Election 2012: Conservatards vs Librodouches

Elect!   100 members have voted

  1. 1. Elect!

    • Obama
      44
    • Romney
      13
    • Others
      26
    • Huy is a Faggot
      45

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Whoo said:

So is it just me, or did I hear Romney call coal and oil renewable resources in the beginning of the debate?

Well, they are. Just takes 350 million years, give or take, to produce.

Share this post


Link to post

It seemed like Romney was gaining ground for a week or so, but I think his campaign has really stalled and he'll only pick up one or two swing states at most (I have a feeling Florida will end up voting Romney, and maybe Virginia). I don't want to say Obama has this one in the bag, but barring any strange freak accident / gaffe, I think Obama will pull off a relatively comfortable victory, somewhere around 290-248 (based on the YMB PREDICTION MODEL™).

Share this post


Link to post
Rayzik said:

He never explained how Obama's policies caused these changes in the economy, and merely presented evidence of economic growth in the past four years. I don't see how the fiscally irresponsible policies are to credit for the small recovery so far, ad even if they are, how will they be paid for? (Answer: Higher taxes). All of his "big talk" hasn't become reality, and he managed to flip-flop twice in the second debate.

Your lack of understanding is not a lack of proof.
Furthermore, "tax" is not a four-letter word. This is something that Goldwater Republicans and Libertarians can't seem to wrap their heads around. According to them, all spending is fat to be trimmed and there's no concept of investing in the future of a country. That's what really pays off in the long run, not cutting taxes for people who don't need it. If you think you can cut your way out of a recession, most economists would disagree. The fact that people can still cling to libertarian ideals after the Great Depression amazes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Rayzik said:

Investing in the future is good, Obama just doesn't know what he is doing.


Well, he doesn't have as many binders of women as Rmoney has.

Share this post


Link to post

I really didn't think the Left could be any lamer after the "Big Bird" fiasco, but this "binders full of women" meme is starting to prove me wrong.

I mean, at least you could say that the Big Bird protests were mildly amusing, and you could say the same thing about the feminists that took it upon themselves to dress up as giant pink vaginas and dance around at the GOP convention (Google it if you don't believe me.)

But seriously, binders full of women? Are these people so eager for another meme, jumping onto it like a bloodsucking flea jumping from host to host, that they don't even stop to first make sure it's at least MILDLY funny?

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than funny it seems fun to rub on Republican's faces. It appears to be working. It's spreading and people like you are attempting to scoff at it with affirmative statements. Had it been amusing to Republican supporters, it would have just been an anecdote.

Csonicgo said:
Rmoney

Ha, now I see, earlier I was thinking you had made a typo in a quick post :p

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Rather than funny it seems fun to rub on Republican's faces. It appears to be working. It's spreading and people like you are attempting to scoff at it with affirmative statements.


If you say so.

You know what, you're right---I can say that people dressing as trapper keepers with "binders full of women" written across them is lame and unfunny, but really, I'm hurt inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Caffeine Freak said:

I really didn't think the Left could be any lamer after the "Big Bird" fiasco, but this "binders full of women" meme is starting to prove me wrong.

Sorry, we haven't had time to flesh out a good zinger. Romney embarrasses himself so often it's hard to keep up. By the time we're able to point out his last ignorant verbal diarrhea, he's already rattled off three more.

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

Sorry, we haven't had time to flesh out a good zinger. Romney embarrasses himself so often it's hard to keep up. By the time we're able to point out his last ignorant verbal diarrhea, he's already rattled off three more.


So you're saying the days between debates isn't enough time for you guys to process what was said and come up with some witty remarks about it. I see.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I'm saying what I said. You might want to work on your comprehension. Fact is, Romney doesn't wait between debates for his next pie-in-the-sky idea.

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully. He was probably thinking of spike bayonets when he said that. Those are certainly less common than the knife variety. The point worked as a debate tactic because most people will be thinking of spike bayonets affixed to muskets, and because he clarified that the point really is to compare the military's capabilities rather than how big their pile of hardware is. For that same reason, they probably maintain an ability to use horses in some capacity too.

EDIT: Got sniped. I was saying hopefully Obama knows about bayonets. AS for their usage in killing people, it's far less than it was. Wikipedia mentions some British soldiers doing it in the Falklands war and in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Rayzik said:

The better question is: What was the point of Obama's statement to begin with?


Aliotroph? already posted about this:

Aliotroph? said:

... he clarified that the point really is to compare the military's capabilities rather than how big their pile of hardware is. For that same reason, they probably maintain an ability to use horses in some capacity too.


Another analogy is, if you were playing Chess, is it generally better to have one queen, or two pawns?

... is it generally better to have less ships, but more air fighter, and drones?

Share this post


Link to post
Doom Marine said:

Are they used as often as back in 1916?


No, but the way he juxtapositioned it ("horses and bayonets") implies a pre-1900's era of warfare. That makes it sound as though he thinks bayonets are as outdated of a concept in our military as horses are, which isn't the case.

And yes, I get the point of the analogy he was making.

Share this post


Link to post

If you get the point, why use tortured logic to make Obama's comment seem less pertinent than it was?

To the layman, the word "bayonet" evokes an image of colonial warfare that's long dead. Point made, circle gets the square.

Share this post


Link to post
Caffeine Freak said:

That makes it sound as though he thinks bayonets are as outdated of a concept in our military as horses are, which isn't the case.

Yep - it pays to be prepared for anything, including the Highland Charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

If you get the point, why use tortured logic to make Obama's comment seem less pertinent than it was?


Because my post wasn't about his point, it was about the examples he was using. That should've been obvious.

Bucket said:

To the layman, the word "bayonet" evokes an image of colonial warfare that's long dead. Point made, circle gets the square.


I already said, the way he juxtapositioned it made it sound that way. In the context of "horses and bayonets", it would evoke that image for most people. I'm sorry if the idea of 'context' escapes you, I thought I made that pretty clear in my post.

Share this post


Link to post

The only thing you've made clear is that you're trying WAY too hard to pick apart a one-liner. Does it also bother you that JFK never lived in Berlin, and thus could never have been a Berliner? Or that Reagan did not write words on his mouth, making it physically impossible to read his lips?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not really trying to pick apart anything, actually. Initially, I made a two line post indicating that Obama's statement struck me as odd. Then, when I was questioned about it, I explained why, and when I was questioned again (by you) I had to re-explain myself, for whatever reason.

Really, this exchange has only been sustained by people asking me to clarify something that (to me) should have been obvious in the first place.

Finally, no, it doesn't bother me that presidents make figures of speech and analogies to prove a point. My point is that they should make sure the examples they're using don't make them sound ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post

Caffeine Freak said:
No, but the way he juxtapositioned it ("horses and bayonets") implies a pre-1900's era of warfare.

Yes, it's a style of combat that comes from earlier times, but both bayonets and horses clearly went more obsolete around 1916 due to experiences in the Great War, with advancements in (more powerful but shorter) hand weapons and with the spread of motorized vehicle usage. The image Obama used is good and it's even surprising he could insert it in the middle of a debate.

The horse and the bayonet are tied because the bayonet is a musket-era substitute for spears and pikes, which were particularly convenient against horsemen since you had to reach your opponent across the horse he was on, or you could just impale the horse if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post

If it had to come down to Romney or Obama, I'd prefer Romney to win so that we can see a return to full force the anti war left that we saw prior to Obama being elected. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Mitt Romney speaking about Mormon faith, caught on hidden camera.


The first minute of watching this video had me aghast in horror.

1. Listen to the way he treats the interviewer.
2. How close is this guy to America's nuclear codes again?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now