Gays better hide dem children
See what I mean? He's a walking laugh track! Gotta love him.
republicans: they EAT DA POO POO
Ugandan (sub-Saharan African really) politics are kind of behind the times, to understate. These are the same guys who claim female circumcision is critical to preserving family values.
Manfred: And permanently fucked up our relations with Libya as well as had serious internal consequences for the country, resulting in shit getting sorted in fashion that's probably as hostile to our interests as the last bunch ever was. Or more so.
Not to mention using an AC-130 in an urban area isn't the wisest course of action available to begin with.
Unless it's there, built in to the embassy, when you're in a foreign country help from your own is effectively on the moon. It always has been. That's what being in a foreign, sovereign country means. Violating that sovereignty is declaring war.
I heard someone talking about how Christians are just really mad at Gay male parents adopting children because they can't get drunk line-dancing at the Cow-poke and accidentally spray jizz into a vagina and be stuck with an accidental pregnancy. Basically "if you can't have an unplanned child, you don't have the right to plan one either."
edit: we have multiple gay parent families in my daughter's school and they're fantastic parents, for the record.
This is actually what they're mad about
As for violating another country's sovereign rights, you can't possibly say this administration has shown a lot of restraint in that respect. Bin Laden's death and many drone killings were under just such circumstances (and done in a country with confirmed nukes).
Let's not forget that Libya is practically not even a state at this point, the militias don't work together in a coordinated fashion, and we had major assets able to provide assistance all over the region. I don't give Reagan a pass for the empty magazines and I can't give Obama one for not only not sending in reinforcements but actually ordering the only guys able to help locally to stand down and let our people be killed.
Violating that sovereignty is declaring war.
Which means we had even more reason to intervene. You see, the attack on out diplomatic mission was an act of war in itself. Since the country hasn't really got a functional government and they proved incompetent at providing a secure environment, the president was obligated to respond.
"Every rifter counts friend" - VR
Frankly, I don't think there would have been much blowback in sending assistance. We'd have been defending what amounts to American territory in a place where security almost doesn't exist. Besides that, when we start killing the odd person with drones, do you think the Libyans will have as much goodwill as they do today? Better to have gone in quickly and ended the attack than have months of drone killings that chip away at that goodwill we have.
If you really believe we shouldn't protect our people, would you at least agree that we should pull the staff out when we have threats on their safety? I mean this wasn't exactly a surprise like the admin said it was at first. They'd been attacked for months beforehand. We ought to send a message by removing out embassies in Egypt and telling them we won't have a diplomatic mission there until they can either protect the exterior sufficiently or their people learn not to act like animals.
On an unrelated note... This guy gives a whole new meaning to Retard.
I've noticed that there's a pretty big disconnect between the general consensus of kugu and what's actually happening. It seems enough people have said it in this thread that people are taking it as fact.
:fap:In the Rasmussen poll that tracks the president's approval rating amongst likely voters, over the last four days., Obama's job approval has dipped from 50 to 47%.
Meanwhile, his disapproval number has spiked to 52%. That's five-point negative spread. Today, Gallup has Obama upside down, 46-49% with all adults. Three days ago,
Obama was above water, 51-44%. That's a huge swing.
Ew. You're fapping over the margin of error.
That's gross, man.
"Every rifter counts friend" - VR
Des Moines, Iowa Register Presidential endorsements going back to 1960..
1960: Richard Nixon (R) - lost
1964: Lyndon B. Johnson (D) - won
1968: Hubert Humphrey (D) - lost
1972: Richard Nixon (R) - won
1976: Jimmy Carter (D) - won
1980: Jimmy Carter (D) - lost
1984: Walter Mondale (D) - lost
1988: Michael Dukakis (D) - lost
1992: Bill Clinton (D) - won
1996: Bill Clinton (D) - won
2000: Al Gore (D) - lost
2004: John Kerry (D) - lost
2008: Barack Obama (D) - won
2012: Mitt Romney (R)
Christ they endorsed Nixon
I don't know what point he's trying to make. From what he wrote it looks like the guys they have endorsed have lost more often than they win and the times they've endorsed Republicans it was Nixon of all people (twice, and they're still batting .500 on that one).
you guys are pretty dumb. the point is, this is the first time in 40 years they've endorsed the republican in the race.
That's still meaningless if they're barely breaking even on their predictions. I mean if they were like accurate it would be something.
Still wondering if they'll change the electoral college system. Maybe if Romney wins the popular and Obama the electoral, it will give another jolt of energy to the small movement to change it.
I wonder how many of those things you think either electee would fix should he win....
The Economic Policy Institute concluded, Romneys policy proposals would reduce GDP growth by 0.5% in 2013, and by 1.1% in 2014. His spending cuts alone would reduce GDP growth by 0.9% in 2013 and by 1.3% in 2014.
What if your state was a 'blue state' and had 2 electoral college votes and the popular vote was 52-48% in favor of Obama, why should Obama get both votes just because your state is a "blue state", in a voting situaion like that its obvious that half your state wants Romney to win, so obviously the electoral college votes should be split. Simply because of the fact that you can't break it down any farther than that if the vote is divided and you have a low number of electoral college votes the popular vote should be the default method of choosing the president, it would then allow for all of the votes to be counted and give everybody a voice.
Aurora, That's working as designed. The system still gives those texans extra power for being a populous state (EC house votes) while allowing Vermont to be something more than irrelevant (EC Senate votes).
It's increasingly looking like you should favor the EC for this election. It's beginning to look like Obama will lose the majority but retain the Electoral College advantage. States are allowed to determine the way the votes are divided. Maine and Nebraska have systems that allow both candidates to win votes in their states.
Ohio by itself doesn't have near the ability to compete with NY on the creation and passing of bills and it has fewer EC votes as well. All Ohio has is the additional two votes given every state as part of the great compromise. While those two votes may decide this election, it's rare that it happens and it's GOOD that it is possible. If states EC votes were all about population, you might just as well remove the votes of a swathe of states nd make them nothing more than subject states.
EDIT: And i guess thats the difference between me and the entire republican party Manfred, just because something works in my favor doesn't make it right, and the electoral college silences thousands of voters wants and ignores the will of the people in favor of some arbitrary system that focuses on 9 states out of 50.
Joss Whedon casts his support
The Allan Lichtman model ( http://www.marketplace.org/topics/el...-obama-victory )
Nate Silver's projections ( http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ )
in terms of predictive quality.
I seriously doubt that if Obama wins the EC vote but loses the popular vote that you would be dissatisfied. At the very least, you wouldn't be crowing about how the EC disenfranchises voters. I'll admit my misreading of you if, after the election, this comes to pass and you still demand the EC be dismantled.
As for the 41:9 states, that's only because those 41 states are filled to the rafters with true believers of red or blue. What makes them irrelevant is their own choice to be dependably loyal to a particular party. In other words, they are fucking themselves. Those state voices couldn't be concentrated without the complete abdication of the 41 states. Blame your own party loyalty politics, Grath. Not the independent states.
First, it's almost impossible for this to happen. Second, you ignore the fact that this would be a vote oe the people you would have if the EC was dismantled. You see, the Senate represents that compromise I mentioned whereby the states would all have a minimum of two votes (plus at least one more in the form of a representative). If this actually did come to pass, the PEOPLE will have spoken directly through their local representative and without the meddling of the senators who represent the equality of states.
Yes, it's likely the GOP would hand the presidency to Obama. What's funny is this bizzaro problem would actually be likely to end with Romnet winning the election on a popular vote, rather than Obama with Electoral College votes. In other words, what would come to pass is what you actually seem to want, with the exception that it would mean the guy you hate will have won.
Well that means your voice, your choice as a citizen means fuck all because your congressman is of course going to elect for his party, even if the entire state tells him not to.
I've never been for the EC, it robs the people of their vote, especially in this day and age when you have a group of republicans in office who have absolutely demonstrated a desire to overthrow the legitimately elected government and only care about their own agenda. If it were democrats I'd feel the same way, usurping the power of the people is horseshit manfred and supporting it anyway retarded as fuck because it leads you down the road of just being controlled.
I mean fuck the average Russian citizen has more say in who runs Russia than the average American has over who runs the US...thats not right
Found that, also this:
Where Mitt says he wants to privatize disaster relief...calling it a waste of money and a burden on our children...literally this guy is worse than Hitler.
Almost everything the government does costs more money and time than what it would cost a private company to do.
Edit: You seem to have a warped sense of the man, known as Hitler.
Hmm..nope, after a review Mitt is definitely worse than Hitler.
So, you're basically describing Obama, save the economic success.
No, I'm not, since Obama got us OUT of a war, ordered the kill on Bin Laden, stopped the freefall of our economy created by the last republican president, and managed to be the first black man ever elected to run the most powerful nation in the world. He also brews his own beer, dresses sharp wearing american made ties (something Romney doesn't do), and plays a nasty game of hoops.
Suck it whitey.
Obama got us mostly out of Iraq and put us into Libya and we all know how well that ended up. I'm glad you have that opinion of what Obama did for the economy. So you think all the spending might have saved us from a deeper economic downfall?
Americans make terrible ties.