacks on the rest of us will be noted as well.

To class me, a 61-year old moderate white woman with crack-head welfare queens because I voted for Obama goes past insulting.

To say that you will work to undermine the man who was elected president by a clear majority doesn't just border on treason, it is treason. Check the law you claim to know so well. It is illegal to threaten the President of the United States.

If McCain had been elected, I would have done my best to support him. If he had died in office and Predator Barbie had become President, I would have swallowed my gorge and done my best to support her.

You are a child, a fool and a fraud.

Well from what I understand from Obama's ideas, the money would come from the wealthy in this country in the form of tax increase.

For the record, no, I did not vote Obama.
But you'll work with him now that he's our President, right?

But you'll work with him now that he's our President, right?Nah, they'll prefer welfare to prove some kind of point.

"Government created jobs" are not just jobs working for the government. They include jobs created through government research grants, infrastructure improvements, etc.

Damn, we seem to be thinking really alike today.

But yes, there are government created jobs, and "government jobs." If I were to be part of a construction company working on the new bay bridge, that would be the former. My mother, as a customs agricultural inspector, has the latter.

Those bolded parts; they make sense. I agree with this as well. The war is the first thing that needs to go.

And yes, increase taxes on the wealthy, but no tax increase with the poor. It would hopefully act like a redistribution of wealth (increase taxes on the wealthy to create jobs for the poor).

Yes. With no war, that would plug a huge drain on government resources.

The middle and working classes are really hurting right now. The poor already have no money, so you can't really ask them for more money. That's just silly. The middle class doesn't have much money right now, asking them for money won't work either.

The wealthy, on the other hand, may have just lost a bunch of money, but they have millions more to spare. Even if we just make them pay what they were paying in the Clinton or Reagan administration.

Damn, we seem to be thinking really alike today.

But yes, there are government created jobs, and "government jobs." If I were to be part of a construction company working on the new bay bridge, that would be the former. My mother, as a customs agricultural inspector, has the latter.
haha...well, with logic, fact, sophisticated computer technology (and a box of crayons) on our side, we must be in the right.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Calli?

(that's right. You are agreeing with a sleep-deprived dude who has been watching back episodes of Rocko's Modern Life and Pinky and the Brain all night. You're in good company :) )

How many people are ALREADY employed by the government? There's a point of diminishing returns with the whole "Government created jobs" thing-Makework still has to be funded, and the money's just not there.

People need jobs to have money to spend on goods and services to get the economy back up. One way of making more jobs is government grants and projects. Let's upgrade our country. That will make a lot of jobs. That means there will be a lot more money being spent on goods and services. And that will be of benefit to the economy.

Yes. With no war, that would plug a huge drain on government resources.

The middle and working classes are really hurting right now. The poor already have no money, so you can't really ask them for more money. That's just silly. The middle class doesn't have much money right now, asking them for money won't work either.

The wealthy, on the other hand, may have just lost a bunch of money, but they have millions more to spare. Even if we just make them pay what they were paying in the Clinton or Reagan administration.

Define "Wealthy". Obama, for instance, started with a single income of 250, 000, then 200,000 , now it's what, 100,000 for two people?

Who IS "The Rich" that you intend to soak? It's a simple question.

Define "Wealthy". Obama, for instance, started with a single income of 250, 000, then 200,000 , now it's what, 100,000 for two people?

Who IS "The Rich" that you intend to soak? It's a simple question.

So far as I know, for Obama, it's 250,000 for joint filing, 200,000 for individual filing. It also wouldn't impact anyone who is already paying the annual minimum tax...it would narrow the margin for many, but unless it changed your standing enough to push you past your AMT, you wouldn't pay any different.

His tax raises would return them to pre-2001 levels.

Define "Wealthy". Obama, for instance, started with a single income of 250, 000, then 200,000 , now it's what, 100,000 for two people?

Who IS "The Rich" that you intend to soak? It's a simple question.

Not really. What is "rich" exactly depends partly on where you live and cost of living.

Not really. What is "rich" exactly depends partly on where you live and cost of living.
get out of my head, dammit.

Okay. Sleep. For real.

Yes because the U.S. is going to have many more people that are unemployed.

Now if the government creates jobs with new programs (ones that may even help the unemployed:eek:), the unemployed will (hopefully) take these government jobs and spend money on shit that they need/want, or maybe even save it in banks.

After all, it's hard for people to earn money without holding a job.

What the hell has this got to do with taxes on people? As I said that is strange logic you have there if this is how you justify increasing taxes. I suggest you go over the rest of this thread other people have discussed my original post to you in greater detail.

I'm mainly talking about the tax cuts that only really affected the wealthy. An increase in government spending is often done in a down economy, which leads to deficit spending. This can be mitigated once the economy picks up that starts generating surpluses.

Well I have an idea you were, but I was talking generally. The rest of that is correct a government should be running a deficit when the economy is shrinking or has low growth and it should be running a surplus when experiencing a boom.

Unfortunately we are already deficit spending due to war. Wars are expensive. We have no money and are massively in debt already. Increasing public spending without more money seems a bad idea. As previously mentioned, we're still in that war, so cutting taxes even more so that we have even less revenue coming in to try to pay for the war also seems a bad idea. The government needs money to function. I'm of the opinion that you basically get what you pay for in most things. That includes governments.

Well maybe taxes is one way to do it but increasing isn't always the way to do it, since the US is going into recession they should be lowering taxes the government can fund it buy selling bonds and taking on debt, the US should be in a deficit at the moment. Though the US has been running a deficit for decades IIRC, someone posted a graph on here and the last time the US budget was running a surplus was back in Jackson's day.

And our economy has failed to do that for the last eight years. I would say economic policies need to be completely changed.

Well I wasn't defending Bush's policies, I was saying that increasing taxes isn't really going to stimulate the economy.

Well I have an idea you were, but I was talking generally. The rest of that is correct a government should be running a deficit when the economy is shrinking or has low growth and it should be running a surplus when experiencing a boom.

Well maybe taxes is one way to do it but increasing isn't always the way to do it, since the US is going into recession they should be lowering taxes the government can fund it buy selling bonds and taking on debt, the US should be in a deficit at the moment. Though the US has been running a deficit for decades IIRC, someone posted a graph on here and the last time the US budget was running a surplus was back in Jackson's day.
Bush actually inherited a budget surplus. Clinton balanced the budget.



Well I wasn't defending Bush's policies, I was saying that increasing taxes isn't really going to stimulate the economy.
The government would have more money to work with if his policies, which largely benefited the wealthy (until now) and fucked over the middle and working classes, were reversed.

I'm just saying that we're already so deep in debt and running such a huge deficit that digging ourselves even deeper into debt could prove disastrous.

(Mods, feel free to merge this elsewhere if need be, but I thought that it was different enough to warrant its own home)

So we now have President (elect) Obama. It really is an historic moment, no matter if you supported him or Sen. McCain. So, here and now, at this moment, how are you feeling? What's the thoughts running through your mind?

As for me, I still have my doubts about President Obama, but I was willing to let him have a whack at it. But I will tell you all this, my son is 1-years-old (and a bit). He is the child of a Japanese mother and a White American father, so both bi-racial and multi-national. Tonight I am proud that when my son is old enough to start to understand the concept of what the president of the United States is, the man who will be holding that office will be just like him and that if he ever asks if he could every grow up to be president, I can honestly say YES!

Hope hast risen from the grave. *nod*

Bush actually inherited a budget surplus. Clinton balanced the budget.




The government would have more money to work with if his policies, which largely benefited the wealthy (until now) and fucked over the middle and working classes, were reversed.

I'm just saying that we're already so deep in debt and running such a huge deficit that digging ourselves even deeper into debt could prove disastrous.

My suspicion is, no matter the intention, the people who're going to get shafted are going to be middle and working class, small business owners, and anyone who tries to get over that invisible barrier into the upper crust by means other than running for high office on a Democratic Ticket.

Bush actually inherited a budget surplus. Clinton balanced the budget.

He balanced the budget? That's just as bad a government shouldn't be balancing any budget. Anyway I think the graph showed US government debt which has been increasing since Jackson was in charge, he was the last president to reduce it.

The government would have more money to work with if his policies, which largely benefited the wealthy (until now) and fucked over the middle and working classes, were reversed.

I'm just saying that we're already so deep in debt and running such a huge deficit that digging ourselves even deeper into debt could prove disastrous.

It may be needed if the economy goes into a extended recession then the government may need to take on more debt, the good thing about governments is that they can't go bankrupt. In order to stimulate the economy again amongst other measures the government will need to increase spending (running up more debt) and/or decrease taxes (also increasing debt).

Well, Obama will have a lot of pressure to do something very quickly. So don't quit on him right away.

Besides, Bush's may continue his uncontrollable spending which may limit Obama's plans.

He balanced the budget? That's just as bad a government shouldn't be balancing any budget. Anyway I think the graph showed US government debt which has been increasing since Jackson was in charge, he was the last president to reduce it.
The republicans had actually been clamoring for a balanced budget. And then by the time he was out of office, it was a surplus. Times were good, the economy was strong, the government had enough money.

We were still in debt, yes, but the government that Bush began with had just started getting more money coming in than it was spending and he also started with a strong economy. There was of course, still the national debt, but things were okay. Pretty good, in fact.

In 8 years he took us from a budget surplus to the most massive budget deficits ever. From a strong economy to a weak one, and increased the national debt to unfathomable proportions.



It may be needed if the economy goes into a extended recession then the government may need to take on more debt, the good thing about governments is that they can't go bankrupt. In order to stimulate the economy again amongst other measures the government will need to increase spending (running up more debt) and/or decrease taxes (also increasing debt).
They can and will go bankrupt if China decides to completely wreck us in an instant.

My suspicion is, no matter the intention, the people who're going to get shafted are going to be middle and working class, small business owners, and anyone who tries to get over that invisible barrier into the upper crust by means other than running for high office on a Democratic Ticket.

What makes you say that?

Obama...

Maybe tortures will stop?
Maybe war will end?
Maybe Americans get their civil rights back?
Maybe...
Hopefully...

And pretty much directly on the other side of the world.
Besides, no one would stand for it. Where would we get our Fosters? How could we disrespect the memory of Steve Irwin? and of Skippy?
Wow, I hadn't seen a rerun of skippy for... it must be 14 years now.

Well, Obama will have a lot of pressure to do something very quickly. So don't quit on him right away.

Besides, Bush's may continue his uncontrollable spending which may limit Obama's plans.
Mmmm, it takes a Democratic majority to enact spending bills.

Wow, I hadn't seen a rerun of skippy for... it must be 14 years now.

I remember the new adventures that were being made in 1992 to about 94 or 5 from memory.

Depending on how old you are here have a walk down memory lane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCHY6n907OE (The original one)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdcOhU8RSdE (The one from my generation)

The republicans had actually been clamoring for a balanced budget. And then by the time he was out of office, it was a surplus. Times were good, the economy was strong, the government had enough money.

We were still in debt, yes, but the government that Bush began with had just started getting more money coming in than it was spending and he also started with a strong economy. There was of course, still the national debt, but things were okay. Pretty good, in fact.

In 8 years he took us from a budget surplus to the most massive budget deficits ever. From a strong economy to a weak one, and increased the national debt to unfathomable proportions.

If the economy was strong and was growing at a large rate and there was a surplus then that is good that is exactly what you want to see. Now the current economic climate is not the fault of Bush as much as people want to blame him for it it wasn't him that caused the current economic climate. As for the decline in the manufacturing sector within America which is part of the cause for the poor economy within America is partly due to a free trade agreement with China which was signed during the Clinton years.

The amount of rage Im seeing from the far right is...well beyond my expectation.

Good. If they are enraged, they are suffering. And that's what they deserve, and I'm enjoying it.

My 230 IQ and 11'' penis tell me that's not precisely true.

My 5,922,620 IQ and 30 parsec penis approve of this message.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In Hussein's case, the naivete is in his approach to foreign policy. The corruption comes from his Chicago politics background.

Sidney is a psychopath concerning foreign policy, and a moron concerning domestic one.

Incidentally, do you think "Hussein" is some sort of chant to try and keep you away from the fact that he'll be your President? It's not.

SIDNEY! SIDNEY! SIDNEY! SIDNEY! Now, doesn't that sound stupid?

SYDNEY! SYDNEY! SYDNEY! SYDNEY! Now, doesn't that sound stupid?

Okay, okay, fixing it.

Wait, I was right.

Anyways, yes, it does. But unless he stops calling Obama "Hussein" in an attempt to tie him to Saddam, I won't stop calling McCain "Sidney" in an attempt to tie him to British Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney,_British_Columbia).

I was actually mocking him with that post.

Regardless of how we feel about Obama and McCain, everyone should be able to agree that Palin was not competent to be president or vice-president. Fox News reports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/) that she did not know that Africa was a continent instead of a country. She also reportedly refused to prep for interviews and abused staff to the point of tears. Say what you will about Obama, but at least he can pass a third grade geography test.

Incidentally, do you think "Hussein" is some sort of chant to try and keep you away from the fact that he'll be your President? It's not.

He's not your President if you didn't vote for him.

He's not your President if you didn't vote for him.

He is if you're an American citizen. He's president-elect of the United States of America.

From the comments section of a CNN article (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/soruces-mccain-aide-fired-for-trashing-staff/?eref=politicalflipper)-
This is what happens when you let angry Democrats and know-nothing Independents pick your candidate.

How pathetic Obama didn't win this one in a Reagan-like landslide.

Shows what a poor candidate he was, and what a poor President he will be.
That's right, he didn't run the table entirely, therefore it's not really a win. so there. Of course, losing the popular vote in 2000 but winning a questionable electoral victory was enough to signal 'the end of the Democratic party,' but he only managed a blow out, so you know, it's not really much of a victory...

Awesome.

And in 2004 they called a 286-252 victory a "mandate." This is what a mandate looks like, suckers.

From the comments section of a CNN article (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/soruces-mccain-aide-fired-for-trashing-staff/?eref=politicalflipper)-

That's right, he didn't run the table entirely, therefore it's not really a win. so there. Of course, losing the popular vote in 2000 but winning a questionable electoral victory was enough to signal 'the end of the Democratic party,' but he only managed a blow out, so you know, it's not really much of a victory...

Awesome.

The Republicans got poned. Epically. That's all there is to it.

From the comments section of a CNN article (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/soruces-mccain-aide-fired-for-trashing-staff/?eref=politicalflipper)-

That's right, he didn't run the table entirely, therefore it's not really a win. so there. Of course, losing the popular vote in 2000 but winning a questionable electoral victory was enough to signal 'the end of the Democratic party,' but he only managed a blow out, so you know, it's not really much of a victory...

Awesome.
Hahahaha. Look at them pucker up over those sour grapes. :D

No, I'm not gloating over the election. I'm just laughing at a few people's present folly.

And in 2004 they called a 286-252 victory a "mandate." This is what a mandate looks like, suckers.
Hey, didn't you get the memo? Having lots of votes is for suckers and chumps. What winners want is the RIGHT votes. Even if you only get a few, if they're the right ones, that's all that matters. (Some rightwing strategist actually said this a few weeks ago, sorry, google failed to deliver a quote). Obama took votes from everybody, and that could include just anybody. What's up with that? :rolleyes:

Why am I reminded of this ad? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgkR2yLkkmo

And no, I'm still not gloating over the election. I'm still just laughing at a particularly lame political tactic.

And in 2004 they called a 286-252 victory a "mandate." This is what a mandate looks like, suckers.

Infuckingdeed.

This is an example of an actual mandate.

Any time the republicans are getting bitchy, he can now say "349 [maybe more] electoral votes. Now what were you saying?"

Not exactly, but translate that into polite political speech.

Hahahaha. Look at them pucker up over those sour grapes. :D

No, I'm not gloating over the election. I'm just laughing at a few people's present folly.


Hey, didn't you get the memo? Having lots of votes is for suckers and chumps. What winners want is the RIGHT votes. Even if you only get a few, if they're the right ones, that's all that matters. (Some rightwing strategist actually said this a few weeks ago, sorry, google failed to deliver a quote). Obama took votes from everybody, and that could include just anybody. What's up with that? :rolleyes:

Why am I reminded of this ad? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgkR2yLkkmo

And no, I'm still not gloating over the election. I'm still just laughing at a particularly lame political tactic.

Um... that's stupid. Votes all count the same.

And yes, I could have made a more intelligent reply to this, but the idea of "It only matters that you get the "right" votes even if you only get a few" is just retarded. No, it doesn't. You need to get the MOST votes to win.

I wish you could have found the guy's name, so I could laugh even more at what a fucktard he is.

To say that you will work to undermine the man who was elected president by a clear majority doesn't just border on treason, it is treason. No, it isn't. As I have said repeatedly, I am a full supporter of the law in this country. Undermining the President, through legal means, is perfectly legal. I'm not going to argue against a false position you have created and that I do not support. Check the law you claim to know so well. It is illegal to threaten the President of the United States. I'm well aware of that. And I have never done so and will never do so. Let me repeat it to you so you understand- I support using every legal means possible to undermine a Barrack Obama administration.

OK, in reference to this post-election "feh, who wanted those grapes anyway" nonsense, I was saying over dinner and martinis at my knitting club just last night that this election is going to make or break several people's careers. There was a thread a while ago asking if Obama's 50 state strategy would take hold in politics, and I'd guess yeah, it will, now that it has produced such a decided victory, provided of course, that other pols can raise as much money as he did to run it.

But these campaigns did not differ just in their logistical strategies. They also showed up the difference between "high road" politics and "attack and smear" politics, and "high road" won. Between the politics of "hope" and the politics of "fear," and "hope" won. Between short and sweet sound bite messages and slowed-down explanatory speeches, and the slower, longer, less exciting but more intelligent and informative approach won. The bottom line is, McCain lost and lost bad because he ran a piss-poor campaign that was not what the people were looking for.

Now, my dinner companions pointed out that there are rightwing pundits and bloggers complaining that that the reason McCain lost was that he didn't attack Obama hard enough, that he didn't go negative enough, that he didn't spread the smears thick enough. So they may be right that we have not seen the end of Rovian compaigning. But frankly, my opinion is that they are a very tiny club indeed right now. I believe the message of this election has been that people don't want to hear that negative, brain-bypassing shit anymore, not when we have real problems that really matter.

But I will be very, very surprised if the morons who ran McCain's campaign straight into the ground and virtually handed the country to the Democratic Party will ever get another job running anyone else's campaign in future.

And I expect many amusing campaigns in the future where we get to see Rove-style politicians trying to act all high-road and hopeful and smart, with all the ease of dogs riding bicycles. :D

No, it isn't. As I have said repeatedly, I am a full supporter of the law in this country. Undermining the President, through legal means, is perfectly legal. I'm not going to argue against a false position you have created and that I do not support. I'm well aware of that. And I have never done so and will never do so. Let me repeat it to you so you understand- I support using every legal means possible to undermine a Barrack Obama administration.
Aaaannnd... third time: "every legal means possible to undermine a Barrack Obama administration" -- Like what, for instance?

Baseball rules = 3 strikes and you're out. Answer the question. If you're a lawyer like you claim, you should have some idea of what you can do to undermine a presidential administration legally. Let's hear it already, big talker.

No, it isn't. As I have said repeatedly, I am a full supporter of the law in this country. Undermining the President, through legal means, is perfectly legal. I'm not going to argue against a false position you have created and that I do not support. I'm well aware of that. And I have never done so and will never do so. Let me repeat it to you so you understand- I support using every legal means possible to undermine a Barrack Obama administration.

Why do you hate him so much?

I didn't like George Bush before he was elected, I disagreed with his ideas, and found him generally to be a poor speaker, which I don't like in a presidential candidate.

But I didn't actually hate him until he'd been president for several months and proved to be fucking up the country at a very fast rate.

You appear to be basing your utter loathing of Obama on the fact that he is a Democrat, is black, and has an arabic sounding name.

You seriously must be a member of the KKK or Aryan brotherhood. I see no other logical explanation.

No, it isn't. As I have said repeatedly, I am a full supporter of the law in this country. Undermining the President, through legal means, is perfectly legal. I'm not going to argue against a false position you have created and that I do not support. I'm well aware of that. And I have never done so and will never do so. Let me repeat it to you so you understand- I support using every legal means possible to undermine a Barrack Obama administration.

Well, dissent always has a place in a democracy. But a healthy opposition works together with the leadership for the good of the country. It tries to build consensus. It doesn't serve the country to undermine the president before he even takes office.

You don't even know what his agenda is, or how he'll implement it. Are you really so certain that the best thing for a country in crisis is to hobble the president with partisan bickering? I mean, it's one thing to oppose certain policies. It's another thing to attack the office of the presidency itself.

He is if you're an American citizen. He's president-elect of the United States of America.

If you didn't vote for him, he doesn't represent you, and you owe him and his nation no allegiance.

Deleted post, 'cos I misread what was being said.

For once, you are correct.

Nope, he's incorrect in the count that Barrack Obama is the newly elected president and, for that, he does owe him his alligence regardless of political views. It is about country.

If you didn't vote for him, he doesn't represent you, and you owe him and his nation no allegiance.

What? What are you talking about? I didn't vote for Bush, but that didn't negate my allegiance to the United State of America. Are you advocating treason?

Nope, he's incorrect in the count that Barrack Obama is the newly elected president and, for that, he does owe him his alligence regardless of political views.

He's not even a citizen, therefore he doesn't need to show allegeance.

What? What are you talking about? I didn't vote for Bush, but that didn't negate my allegiance to the United State of America. Are you advocating treason?

Treason? How is that treason?

He's not even a citizen, therefore he doesn't need to show allegeance.

He lives in the US, does he not? And I'm not talking about Ferrous Oxide.

He lives in the US, does he not? And I'm not talking about Ferrous Oxide.

Ah, my mistake. I failed to read properly.

He's not even a citizen, therefore he doesn't need to show allegeance.

Even if you are a US citizen, if you voted for McCain, you probably belong to a different nation than somebody who voted for Obama. Why would you be faithful to another nation?

He's not even a citizen, therefore he doesn't need to show allegeance.

But he was responding to a post in which I said you owe allegiance to the president if you're an American citizen. Sounds to me like he's saying that McCain voters have a right to commit treason.

Even if you are a US citizen, if you voted for McCain, you probably belong to a different nation than somebody who voted for Obama. Why would you be faithful to another nation?Because it is one nation, indivisible. People in the red states are still Americans, whether they like it or not.

Aaaannnd... third time: "every legal means possible to undermine a Barrack Obama administration" -- Like what, for instance? I've already posted this upthread, but okay- this involves getting involved in local, state and national politics in an attempt to get more Repuvblicans in Congress in 2010 and a Republican President in the White House in 2012. It involves giving money and time to conservative legal organizations that will file lawsuits to tie up and hopefully overturn laws passed by Congress. It means being involved in grassroots political organizations that will apply pressure to the Republicans in the Senate to hang together and block and undermine as much of the Democratic agenda as possible.

The goal is, over the next couple of years, to regroup the GOP while, at the same time, obstructing as much as possible of the Democratic agenda. I think the model is what happened in 1994- 2 years of Democratic flubs and mistakes, followed by a recapturing of at least one of the chambers of Congress. That's really all we need to do to derail the Democratic legislative agenda.

But he was responding to a post in which I said you owe allegiance to the president if you're an American citizen. Sounds to me like he's saying that McCain voters have a right to commit treason.

As I have already said, I misread the post.

If you didn't vote for him, he doesn't represent you, and you owe him and his nation no allegiance.

Are you renouncing your Australian citizenship then? Or are you announcing a one man secession?

Are you renouncing your Australian citizenship then? Or are you announcing a one man secession?

Look up the term "nation", then we'll talk.

Even if you are a US citizen, if you voted for McCain, you probably belong to a different nation than somebody who voted for Obama. Why would you be faithful to another nation?

You fail to understand Americans and the concept of nationality. That's very strong in the US. They may have diffrent political views, but in the end, they're Americans. Even if they didn't vote for Obama, when worse comes to worse, they will unite as a nation.

But he was responding to a post in which I said you owe allegiance to the president if you're an American citizen. Sounds to me like he's saying that McCain voters have a right to commit treason.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Just because you don't wish to co-operate with your state or aid it, doesn't make you a traitor.

One thing America can always boast - it's extreme Patriotism.

You fail to understand Americans and the concept of nationality. That's very strong in the US. They may have diffrent political views, but in the end, they're Americans. Even if they didn't vote for Obama, when worse comes to worse, they will unite as a nation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Confederate_National_Flag_since_Mar_4_1865.svg/125px-Confederate_National_Flag_since_Mar_4_1865.svg.png

Why do you hate him so much? Because he is a stuffed-shirt socialist. Because he has associated himself with domestic terrorists and virulent racists. Because he proposes to take even more money out of my pocket (on top of the $55K in Federal taxes my wife and I paid last year). Because he is naive when it comes to foreign policy and is wholly unprepared to protect America's interests in the world. Because, frankly, I don't think he (or his wife) really like this country or believe in its founding principles. They want to radically change this nation into something it was never intended to be, and I am vehemently opposed to that.

You seriously must be a member of the KKK or Aryan brotherhood. I see no other logical explanation Which is funny, because I am ethnically and religiously unqualified to join either of those two organizations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Confederate_National_Flag_since_Mar_4_1865.svg/125px-Confederate_National_Flag_since_Mar_4_1865.svg.png

The flag of the United Staes of America is this one:
http://www.united-states-flag.org/us-flag-640.gif

Make no mistake. And under that flag, they unite under one nation.

Because it is one nation, indivisible. People in the red states are still Americans, whether they like it or not.

That phrase is badly worded. They mean "state". Nation is an intangible concept, and something that people can effectively pick and choose.

That phrase is badly worded. They mean "state". Nation is an intangible concept, and something that people can effectively pick and choose.

I recommend you ask the Americans here before coming to conclusions.

The flag of the United Staes of America is this one:
http://www.united-states-flag.org/us-flag-640.gif

Make no mistake. And under that flag, they unite under one nation.

The Confederacy disagreed.

The Confederacy disagreed.

And they had their asses handed to them. By Patriots.

Just because you don't wish to co-operate with your state or aid it, doesn't make you a traitor. Which is exactly my position. I would never side with a foreign nation. However, other than following the letter of the law, I will in no way co-operate with the new administration coming into power in January. I feel no allegiance to the new resident of the White House and will not lift a finger (and will oppose, with all legal means) to help him.

And they had their asses handed to them. By Patriots.

Your point? That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Your point? That doesn't mean the didn't exist.

Australian schools closed at the moment?

Which is exactly my position. I would never side with a foreign nation. However, other than following the letter of the law, I will in no way co-operate with the new administration coming into power in January. I feel no allegiance to the new resident of the White House and will not lift a finger (and will oppose, with all legal means) to help him.

Foreign STATE. STATE. I assure you, many Americans feel allegiance to nations other that the "American" nation.

Australian schools closed at the moment?

Are you... actually denying that the Confederacy existed?

The Confederacy disagreed.

The Confederacy no longer exists, the Civil War took care of that, so move on.

For once, you are correct.

He is as far from correct as a human being can be.

He's not your President if you didn't vote for him.

Right. Let me guess you were a big "get behind the President" guy when people were questioning Bush's actions, weren't you? :rolleyes:

No. What are you going to do about it?

It will be so easy to counter your moronic and irrational hate with simple optimism and taking actions to make the nation better, that your contribution will vanish into insignificance without me so much as stooping to tie my shoes.

I feel great pity for you and anyone who knows you.

Are you... actually denying that the Confederacy existed?

The key here is exist in past tense. You answered your own question.

He is as far from correct as a human being can be.

Ok i'm going to delete that post before anyone else comments on it. As I have already said 3 times, I misread the post.

Which is exactly my position. I would never side with a foreign nation. However, other than following the letter of the law, I will in no way co-operate with the new administration coming into power in January. I feel no allegiance to the new resident of the White House and will not lift a finger (and will oppose, with all legal means) to help him.

That's fine. The letter of the law will be enough. Thank you for your support!

NP supports Obama, everyone! Isn't that amazing?

Are you... actually denying that the Confederacy existed?

I believe he's pointing out the correlation between you coming online, and the time that schools tend to be closed. Since, y'know, your posts generally tend to be the online attention seeking of a wannabe-intellectual.

Just a thought.

That's fine. The letter of the law will be enough. Thank you for your support!

NP supports Obama, everyone! Isn't that amazing? Grow up.

Grow up.

After reading this thread, that's probably the most ironic thing posted to date.

Grow up.

This remark of yours also would denote you need some growing up.

Intangelon was being sarcastic, and that's plain to see.

The Confederacy no longer exists, the Civil War took care of that, so move on.

It sort of blows a gaping hole into your "Americans will always unite as non-partisan, patriotic people" theory, though.

That phrase is badly worded. They mean "state". Nation is an intangible concept, and something that people can effectively pick and choose.

Your parsing of "nation" and "state" is bizarre. So McCain voters are a separate "nation," but still part of the "state" of America? Er, okay. But Obama was elected Head of State, and since they still owe allegiance to the state, he is their president.

Refusing to recognize the lawfully elected government of your country might not legally make you a traitor. But it does make you disloyal, and could be potentially construed as treason, depending on the circumstances. If you chose to start your own nation, like Jefferson Davis did, then that is treason.

Look up the term "nation", then we'll talk.

"Nation" is freely exchangeable with "country", which is a geographic region bound under a single overarching governing authority.

As Rust appears incapable of basic understanding of word meaning, it appears that Rust has nothing to talk about but vacuous concepts.

It sort of blows a gaping hole into your "Americans will always unite as non-partisan, patriotic people" theory, though.

It really doesn't, for you see, you're going back to it's Civil War history, I'm referring to the American now.

I've already posted this upthread, but okay- this involves getting involved in local, state and national politics in an attempt to get more Repuvblicans in Congress in 2010 and a Republican President in the White House in 2012. It involves giving money and time to conservative legal organizations that will file lawsuits to tie up and hopefully overturn laws passed by Congress. It means being involved in grassroots political organizations that will apply pressure to the Republicans in the Senate to hang together and block and undermine as much of the Democratic agenda as possible.

The goal is, over the next couple of years, to regroup the GOP while, at the same time, obstructing as much as possible of the Democratic agenda. I think the model is what happened in 1994- 2 years of Democratic flubs and mistakes, followed by a recapturing of at least one of the chambers of Congress. That's really all we need to do to derail the Democratic legislative agenda.
So, like I said the first time around, you're going to exactly NOTHING to "undermine" the presidency, since actually using the US political system the way it is supposed to be used does not undermine an administration at all.

Just as I thought -- and said.

You're going to work WITH the system that is headed up by President Obama, just like every other American.

Just as I thought -- and said.

And that will require you to work and around with the nation's new president, just like every other American.

Just as I thought -- and said.

You're nothing but talk. "Not my president" = bullshit. "Undermine the administration" = bullshit. "Hussein this/Hussein that" = bullshit. All you're going to do is suck it up and wait for 2012, just like everybody else. Work out your little hissy-fit already and stop wasting our time with your melodrama. Thanks.

You're parsing of "nation" and "state" is bizarre. So McCain voters are a separate "nation," but still part of the "state" of America? Er, okay. But Obama was elected Head of State, and since they still owe allegiance to the state, he is their president.

He may be the President of their state, but not of their nation. No election can force them to recognise Obama as the leader of their nation and it's people.

As Rust appears incapable of basic understanding of word meaning, it appears that Rust has nothing to talk about but vacuous concepts.

What a huge, shocking surprise. Really. This is my surprised face.

Grow up.

Irony?

Tell you what, you just said you'd obey the letter of the law. The letter of the law has made Obama the new President. Guess what that means?

You support Obama, however indirectly. I'm right, you know it, and while it might suck to be you for any number of reasons beyond being dejected on election day, that statement remains true.

Again, I appreciate your support of OUR COUNTRY'S new President.

Country First, right?

He may be the President of their state, but not of their nation. No election can force them to recognise Obama as the leader of their nation and it's people.

Social contract. Do please look it up.

This thread is actually now starting to crack me up. :D

It really doesn't, for you see, you're going back to it's Civil War history, I'm referring to the American now.

All right, where was this loyalty during the Vietnam War? Where was this loyalty four years ago, when Americans burned their own flag?

Democrats burnt the flag and said they were ashamed of the US when the Republicans led it, now you just expect Reps to forget that and join the Obama love in? Fuck off.

"Nation" is freely exchangeable with "country", which is a geographic region bound under a single overarching governing authority.

As Rust appears incapable of basic understanding of word meaning, it appears that Rust has nothing to talk about but vacuous concepts.

Noooooooooooooo. Wrong. We're going to have to send you home with nothing, sir.

He may be the President of their state, but not of their nation. No election can force them to recognise Obama as the leader of their nation and it's people.

As I think we've discovered, nothing can force some people to recognize anything. That doesn't stop it from being true.

What kind of socialist would topple the Soviet empire?

people tend to look more at that.

Socialists despised the USSR.

All right, where was this loyalty during the Vietnam War? Where was this loyalty four years ago, when Americans burned their own flag?

Democracy, mate. Get over it.

Democrats burnt the flag and said they were ashamed of the US when the Republicans led it, now you just expect Reps to forget that and join the Obama love in? Fuck off.

Republicans are Americans too, aren't they? They will unite under one nation if the time for it comes up.

You, once again, fail to understand the American-mind set (understandably so, you're not an American) and should consider going to bed and stop yapping.

You support Obama, however indirectly. Nope. No law can make me acknowledge that person as the President. This is still a free country, and there is nothing anyone can do to make me acknowledge that squatter in the White House.

As I think we've discovered, nothing can force some people to recognize anything. That doesn't stop it from being true.

Alright, let's try another one. I'd wager that a fair few Mexican-Americans consider themselves loyal to the Mexican nation and only live in the US because it's safer and has a better lifestyle. Does Obama now lead the Mexican nation? I mean, you're telling me that Obama leads the nations of all Americans. Does that include Mexican-Americans loyal to the Mexican nation?

Republicans are Americans too, aren't they? They will unite under one nation if the time for it comes up.

You, once again, fail to understand the American-mind set (understandably so, you're not an American) and should consider going to bed and stop yapping.

How the hell can you be this dense!? You LIVE IN A STATE WITH THREE DIFFERENT MAJOR NATIONS, ONE OF WHOM REALLY, REALLY HATES THE STATE.

All right, where was this loyalty during the Vietnam War? Where was this loyalty four years ago, when Americans burned their own flag?

Democrats burnt the flag and said they were ashamed of the US when the Republicans led it, now you just expect Reps to forget that and join the Obama love in? Fuck off.

Disagreement with the government =/= rebellion. Rebellion is the rejection of the laws of the state by force, it is in fact a completely illegal act.

Disagreement is, in fact, sanctioned by law. A cornerstone of democracy.

Is flag burning illegal? Did the democratic party make it it's official policy to refuse to acknowledge GWB as the elected president? No. Nor does the republican party refuse to acknowledge that Obama is the elected president. It's numpties that refuse to acknowledge the elected result, and as such are rejecting the law of the land.

You're so consistently a failure, Potato. Really.

How the hell can you be this dense!? You LIVE IN A STATE WITH THREE DIFFERENT MAJOR NATIONS, ONE OF WHOM REALLY, REALLY HATES THE STATE.

Seriously man, get some sleep and stop yapping. And when you get up in the morning, boot an appointment with a Psychiatrist. Seriously, before you hurt yourself.

Seriously man, get some sleep and stop yapping. And when you get up in the morning, boot an appointment with a Psychiatrist. Seriously, before you hurt yourself.

Dude, you clearly don't have any idea about the distinction between nation and state, so go away.

Nope. No law can make me acknowledge that person as the President. This is still a free country, and there is nothing anyone can do to make me acknowledge that squatter in the White House.

*stamps feet* but it's not FAAAAAAIR. DADDY! Make the bad negro man go away!

Nope. No law can make me acknowledge that person as the President. This is still a free country, and there is nothing anyone can do to make me acknowledge that squatter in the White House.

The social contract does. You reside in America, and conform to its laws. The law has declared Obama the president. Refusing to acknowledge that is refusing to accept the law, which is contrary to the social contract.

You can accept that he's the president, and vehemently oppose him. Or you can keep on with this rhetoric and sound more and more like a teenager in a huff.

Alright, let's try another one. I'd wager that a fair few Mexican-Americans consider themselves loyal to the Mexican nation and only live in the US because it's safer and has a better lifestyle. Does Obama now lead the Mexican nation? I mean, you're telling me that Obama leads the nations of all Americans. Does that include Mexican-Americans loyal to the Mexican nation?

"The nations of all Americans?" There's only one American nation. We all consider ourselves American. Okay?

Democrats burnt the flag and said they were ashamed of the US when the Republicans led it, now you just expect Reps to forget that and join the Obama love in? Fuck off. We're on the same page here. Screw unity and bipartisanship. Anything that happens over the next 4 years is wholly on the heads of the Dems. I wash my hands of any repsonsibility.

In a way, it's kind of liberating. Democrats have spent the last 8 years taking potshots from the cheap seats, like the two old guys on the Muppet Show. Well, now they're in charge and we get to sit on the sidelines and lob tomatoes while they learn just how tough governance really is. The GOP 's role in the next four years shouldn't be to join some BS national unity movement- it should be to obstruct, undermine and block as much of the Democratic agenda as possible, so as to prevent damage to the nation.

How the hell can you be this dense!? You LIVE IN A STATE WITH THREE DIFFERENT MAJOR NATIONS, ONE OF WHOM REALLY, REALLY HATES THE STATE.

And you're a troll and an attention-whore. I at least know when I do not understand something enough because I do not belong to the nation being discussed, and I listen. You, on the other hand, are a disrespectful twit who still doesn't understand things that are a bit farther than it's nose.

Dude, you clearly don't have any idea about the distinction between nation and state, so go away.

I don't think you have the authority to tell people to go away when you're provably ignorant of every subject you attempt to "debate" on. Back to your bridge, troll.

Nope. No law can make me acknowledge that person as the President. This is still a free country, and there is nothing anyone can do to make me acknowledge that squatter in the White House.
True. You have the absolute right to be as childish and silly as you like and to spout as much meaningless, self-indulgent babble that you don't even really believe and have no intention of acting on as you like, too.

Since you seem so dedicated to doing just that, I'm glad we were able to give you the chance to enjoy four years of your apparent favorite hobby. Go for it.

Just one question: Would you like us all to put you on ignore so you can rattle on without interruption (and without bothering us), or would you rather we continue to attack you so you can also indulge a victim-complex, in case you have one of those you'd like to test out?

Dude, you clearly don't have any idea about the distinction between nation and state, so go away.

How about you do? You're clearly not going to listen to reason, and now all you are doing is making me laugh with your stubborness.

...undermine...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think.

"The nations of all Americans?" There's only one American nation. We all consider ourselves American. Okay?

You speak for all US citizens, now?

And you're a troll and an attention-whore. I at least know when I do not understand something enough because I do not belong to the nation being discussed, and I listen. You, on the other hand, are a disrespectful twit who still doesn't understand things that are a bit farther than it's nose.

Sounds like I know more about your state that you do.

Noooooooooooooo. Wrong. We're going to have to send you home with nothing, sir.

Observe typical evasion from Rust. Rather than address an argument with counterpoints or rebuttals, such as outlining what he thinks a nation actually is, he chooses instead to use dismissals as an evasion while simultaneously declaring the defeat of the argument.

Unimaginative, unoriginal, and ultimately, unconvincing.

Another excellent failure in a long line of failures that is Rust on NSG.

Sounds like I know more about your state that you do.

Y'now, you're not making anyone angry. You're just making yourself look like a moron.

You speak for all US citizens, now?

He is an American, he lives there, he knows what's happening. He may not speak for all Americans and citizens, but he may very well undertstand the whole situation better than you, foreigner.

Refusing to acknowledge that is refusing to accept the law, which is contrary to the social contract. I'm comfortable with that. I'm not breaking any laws, so there is simply nothing anyone can do to me for my views.

Sounds like I know more about your state that you do.

Where do you think I live, darling troll?

Why does everyone keep feeding this Rust troll? How did he get to be the pet of the month? I have him on ignore, but my screen is still littered with his droppings from all you quoting him. Gah!!

*calls Terminix*

Observe typical evasion from Rust. Rather than address an argument with counterpoints or rebuttals, he chooses instead to use dismissals as an evasion while simultaneously declaring the defeat of the argument.

Unimaginative, unoriginal, and ultimately, unconvincing.

Another excellent failure in a long line of failures that is Rust on NSG.

Alright, fine. I expect you to be smart enough to look this up yourself, but I guess I'm going to have to do it for you.

A nation is a human cultural and social community. In as much as most members never meet each other, yet feel a common bond, it may be considered an imagined community. One of the most influential doctrines in Western Europe and the Western hemisphere since the late eighteenth century is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. Nationhood is an ethical and philosophical doctrine and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism; a nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community. Members of a "nation" share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of history, ancestry, parentage or descent. A nation extends across generations, and includes the dead as full members. Past events are framed in this context: for example, by referring to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago. More vaguely, nations are assumed to include future generations.

Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. The people of a nation-state consider themselves a nation, united in the political and legal structure of the State. While traditionally monocultural, a nation-state may also be multicultural in its self-definition. The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.

Just one question: Would you like us all to put you on ignore so you can rattle on without interruption (and without bothering us), or would you rather we continue to attack you so you can also indulge a victim-complex, in case you have one of those you'd like to test out? I couldn't care less what you do.

Where do you think I live, darling troll?

Apparently, Asturia, Spain.

Why does everyone keep feeding this Rust troll? How did he get to be the pet of the month? I have him on ignore, but my screen is still littered with his droppings from all you quoting him. Gah!!

*calls Terminix*

I'm having too much fun with him. :D

I'm comfortable with that. I'm not breaking any laws, so there is simply nothing anyone can do to me for my views.

Apart from point out, repeatedly, that they're the ridiculous tantrums of a sore loser. I mean, really, I'm starting to think you've got a pathological hatred of America. It was joking at first, but after seeing TAI's post, it seems you genuinely hate what America's supposed to stand for.

As someone said earlier, this is the problem with a political ideology that promulgates itself, not by sound policy, and a plan for development, but rather by making their supporters afraid of the opposition.

Gone are the days of merely disagreeing politically with the opposition, the republican brand exists by making people absolutely terrified of democrats. Obama's "pals around with terrorists", he's a socialist, a communist, a marxist, he is radical muslim with a black power preacher (figure that one out). The problem with this, is while it is fairly good at keeping your base, it leads to a lot of inner turmoil within that base when the people you have convinced them will destroy America are...running America.

And we see it here. This was not a "disputed" election. There were no "crazy conspiracies", no mass voter fraud. Obama won, handily, decisively, legitimately, because the majority of America wanted him to, and yet for the far right neo-cons who have suckled on the poisonous teat of republican propaganda, he's a threat to America who will shred the constitution (what parts, I always wonder), install socialism (except for the only socialist comments he's ever made were being in favor of progressive taxation and a degree of social welfare..you know, things we've had for the last eight years).

When the person you have been told is a fundamentally dangerous radical, hell bent on destroying america, assumes high office, there are only two things to do. Come to your senses and recognize that while you may not agree with his policies personally, or fall deep down the rabbit hole into babbling incoherency about how in four years "we'll see, we'll ALL see!"

You speak for all US citizens, now?

I speak for most Americans when I say that we consider ourselves one nation. Obviously some disagree, like Todd Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party.

I speak for most Americans when I say that we consider ourselves one nation. Obviously some disagree, like Todd Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party.

Ta-dah! And now you get it! The "American" nation is NOT the only nation within the US state, and just because Obama won the election, doesn't mean he suddenly stands for every US citizen because they may not even consider themselves "American".

Apparently, Asturia, Spain.

And what is it you understand about my "state", as you so errouneously put it? Need I remind you that Spain is divided in provinces.

In a way, it's kind of liberating. Democrats have spent the last 8 years taking potshots from the cheap seats, like the two old guys on the Muppet Show. Well, now they're in charge and we get to sit on the sidelines and lob tomatoes while they learn just how tough governance really is.

Yeah, because, you know..Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, Johnson, Truman, Roosevelt, Wilson, you know, basically half of the presidents in the last 100 years, what to democrats know about governing?


The GOP 's role in the next four years shouldn't be to join some BS national unity movement- it should be to obstruct, undermine and block as much of the Democratic agenda as possible, so as to prevent damage to the nation.

They could do that..you know, if they never want to see office again. The democrats won this election cycle because americans put there to do a job. Republicans can try to stop them from doing the job that the american people chose them to do.

But the american people have a way of remembering that. And a way of firing people who stand in the way of the path they've chosen.

And what is it you understand about my "state", as you so errouneously put it? Need I remind you that Spain is divided in provinces.

Do you really want to start a State vs Nation vs Province semantic debate?

And what is it you understand about my "state", as you so errouneously put it? Need I remind you that Spain is divided in provinces.

It has several different nations, and not all of them think that they belong in the Spanish state. If you don't understand that, then ETA has failed miserably.

And... the state of Spain? How is that erroneous?

Do you really want to start a State vs Nation vs Province semantic debate?

No, I do not want to start a debate. I want him to tell me what is it that he understands about Asturias and Asturians since his understanding of Americans falls so short.

Ta-dah! And now you get it! The "American" nation is NOT the only nation within the US state, and just because Obama won the election, doesn't mean he suddenly stands for every US citizen because they may not even consider themselves "American".

Look. America is both a nation and a state. There are not multiple nations within America. It is one nation, within which there are a few disloyal jerks like the AIP and New Potomac.

Can we please just collectively put FO on our ignore lists and stop threads being constantly derailed by his attention whoring?

No, I do not want to start a debate. I want him to tell me what is it that he understands about Asturias and Asturians since his understanding of Americans falls so short.

Masochism streak eh? Or is it sadism to watch someone woefully under-armed in a battle of wits?

Can we please just collectively put FO on our ignore lists and stop threads being constantly derailed by his attention whoring?

To be honest i'm suprised a mod has not told him off yet.

When the person you have been told is a fundamentally dangerous radical, hell bent on destroying america, assumes high office, there are only two things to do. Come to your senses and recognize that while you may not agree with his policies personally, or fall deep down the rabbit hole into babbling incoherency about how in four years "we'll see, we'll ALL see!"

There's three things they can do, sadly.

No, I do not want to start a debate. I want him to tell me what is it that he understands about Asturias and Asturians since his understanding of Americans falls so short.

So... are you Spanish or Asturian?

I couldn't care less what you do.
Good. Because you're unlikely to like what I do, in any event.

There's three things they can do, sadly.

I anticipate someone will try the third before January.

To be honest i'm suprised a mod has not told him off yet.

His last two accounts were nuked for trolling and flaming, eventually. This one will go just the same.

I am distracted by the awesome color of the walls in my room

So... are you Spanish or Asturian?

That's like asking if I'm a Hoosier or an American.

His last two accounts were nuked for trolling and flaming, eventually. This one will go just the same.

Ah. Well, nuking can be dangerous, so I want to see goggles people! :D

It has several different nations, and not all of them think that they belong in the Spanish state. If you don't understand that, then ETA has failed miserably.

You're not only a troll, you're also a consecrated idiot.:rolleyes:

Asturias hasn't three different nations. People in my province consider themselves Asturians first, and as Spanish second. As simple as that.

There is a movement called Dixebrá, who would like to see the region seceed from Spain, but the sentiment is not as wide-spread as in places like Cataluya and Galicia.

And ETA, my pet bufoon, is from the Basque Country, and entirely different French/Spanish province. A lesson in Spanish geography would serve you well.

You're not only a troll, you're also a consecrated idiot.:rolleyes:

Asturias hasn't three different nations. People in my province consider themselves Asturians first, and as Spanish second. As simple as that.

There is a movement called Dixebrá, who would like to see the region seceed from Spain, but the sentiment is not as wide-spread as in places like Cataluya and Galicia.

And ETA, my pet bufoon, is from the Basque Country, and entirely different French/Spanish province. A lesson in Spanish geography would serve you well.

Or you know, 10 seconds on Wikipedia.

Masochism streak eh? Or is it sadism to watch someone woefully under-armed in a battle of wits?

Aww, are you annoyed that I'm RIGHT this time?

What you people don't understand is that "nation" is a personal, individual construct just as much as it is a collective one, and just because Obama won the US election, doesn't suddenly make him an all-pervasive leader who represents every person living in the US. He hasn't invaded people's personalities and emotions and leads those things now.

So... are you Spanish or Asturian?

I am both, without any problem. Americans are the same. They're Republican and American or Democrat and American. They're Michigander and American, without any qualms. That's how it is.

No, but really, i am happy about it

Or you know, 10 seconds on Wikipedia.

That too.:fluffle: