Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#152 Mar 18 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hehehe
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153gbaji, Posted: Mar 18 2011 at 7:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So what? Now you'll spend 10 posts insisting that I fell into your evil trap?
#154 Mar 18 2011 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Considering it was apparent to probably everyone but you that it was a joke, I'd say that's appropriate.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#155 Mar 18 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So what? Now you'll spend 10 posts insisting that I fell into your evil trap?

see what I did there?

No, I'm just amused that I can make a joke, have you spaz out and insist that I was REAL SERIOUS and then post again just to prove what a dipshit you are for not even getting your rant correct which leads to you spazzing out and insisting that I must have been REAL SERIOUS because you think I was defending my joke rather than just pointing out how you were not only spazzing out but not even vaguely accurate in your little rant.

Somehow I doubt you'll find it as funny but, trust me, it's pretty funny.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Mar 19 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
847 posts
Carter vs. Obama.

Go.
#157 Mar 19 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Good
******
44,305 posts
Keylin wrote:
Carter vs. Obama.
IN A STEEL CAGE
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#158 Mar 19 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Keylin wrote:
Carter vs. Obama.

Carter's pretty old but he knows how to swing a claw hammer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#159 Mar 21 2011 at 12:06 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Carter has nearly eliminated a really awful parasite from the world, which could earn him a legacy that rivals the WHO's elimination of smallpox. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/25/jimmy-carter-guinea-worm_n_801252.html

Plus that Barack fella is just uppity to me.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#160 Mar 21 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So what? Now you'll spend 10 posts insisting that I fell into your evil trap?

see what I did there?

No, I'm just amused that I can make a joke, have you spaz out and insist that I was REAL SERIOUS and then post again just to prove what a dipshit you are for not even getting your rant correct which leads to you spazzing out and insisting that I must have been REAL SERIOUS because you think I was defending my joke rather than just pointing out how you were not only spazzing out but not even vaguely accurate in your little rant.


You get that your "joke" was the sole support you gave for a position you certainly seem to take quite seriously, right? I find it amusing when people use jokes to defend their positions on real world things, and then when anyone questions this, they just insist that it was "just a joke". Um... So why do you take it seriously?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Mar 21 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hehehe... seriously?

Just give up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#162 Mar 21 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hehehe... seriously?

Just give up.


Ok. So you freely admit that it's the nutty liberal environmentalists and the Democrats who placate them who are to blame for the fact that we haven't built a new nuclear power plant in 30 years?

I'm just curious where you actually stand on this. Since you were joking about it being the GOP's fault, then who's fault is it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#163 Mar 21 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gee, if only I thought there was a single culprit I could meet your demands

But sadly I live in the Big Boy World and, as has been said in previous threads, the culprits are a mixture of economic factors, political factors and good ole fashioned NIMBYism. I'll happily agree that the Democrats are traditionally more likely to be opposed (it'd only be the 50th time I've said this is a place where I part ways with traditional Democratic ideology) but I'm afraid I know too much about this big ole world to say "Haha! It's all them!" Or even primarily them. Obviously this is all pretty important to make you feel like you scored some sort of point out of looking like a ****** for the last page and a half so I hope this makes you feel at least a little tiny bit better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164gbaji, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 6:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's primarily them. Let's not kid ourselves.
#165 Mar 21 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's funny that you honestly believe that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#166 Mar 21 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's funny that you honestly believe that.


So absent nutty environmentalists fear-mongering about nuclear power for the last 40 years or so, you're saying we still would not have built a nuclear power plant in the last 30 years? Care to support that? I mean, I get that the coal lobby might just have something to do with that, but that's really just a means to accomplish an end. I don't see it being the end objective itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Mar 21 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've cited the various barriers in past threads. I don't really give a fuck if you believe me or not because you're obviously deeply vested in the whole "Environmentalists & Democrats!" thing.

Shit, even in this thread, you have a couple of guys from the nuclear energy game agreeing that the immediate barrier to nuclear energy is that gas-fired turbines are just plain cheaper.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 9:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 Mar 21 2011 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,315 posts
I'm a Democrat, and an environmentalist. I think it's pretty funny that concern for the environment is automatically designated "nutty" when, after all, it's all about personal responsibility; but set that aside for a moment.

I grew up across the river from a coal-burning power plant. I've seen what strip mining can do. I've spent my whole life watching my government pour billions - trillions - of dollars protecting our interests in the world's oil supply.

I'm all for exploring other energy technologies; but the immediate future is nuclear.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#169 Mar 21 2011 at 8:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Shit, even in this thread, you have a couple of guys from the nuclear energy game agreeing that the immediate barrier to nuclear energy is that gas-fired turbines are just plain cheaper.


Cheaper only when the total cost of nuclear is calculated, which includes massively inflated costs involved with actually getting a nuclear plant up and running, pretty much all of which have to do with 40+ years of environmentalist fear mongering about nuclear power. Put the two side by side in terms of cost in materials to generate X amount of electricity and nuclear is far and away the most cost efficient means to do so.

When coal and gas turbine plants cost millions to build, and nuclear plants cost billions, it's going to have a significant impact on the total cost of energy generated over the lifetime of those plants, having nothing at all to do with the efficiency of the method used. And lets not kid ourselves here, from a design and safety perspective, a nuclear power plant is certainly more costly than other forms of energy, but not an order of magnitude or two more costly. Something beyond just the complexity of design and cost of materials is involved here, and it's not that hard to see that it has a lot more to do with politics than science or engineering.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Mar 21 2011 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Cheaper only when the total cost of nuclear is calculated, which includes massively inflated costs involved with...

Blah, blah, blah. As I said, we've been over this before. I've posted cites, you keep crying about environmental-Democrat monsters or whatever. I've no vain hopes of convincing you otherwise. You need this. I get it.

If nuclear power could really deliver a significantly lower priced product to people's homes, they'd be building nuclear power plants on Indian burial grounds full of pandas and no one would say peep about it. Instead, it provides a product that is, under the best current situations, slightly pricier than coal or gas.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#171 Mar 21 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Samira wrote:


I grew up across the river from a coal-burning power plant.


I know which one you're talking about. They finally put a scrubber on it. It's still a nasty mess though. Oh, and that ash spill that happened two years ago and is still being cleaned up. Good ole coal!
#172 Mar 22 2011 at 6:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,315 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Samira wrote:


I grew up across the river from a coal-burning power plant.


I know which one you're talking about. They finally put a scrubber on it. It's still a nasty mess though. Oh, and that ash spill that happened two years ago and is still being cleaned up. Good ole coal!


What's up with that spill these days? I imagine the mercury will be around for years to come.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#173varusword75, Posted: Mar 22 2011 at 7:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,
#174 Mar 22 2011 at 7:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I oppose killing human families to clear land and construct power plants.

Because I'm liberal like that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#175varusword75, Posted: Mar 22 2011 at 8:07 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#176 Mar 22 2011 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Erm...

Ummm..

Hrm.


You did know I was in favor of nuclear power, right? This is why you fail to really upset anyone with your cute little rants. You just make yourself look silly.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#177varusword75, Posted: Mar 22 2011 at 8:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#178 Mar 22 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
No you're not.

Well, shucks golly. You got me there!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Mar 22 2011 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
It's better than it was, but there's still work to be done. I know there are lawsuits too, I don't think any of them have been settled.

Good ole coal!

ETA: This is @ Sam. Forgotted my quote.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2011 1:46pm by Nadenu
#180 Mar 22 2011 at 6:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,315 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I oppose killing human families to clear land and construct power plants.

Because I'm liberal like that.


And yet you mow over a family of bunny rabbits in the name of a well-kept lawn, you *******.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#181varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 7:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#182 Mar 23 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Thing is you know every word I wrote is 100% dead on accurate.

mmhmm... Well, you believe it and that's the important thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#183varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 10:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#184 Mar 23 2011 at 12:10 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Joph,

Belief has nothing to do with it.

This coming from a devout Baptist...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#185varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 1:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
#186 Mar 24 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Oh, so you're not the fundamentalist nutter you've been portraying? Ok then.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#187varusword75, Posted: Mar 25 2011 at 7:29 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
#188 Mar 25 2011 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Devout means he would actually have to follow the rules and stop picking up *** men on internet sites.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#189 Mar 25 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Devout means he would actually have to follow the rules and stop picking up *** men on internet sites.

True. He could run for office on a Family Values platform.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#190 Mar 25 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,315 posts
And now it looks like Michele Bachmann is looking to split the right even further asunder with a 2012 run for the Oval Office.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#191 Mar 25 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I guess at this point the safe money is on Palin taking the hits for sitting this one out as a "lesser evil" over the complete embarrassment she'd suffer by running. If Bachmann thought Palin was going to run, I can't imagine that she'd be in the race.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#192 Mar 25 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Debo,

Quote:
Oh, so you're not the fundamentalist nutter you've been portraying?


I don't have to attend services twice a week to know that abortion is wrong. Nor do I need to do so to know that the 10 commandments are probably a good thing and should be plastered on as many public buildings as humanly possible.

I guess religion is pretty convenient when the rules don't apply to you
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#193 Mar 25 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I guess at this point the safe money is on Palin taking the hits for sitting this one out as a "lesser evil" over the complete embarrassment she'd suffer by running. If Bachmann thought Palin was going to run, I can't imagine that she'd be in the race.

Oh come on, Bachmann/Palin 2012 would be great!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#194 Mar 25 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Sweetums wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Debo,

Quote:
Oh, so you're not the fundamentalist nutter you've been portraying?


I don't have to attend services twice a week to know that abortion is wrong. Nor do I need to do so to know that the 10 commandments are probably a good thing and should be plastered on as many public buildings as humanly possible.

I guess religion is pretty convenient when the rules don't apply to you

As long as you forcefully apply them to everyone else though!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#195 Mar 25 2011 at 6:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Samira wrote:
And now it looks like Michele Bachmann is looking to split the right even further asunder with a 2012 run for the Oval Office.


If only there was some method that members of a political party could use to decide which candidate they'd field in the general election. Some system by which that party's members could ensure that one strong candidate with the broadest representation of the party would be run with the other members stepping down so as not to block their chances in the general. It's just too bad we don't have something like this, because it would really be helpful. Shucks!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Mar 25 2011 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,315 posts
Sure, sure. My point is that she inspires the fringe, and that her candidacy will pull the party even farther to the right, because moderates have no balls in politics.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#197 Mar 25 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Samira wrote:
Sure, sure. My point is that she inspires the fringe, and that her candidacy will pull the party even farther to the right, because moderates have no balls in politics.


That's a good thing though. It's not necessarily about a "tea party candidate" winning the primary, but making sure that whomever does win has to spend time addressing the tea party issues. Most likely whomever does win will be a more moderate candidate, but if that moderate candidate can find a way to assure the tea party folks that he's got their principles in mind, while not scaring away the independents in the middle, that candidate will be a much stronger candidate and have a better chance of unseating Obama than one that just played the middle course from day one. Obviously, there are a ton of variables involved, and I'm not even going to attempt to guess how things will actually go. However, I do happen to think that the involvement in a broader set of issues based candidates in a primary is generally better for the party and it's also better for the people as a whole when a candidate comes out of the process.

I don't want fringe candidates winning too much power in high office. However, I *do* want their ideas and issues to be part of what's taken into account when those who do win take those offices. Where those fringe candidates do harm is when they don't win a primary and then embark on a third party debacle, which almost always ends out badly for them and the party they were originally working with. I don't think Bachmann will do that though, so I'm not too concerned about here influence "tearing the party". Pulling them a bit? Again, that's a good thing IMO. We need more Republicans at least talking about the conservative principles espoused by the tea party.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Mar 25 2011 at 10:50 PM Rating: Good
This upcoming Republican primary looks to be pretty entertaining, with Bachmann & Trump already declaring. I'd guess a more moderate candidate would actually win the primary, yet the two biggest "moderate" Republicans that will most likely run, Romney & Giuliani, have real issues with the tea party.

The debates should be fun though. Trump & Bachmann are birthers, Romney invented Obamcare, & Giuliani only became conservative during his last run for President. So, who knows what'll happen?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#199 Mar 26 2011 at 8:52 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
****, *I* may vote for Giuliani.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#200 Mar 26 2011 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Giuliani won't do shit. He said he MIGHT run if there isn't a moderate. But given that Romney is a certainty to run and Romney is the GOP's version of a moderate, there's no real room for a Giuliani run.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Mar 26 2011 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
******
44,305 posts
Debalic wrote:
****, *I* may vote for Giuliani.
An Italian from Brooklyn? Fuck yeah.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 82 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, Strummer, stupidmonkey, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (78)