Yet the headline and article both talk about how Clinton won a decisive victory in the state's caucuses. How is one primary vote more = decisive victory? I'm guessing this is just a dumb question and it's the usual media crap of looking at the percentages rather than actual representatives won.
"Decisive" really technically means that the victory decided something, and I guess it did: it decided who won the state? Even though that's meaningless? Whatever.
Oddly, the CNN results site that I made my sig from lists them as tied in Nevada with 14 delegates each Maradon! fucked around with this message on 01-20-2008 at 01:09 AM.
Romney either won big, or did ok and got second.
Razor fucked around with this message on 01-20-2008 at 03:17 AM.
McCain is like a negative-image of Ron Paul. 100% gung-ho on the war from day one, extreme far left on every other issue.
Meanwhile I'm pretty sure Romney is only ahead because he's the most physically attractive of the prospective candidates. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 01-20-2008 at 04:06 AM.
Gadani fucked around with this message on 01-20-2008 at 04:26 AM.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Maradon! squealed:
Why the fuck are people voting for McCain, the biggest dickweed in all politics? That is what I want to know.McCain is like a negative-image of Ron Paul. 100% gung-ho on the war from day one, extreme far left on every other issue.
Meanwhile I'm pretty sure Romney is only ahead because he's the most physically attractive of the prospective candidates.
Odd, I ask the same thing about Ron Paul's popularity. . .though it's no surprise he's internet popular. The guy's a moron. Not a "he's Bush and I don't like him so I'll tell myself that" moron, but a bona fide idiot.
I was wondering what the hype was, then I saw him spouting off on foreign policy when I was on vacation week before last, and what the fuck, over? He blames the US for all the terrorism directed against it, stopping a single RCH short of calling it justified? He thinks isolationism is even possible in a global economy? He thinks it's not only a good idea, but possible to roll back our society 100 years?
The guy is a lunatic. If he had any sort of meaningful political following, I'd say he's a dangerous lunatic in ways Ralph Nader could only dream about. Jeebus, the man's entire "platform" is, "I wish it was 1900 when things were simpler and the US was not only self-sufficient but self-contained."
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Bloodsage who doth quote:
Odd, I ask the same thing about Ron Paul's popularity. . .
Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate on either side of the fence.
Oh, Hillary and Obama are both anti-Iraq-War, but only Paul is anti-war as a concept. He seems to be incapable of viewing war as justified. He's even said that the american civil war was unjustified because "other places abolished slavery without a war."
Needless to say, he's attracted all the extreme anti-war nutballs that have been driven away from the democrats. I had a link but I can't seem to find it right now, but almost all of Paul's funding comes from left-leaning organizations like google and predominantly democratic districts.
It's a shame really, because he's very, very right in his stances on constitutionality and the role of government.
quote:
Maradon! stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Meanwhile I'm pretty sure Romney is only ahead because he's the most physically attractive of the prospective candidates.
Well, also:
He is to the right of Guiliani on guns and gays.
He is to the right of Huckabee on illegals.
He is to the right of McCain on torture.
If the poor guy wasn't Mormon, there probably wouldn't be much contest.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Maradon! gently hums:
It's a shame really, because he's very, very right in his stances on constitutionality and the role of government.
I'd have to say he's pretty much an idiot troglodyte on that front, as well. Hate to break it to folks, but closing your eyes and wishing it was 1900 isn't a viable, realistic, or smart option. It's moronic on the face of it to say, "Well, the Founding Fathers (capitals and gender obligatory) didn't mean for X, therefore X is unconstitutional." Anyone who uses that argument is no better than the jihadists with their silly argument that if the Prophet didn't imagine it, it's ebil, ebil I tells ya!
The beauty of our constitution, and the reason we're still using it after so long, is that the people who wrote it understood that times would change, and deliberately created a system that would allow the details to change while the principles evolved only slowly. In short, our constitution is forward-looking by design, and it's stupid to try turning back the clock out of some misguided idea that things were simpler then, so recreating the government of a simpler time will bring back that simpler time.
The constitution is functioning as designed. Get over it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Xian fucked around with this message on 01-20-2008 at 09:03 AM.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
Also he's a two faced liar. His district is one of the largest recievers of pork in the union. Why? Because Paul tacks on admendments to bills then proceedes to vote against it knowing full well that the bill is going to pass anyways.
Mitt is a pretty nice canidate. It's good that he's at least making an effort to not have religion be in his campaign. Even though that's just so that he isn't be branded a mormon.
quote:
Bloodsageing:
I'd have to say he's pretty much an idiot troglodyte on that front, as well. Hate to break it to folks, but closing your eyes and wishing it was 1900 isn't a viable, realistic, or smart option. It's moronic on the face of it to say, "Well, the Founding Fathers (capitals and gender obligatory) didn't mean for X, therefore X is unconstitutional." Anyone who uses that argument is no better than the jihadists with their silly argument that if the Prophet didn't imagine it, it's ebil, ebil I tells ya!
That's not even close to what Ron Paul's stance on anything. Every issue he's brought up has been accompanied by spectacular, real-life failures on the part of government. You're not talking about any specific issue so I can't specifically rebuke you, but it honestly sounds like you're judging Ron Paul based on what some ignorant teenager thinks he believes rather than what he actually does.
quote:
The beauty of our constitution, and the reason we're still using it after so long, is that the people who wrote it understood that times would change, and deliberately created a system that would allow the details to change while the principles evolved only slowly. In short, our constitution is forward-looking by design, and it's stupid to try turning back the clock out of some misguided idea that things were simpler then, so recreating the government of a simpler time will bring back that simpler time.
A living document is a meaningless document. Think about this for a second - Why have a constitution if we can just reinterpret it willy-nilly? Isn't the whole point of putting rules on paper to follow them, rather than put up with them until it's inconvenient for whatever agenda we happen to be pursuing? Maradon! fucked around with this message on 01-20-2008 at 11:27 AM.
As for a living document being a meaningless document, that's silly. It's stupidly naive to think we should conduct 21st-century government according to literal 18th-century mechanics. In case you've been living under a rock the past few years, that's the entire difference between the evil jihadists trying to kill Westerners and re-establish the ancient Caliphate and the enlightened Muslims who understand that one should embrace principles rather than literal interpretations, and that even those principles will evolve over time as society changes. Don't you find it ironic that it's the people who read the Bible as you'd have us read the constitution who are the problem?
A thinking man would notice the parallel.
The facts of life are that isolationism would break the US economy in singularly spectacular fashion and that a strong central government is a requirement in a global economy. One can argue shades of meaning or degrees of involvement, but those basic facts are not going to change.
The world changes. Deal with it as it is rather than trying to turn back the clock to recreate something that pretty much never existed anyway.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Naimah probably says this to all the girls:
Mitt is a pretty nice canidate. It's good that he's at least making an effort to not have religion be in his campaign. Even though that's just so that he isn't be branded a mormon.
It's not possible to separate religion and state, ha ha, which is why Mitt is an awful candidate.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Stalwart Steve's conduct herein is so wrong at such a basic level that you have to wonder if he is intellectually prepared to live and conduct themselves in ordinary society.
It's not possible to separate religion and state, ha ha, which is why Mitt is an awful candidate.
Which would also make any Christian presidential candidate an awful candidate.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Stalwart Steve wrote:
It's not possible to separate religion and state, ha ha, which is why Mitt is an awful candidate.
the shit are you talking about fool
quote:
Vernaltemptress obviously shouldn't have said:
Which would also make any Christian presidential candidate an awful candidate.
Pretty much. 
quote:
Vernaltemptress spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Which would also make any Christian presidential candidate an awful candidate.
Yes, that is correct, except for people who are Christian (most of America).
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Asha'man wrote:
the shit are you talking about fool
I'm talking about how all of Mitt Romney's stupid personality is based around the fact that he belongs to a cult of course, and would therefore act as such. He can't just not act like a Mormon, because he'd basically be admitting that his beliefs are utterly wrong, unless he's intentionally doing things incorrectly.
Also if you think about it, religion is about law and law is about religion, so there's no way to distinguish laws that have to do with religion or not. Therefore it's not even possible to govern in a nonreligious way. Trying to pretend that candidates won't act differently because of their religion is like whites saying that other races should act "normal" (white). So essentially what you should get out of all this is that Mitt Romney's statement that he will separate religion and state is bulllllllllllllshit.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
A sleep deprived Stalwart Steve stammered:
I'm talking about how all of Mitt Romney's stupid personality is based around the fact that he belongs to a cult of course, and would therefore act as such. He can't just not act like a Mormon, because he'd basically be admitting that his beliefs are utterly wrong, unless he's intentionally doing things incorrectly.Also if you think about it, religion is about law and law is about religion, so there's no way to distinguish laws that have to do with religion or not. Therefore it's not even possible to govern in a nonreligious way. Trying to pretend that candidates won't act differently because of their religion is like whites saying that other races should act "normal" (white). So essentially what you should get out of all this is that Mitt Romney's statement that he will separate religion and state is bulllllllllllllshit.
How is this any different than any other Christian running for President?
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
People tend to pick on him specifically because of his religious beliefs even though most (correct me if I'm wrong on this) of the Republican candidates are Christian too.
The only reason people bring up religion with him more than others is because Mormonism is stigmatized as some crazy cult in spite of the fact that it has all the same beliefs and morals that every other Christian religion has.
It bothers me. Taeldian fucked around with this message on 01-20-2008 at 08:17 PM.
wah wah i'm of a lesser followed religion but i am 100% american won't do religion things in office and i'm like god this guy sounds like a douchebag
and he sounds like a retard in the debates i've seen of him
quote:
Taeldian obviously shouldn't have said:The only reason people bring up religion with him more than others is because Mormonism is stigmatized as some crazy cult in spite of the fact that it has all the same beliefs and morals that every other Christian religion has.
To be fair, Mormonism was arguably more blatantly racist than the other flavors of Christianity, at a time when Romney was an adult active member in it.
It doesn't have "all the same" beliefs. Most other Christian denominations don't believe skin color has some root in sinfulness.
quote:
Taeldian had this to say about (_|_):
The only reason people bring up religion with him more than others is because Mormonism is stigmatized as some crazy cult in spite of the fact that it has all the same beliefs and morals that every other Christian religion has.It bothers me.
Individual denomination matters a great deal within Christianity, hence why JFK being Catholic was a very big deal at the time. Beliefs and morals differ between the denominations, pretty greatly at times, and Mormons are generally seen as one of the wackier denominations. While all Christians are Christian, they don't all have the same set of core beliefs.
I won't go much into it, but Mormons require any other Christian switching to Mormonism to be re-baptized. Other denominations do not necessarily require this to be done. This is a pretty big statement of individualism right there.
quote:
Zair attempted to be funny by writing:
Most other Christian denominations don't believe skin color has some root in sinfulness.
Because Jesus was black.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about John Romero:
If Clinton wins this, I will kill Steve and bring him back from the dead to create a raping, murdering zombie-machine-cyborg-demon.
again?
quote:
Vernaltemptress thought about the meaning of life:
Which would also make any Christian presidential candidate an awful candidate.
Agnosticism is the only position on metaphysics that the natural sciences support. Any candidate of a religious persuasion therefore holds scientifically ridiculous beliefs, and cannot be trusted in power.
quote:
Vorbis startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
Agnosticism is the only position on metaphysics that the natural sciences support. Any candidate of a religious persuasion therefore holds scientifically ridiculous beliefs, and cannot be trusted in power.
As Isaac Asimov said later in his life, it's really atheism that's the logical position. There is nothing, scientifically speaking, that can logically be used as evidence for the divine.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Aw, geez, I have Bloodsage all over myself!
As Isaac Asimov said later in his life, it's really atheism that's the logical position. There is nothing, scientifically speaking, that can logically be used as evidence for the divine.
But...but..what about the sky at sunset?! What about a baby's smile?! What about the human heart?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Vorbis was all like:
Agnosticism is the only position on metaphysics that the natural sciences support. Any candidate of a religious persuasion therefore holds scientifically ridiculous beliefs, and cannot be trusted in power.
It'll be a long time before you have a president that doesn't have some religious beliefs. It's pretty much political suicide not espouse Christianity. Obama seems like a closet atheist, yet he's (weakly) stated that he's religious. Don't forget that people are wary of religion too; JFK received a lot of flak for being Catholic because people were worried about him deferring to the Pope for political decisions.
The best situation you can hope for is a president who will keep his religious beliefs to the side, and it's not exactly abnormal for candidates to feel that way. For example, take Mike Gravels (Unitartian) view on evolution (and I just wanted to post this quote);
quote:
My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, theyve got a mental problem. We cant afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as Im concerned.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about (_|_):
But...but..what about the sky at sunset?! What about a baby's smile?! What about the human heart?
Don't forget thunder. It's God bowling!
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Robocop:
But...but..what about the sky at sunset?! What about a baby's smile?! What about the human heart?
The greatest arguments against a kind and loving god are people on this board.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
