Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
762

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Actually I was doing a search a while back for something and that thread was part of my results and I found it interesting. It stuck with me. I guess that is part of the eidetic memory…which as you know, is not actually related to IQ.

At least you are not backtracking as hard as Mick.

So I hope your buddy had good results!

[/quote]

Are you actually claiming to have an eidetic memory?
[/quote]

Wow another white knight jumping into the fray? Seriously can you guys manage to go to the bathroom without your little buddies holding your cocks for you?[/quote]This guy is pure comic entertainment folks HAHA!!! I’ll weep if you ever leave pal. Wooooey!!! Did he ever set DrMatt straight huh? LOL!!!

763

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
and talk about why Obama won

[/quote]

The power of class warfare is unmatched. [/quote]

Would any other past president have gotten a pass for doing this (endorsing class warfare ) ?
[/quote]

The action is in the reaction. All he did was get the ball rolling and keep the pressure on. Never even had to bring it up directly. The action is in the reaction.

The more I read, the more I think Sexmachine is/was 100% correct.

764

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Thank you.
[/quote]

I love the time that was spent complaining about “forum police” all while doing the same thing himself with the same old tired “this is a lifting website” simpleton line of ad hominen.

Anyway, this is talking about the topic of taxes that came up earlier that is some what relative to what was being said:

766

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< The Church, by that you mean your congregation >>>[/quote]No. That is exactly what I do not mean. Before I go further can I ask if you read my whole post?
[/quote]Yep. You basically said because Obama got elected, the Church died, and that you understand people will think you are a religious loon for believing such.

I was trying to tell you that I too found the Church wasn’t right for me, and that it isn’t the end of the world, or the United States, or the Church. The Church is going to be there, in years to come… Just look at it’s history, the demographics are going to change big time, it’s not going to be a super capitalistic and ostentatious church that looks out only for Western and European powers… Because it’s majority isn’t going to be comprised of that base, even here in the states it’s something like 30 years until Latino’s become the majority of Catholics. So, the base is going to be the poor and needy again like it was during the time of Jesus. Interesting isn’t it? I dunno, I find it a little ironic that the Church will be dominated by groups it once oppressed. [/quote]Not only are you and I not on the same page? Were not even in the same book. I appreciate your effort and the tone in which you responded. If you want to continue this, let’s take it to hijack haven. Or not I guess. This thread is all over the place.

I think maybe you can find another Church, who’s philosophies are already close to your own. If you are convinced there is a God, I don’t want to be an influence that draws you away from your faith in God, I just wanted to show you that there are other options if you are open to them, and other ways of thinking that you might find refreshing. End of the day we are both just trying to be good people and do the right thing, even if we don’t agree on what the right thing is or how to go about doing it.

767

I am walkin out the door to work, sorry, but for now. The first step in our effective communication is for you to understand that when I say “the church” I am NOT talking about anything having to do with Catholicism. Nothing. I’m not jumping on you because anybody with a Catholic background would think like you do. This is what I mean by “the church”.

The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 ch. 15

[quote]
CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Church.

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. [/quote] Many MANY individual congregations not my own fall under this. My local church works in cooperation with dozens of other local churches many of whom we disagree with on some ares of doctrine. MY congregation is NOT “the church”. Nobody’s is. We are not schismatic exclusivists.

Also. For the one millionth time. Every single last thing we believe was boringly mainstream and common at the founding of this nation. Faaaaaaar more common than Catholicism or any other religious expression. Actually than all others combined. One more thing. I am NOT trying to be a good person. That is not possible. Those don’t exist outside of resurrection in Christ. I seek to live a life in total surrender to the one and only true and living God who is actually there and who alone is “good”.

769

Baller,

My condolences to your girl, if you have one, for I am sure she should have a statue erected in her honor to have to come home after a long day to deal with your level of bullshit.

Please don’t breed, EVER.

770

Some of the reasons Obama won can be seen clear as day in the last few pages of this very thread. Textbook examples of tatics all over the place, just a smaller scale than a national election.

771

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is NOTHING STOOPIDDER than fiscal conservatism that thinks it can live in a socially liberal moral toilet. [/quote]

I’m sorry you think that way, I don’t think I am stupid…I was raised strict Mennonite and still hold many of the values.

But I recognize that in order to get things done in America, you cannot legislate certian things…you can absolutly believe them, but as soon as you tell others they must follow what you believe your chances of winning a national election are almost over.

772

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is NOTHING STOOPIDDER than fiscal conservatism that thinks it can live in a socially liberal moral toilet. [/quote]

I couldn’t agree with you more Tirib. But those who feel that they can have it both ways are not at all logical

-Pregnancy out of wedlock cost taxpayers

-Behavior that brings on HIV cost taxpayers

-Drug Usage cost taxpayers

-Gluttony costs taxpayers

-Alcoholism costs taxpayers

But that won’t stop some from saying “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” They might just as well say “I’m stupid” Because they just don’t understand the direct costs of a lack of self-discipline and basic good behavior.[/quote]

How much do local/state/federal agencies spend enforcing marijuana laws for simple possession?

How much money do mexican cartels make off selling pot in the U.S.?

774

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is NOTHING STOOPIDDER than fiscal conservatism that thinks it can live in a socially liberal moral toilet. [/quote]

I couldn’t agree with you more Tirib. But those who feel that they can have it both ways are not at all logical

-Pregnancy out of wedlock cost taxpayers

-Behavior that brings on HIV cost taxpayers

-Drug Usage cost taxpayers

-Gluttony costs taxpayers

-Alcoholism costs taxpayers

But that won’t stop some from saying “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” They might just as well say “I’m stupid” Because they just don’t understand the direct costs of a lack of self-discipline and basic good behavior.[/quote]

How much do local/state/federal agencies spend enforcing marijuana laws for simple possession?

How much money do mexican cartels make off selling pot in the U.S.?

[/quote]

I appreciate the fact that we spend about 1 billion dollars per year trying to snuff out the pot market. And I know it looks as if we’re failing. But, what I’d like you (and others) to do is take a look at how rampant that particular drug would be if there were no laws. I know some think it is a harmless drug, but I don’t believe that there is such a thing.

Most who want to legalize pot will tell you that it is less harmful than alcohol. But, because something is less harmful doesn’t mean that it’s not harmful. And if that is the very best reason we have for legalizing marijuana, that it is less harmful than alchol that is no reason at all! Alcohol related deaths reach about 75,000 per year. If pot is only half as bad as alcohol how does wiping out another 37,500 citizens help society?

It doesn’t!

Tirib is absoltely correct. We will NEVER have a long lasting thriving economy as long as there are large numbers of people who refuse to act with discipline in their daily life. And this has to do with far more than just smoking pot.

The things that I listed above cost taxpayers a great amount of money. There is no way around it. We just can’t do everything that happens to feel good at the moment, it doesn’t work financially. And it doesn’t matter if you act with discipline because of your religion, or for some entirely different reason.

775

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is NOTHING STOOPIDDER than fiscal conservatism that thinks it can live in a socially liberal moral toilet. [/quote]

I couldn’t agree with you more Tirib. But those who feel that they can have it both ways are not at all logical

-Pregnancy out of wedlock cost taxpayers

-Behavior that brings on HIV cost taxpayers

-Drug Usage cost taxpayers

-Gluttony costs taxpayers

-Alcoholism costs taxpayers

But that won’t stop some from saying “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” They might just as well say “I’m stupid” Because they just don’t understand the direct costs of a lack of self-discipline and basic good behavior.[/quote]

How much do local/state/federal agencies spend enforcing marijuana laws for simple possession?

How much money do mexican cartels make off selling pot in the U.S.?

[/quote]

I appreciate the fact that we spend about 1 billion dollars per year trying to snuff out the pot market. And I know it looks as if we’re failing. But, what I’d like you (and others) to do is take a look at how rampant that particular drug would be if there were no laws. I know some think it is a harmless drug, but I don’t believe that there is such a thing.

Most who want to legalize pot will tell you that it is less harmful than alcohol. But, because something is less harmful doesn’t mean that it’s not harmful. And if that is the very best reason we have for legalizing marijuana, that it is less harmful than alchol that is no reason at all! Alcohol related deaths reach about 75,000 per year. If pot is only half as bad as alcohol how does wiping out another 37,500 citizens help society?

It doesn’t!

Tirib is absoltely correct. We will NEVER have a long lasting thriving economy as long as there are large numbers of people who refuse to act with discipline in their daily life. And this has to do with far more than just smoking pot.

The things that I listed above cost taxpayers a great amount of money. There is no way around it. We just can’t do everything that happens to feel good at the moment, it doesn’t work financially. And it doesn’t matter if you act with discipline because of your religion, or for some entirely different reason.[/quote]

I understand your point regarding legalizing marijuana could incur more social degradation. But people always forget that alcohol and tobacco are the gateway drugs. “The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana.”

Marijuana is used for medicinal issues such as to reduce the nauseation from chemotherapy and it is used extensively to treat guacoma. The negative effects of marijuana usually have to do with the aromatization of the male body. We cannot allow alcohol but disallow marijuana this is a fundamentally flawed idea.

776

nick,

With all due respect I’ve debated this topic over on the “legalize pot” thread and I really don’t think it’s appropriate to bring over here. The main isse for those folks is that it is not as bad as alcohol and that does not make it stand on its own as something that is good for society. Anyway, this thread is all about how Obama won. Suffice it to say that one more legalized drug means more societal pain including higher costs to taxpayers ther is just no way around it. Pot is good for a few things, just like alcohol is good for a few tihngs like the heart, but both are bad for a whole lot more things.

Anyway, that’s not how Obama won. He won because:

1- He defined Romney earlier and ofter and Romney could not respond because of the money issue before he was nominated.

2- He was backed all the way by the corrupt main stream liberal media.

3- He had alrge voter blocks of people whom he gave free things to which includes those on welfare, unemployment, and a long alphet list of all the many government programs that were expanded under Obama. And of course the unions pulled for him in a big way because he throws money at them every chance he gets.

I don’t see a republican winning the White House until they can nominate someone who has charisma and can pull in at least a good share of minority voters and edge the democrats with women.

777

[quote]ZEB wrote:
nick,

With all due respect I’ve debated this topic over on the “legalize pot”
[/quote]

Eye roll , Zeb you do not debate , you spout nonsense and want some one to prove you wrong , no matter how absurd

778

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is NOTHING STOOPIDDER than fiscal conservatism that thinks it can live in a socially liberal moral toilet. [/quote]

I couldn’t agree with you more Tirib. But those who feel that they can have it both ways are not at all logical

-Pregnancy out of wedlock cost taxpayers

-Behavior that brings on HIV cost taxpayers

-Drug Usage cost taxpayers

-Gluttony costs taxpayers

-Alcoholism costs taxpayers

But that won’t stop some from saying “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” They might just as well say “I’m stupid” Because they just don’t understand the direct costs of a lack of self-discipline and basic good behavior.[/quote]

How much do local/state/federal agencies spend enforcing marijuana laws for simple possession?

How much money do mexican cartels make off selling pot in the U.S.?

[/quote]

I appreciate the fact that we spend about 1 billion dollars per year trying to snuff out the pot market. And I know it looks as if we’re failing. But, what I’d like you (and others) to do is take a look at how rampant that particular drug would be if there were no laws. I know some think it is a harmless drug, but I don’t believe that there is such a thing.

Most who want to legalize pot will tell you that it is less harmful than alcohol. But, because something is less harmful doesn’t mean that it’s not harmful. And if that is the very best reason we have for legalizing marijuana, that it is less harmful than alchol that is no reason at all! Alcohol related deaths reach about 75,000 per year. If pot is only half as bad as alcohol how does wiping out another 37,500 citizens help society?

It doesn’t!

Tirib is absoltely correct. We will NEVER have a long lasting thriving economy as long as there are large numbers of people who refuse to act with discipline in their daily life. And this has to do with far more than just smoking pot.

The things that I listed above cost taxpayers a great amount of money. There is no way around it. We just can’t do everything that happens to feel good at the moment, it doesn’t work financially. And it doesn’t matter if you act with discipline because of your religion, or for some entirely different reason.[/quote]

ZEB: Had a lengthy response to your list of ills but after seeing your response saying this isn’t the place erased it. I’ll just summarize by saying that I don’t believe the government will ever be effective in promotion of morality without unacceptably extreme measures being taken (I would like to note that this is the first, and probably only, time I believe the government cannot help when you do haha…). Morality, above all else, has to be a greater societal movement that starts in the home.

As far as why Obama won:
-I think a decent part of it is ZEB’s #1-it was obviously Obama’s strategy to continue the demonization of Romney early as he was coming off a painful Republican primary. At that point it’s about continuing momentum-downwards.
-I think that the disparity in the ground games cannot be overstated as well. Talking to others, who live in a very red county that I’m still registered in, they said they had three people come by and knock on the door getting out the vote for Obama. Zero for Romney. I have heard many similar stories, and the stories of the Narwhal/Orca systems on election day were also fascinating.
-At the end of the day, I think that Romney was still not able to connect with voters as well as he perhaps needed to. Perhaps too much of a “boss” vibe to be likable to the average American? This could just be from anecdotal evidence on my end. Frankly, I think this is a ridiculous reason not to vote for somebody…

Just out of curiosity, when people say Obama has expanded food stamps and welfare-is this simply a matter of “more people are on them in 2012 than 20__” ergo they have been expanded? I would consider that to be a relatively weak argument, as if more people qualify, more people qualify, no matter who is in charge (barring change to the law, which I do not believe I saw under Romney’s platform). Again, I will reiterate that I do not believe any candidate would purposely keep Americans unemployed to get them on welfare. I am also aware of the controversy over allowing states to define their own standards under the eye of the central government. Isn’t moving power to the states something that is generally applauded? Just spitballing/looking for greater explanation than I have seen.

779

Why Obama won ?

Shit like this probably helps a little…

L.A. union worker told members to put fake names on voter petition

One of Los Angeles’ largest public employee unions admitted Tuesday that a staffer sent an email to members asking that they sign “fake names/addresses” on a petition being circulated by former Mayor Richard Riordan to place a pension initiative on the ballot.

Voter ID Laws are race-ess !!!

780

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is NOTHING STOOPIDDER than fiscal conservatism that thinks it can live in a socially liberal moral toilet. [/quote]

I couldn’t agree with you more Tirib. But those who feel that they can have it both ways are not at all logical

-Pregnancy out of wedlock cost taxpayers

-Behavior that brings on HIV cost taxpayers

-Drug Usage cost taxpayers

-Gluttony costs taxpayers

-Alcoholism costs taxpayers

But that won’t stop some from saying “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” They might just as well say “I’m stupid” Because they just don’t understand the direct costs of a lack of self-discipline and basic good behavior.[/quote]

How much do local/state/federal agencies spend enforcing marijuana laws for simple possession?

How much money do mexican cartels make off selling pot in the U.S.?

[/quote]

I appreciate the fact that we spend about 1 billion dollars per year trying to snuff out the pot market. And I know it looks as if we’re failing. But, what I’d like you (and others) to do is take a look at how rampant that particular drug would be if there were no laws. I know some think it is a harmless drug, but I don’t believe that there is such a thing.

Most who want to legalize pot will tell you that it is less harmful than alcohol. But, because something is less harmful doesn’t mean that it’s not harmful. And if that is the very best reason we have for legalizing marijuana, that it is less harmful than alchol that is no reason at all! Alcohol related deaths reach about 75,000 per year. If pot is only half as bad as alcohol how does wiping out another 37,500 citizens help society?

It doesn’t!

Tirib is absoltely correct. We will NEVER have a long lasting thriving economy as long as there are large numbers of people who refuse to act with discipline in their daily life. And this has to do with far more than just smoking pot.

The things that I listed above cost taxpayers a great amount of money. There is no way around it. We just can’t do everything that happens to feel good at the moment, it doesn’t work financially. And it doesn’t matter if you act with discipline because of your religion, or for some entirely different reason.[/quote]

ZEB: Had a lengthy response to your list of ills but after seeing your response saying this isn’t the place erased it. I’ll just summarize by saying that I don’t believe the government will ever be effective in promotion of morality without unacceptably extreme measures being taken (I would like to note that this is the first, and probably only, time I believe the government cannot help when you do haha…). Morality, above all else, has to be a greater societal movement that starts in the home.

As far as why Obama won:
-I think a decent part of it is ZEB’s #1-it was obviously Obama’s strategy to continue the demonization of Romney early as he was coming off a painful Republican primary. At that point it’s about continuing momentum-downwards.
-I think that the disparity in the ground games cannot be overstated as well. Talking to others, who live in a very red county that I’m still registered in, they said they had three people come by and knock on the door getting out the vote for Obama. Zero for Romney. I have heard many similar stories, and the stories of the Narwhal/Orca systems on election day were also fascinating.
-At the end of the day, I think that Romney was still not able to connect with voters as well as he perhaps needed to. Perhaps too much of a “boss” vibe to be likable to the average American? This could just be from anecdotal evidence on my end. Frankly, I think this is a ridiculous reason not to vote for somebody…

Just out of curiosity, when people say Obama has expanded food stamps and welfare-is this simply a matter of “more people are on them in 2012 than 20__” ergo they have been expanded? I would consider that to be a relatively weak argument, as if more people qualify, more people qualify, no matter who is in charge (barring change to the law, which I do not believe I saw under Romney’s platform). Again, I will reiterate that I do not believe any candidate would purposely keep Americans unemployed to get them on welfare. I am also aware of the controversy over allowing states to define their own standards under the eye of the central government. Isn’t moving power to the states something that is generally applauded? Just spitballing/looking for greater explanation than I have seen.[/quote]

Excellent point.

You are spot on with the superiority of the democrats ground game. I’ve left that off my analysis for the last time.

One more thing that I didn’t mention in my previous post, the hurricane helped Obama as it made him look Presidential. And Bill Clinton even thought that Romney was going to eek out a win before the hurricane.