I Hate fanatical political sites! (Thoses "TRUTH"
Page 1 of 1
alexender00




Posts: 25

PostPosted: Mon, 13th Oct 2008 10:15    Post subject: I Hate fanatical political sites! (Thoses "TRUTH"
I just spent a few hours on a site that bashed Obama and the democrats to be responsible for everything form global warming "craze" to the current US financial crisis. While they make good points (On the financial crisis front at least), I ended up leaving the site in disgust, and not because I'm an Obama supporter.

I came onto the site for the truth, but was I got was a freaking beat fest.

Why? Because there's two ways to be better than your opponent: One is to get/be actually better than your opponent (run faster, write better code that run faster, build a better house, whatever) the other is to make your opponent worse than you (Hit him so he fall, losing the race; Put a virus into his program so it kill the code; Bomb the house, whatever).

That's why I hated the site: It didn't focus on telling why McCain is better than Obama, it focused on telling me why Obama is worse than McCain which is two very different things.

One attack and destroy (FUD) and the other build. I hate the destroyers. At least if your are going to destroy someone, destroy yourself. If you are telling stuff that Obama did wrong, tell me what McCain did wrong too and for god sake, let me make a choice!

See we have a choice to make, mkght be a bad choice, fine, but a choice and right now, sites like these aren't helping you make a real choice, they are telling you: You can't choose him, look at all the bad things he did. To that I answer: Fine, show me what your guy did that was actually better, not what he DIDN'T do!

The candidates do the same thing I'm afraid but the difference I guess is that I usually hear from both of them and for a rather little while at a time.

Okay, rant done.

Thanks for reading and tolerating...
Back to top
Acer




Posts: 3156

PostPosted: Mon, 13th Oct 2008 10:26    Post subject:
Would be interesting to read their explanation on how the democrats are responsable for the current economic crisis.


Dont mess with God, he can impregnate your girlfriend/wife without taking his pants off!
Back to top
SycoShaman
VIP Master Jedi



Posts: 24468
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Mon, 13th Oct 2008 10:54    Post subject:
Acer wrote:
Would be interesting to read their explanation on how the democrats are responsable for the current economic crisis.


why not get Bill O'Reilly's show from thurs or wed

He blamed the stock market crash because investors are scared obama will be the next pres...which is probably the stupidest thing ive heard from anyone during this election.

The gop is doing what they are doing is because they know they cant win against obama when it comes to his economic plan. The gop is strong in foreign policy, but thats not the hot topic for this election, its the economy and a vast majority doesnt believe the gop can solve this crisis because they got us into it.

So instead they attack obama with insane shit. Watching the various news chans this morning, the gop plan (the attacking shit) has back fired when it comes to undecided voters.
The only ppl who believe this shit they are talking are those ardent republicans who are gunna vote for the gop anyway.

And even McCain is backing away from attacking Obama. Its Palin thats doing them in. She fucked up McCains bid to be pres big time. Last time i turned on the news, Obama was ahead by 9 or 10 points which is almost impossible to make up.
So they are trying to scare ppl into voting for McCain. But its clearly not working. Again, the only ppl who believe all the bullshit they spew are the conservative christian base who will believe almost anything.

McCain hurt his bid in many ways, but Palin sunk the ship


Back to top
alexender00




Posts: 25

PostPosted: Mon, 13th Oct 2008 11:03    Post subject:
Here's the link:

http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm

By the way, I've looked over to the USA Today Pool Tracker and made a count for the electoral votes and if we trust the pools, Obama would snag with assurance 278 votes and this is not counting on states like Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. He will most assuredly wins.

Here's my count down:
Obama:
Washington
Oregon
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Colorado
New Mexico
Minnesota
Iowa
Michigan
Illinois
Wisconsin
Michigan
All of New England from Maine to D.C.

McCain gets the rest except for the battleground states (States that according to pool are too close to call)

Battleground States:
Missouri
Ohio
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida

So far: 278 Obama. 174 McCain and 86 undecided

Here's my source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/poll-tracker.htm
Back to top
SycoShaman
VIP Master Jedi



Posts: 24468
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Mon, 13th Oct 2008 11:28    Post subject:
once you have 270 electoral votes, you win. So yay for Obama Very Happy


Back to top
Acer




Posts: 3156

PostPosted: Mon, 13th Oct 2008 11:50    Post subject:
Seems Obama will win, IMO hes by far the lesser of two evils. It sickens me that hes portrayed as a pro-islam person, as if that was something negative and islam the root of all evil.
Not that im a religious person but its just little kids throwing shit at each other convincing others that they are better.
And that Bill O'Reilly, man what a nutjob that fucker is, and all people who like his show...


Dont mess with God, he can impregnate your girlfriend/wife without taking his pants off!
Back to top
swingman




Posts: 3602

PostPosted: Mon, 13th Oct 2008 23:01    Post subject:
alexender00 wrote:
Here's the link:

http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm




Ofcourse that is from a partisan site but the data can be found on the cbo website. And it has been said that the surplusses were achieved with some creative accounting but that is a matter of which standards (budget or corporate) you use. Considering that the standards have remained more or less the same, the last time in recent history that there was a budget surplus was when Clinton was in charge.

To be quite honest, the terminology used in the US can get quite confusing sometimes what with the 'conservative' party having trouble balancing their budgets and the liberals managing to balance their books and voting against tax-cuts. I guess the dems seem to have realised that when you don't have enough money, you DON'T spend more than what you DO have. It's called belt-tightening but I guess the people in the US don't have much use for belts when they wear those stretchy pants. Razz
Back to top
Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT + 1 Hour
NFOHump.com Forum Index - The Bitching Session
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)  


Display posts from previous:   

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group