HeyYou

Seems a standard tactic of the right to paint anything obama does as "socialist"... it's simply a buzzword lately. I am real curious why it is that "obamacare" was painted as a socialist program, but, the very same style was used in Romneycare in Massachusetts.... but, that was the 'right thing to do'??? How do they reconcile that? In either event, both 'cares' are simply treating the symptoms of a larger ill. Both parties are poking around the edges of the problem, but, neither side is addressing the real problem. Jobs. America needs jobs. Put america back to work, and a fair few issues will simply solve themselves. (and I mean good jobs here. not the minimum wage, would you like fries with that kind.) In all reality, neither party really has a clue how to 'fix' the economy. The government simply cannot create jobs. At least, not sustainable, private sector jobs. They can provide an environment that is conducive to job creation, but, that's it. To think that giving the 1% yet more tax breaks is going to magically cause them to want to create jobs here at home, is laughable. It hasn't worked in the past, and it won't work now. There are too many motivations to create jobs ELSEWHERE via tax cuts, and 'free trade' for it to be even remotely plausible. American companies have built more infrastructure in foreign countries, than they have right here at home in the last decade. (and more...) What is going to happen when the situation in the middle east comes to a head? If we actually indulge ourselves in military action against Iran, do you think China, one of Irans staunchest allies, is going to give us a free pass on that? Right now, they control a significant percentage of our foreign held debt, and an even more significant percentage of our production capability. Personally, I think moving a lot of our production to places that are quite likely to be our enemies in a future armed conflict really wasn't the brightest move. And then there is Syria...... Both Russia AND China at one time were pretty friendly there.... We (the US) are supporting the Rebels.... whom are made up of various organizations that are mainly islamic in nature, and a fair few of them don't have a high opinion of the west..... We are working toward replacing a government that doesn't like us, with a government that hates us...... Quite similar to Egypt, where we turned on our ally... in support of a new government that REALLY doesn't like us, nor do they much care for our ally Israel...... Who thought that was a good idea?? Has the US become a "fair weather" ally? We will support you right up until your people revolt, and then we will turn on you like a rabid dog? There's a nice reputation to cultivate.....

Don't respond to the foolishness.

Either that, or some long lost relative of yours that never even existed. :) The medium would have no way of knowing. I bet they would be able to contact them anyway though.....

Ya ever notice that twinkies don't have an expiration date?

Obama has not been working very hard on the job creation aspect of things..... it seems that 'the economy' always takes a back seat to 'other high-priority issues', like, federally mandated health insurance.... once the elections are over. Our government seems for more concerned about what's going on in other countries, than they do what's happening right here at home. This is pretty typical behavior though. I have seen it many times in the past. Romney wants to use the same old tried and failed methods his predecessors kept harping on, and implementing, that never seemed to have much of an affect....... tax cuts have been in place for more than a decade, and we have gotten more and more of them (well, ok, the rich, and corporations have gotten tax cuts....) but, if they are creating any jobs, they sure aren't here at home. I am sure that china appreciates the business though..... Quite frankly, I don't think either of them are worth a fart in the wind....... I am going to vote for some third-party candidate... see what happens.

And the funniest part is, you can use this from EITHER side, and it is equally applicable... which I am sure is exactly what the author had in mind..... Thanks Tidus, I think that sums up quite nicely the elections this year. What amazes me is, there are a fair few folks that can see this is precisely what is happening, yet they don't seem to be doing anything about it.... hardly even raising their voices..... conspiracy???? Oh, wait... wrong thread..... Sorry. :)

Both parties have trouble operating within the confines of the truth. But, that's really nothing new. Politicians have been lying as long as there has been politicians. The trouble is, a fairly large segment of the population, from both parties, accept what the party leaders say as gospel, even when the obvious lies are pointed out on national television.... from multiple sources. The whole "my party, right or wrong, but, MY PARTY" mindset is going to be the death of america. When Obama was elected, partisan politicing took on a whole new meaning. The republicans main goal was to make sure that Obama didn't really accomplish anything significant. They wanted him to look bad so the next round of elections would theoretically have the american public up in arms against him. There was a rather large, and vocal, campaign based on this, that attempted to show Obama as inept, ineffective, and basically as a 'bad president'. For the republicans, it was pretty much effective, but, they didn't like him to begin with, so, no surprise there..... for the dems... yeah, there are a lot of dems out there that are seriously disappointed with how things are going, but, most of them blame the republicans for their obstructionist ways..... Colourwheel is correct on his point about all this being at the expense of the american public. The politicians are all sitting pretty, with their big bucks..... (most of them are 1%ers.....) its the middle class that is suffering most. For the most part, I think Obama did indeed waste his first two years in office. Sure, he had a major mess to clean up from the previous administration, but, he went after symptoms of a larger ill, while ignoring the disease itself. The "health care" bill was a waste of time, and effort. If he wanted folks to have insurance, he should have concentrated on getting our economy going again, so that folks would actually have JOBS. You know, the places that actually provided insurance for all those folks? Of course, I am a firm believer that the mere act of being elected to public office decreases a person I.Q. by at least 50%...... I don't really have any other explanation for the sheer stupidity that comes out of washington, regardless of which party is in control. :D

From my foreign perspective I imagine this must be really frustrating. Do third parties really have no chance to get elected in the US? Also, and this is just imho, if I were American I would really resent having my vote completely ignored by both parties just because I don't live in one of the swing states. I mean if you're a Republican and live in California, don't bother getting up to vote, it doesn't matter, and same deal if you're a Democrat and live in Idaho. Your vote wouldn't change anything, because of the "winner takes the whole state" system. If you live in Florida or Ohio, however, your vote matters, both candidates care about what you have to say and come visit your state, etc. Seems to me this system is unfair to those who don't live in swing states, because their individual vote is made completely irrelevant on the national level. One person living in California or Idaho should count as much as another in Ohio. How is he sucking up to the French exactly? Have to say I'm highly skeptical about USAphobia being widespread in France (or at least more than in the UK :rolleyes: ), I hardly ever hear people badmouthing the US. What does Europhilia have to do with either Obama or Romney? Historically, third parties really don't stand a chance of WINNING in the US.... They can, however, have an effect on the outcome of the election..... Third party candidates will indeed take votes away from one or the other of the major parties, pretty much assuring that candidate WON'T win...... So, I suppose, what matters is, which party is the third party candidate going to be taking the most votes from..... In this election, it could go either way..... although, again historically, the incumbent has the advantage there.

A voters personal opinion doesn't matter either because they gave consent for a 3rd party to speak for them. Giving your voice away so some idiot can speak for you is the way of it though it seems. How that works, the Electoral College, is the people go vote in a sector. The majority winner is what that person is supposed to vote for. Then after all the sectors are done in a state, the person with the most Electoral votes gets all the electoral votes. In some states, it works differently, but thats how it is usually done. Not if the republican party has their way. They want to be able to cherry pick the folks that get sent to "represent" their areas...... Considering we vote for our representatives? Impressive. Maybe you missed this little tidbit: The delegates are supposed to pledge for for the candidate, what's so shocking? They are only there to prevent complete catastrophe and give smaller states more power. They are not there to just pick someone on a whim. Correct, and, depending on what state they come from..... they are all supposed to pledge for the over-all 'winner' in that state, or, pledge per candidate based on what percentage of the vote they got. Mitt and company are trying to ensure that they can cherry pick which delegates show up, so they can be sure that their choice of candidate, is the one that gets the delegates, regardless of what state they are from.

A voters personal opinion doesn't matter either because they gave consent for a 3rd party to speak for them. Giving your voice away so some idiot can speak for you is the way of it though it seems. How that works, the Electoral College, is the people go vote in a sector. The majority winner is what that person is supposed to vote for. Then after all the sectors are done in a state, the person with the most Electoral votes gets all the electoral votes. In some states, it works differently, but thats how it is usually done. Not if the republican party has their way. They want to be able to cherry pick the folks that get sent to "represent" their areas...... Considering we vote for our representatives? Impressive. Maybe you missed this little tidbit:

This thread is what kinda did me in. Some of the accusations there, and the 'solutions'...... were just so unexpected, that it kinda poisoned me on even wanting to participate at all. Another reason behind my lack of participation was to see if by NOT participating here, if we would see an increase in folks that DID participate, as was put forth as a theory by a few posters in the above mentioned thread. From what I can see, it didn't work out that way..... But, I find this place rather addictive....... So, here I am. :)

A voters personal opinion doesn't matter either because they gave consent for a 3rd party to speak for them. Giving your voice away so some idiot can speak for you is the way of it though it seems. How that works, the Electoral College, is the people go vote in a sector. The majority winner is what that person is supposed to vote for. Then after all the sectors are done in a state, the person with the most Electoral votes gets all the electoral votes. In some states, it works differently, but thats how it is usually done. Not if the republican party has their way. They want to be able to cherry pick the folks that get sent to "represent" their areas......

So you would advocate the the 8 dollar an hour jobs the economy has been coming up with were instead 4 dollar an hour jobs? Or 4 dollars a day? Remove environmental protections so that corporate america can poison our environment? I will grant that some of the laws are over-the-top, but, just eliminating them indiscriminately would pretty much assure a return to the days when breathing in certain cities would be bad for your health..... I would be more inclined to advocate FAIR trade. Imports to this country would be taxed at the exact same rate as similar exports to the country of origin. (where similar products were available for comparison... otherwise... pick something close....) In all reality, american workers CAN'T compete in the global economy...... we got used to a reasonable standard of living, and the folks that sell products here got used to their pricing. Eliminate minimum wage, without also doing something about product pricing, and you will quickly have some serious civil unrest....

The rebuplicans are the major drivers behind the 'free trade' agreements.... and Obama has also followed that trend, signing up three new countries during his term in office. Oddly enough, those treaties were signed at night, with zero public fanfare, as Obama KNEW it was NOT in the best interests of our country. Romney, being a republican, filthy rich, and well aware of who donates to his campaign........ will not do anything that might cut into his donors pockets. The industrial might of america has already been exported to places like china, and india.... More american factories have been built there in the last ten years, than right here on american soil. The whole idea behind 'free trade'.... was to open up markets for american business to SELL their products.... It just worked out that it also offered them the opportunity to MOVE production to countries with less stringent environmental, and labor laws. (not to mention... no unions.....) The cost of shipping said products to the US pales in comparison to how much they profit from paying nothing wages, no benefits, and not having to worry about those pesky laws that require them to NOT be a MAJOR contributor to environment damage. The republicans actually put in place tax cuts for "creating jobs in developing nations".... Which translated, quite literally, to "Moving jobs to developing nations." Obama said he was going to get rid of those, but, along come the 'economists', predicting 'doom and gloom' should corporations suddenly finding themselves with most of their production in foreign countries, and now NOT getting to avoid paying millions in taxes on the profits to be had thereby. So, not only do the corporations get major tax relief because of these laws, but, federal tax revenue is dramatically decreased as well.... so, the deficit expands at an even greater rate. Then we have the republicans signing on with Norquist, and the whole "no raising taxes, at ALL", even if that is getting rid of a supposedly temporary 'tax break'..... Gee, and we wonder why we borrow 43 cents of every dollar of our national budget?? And Romney wants to EXPAND military spending....... where is he going to get the money for that? Medicare/Medicaid cuts........ I.E. on the backs of our senior citizens....... Nice. No, Romney is NOT going to be good for the average american. But of course, neither will Obama be......

Mitt Romney is a one percent-er, he won't be implementing ANY protectionist policies, as they directly go against the people that he ACTUALLY represents. He may talk a good game about 'helping the middle class', or, at least, whats left of it.... but, that is just election year rhetoric, attempting to appeal to the folks least likely to vote for him. Reading the Republican Manifesto, recently released from the RNC, he has all the same old tired policies, that have already been demonstrated to NOT work.... but, he seems to think that 'this time, it will be different'. Yeah, right. So sorry Mitt, but, continuing to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results, is the very definition of insanity...... You won't be getting my vote.... Obama..... An inexperienced politician, that has ALWAYS worked in the public sector, has always led a life of privilege. He has no more idea what it is like to HAVE to work to make ends meet, (barely) like most of the population does now..... than Romney does. His policies aren't any better than the republicans, and in some cases, are the SAME policies. I originally voted for Obama, as I was expecting him to actually live up to his campaign promises, and not just deliver warmed over continuations of republican economic, and foreign policy. Sure fooled me. Guess I should have known better. I won't be voting for Obama either. Who AM I going to vote for? Not a farking clue at this point. Gary Johnson has a certain amount of appeal, but, he has a couple policies that I vehemently disagree with, so, kinda nixes that option.... Maybe I will just write in Ron Paul, and be done with it....... Not that I agree with all of HIS policies either...... I really don't see a bright future for the US, regardless of who gets elected...... I see war with Iran, fuel prices skyrocketing, to the point that they will have a profound negative effect on the economy here, which will make our situation that much worse..... and eventually, probably within ten years, economic collapse, that will make the recession of 2008 look like a picnic in the park. Maybe THEN, americans can get some REAL change in washington, as I expect that is the only way we are going to see it, is at gunpoint.

Gotta love steam........ Will it work in offline mode?

I don't know of many 14 year olds that have any clue at all what they want to do for a living....... Finding one that actually does, and then PURSUES that goal, is a breath of fresh air.

More as mental exercise than anything else. There are some folks on here that are VERY good at getting their point across, and supporting their arguments, that I do not always agree with. I actually kind of enjoy it. A bit of mental fencing is good for the soul. I harbor no illusions that I am going to sway anyone to my way of thinking. :)

The planet is more than likely going to be here for the foreseeable future.... whether there will be any humans, or, life forms in general.... on it, is open to debate. Humans are very good at finding new, and better ways to kill each other.... unfortunately, some of those methods also take a terrible toll on the environment......

The folks televising the olympics are the only ones that are really making money...... all those advertising dollars.

What game version do you have, and do you have Shivering Isles installed?

I don't dispute that trolling can indeed get very bad, we see examples of it on a fairly regular basis. My major problem with trying to legislate away a problem is the points I have covered already, enforceability, and cross-jurisdictional complications. By and large, the trolls are seldom in the same country as the the victim. Prosecuting a successful suit of any flavor under such circumstances is going to be difficult, if not impossible for the average Joe/Jane. Even should both troll and victim be in the same country...... it ain't gonna be easy by any means. I also see a LOT of opportunity for exploitation of this law, by assorted politicians... I think this is a can of worms that needs some serious consideration before breaking out with the opener.

EEeYowww.... That truly sucks....... Terribly sorry to hear that. I will add you to the families prayer list.

The major concern here is enforceability. I would agree with the sentiment that his is mostly politicians doing something simply to give the appearance that they ARE doing something. You cannot legislate good behavior, and certainly not against folks that aren't even within the laws jurisdiction. Another thought may be, are the politicians setting this up, so that they can take some action against those that disagree with their views? After all, if posting an 'in poor taste' comment is cause for arrest...... wouldn't posting something toward/about some politician be 'offensive' to them??? How far do they want to take this?

Defamation of character? On the internet? Hhhhmmm....... Ever watch political ads? Of late, they have been nothing BUT attack ads, defaming or otherwise calling into question the character of some political figure or other.. So are we going to see a rash of politicians suing their opponents under such laws???