If the world could vote.....

[Bodzilla]

http://iftheworldcouldvote.com/results

wow.
discuss

[ultama121]

It would be appropriate to say: OWNED.

[Jean-Luc]

Well...looking at that...I would say it would be a true worldwide disappointment and disgrace if McCain wins.
Methinks the world has my back on that.

[Con]

lol @ india, 99.9% obama

[Syuusuke]

Diggs: 911

WHAT?

And WOW this is very...wow.

[Bodzilla]

when you fellas step into vote for who is going to be president for the next 4 years, you better dam well think about who your voting, because part of being on the world stage means that the world watches and judges you.

[Hotrod]

Well, I can't say that it doesn't make sense...

[ICEE]

I'm not so sure its a good thing that the world wants Obama to win, especially since much of the world hates us. I would think they'd want the weakest candidate to win. But it looks like some of our big enemies are pretty tied on the matter.. Also, I'm not fully positive on how reliable this information is.

[Bodzilla]

ironclad :Wtc: man

[ICEE]

What do you mean? It's pretty much fact that a lot of the world hates Americans, so you'd think they would want the country to go downhill. I don't think Barack is a weak candidate, but that might be how the rest of the world sees him, which could be bad. If they think that the WORLD POLICE country has a weak ruler, they might try and start some ol gangster shit.

[Bodzilla]

please tell me that there is satire hidden in that post somewhere. i cant remember your recent posts well enough to remember your political stance :Shttp://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-psyduck.gif

[ICEE]

My political stance is null. I don't know where I stand anymore. The world is changing and so are my ideals. To know who I really want to win I'd have to have paid more attention to debates and shit. Instead I was on modacity. Also, in my post I didn't even HINT at who I want to win the election, so maybe you should you didn't get the point.

[Bodzilla]

But you just said openly that theres a conspiracy theory alive and well where the world wants america to vote obama in so they can destroy america and TAKE OVER THE WORLD FOR 1 MILLION DOLLARS.

Fucking before you know it sharks are gunna have Freakin Lazer beams Attached to they're head.

[n00b1n8R]

hurf durf world hates america so they want us to have a shit leader
And yet not.

The world hates the American government, not the people (baring hard-line fundamentalist red necks).

The world wants the current fucktards out of your government because your spilling your shit into the rest of the world and that's a big DO NOT WANT.

[ICEE]

But you just said openly that theres a conspiracy theory alive and well where the world wants america to vote obama in so they can destroy america and TAKE OVER THE WORLD FOR 1 MILLION DOLLARS.

No, I'm just theorizing here, not jumping to conclusions. There are countries out there who hate America such as Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. I would think that if these countries all wanted one candidate to win, then it would possibly be because they expect that this candidate would make America a weaker nation.


Fucking before you know it sharks are gunna have Freakin Lazer beams Attached to they're head.

K, wat.


And yet not.

The world hates the American government, not the people (baring hard-line fundamentalist red necks).

The world wants the current fucktards out of your government because your spilling your shit into the rest of the world and that's a big DO NOT WANT.

Thats exactly what I meant...

[Bodzilla]

what about the Canadian threat?
do we fire ze missiles?

[mech]

No, I'm just theorizing here, not jumping to conclusions. There are countries out there who hate America such as Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. I would think that if these countries all wanted one candidate to win, then it would possibly be because they expect that this candidate would make America a weaker nation.



K, wat.



Thats exactly what I meant...

I'm sure a bunch of internet kids were thinking what you were thinking when they clicked the vote button.

[Huero]

Thats exactly what I meant...
Uh, that means that they want somebody INTELLIGENT in.
They don't want us to have a bad leader that digs us further into our grave, they want us to have one that doesn't fuck up :I

[ICEE]

Look, Bod, I didn't mean that the entire world hates us. Though actually Canada is pretty high up on the list of country's whose citizens hate the American government.


Uh, that means that they want somebody INTELLIGENT in.
They don't want us to have a bad leader that digs us further into our grave, they want us to have one that doesn't fuck up :I

They do if their a country that hates us, or is at war with us, or objects very strongly to the war we're in.

[Huero]

Look, Bod, I didn't mean that the entire world hates us. Though actually Canada is pretty high up on the list of country's whose citizens hate the American government.
No, it's not.

They do if their a country that hates us, or is at war with us, or objects very strongly to the war we're in.
And most of those countries are? A lot of the countries object, but pretty much every country including the US objects to it; that doesn't mean they want us to collapse as a nation

[mech]

TERROR ALERT RED

http://sa.tweek.us/emots/images/emot-tinfoil.gif Be on the watch for Canadians trying to overthrow the American government.

[ICEE]

Oh fine. Blow what I said out of proportion.

[Bodzilla]

**missiles fired**

** ALERT: incoming nuclear holocaust.**
**Flee to australia.**
**communication lost**

**END TRANSMISSION**

[mech]

Mother fucking sharks ate half of the people trying to get to Australia :(

[ICEE]

See, you guys don't even try to comprehend what you read. You just take the first thing that jumps into your head, run with it and never let it go. But fine, I don't need to have this discussion.

[Huero]

See, you guys don't even try to comprehend what you read. You just take the first thing that jumps into your head, run with it and never let it go. But fine, I don't need to have this discussion.
good job reading my second reply :C

[mech]

http://www.modacity.net/forums/images/customavatars/avatar898_26.gif
Gawhagkgahahga


What?

[Bodzilla]

Ironclad mate, you.... you dont understand the difference between populous and government, that there is a difference.

thats what all the fuss is over, your taking legitimate results from an unbiased internet poll and seeing some bizzar-o outcome that doesnt exist due to your initial lack of understanding.

i dont hate Americans, neither do most of the people on the planet (bar a few brainwashed southerners with thick accents and food stains on there white singlet)
The government // the people.

what your saying makes no sense at all.

This is EXACTLY like when my father was over in america and he tried to talk and discuss the difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war.
Why cant you see the difference mate

[ICEE]

I can see the difference. I just don't know what the populous thinks until I've talked to a few people who are part of it. I know what the government thinks, and I know a lot of governments find ways to influence what the people think. I put two and two together and that's what I come up with. It was just a thought. Sorry if it offended you.

[Bodzilla]

you still dont get it.

[ICEE]

I don't think you get it either. I was only talking about the possibility of this "bizzaro outcome". But please, explain your point to me, I would like to know. If I really am wrong here I want to at least understand why.

[Huero]

I don't think it offended him so much as it was simply wrong about everything and Bod was just trying to explain that :I

[n00b1n8R]

Considering the Australia government has been trying it's damndest to get into the US's pants (that is to say, the Howard government was) and we're still saying this suggests that there's no bias coming from the government.

PROTIP: zilla and I are Ausy.

Also, what do you have to say about the fact the Americans on here seem to mostly be pro-Obama too?

It's not in the world's interests for America to collapse. If it did then the knock-on effects would fuck over the global economic and pollitical worlds for years.

[ICEE]

Considering the Australia government has been trying it's damndest to get into the US's pants (that is to say, the Howard government was) and we're still saying this suggests that there's no bias coming from the government.

PROTIP: zilla and I are Ausy.

Also, what do you have to say about the fact the Americans on here seem to mostly be pro-Obama too?

Obama is a charming fucking man. :)

But really, a lot of Americans are democrats.

[n00b1n8R]

They haven't been in the last 2 elections. :downs:

[ICEE]

Yes they have. The same people who were democrats before are democrats now. The thing is, when one presidency fails (Bushikins), the undecided people typically vote for the opposite party, and that has a lot of sway.

[Rob Oplawar]

Wow, this thread went fast. Before it goes any further:

I don't recognize the objectivity of this poll. I find it highly suspect.

[Huero]

Wow, this thread went fast. Before it goes any further:

I don't recognize the objectivity of this poll. I find it highly suspect.
But any worldwide poll that backs McCain is automatic bullshit; other countries' opinions on our race are clearly defined: most of them support Obam- HOLY SHIT YOUR AVATAR'S EYES MOVED

[jngrow]

Wow, this thread went fast. Before it goes any further:

I don't recognize the objectivity of this poll. I find it highly suspect.

I can understand that, but I still have not personally spoken to one foreign person who supports McCain, on the internet nor irl. Not that all of them support Obama.

[rossmum]

We want Obama to win so that a country with a large and active military and more nukes than you can poke a stick at isn't in the hands of a warmongering retard again.

I would rather stick forks in my eyes than get dragged into some bullshit started by you lot over something petty.

[nooBBooze]

We want Obama to win so that a country with a large and active military and more nukes than you can poke a stick at isn't in the hands of a warmongering retard again.

Truth


Well although i personally think they're both puppets.
hurf

[p0lar_bear]

I actually share the same view with ironclad somewhat, and you guys weren't reading it right.

While a lot of the world hates our government, keep in mind that there are people who don't like American lifestyle, and THOSE people probably see Obama as a soft newbie who won't know what the fuck, and then launch attacks on us when he pulls our troops out of Iraq and wherever else. I'm not saying that it's GOING to happen, but don't completely discount that possibility.

So yeah, on one hand, maybe some of them are terrorists waiting to strike when we let our guard down. :tinfoil:

On the other hand, yeah, they probably don't want another republican in office so our economy can recover, and we get our shit out of other countries, thus actually making the world a slightly better place.

[Amit]

**missiles fired**

** ALERT: incoming nuclear holocaust.**
**Flee to australia.**
**communication lost**

**END TRANSMISSION**

**Begin Fallout**

[SnaFuBAR]

The world isn't going to want us to have a weak leader. They're going to want us to have a diplomatic and accommodating one.

Ironclad, just wow dude.

[ICEE]

The world isn't going to want us to have a weak leader. They're going to want us to have a diplomatic and accommodating one.

Ironclad, just wow dude.

You totally failed to understand what I meant. So did a lot of people.

[Rob Oplawar]

So now we've got nuclear winter. Everybody's dead, except Australia. But they'll be dead soon.
Fucking kangaroos.

A point I have to make is that neither Bush nor McCain are warmongering idiots, at least, not the way you put it. I would be disappointed to see McCain in office, but it wouldn't be the end of the world (no pun intended). People have a tendency to reduce things to extremes, especially (no offense) you foreigners who probably know less about the candidates. Obama is not a shining point of light in the dark political world, and he has some stupid ideas, and McCain is not an idiot, and he has some decent policies.

That said, Obama is still the clear choice, but I just want to point out that you guys are being as silly as those crazy religious McCain supporters when you talk about him as though he would be the worst thing to happen to the world.

[LinkandKvel]

Don't forget the vice pres. is almost just as important, because if McCain IS elected and dies in office, we're all fucked.

[Rob Oplawar]

^this.

[SnaFuBAR]

You totally failed to understand what I meant. So did a lot of people.
then please clarify this:

What do you mean? It's pretty much fact that a lot of the world hates Americans, so you'd think they would want the country to go downhill. I don't think Barack is a weak candidate, but that might be how the rest of the world sees him, which could be bad. If they think that the WORLD POLICE country has a weak ruler, they might try and start some ol gangster shit.

seems pretty easy to understand what you meant.

[ICEE]

One would think huh? I was only talking about the countries that hate America, and everyone knows that there ARE countries that hate us. What I was saying is that if these countries are all hoping that we elect the same candidate, isn't it possible that that means that they view that candidate as a weakling, who will possibly screw up? I wasn't saying that the rest of the world was hoping we fail, but everyone has enemies somewhere.

[rossmum]

He can't do any worse than Bush, really, so I doubt that'd end up being the case

[ICEE]

So do I. I don't think either candidate is a weakling. I'm just saying that if enemy nations THINK he is then we might have a problem.

[rossmum]

Bah, I doubt they will. Most of them have enough common sense not to start shit anyway.

[Mass]

Rob, the world doesn't fear McCain, it fears his friends.

Corporations, particularly military and construction contractors, are proprietors of a huge portion of global resources and wield, however unjustly, extreme power in world affairs. We've owned the water in Bolivia and the hospitals in Iraq, and it's fairly explicit to the world who the party of big business and frivolous warfare is. Bechtel, Exxon, United Fruit, Union Carbide, you name it and it's fucking something up in a third world country.

This trite bullshit about the free-market that Republicans spew as if it were a deciding or even relevant concept in their policy development is really corrosive. There's a point, the critical mass if you will, past which an enterprise stops selling something because it's better and cheaper and starts selling in spite of being over-priced crap. Adam Smith would be happy to tell you about the dangers of really large corporations and especially their influence on the government. Democrats are for(or at least like to tell themselves they're for) tighter control of big business, particularly the military industrial complex, (war profiteers) and thus seem like the better choice to most of the world.

So, though it may seem to be ignorant or over-competitive thought on his part, Iron Clad is pretty much right. This is about ending American hegemony. But it's not really correct to call it American, as that's the base of operations for these groups but not their home by any means--and it benefits Americans themselves very little if at all. We're as victimizable as any market for these people. It's a political crime ring that uses American wealth, power, and benevolence to justify and prolong unethical and imbalanced practices.

Which is why this admittedly extremely unreliable website/polling tool is showing up the way it is.

[jngrow]

He can't do any worse than Bush, really, so I doubt that'd end up being the case

But she can.

fake e: I don't mean that in a sexist way.

[nooBBooze]

So do I. I don't think either candidate is a weakling. I'm just saying that if enemy nations THINK he is then we might have a problem.
I don't think politics and diplomacy is as simple as that.

[Rob Oplawar]

On a slightly ot note, I find it appalling that, despite our ability to ignore the fact that Palin is a woman when considering her suitability for the office of president, there are people out there viciously opposed to Obama for president because they think he's Muslim.

Come on, people, we're better than this. We've made it this far with gender equality; it's hypocritical and idiotic to stop there.

[Kornman00]

I really want to see gov't contracting more strictly policed. It is far too out of hand, and MILLIONS, if not billions of dollars are being unnecessarily spent. I don't see that happening or even being addressed with McCain.

also, bomb Macedonia plz

[Bodzilla]

How can you say that Km i mean seriously!

we need to ship sand to iraq, we need too.

[SnaFuBAR]

I really want to see gov't contracting more strictly policed. It is far too out of hand, and MILLIONS, if not billions of dollars are being unnecessarily spent. I don't see that happening or even being addressed with McCain.

also, bomb Macedonia plz

Agreed. Also, Macedonia is fucking weak. Bosnian police captured their tanks and bmp's.

[Huero]

One would think huh? I was only talking about the countries that hate America, and everyone knows that there ARE countries that hate us. What I was saying is that if these countries are all hoping that we elect the same candidate, isn't it possible that that means that they view that candidate as a weakling, who will possibly screw up? I wasn't saying that the rest of the world was hoping we fail, but everyone has enemies somewhere.
Alright, but countries like Canada aren't them.
PS Mass, you can't just ASSUME that that's true; it's possible, but unlikely.

[ExAm]

What do you mean? It's pretty much fact that a lot of the world hates Americans, so you'd think they would want the country to go downhill. I don't think Barack is a weak candidate, but that might be how the rest of the world sees him, which could be bad. If they think that the WORLD POLICE country has a weak ruler, they might try and start some ol gangster shit.
Noooooo, they don't want us to have the president that'll make us fail, they want us to have the president that'll stop fucking up their shit and encourage the country to be fucking nice once in a while.

[DaneO'Roo]

"there's one guy holding up both puppets".

Quit supporting or even talking about them. Regardless who wins, Iran and Venezuela will be next after Iraq. Just turn off your tv and stop buying material bullshit and the problems will eventually fix themselves. I'm confident nature will prevail in the end.

[Dwood]

What do you mean? It's pretty much fact that a lot of the world hates Americans, so you'd think they would want the country to go downhill. I don't think Barack is a weak candidate, but that might be how the rest of the world sees him, which could be bad. If they think that the WORLD POLICE country has a weak ruler, they might try and start some ol gangster .


. That.
What republicans have been trying to say this whole time...

[rossmum]

Because a senile old man and a clueless woman are going to be strong leaders?

[ICEE]

. That.
What republicans have been trying to say this whole time...

Don't call me a republican.

[Huero]

Stop acting like one.

[ICEE]

If you actually comprehended what I wrote, then you'd realize that I'm not acting like a republican. I was just theorizing a possibility, not calling Barack weak. If the poll had been the other way around, and Mccain was the one the world wanted, I would still have said the same thing because it would still be a possibility. I'm not a republican, and I'm not a democrat. I feel like im right on the line.

[Dwood]

Don't call me a republican.

I didn't say you were; However many on this board MAY get that out of what I said as evidenced by the earlier posts. Just saying it's what repubs have been trying to say.

[Jean-Luc]

On the subject of his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain rejected the notion that she unqualified to be president and is hurting the campaign.


"I don't defend her. I praise her. She is exactly what Washington needs," he said.

He also dismissed criticism about the Republican Party spending $150,000 on her wardrobe at high-end retailers.
"She lives a frugal life, she and her family are not wealthy, she and her family were thrust into this," McCain said. "She is a role model to millions and millions of Americans."


http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081026/McCain/



A frugal lifestyle. Which is why she can afford to have five children, a private jet that she had, and all the goodies. *sighs*

[Dwood]

A frugal lifestyle. Which is why she can afford to have five children


What does money have to do with children? Tons of people have lots of children when they DON'T have money for it. Moot Point.

[Disaster]

http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html
:O

[ExAm]

What does money have to do with children? Tons of people have lots of children when they DON'T have money for it. Moot Point.Aaaaand what about that jet...?

[Tweek]

I HOPE MCAIN WINS THEN WE CAN ALL LAUGH!

[Jean-Luc]

What does money have to do with children? Tons of people have lots of children when they DON'T have money for it. Moot Point.

Moot point eh? Are you aware that the costs of raising those five children is something around $1,500,000 to $2,000,000?

I'm sorry, but saying "What does money have to do with children" really is a very strange question.
Oh, and another interesting thing she could afford besides the jet. Have you seen her house? It's huge, it's on a lake. That's over $1,000,000 right there. Another thing, she apparently makes $140k a year or more. I think this woman is wealthier than a fairly large portion of the population.

And to add a bit more interest, she CHARGED the taxpayers for her to stay at her own home on "state business."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088_pf.html

Enjoy.

[Disaster]

I HOPE MCAIN WINS THEN WE CAN ALL LAUGH!
lul

[Huero]

What does money have to do with children? Tons of people have lots of children when they DON'T have money for it. Moot Point.

Usually an average middle class family can not afford to support 5 children.

[Rob Oplawar]

Just turn off your tv and stop buying material bullshit and the problems will eventually fix themselves. I'm confident nature will prevail in the end.

Dane is a hippie anti-capitalist. Who knew.

[Dwood]

Usually an average middle class family can not afford to support 5 children.

And yet they have them anyways.

In reality people who can't afford lots of children are having more than those who can.

At least by having Kids you are providing the workforce of the future.

Either way it matters not how many kids you have. That jet is another moot point. If I had the money I would buy one myself. Now, I'm on my way to my pilot's license so I guess it's a wee bit different. If you had the choice I bet you would buy a jet as well.

I also thought this thread was about who the world would vote for and what that means and not whether or not if it costs a lot of money for your house.

Vote Obama if you want the Gvt to provide for you.
Vote McCain if you want to provide for yourself.

[Bodzilla]

but thats the thing Dwood.

how many down town middle class hockey mums with a down syndrome kid can afford to Buy a jet?

you cant honestly see the INCREDIBLE contradictions in that statement? at all??

What the fuck man.

[Apoc4lypse]

But you just said openly that theres a conspiracy theory alive and well where the world wants america to vote obama in so they can destroy america and TAKE OVER THE WORLD FOR 1 MILLION DOLLARS.

Fucking before you know it sharks are gunna have Freakin Lazer beams Attached to they're head.

And post of the year award goes to...

:XD:

I <3 Austin Powers... and Dr. Evvvvviiilllll


I HOPE MCAIN WINS THEN WE CAN ALL LAUGH!

I know that the 3 guys from iceland that made the poll will be laughing XD.
I agree...


Don't call me a republican.
What about a conspiracy theorist... :gonk: cuz ur acting like one or the other, so which is it lol.

[Dwood]

but thats the thing Dwood.

how many down town middle class hockey mums with a down syndrome kid can afford to Buy a jet? So? What's your point outside of your hate of Sarah Palin?

you cant honestly see the INCREDIBLE contradictions in that statement? at all??

Actually not really because you posted that statement in one of the most retarded ways possible.


Oh wait no one ever said anything like that. OH YEAH these are forums so anything assumptions are okay as long as you don't like that person.

I would rather a mum who's rich have a down syndrome kid than a mum who isn't regardless of their purchases.

I simply don't have a problem with the purchase as you present your argument. At least she is a hockey mom. Not a nerd trying to speak for them.

Come again before this thread is locked plzkthx

[Bodzilla]

what do you mea, whats my point?
her entire fuckign campaign is based around her being "just a regular hockey mum", being one of the ordinary folk, down to earth, and the reason it's based around this is because if it was based around qualifications, foreign experience or even economic experience, integrity or intelligence she would have nose-dived from a plane onto cement without a parachute.

but even her entire stance is a fallacy because she is none of those things. she's fucking nothing like me or any one of us ordinary blue collared people because she's a fucking really really nasty piece of work.

edit: just for clarification cause your such an intellectual beacon of light among us poor dim-witted nerds but:

A REGULAR HOCKEY MUM CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE AFFORD A JET, ERGO SHE IS NOT A FUCKING HOCKEY MUM.

[rossmum]

I simply don't have a problem with the purchase as you present your argument. At least she is a hockey mom.
Which makes it all the worse, because she has no idea at all when it comes to running a country, just like the rest of them.

e/
But yeah uh unless you're about to tell me Joe the Plumber's wife owns a private jet I'd say Bodie has a pretty bloody strong point there

[Dwood]

A REGULAR HOCKEY MUM CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE AFFORD A JET, ERGO SHE IS NOT A HOCKEY MUM.


Bull. And you know it. Any mom can be a hockey mom. Regardless of how much you make. It's about how full your schedule is.

You spend all your time attacking Sarah Palin and her lack of experience. It's the exact same thing as Barack Obama. He hasn't passed a single piece of legislation before he ran as president, and hasn't had any executive experience outside of his house. McCain balances her out and Joe Biden balances Barack Obama out. You are so Left Winged that you fail to see the issues in your own beings of worship.

He just sat there in the Senate for how long casting votes of simply "present"?

[Jean-Luc]

I do want to apologize for one thing. I was wrong about the jet, she sold the jet (at a $600,000 loss, but still).

However, this woman is not a hockey mom just because she has a busy schedule. Period. A hockey mom is someone you would consider as your generic mother with the van who ferry's her kids around. Not someone who is the governor of a state, and who makes as much as she does.

Now, as to you saying you'd rather have a rich mom with a down syndrome kid, first off, you were defending earlier that she wasn't rich, she was just regular, so you contradicted yourself here, and also, she overspends like crazy. Not someone I would trust here.

[CN3089]

You spend all your time attacking Sarah Palin and her lack of experience. It's the exact same thing as Barack Obama. He hasn't passed a single piece of legislation before he ran as president,

What's this? Blatantly false pieces of information? From Dwood? I am shocked and awed, Dwood is usually so reliable http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-niggly.gif

[legionaire45]

By "Hockey Mom" people are refering to lifestyle. Lifestyle is generally a good indication of how much wealth someone has. Palin's lifestyle does not match up with the common lifestyle of most Americans, especially given the recent economic crisis. Palin has lots and lots of money and saying that she is a "hockey mom" is incorrect because she is A) incredibly wealthy compared to most Americans and B) does not have the same lifestyle as most Americans.

Do you think Palin is going to have any kind of trouble getting all 5 of her kids through college? Don't think so. Meanwhile, most of the parents of my friends are freaking out wondering how they are going to pay tuition.

This is, of course, disregarding the fact that she is an oil-obsessed-bible-hugging-bear-shooting lunatic not fit for office. I don't know about some of the rural areas of America, but I'm pretty sure that most of America doesn't align itself with the "trailer trash" social class.

[SnaFuBAR]

Dwood, you fucking goon, you're ignoring key components of the arguments, such as "regular" and "down to earth" and "blue collar" and the fact that she is none of the things she's presented herself to be.

Either you're intentionally dodging and attempting to steer the argument in your favor in doing so, or you are a blind follower of your party, or your comprehension skills are below average. Either way I find you unsuitable to carry on an objective conversation with.

[Dwood]

I do want to apologize for one thing. I was wrong about the jet, she sold the jet (at a $600,000 loss, but still).

I grant you forgiveness lol

However, this woman is not a hockey mom just because she has a busy schedule. Period. A hockey mom is someone you would consider as your generic mother with the van who ferry's her kids around. Not someone who is the governor of a state, and who makes as much as she does.

Well then Obama needs to drop his common person act as well.

Now, as to you saying you'd rather have a rich mom with a down syndrome kid, first off, you were defending earlier that she wasn't rich, she was just regular, so you contradicted yourself here, and also, she overspends like crazy. Not someone I would trust here.

Wait what? I was defending her by saying she wasn't rich?

I never defended saying she wasn't rich. If I did I would go into how much she made each year before being a governor and all that useless jazz. I don't have that info either and neither do i care about it.

Reread my post pls


Lol you make me laugh legionaire.


I've already rebutted that idea that wealth makes a person. reread my post.

Edit:
How am I dodging it? There's no such thing as down to earth these days. It's all gone down the tube. As if Barack Obama is "regular" either.

[Huero]

Bull. And you know it. Any mom can be a hockey mom. Regardless of how much you make. It's about how full your schedule is.

You spend all your time attacking Sarah Palin and her lack of experience. It's the exact same thing as Barack Obama. He hasn't passed a single piece of legislation before he ran as president, and hasn't had any executive experience outside of his house. McCain balances her out and Joe Biden balances Barack Obama out. You are so Left Winged that you fail to see the issues in your own beings of worship.

He just sat there in the Senate for how long casting votes of simply "present"?

You're so right-winged that you purposely avoid the point of another's post, craftily making it look as though you're correct even though you're discussing something else entirely.

On her salary, she is rich.
She is promoting herself as an average salaried mother, a frugal one. A frugal family does NOT BUY A JET. By definition frugal means economically mindful, not wasting money.
She is lying/too naive to realize she's wrong.

[LinkandKvel]

^^(Dwood) your blind

[CN3089]

^^(Dwood) your blind

What about his blind? http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-nazi.gif

[Dwood]

You're so right-winged that you purposely avoid the point of another's post, craftily making it look as though you're correct even though you're discussing something else entirely.


She is promoting herself as an average salaried mother, a frugal one. So that's what a hockey mom is? /sarcasm so someone doesn't take me literally

A frugal family does NOT BUY A JET. By definition frugal means economically mindful, not wasting money.

She is lying/too naive to realize she's wrong.



How have I avoided the question/attack? It seems I have answered it pretty plainly.

I don't see them promoting her as an average salaried mother. I see them promoting her as a hockey mom. Which is completely different. I also don't see anyone making that argument either here. If you read the other posts it's all been about she's rich and therefore she can't be a hockey mom. Which, this is generally the same thing.


Bull. And you know it. Any mom can be a hockey mom. Regardless of how much you make. It's about how full your schedule is.

I have also previously rebutted that "she bought a jet" therefore she isn't a hockey mom idea.

[SnaFuBAR]

you should work for fox or cnn or something you're pretty good at spinning things.

[Dwood]

you should work for fox or cnn or something you're pretty good at spinning things.

How have I spun anything?

I have responded to the arguments presented plainly and without changing a single word you or they have said.

[SnaFuBAR]

Oh goodness, I'm really enjoying this. Carry on.

[Dwood]

Oh goodness, I'm really enjoying this. Carry on.

You probably missed my point and therefore thought i was missing theirs/yours. Reread. Please.

[CN3089]

How have I spun anything?

I have responded to the arguments presented plainly and without changing a single word you or they have said.

Yeah, you're p fair and balanced, keep up the good work http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/07-19-06-munch.gif

[JunkfoodMan]

As if Barack Obama is "regular" either.
I don't ever recall him claiming he was.

[Dwood]

I don't ever recall him claiming he was.

i'll let you have that one.

Edit:

Well kind-of. Their picturing of him as a common person is more subliminal than anything. The DNC and Michelle's speech came in mind right as I pressed the submit button

[rossmum]

Dwood, you fucking goon, you're ignoring key components of the arguments, such as "regular" and "down to earth" and "blue collar" and the fact that she is none of the things she's presented herself to be.

Either you're intentionally dodging and attempting to steer the argument in your favor in doing so, or you are a blind follower of your party, or your comprehension skills are below average. Either way I find you unsuitable to carry on an objective conversation with.
Hey hey don't use labels not fit for him, that's not fair on goons

Dwood, there is a difference between a first-time presidential candidate and a complete ditz of a woman who doesn't know the first bloody thing about the governmental system, let alone how to work it. Argue as much as you want but comparing Obama to Palin is like comparing someone just out of basic in a modern nation with a raw conscript in some guerilla army in some shitty third-world nation. Palin is clueless beyond words, and if McCain was to kick the bucket you would then be exponentially worse off than you all were with Bush. The woman simply does not know her arse from her elbow, and anyone who would support her knowing that has serious issues. Leading a country is about not running the place into the ground, not trying to act the part of the 'everyday hockey mom', because guess what? The everyday hockey mom doesn't know shit about running a country.

[Dwood]

Angry hatepost




I see you hate me. OH and no it isn't completely different. Biden is the only experience Barack has with him and Palin is McCain's popularity builder. Positions are simply switched around. What happens when Biden dies? He's not getting any younger either.

Edit:

Wait for the cliche republicans hate *insert minority here* you hypocrite post.

[legionaire45]

Lol you make me laugh legionaire.
That makes two of us then.

So, if I went around buying jets and making friends with billionaire oil companies while initially supporting the construction of a bridge that does not help the people of my state (and then taking the money that would have went into building it after it becomes unpopular), would I really be representing the common interest of the people of my state, who are having trouble affording things due to the economic situation?

Really, because if that's the case then McCain and Palin might as well just have their seats in office right now since they are such worthy candidates! Hell, we can even let Palin run the Senate, just like she thinks she can!

None of the political candidates currently running for office represent are similar to what some would call "the common American". But at least the policies of some of these candidates are supportive of the people. Both Palin and McCain are incredibly out of touch with the American people. McCain is so wealthy he doesn't know how many houses he owns. Palin is supportive of drilling for oil in areas that have been animal sanctuaries for ages. McCain is a senile old man who confused the head of Spain with a Mexican revolutionary group. This list goes on and on and on. I think that the only thing worse then having McCain as president would be having Palin as president if McCain dies in office; she has no idea how our own constitution works, let alone how to deal with foreign relations issues.

Fuck Nature!
Fuck Diplomacy!
Fuck Your Children's Future!
Fuck Yourself.
Vote McCain-Palin '08!

[DaneO'Roo]

Neither "God" or the Government is doing a good job of anything. They are however doing a fucking awesome job of keeping people stupid. Our entire world could go "1984" overnight and we wouldn't fucking challenge it at all, because we're all too busy shuffling McNuggets and Jay Leno down our gobs to even care about something that doesn't relate to Tom and Katie.

It doesn't matter anyway. Once nature starts being affected by our ill doings and more and more species are wiped out, the environmental balance will start to show very plainly and obviously and we ourselves will be seriously affected. That is something that a system of government can't stop, so it's only a matter of time till it fails. It's only been in the last 200 years or so that the world was even affected by anything close to the magnitude of us. If we keep up our current state, I can't even fucking imagine what the world will be like in another 2 hundred years.

Dinosaurs themselves lived for millions of years without much impact on the environment at all. We've been developed as we are for not even a thousand years, and we've already managed to not only extinct thousands of different species of animals, but also fuck up our own system of living, introduce and manifest new diseases and viruses and generally fuck up everything in the name of faith, in god and government.

To me, the world right now is like one of those movies, where there's a bad guy, but no one believes the good guy until it's too late.

But I still have hope that a massive (and inevitable) earthquake will plunge California into the pacific bowl, and fix everything for us.

[legionaire45]

NBut I still have hope that a massive (and inevitable) earthquake will plunge California into the pacific bowl, and fix everything for us.
But but but, lots of awesome people on this site live in California D: .

[Dwood]

:words:


HOW DARE YOU INTERRUPT OUR INTELLIGENT NON-SEXIST OPEN MINDED CONVERSATION WITH COMMON SENSE?

:lol: Gee do the political beliefs not relate or something? I wonder why they live in cali hm? :lol:

[teh lag]

HOW DARE YOU INTERRUPT OUR INTELLIGENT NON-SEXIST OPEN MINDED CONVERSATION WITH COMMON SENSE?

:lol: Gee do the political beliefs not relate or something? I wonder why they live in cali hm? :lol:

Sexist? Please. Noone here has called anyone racist for not supporting Obama, so don't bring up that kind of bullshit when dealing with Palin.

If you're referring to Rossmum's "The everyday hockey mom doesn't know shit about running a country," it's not sexist; it's fact.

[Heathen]

No one likes either candidate that I have talked to.


Thats whats wrong with this fucking country.

Being president is such a shitty job its a wonder anyone takes it. Its basically like joining up to be clusterfucked by a bunch of gorillas with bee hives on their fists...its more bullshit than an actual position.


The problem is that in the last few elections, most people haven't been voting for a candidate, they have been voting against the other candidate.

[Dwood]

No one likes either candidate that I have talked to.

Thats whats wrong with this country.

Being president is such a shitty job its a wonder anyone takes it. Its basically like joining up to be clusterfucked by a bunch of gorillas with bee hives on their fists...its more than an actual position.

The problem is that in the last few elections, most people haven't been voting for a candidate, they have been voting against the other candidate.

Agreed. I don't like McCain and would probably urge my parents to vote for Hillary if it weren't for Obama.


The sad thing is is that we get so heated about who is running for president and all that crap buuut then again people didn't vote in the primaries and therefore we're stuck with our candidates.

[Heathen]

Well I am sick and fucking tired of living in Louisiana. Everyone is texting me with jokes like

How can they expect one nigger to run the white house when 10 cant even run McDonalds


Even my fucking family is being really intolerant. I am tired of hearing about his race, his backgrounds, and shit like that. Take it like it is and vote for whatever, but don't bring up things the guy cant control and use them as negatives.

Fuck this intolerant state. Fuck all the idiots that know nothing about his political standing. Fuck all the racists and stuff.
FUCK!!!!


The southern states aren't gonna vote for him just because he is Black/Muslim descent and I think thats embarrassing.



Yay, I just yelled online.

[Roostervier]

NON-SEXIST OPEN MINDED CONVERSATION WITH COMMON SENSE?
Lol.

I've really not seen anything yet in this thread that suggests any of the arguments put forward against Palin are sexist. In fact, all any one has done so far is talk about her life style, and how she doesn't seem to live the lifestyle she says she does. Well, that and how she really doesn't know what she's doing.

[LinkandKvel]

I'll say this again: Remember in the booth, when your voting, your also voting for Vice Pres. too because if McCain dies in office

WE'RE ALL FUCKED!!!!1

[Dwood]

Lol.

I've really not seen anything yet in this thread that suggests any of the arguments put forward against Palin are sexist. In fact, all any one has done so far is talk about her life style, and how she doesn't seem to live the lifestyle she says she does. Well, that and how she really doesn't know what she's doing.

Context? whered'ja go?

[legionaire45]

Then whose post were you implying was sexist?

Or was that comment another non-sequitur?

[rossmum]

I see you hate me. OH and no it isn't completely different. Biden is the only experience Barack has with him and Palin is McCain's popularity builder. Positions are simply switched around. What happens when Biden dies? He's not getting any younger either.

Edit:

Wait for the cliche republicans hate *insert minority here* you hypocrite post.
I see you like to clutch at straws, make completely incorrect assumptions, and patronise the living shite out of people because you lack any substance at all to your arguments.

But hey, since you clearly think you understand me totally (better than I do myself), I guess you're right?

[p0lar_bear]

https://webspace.utexas.edu/warnerwt/picard-facepalm.jpg

Lots of people in here blabbing. A few who know something, a lot who don't.

Here's a protip: READ someone's post THREE TIMES IN FULL before you respond to it when dealing with subjects such as politics or religion. If you dorks can't even manage to do that, I'm going to put a full outright ban on political discussion into the next rules update and enforce it with Mjolnir itself as my banhammer.

Capiche?

Sorry if my posts lately contain RAEEEEEEEEEEEG, but I'm a bit sick of some of the puke I've had to clean up around here lately.

[Heathen]

ALOT of posts are misunderstandings and I just lol.

[Rob Oplawar]

Guys, guys, guys, Dwood is clearly trolling you all. Shame on you.


Dinosaurs themselves lived for millions of years without much impact on the environment at all.
Dane, your post is mostly on the level, and I respect you very much as a texture artist, but I just have to say that that statement about dinosaurs is flat-out wrong. The fact that we have an atmosphere comprised mostly of oxygen and nitrogen is clear evidence that nature has had a profound impact on this planet. It is a fact that the wide proliferation of any species or group of related species has a strong observable impact on their environment.

This is a bad thing for some species and a good thing for others. To say that we're on our way towards our own extinction may not be far from the truth, and to say that we're endangering hundreds if not thousands of unique species is an understatement, but the fact of the matter is that life will go on with or without us, and for all we know we could be succeeded by a superintelligent race of ultra-hippies that go on to live in perfect harmony with the environment we created for them, inhospitible as it was for us.


I'm just sayin, to say dinosaurs had little effect on the climate is like saying Youtube had little effect on the internet.

[Heathen]

Funny that when they died we used them to fuck up the atmosphere.


Idk...I needa sleep and stop posting.
I am having sick hallucinations.....
Ignore this post.

[Rob Oplawar]

^ also, this. I forgot to mention the fact that they (along with all manner of other life from that period) left behind so much waste and organic matter that it now powers our world. Do you call that little effect on the environment?

Could be that in 100 years our construction depends on drawing carbon out of the atmosphere to reinforce structures, and we'll be glad that we left ourselves such an abundance within such easy grasp.

[ExAm]

i'll let you have that one.

Edit:

Well kind-of. Their picturing of him as a common person is more subliminal than anything. The DNC and Michelle's speech came in mind right as I pressed the submit button
Obama's got a decent (not to mention convincing) regular guy image, considering he's been at it for his whole life. It's no act. Not an average-income-guy image, but still, it's not like he spent a shitload of taxpayer money buying clothes and louie vitton (Extremely expensive brand) accessories for her children.

The man's done so much walking on the campaign trail he's had to get his shoes re-soled twice
http://politicalbunko.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/19vt21.jpg?w=460&h=306

[Dwood]

The man's done so much walking on the campaign trail he's had to get his shoes re-soled twice
http://politicalbunko.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/19vt21.jpg?w=460&h=306

I'm sorry but that looks like bad photoshop-ing to me. (shame on me)


Regardless, i'm not basing my (imaginary under 18 vote) off any of the ad campaigns either campaign does.
You should hopefully know the rest of what I would say so yeah it was fun.

And NO i wasn't flame baiting. If anything the posts in response to my posts were flame baits.

[paladin]

That's all fake...

Go Barack John Obama!

[rossmum]

And NO i wasn't flame baiting. If anything the posts in response to my posts were flame baits.
Having an extremely condescending and patronising attitude is no different to flamebaiting in my book

[Dwood]

Having an extremely condescending and patronising attitude is no different to flamebaiting in my book

Well let's go re-read the previous posts in the thread shall we?

[rossmum]

Sorry, but I find myself unsure at what you're trying to say there. I'll be dead honest; I have at best skimmed some of your posts and the impression I get is someone who believes they are right, everyone else is wrong, and they're free to call people hypocrites while talking their way around providing any of the evidence they so vehemently demand from everyone else. Whether it's intentional or not, and quite frankly that makes no difference as far as I care, it's definitely there. Until you can start backing up your arguments with facts or solid logic rather than dubious attempts at justifications or question dodges, and until you can drop the holier-than-thou attitude that you seem to have there with your little dig at everyone who has disagreed with you, I don't think you're in any position at all to try and pull that crap on anyone else.

[Pooky]

Sorry, but I find myself unsure at what you're trying to say there. I'll be dead honest; I have at best skimmed some of your posts and the impression I get is someone who believes they are right, everyone else is wrong, and they're free to call people hypocrites while talking their way around providing any of the evidence they so vehemently demand from everyone else. Whether it's intentional or not, and quite frankly that makes no difference as far as I care, it's definitely there. Until you can start backing up your arguments with facts or solid logic rather than dubious attempts at justifications or question dodges, and until you can drop the holier-than-thou attitude that you seem to have there with your little dig at everyone who has disagreed with you, I don't think you're in any position at all to try and pull that crap on anyone else.

Protip: Don't argue with Ross, he'll fuck you up on the internets

[rossmum]

Except he's so jaded and sick of trying to get through to diehards who think the laws of logic bend to breaking point but only when it's in their favour that he'd rather go blow the time gaming or drinking or doing something constructive which guarantees results at least.

Honestly, the kid thinks that supporting the banning of gay marriage isn't forcing his own values or lack thereof onto others, I feel like I'm trying to persuade someone who believes in flat Earth that the world is, in fact, round

[Dwood]

1. rather than dubious attempts at justifications or question dodges,

2. until you can drop the holier-than-thou attitude

3. I don't think you're in any position at all to try and pull that crap on anyone else.

I seriously was going to wait to post this but since you seem to exhibit exactly #2 I shall post.

1. Are they dubious attempts at justification? or are they statements which make sense should you think through what my points are?

2. This is text. An attitude portrayed from text is all in the eye of the beholder, such as the interpretation of a book like 1984 by G. Orwell, the reader can wind up with many different interpretations of the book: A simple story, a book against Stalinistic Communism, or a warning to the future generations?

3. The only way you COULD be responding to me like this is if you had no response to my retorts of you and your friends here. (E.G. fail debate) And quite frankly, I haven't insulted anyone who gives me what i judge to be an honest reply. I simply reply with what are my beliefs.

I have simply refuted what you call facts. If I wanted to be "holier than thou" i would have responded to the person more than the argument they present and judged your personal character and not the argument.

[rossmum]

I seriously was going to wait to post this but since you seem to exhibit exactly #2 I shall post.
Actually, I do believe I simply pointed out the facts, but hey, whatever floats your boat.


1. Are they dubious attempts at justification? or are they statements which make sense should you think through what my points are?
Wait, so you're trying to tell me that supporting a ban on gay marriage is not forcing your own beliefs on others, and then when I counter with the blatantly obvious fact that it actually is by any sensible logic, you demand evidence? Is solid logic not good enough for you or something? Or is there some as-yet undiscovered law of logic which means you can say that supporting a move to ban something you don't agree with is not pushing your own agenda at the expense of others, and have that make sense and stand up as undeniable fact?


2. This is text. An attitude portrayed from text is all in the eye of the beholder, such as the interpretation of a book like 1984 by G. Orwell, the reader can wind up with many different interpretations of the book: A simple story, a book against Stalinistic Communism, or a warning to the future generations?
I think you need to brush up on your Orwell, actually. 1984 wasn't about Stalinistic Communism at all, not by a long shot. I think the book you're looking for is Animal Farm. 1984 dealt with the kind of big-brother crap that is going on now, except in a much more advanced stage. Even ignoring your complete lack of understanding of the text you bring up as an example, your text gives that impression as much as my average post gives the impression of a dickwad who loves to pick at obvious flaws in peoples' oh-so-precious beliefs. I don't deny that a lot of my posts are little more than prickish attempts at getting a rise, just the same as most of yours come off as condescending (oh, especially that one PM where you tried to tell me I was feeling enraged and I needed to calm down - can you really see me from all the way over there in America? That's astonishing!)


3. The only way you COULD be responding to me like this is if you had no response to my retorts of you and your friends here.
...Or if you have time and time again gone and said something with no evidence to back it up, which is fair enough I guess for a personal opinion, but the fact you have gone and then disputed the credibility of others' opinions completely voids your right to sit there and spout your beliefs without any attacks being made on them.


(E.G. fail debate)
In my experience, the side who consistently fails to provide any real justification, logical or factual, is the side that loses.


And quite frankly, I haven't insulted anyone who gives me what i judge to be an honest reply. I simply reply with what are my beliefs.
You accused everyone else in this thread of flamebaiting and then turned around and said you hadn't done it yourself, when you have been carrying on with the same condescending attitude the whole time.


I have simply refuted what you call facts. If I wanted to be "holier than thou" i would have responded to the person more than the argument they present and judged your personal character and not the argument.
You can't refute if you can't provide better facts, and I have seen neither facts nor better arguments coming from you. I have seen you simply stating opinions and then attacking others' for 'lack of evidence' when yours are questioned at all.

That said, I will back down and take back every word if you can do one thing for me, right here.

If you can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you can support a ban on gay marriage and not be enforcing your own beliefs on others in the process, I will concede the entire argument to you. That seemed to be what you were so hellbent on persuading me via PMs, and it's also one of the most nonsensical statements I have ever had the misfortune of being subject to (and since you seem so determined to enforce your opinion onto me by actually arguing the point, I'm more than happy to attack it in return).

Have fun trying to prove that one, won't you?

[Dwood]

I think you need to brush up on your Orwell, actually. 1984 wasn't about Stalinistic Communism at all, not by a long shot. I think the book you're looking for is Animal Farm.



This is text. An attitude portrayed from text is all in the eye of the beholder, such as the interpretation of a book like 1984 by G. Orwell, the reader can wind up with many different interpretations of the book: A simple story, a book against Stalinistic Communism, or a warning to the future generations?


As in it depends upon whom is reading it.



...Or if you have time and time again gone and said something with no evidence to back it up, which is fair enough I guess for a personal opinion, but the fact you have gone and then disputed the credibility of others' opinions completely voids your right to sit there and spout your beliefs without any attacks being made on them.


This depends on what point you are trying to argue, rossmum.

Earlier in the thread (the main point of debate here) we were [mainly] debating on whether or not a "Hockey Mom" could be rich.

How are you to convince someone that in order to be a "hockey" mom you have to fit in a wage bracket, or don't for that matter?

Use stats?



In my experience, the side who consistently fails to provide any real justification, logical or factual, is the side that loses.


See above.



You accused everyone else in this thread of flamebaiting and then turned around and said you hadn't done it yourself, when you have been carrying on with the same condescending attitude the whole time.


My insults were mild when compared with others' insults. To call me a flame baiter is a moot point.




If you can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you can support a ban on gay marriage and not be enforcing your own beliefs on others in the process, I will concede the entire argument to you.


*deep breath* Even though as humans our arguments/plans can nearly always be scrutinized and have faults found in them. And with you being so entrenched in your belief that marriage is a right I doubt the following will remove every conceivable doubt you may have about the situation, however I will do my best.



I'm more than happy to attack it in return.


I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't (oh you get the point.)



Have fun trying to prove that one, won't you?

If we can proceed without attacking each other outside of finding flaws in our arguments then there is no point in even going further.

I promise not to attack you If you'll promise not to attack me otherwise this debate is useless and all it is is a bunch of kids squabbling in the streets, no matter the political views.

[ima_from_America]

Obama ain't got shit in Macedonia, the Former Yugoslavian Republic of.

[SnaFuBAR]

Earlier in the thread (the main point of debate here) we were [mainly] debating on whether or not a "Hockey Mom" could be rich.
No, the point of argument was if a REGULAR EVERY DAY BLUE COLLAR HOCKEY MOM could be rich. Of course you can be a "hockey mom" and have wealth, but not the regular every-day jane-six-pack i'm just like you hockey mom that she and her party presents her as. Once again, it is an example of you spinning the point to make your argument valid. You're not even arguing the same argument as everyone else, you're just spinning it to look like you are and then attempting to put yourself in a position of righteousness through your invalid argument.

I honestly hope you can look at what I said objectively.

[Dwood]

:words:


Too bad there is no such thing as an every day hockey mom.

You simply perceive your interpretation of the argument as the only right way and it's wrong because of just that. There are no regular every day-er jane six packs. It's simply a stereo-type. One does not have to fit the mold 100% to be a hockey mom. In fact, since you perceive it in such a way that there is no possible way she could relate to an" average every day hockey mom" then therein lies the fault.

It is not me twisting the words it is you. I say "Why does it matter how much she makes? " Yet you say "in order for it to be okay for her to be advertised in such a way she has to fit every possible criteria else she is not a hockey mom"

I see the word Hockey mom not meaning how much she makes but how devoted she is to her family. That is why the whole "difference between pit bull and hockey mom is lipstick" even came about and work.

I have already said that before as well.

[mech]

Hockey moms more than likely have plenty of paper, hockey equipment isn't cheap.

So how come Palin doesn't mention anything about Marcellous 12 piece?

[SnaFuBAR]

Dwood, did you see the term "blue collar" in there? What does it get you to realize that they're trying to make it look like she lives a middle class meager life?

Forget it, you're a fucking idiot, and this is a mind A vs mind B conversation.

[mech]

More like mind :downs: conversation

[teh lag]

Too bad there is no such thing as an every day hockey mom.

You simply perceive your interpretation of the argument as the only right way and it's wrong because of just that. There are no regular every day-er jane six packs. It's simply a stereo-type. One does not have to fit the mold 100% to be a hockey mom. In fact, since you perceive it in such a way that there is no possible way she could relate to an" average every day hockey mom" then therein lies the fault.

It is not me twisting the words it is you. I say "Why does it matter how much she makes? " Yet you say "in order for it to be okay for her to be advertised in such a way she has to fit every possible criteria else she is not a hockey mom"



It doesn't matter if the stereotype doesn't exist in reality; what matters is that the McCain campaign is portraying her as that. Nowhere does a person who is exactly the "average" anything exist, but that does not mean that it is unfair for people to criticize others for trying to fit into that image when they clearly do not.

If I claim to be, say, the "average computer illiterate" person when I clearly am not in order to sell something, it is perfectly valid for someone to call me out on that.

Furthermore, it would be absolutely ridiculous for me to then claim that the "average computer illiterate" I was trying to appear to be does not exist.

And even more ridiculous for me to claim that since my definition of "computer illiterate" was different from the one they were calling me out on, their argument was invalid.


I see the word Hockey mom not meaning how much she makes but how devoted she is to her family. That is why the whole "difference between pit bull and hockey mom is lipstick" even came about and work.

I have already said that before as well.

Your definition of a "hockey mom" is irrelevant - it is not what is being debated. You have completely dodged the point he was making - for your skill in that area at least, I commend you.

[Disaster]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56859

Just thought I would throw this in to the mass


E: Found this interesting even though its fox news

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56859

[rossmum]

As in it depends upon whom is reading it.
Sorry, but no. You see, that means you either missed the point of the book entirely or you have no idea about governmental systems and thus believe them to be one and the same (which I find quite likely). You could think it's about fluffy pink elephants for all the difference it makes, it's still about overly controlling, utterly totalitarian governments - and while Stalinist Communism is certainly overly controling and totalitarian, it in itself is not the topic of 1984.


This depends on what point you are trying to argue, rossmum.

Earlier in the thread (the main point of debate here) we were [mainly] debating on whether or not a "Hockey Mom" could be rich.

How are you to convince someone that in order to be a "hockey" mom you have to fit in a wage bracket, or don't for that matter?

Use stats?
The term 'hockey mom', last time I checked, was typically used to describe middle-class mothers who ferried their children around and spent time with their families rather than spent their time working a full-time job which would cut down on that family time - and I sure as hell wouldn't want a VP or president only in it a few hours at a time, would you?

Sarah Palin is most definitely not what is commonly referred to as a 'hockey mom', because not only is she involved in a very major and time consuming occupation, but she is also a damn sight richer than your run-of-the-mill Joe-the-plumber's-wife mother who has enough to get by and spoil her kids, but not enough to, oh, blow $150,000 on clothes in two months. If you're so adamant that there is no standard 'hockey mom', then what about 'Joe the plumber'? What is the point of generalising people under a specific label if you're not actually describing a distinct group?


My insults were mild when compared with others' insults. To call me a flame baiter is a moot point.
"I only killed ten people, they killed fifty, okay"


*deep breath* Even though as humans our arguments/plans can nearly always be scrutinized and have faults found in them. And with you being so entrenched in your belief that marriage is a right I doubt the following will remove every conceivable doubt you may have about the situation, however I will do my best.
Wait, so marriage isn't a right? Whether people are allowed to, you know, be legally, spiritually and religiously bound to signify their love is something which should be decided upon by a certain group? Why? What the fucking hell makes you think anyone has the right to allow that for one group, then disallow it for another because the evangelists (who I will never regard as anything other than extremists who bring shame to the name of Christianity, much the same as Al Qaeda and co. do so to Islam) say it's wrong, or because they find it weird? Where have we heard shit like this before?


I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't (oh you get the point.)
Fair go, I did argue first. But you know what? I actually backed up my argument with logic, not just "I THINK THIS IS WRONG THEREFORE IT IS WRONG".


If we can proceed without attacking each other outside of finding flaws in our arguments then there is no point in even going further.
I do believe you were the first to do so, in your oh so condescending way, when you tried to pull the "calm down you're angry" crap. I don't know about you but I find it both idiotic and on par with direct insults when people try and tell me how I'm feeling (people who wouldn't know the first thing about me, at that). But I guess I was to blame, since nothing you ever do can be wrong.


I promise not to attack you If you'll promise not to attack me otherwise this debate is useless and all it is is a bunch of kids squabbling in the streets, no matter the political views.
I'll promise not to attack you about the same time you learn to keep your opinions to yourself. If you post it, you're fair game. If you don't, then I can hardly do so, can I?

[LinkandKvel]

^Snaf + Ross = Owned. It's logic man. Dwood is basically saying there is no "average" hockey mom. That it's stereotypes. No they're campaigning her as "middle-class". I'm sorry to tell you but umm middle class people don't spend $150,000 on clothes in few months and own private jets.

[Rob Oplawar]

lol. these posts are funny.

not that I'm actually reading them, but I love to see these massive longposts doing point-counterpoint on what is an essentially retarded argument.

[LinkandKvel]

Basically they're trying to prove a stubborn person wrong. Either way in the end we all seem to have :downs:

[p0lar_bear]

"Never argue with a moron. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -Some old guy. Or something. I don't know.