So no one's got anything to say about Obama's re-election?

[Alkamista]

What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)

[Binder Dundat]

On Nov 7, 3:10 pm, Alkamista <alkami...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)

Dare I say I am pleasantly surprised by the American populace? I
thought the Mormon would win. Kind of figured it would be another
rigged election, what with the east coast voting machines and whatnot
being down it would have been easier to fix.

Maybe, most Americans are more creeped out by Mormons then by free
health care? I like the legalizing of Marijuana in a few states, it
is about time we legalize the stuff.

[Bruce D. Scott]

Alkamista <alka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|> What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)

No, talked about it elsewhere. Immensely happy, especially as the
rape-comment Reptiles were all defeated and Elizabeth Warren won.
For Obama the biggest thing is Reptiles won't pack courts for the next
four years.

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

[MH]

On 12-11-07 1:10 PM, Alkamista wrote:
> What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)
>

Not really my place to comment, and it was not unexpected, from what the
oddsmakers and pundits were saying.

Our electoral system is bad. We really need to introduce an element of
proportional representation. But no system in a mature democracy would
appear to be as bad as that in the US - Super Pacs, Gerrymandered
congressional districts, Electoral colleges, Slow counting, Hanging
chads, only really having to campaign in a few key swing states etc.....

So, 4 more years of roadblocks in the house? What is that really going
to mean for USians?

Oh, well, the world is probably a slightly safer and saner place as a
result of the re-election of Obama. I hope he delivers more this term,
but it may not be possible with the road block.

[Binder Dundat]

Exactly, the Republican house majority will just go against every
single thing Obama and the Democrats do, unless of course it involves
giving billions of dollars to big business.

[Diabolik]

> What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)

Good for Obama for trying to socialise essential services in the US (health
care, etc), help the poor and middle class, and not drop bombs on any
countries like those inbred Republicans do.

[Abubakr]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 07:10:58 +1100, Alkamista <alka...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)

Mormons.

[Abubakr]

The last part is certainly not correct and apparently he's itching to drop
some bombs on Iran to boot...

[Diabolik]

"Abubakr " <aa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.wnfcjbvwp9blxg@adamkhalidi-hp...

Well Iran isn't complying with UN resolutions on its nuclear program. If
anything happens, it will be lead by the UN.

[Abubakr]

LOL...what UN resolutions? They are signatories of the NPT and it is not
the the place of the country with the biggest nuclear arsenal to be
lecturing and posturing to others.

[Diabolik]

"Abubakr " <aa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:op.wnfgzpn6p9blxg@adamkhalidi-hp...

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:50:42 +1100, Diabolik <diab...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Abubakr " <aa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.wnfcjbvwp9blxg@adamkhalidi-hp...
>>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:14:16 +1100, Diabolik <diab...@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Good for Obama for trying to socialise essential services in the US
>>>> (health care, etc), help the poor and middle class, and not drop bombs
>>>> on any countries like those inbred Republicans do.
>>>
>>> The last part is certainly not correct and apparently he's itching to
>>> drop some bombs on Iran to boot...
>>
>> Well Iran isn't complying with UN resolutions on its nuclear program. If
>> anything happens, it will be lead by the UN.
>
> LOL...what UN resolutions?

These UN resolutions.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

> They are signatories of the NPT and it is not the the place of the
> country with the biggest nuclear arsenal to be lecturing and posturing to
> others.

Not it isn't, I agree, but it's the UN together with many countries that are
concerned, not just the US.

[Abubakr]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:40:40 +1100, Diabolik <diab...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> "Abubakr " <aa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wnfgzpn6p9blxg@adamkhalidi-hp...
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:50:42 +1100, Diabolik <diab...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Abubakr " <aa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wnfcjbvwp9blxg@adamkhalidi-hp...
>>>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:14:16 +1100, Diabolik <diab...@nospam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for Obama for trying to socialise essential services in the US
>>>>> (health care, etc), help the poor and middle class, and not drop
>>>>> bombs on any countries like those inbred Republicans do.
>>>>
>>>> The last part is certainly not correct and apparently he's itching to
>>>> drop some bombs on Iran to boot...
>>>
>>> Well Iran isn't complying with UN resolutions on its nuclear program.
>>> If anything happens, it will be lead by the UN.
>>
>> LOL...what UN resolutions?
>
> These UN resolutions.
> http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

And what about them? They are unsubstantiated charges.

>> They are signatories of the NPT and it is not the the place of the
>> country with the biggest nuclear arsenal to be lecturing and posturing
>> to others.
>
> Not it isn't, I agree, but it's the UN together with many countries that
> are concerned, not just the US.

That's a load of nonsense. It's a US driven agenda. Look at the following
image and tell me who's a threat to whom-

http://www.phibetaiota.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/us-bases-iran.jpg

[Diabolik]

"Abubakr " <aa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:op.wnfk6rmkp9blxg@adamkhalidi-hp...

While the US is a democracy and would require a very extreme case to use
nuclear weapons, Iran isn't, even though I doubt they would use them either.

Ahmadinejad is full of hot air, lot's of talk.

So who would you trust more with nuclear weapons for the peace and stability
of the world?

[JG]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alkamista wrote:
> What are you, a bunch of Republicans? ;-)

I'm waiting for the unskewed results to come out. The ones I've seen so far seem to have oversampled Obama voters.

[Chagney Hunt]

That's brilliant, Jim.

[Abubakr]

Actually the "US democracy" is the only that has actually enabled the use
of nuclear weapons, not any dictatorship or autocracy or any of the other
putative axes of evilness that supposedly crops up every few years to
oppose the US god given right to rule the entire universe.

> Ahmadinejad is full of hot air, lot's of talk.
>
> So who would you trust more with nuclear weapons for the peace and
> stability of the world?

The ones without them!

Well at least not the one with the biggest arsenal of such weapons, the
only country that has dared to actually strike another with the stuff and
thus the direct catalyst for the proliferation of these things in the
first place, and certainly not the country that is committed to invading
others at a rate of at least two a decade.

[Mark V.]

I don't think it's that simple, though I do agree with you that the administration has been much more bellicose than I'd hoped, and that the drone attacks are unforgivable. I hope that the US will get to the point where the Republicans become so marginalized, or morph into something so different from the current incarnation, that the Democrats no longer feel that they need to overprove against charges of foreign policy softness, and no longer get stuck managing the other party's wars.

[Abubakr]

That won't be easy without a House Majority. How does that happen anyway,
that President comes to office whilst his party is essentially the loser
in the elections for executive branch of government? A billion dollar
popularity/personality contest?

[Mark V.]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 2:24:00 AM UTC-8, Abubakr wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:19:16 +1100, Mark V. <nevr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >> The last part is certainly not correct and apparently he's itching to
>
> >> drop
>
> >> some bombs on Iran to boot...
>
> >
>
> > I don't think it's that simple, though I do agree with you that the
>
> > administration has been much more bellicose than I'd hoped, and that the
>
> > drone attacks are unforgivable. I hope that the US will get to the point
>
> > where the Republicans become so marginalized, or morph into something so
>
> > different from the current incarnation, that the Democrats no longer
>
> > feel that they need to overprove against charges of foreign policy
>
> > softness, and no longer get stuck managing the other party's wars.
> That won't be easy without a House Majority.

It would happen even if the Dems controlled both houses, as they did from '08 to '10. Right now, the Republicans are already trying to concoct this election cycle's Tea Party -- the framed PR blitz designed to convince just enough swing voters that Obama is really Satan's spawn. So the bigger tent Democrats (with just enough wary white working class voters in its coalition) has to toss a bone to the center to allay any concerns that it's a pacifistic Social Green party in sheep's clothing.

> How does that happen anyway,
> that President comes to office whilst his party is essentially the loser
> in the elections for executive branch of government? A billion dollar
> popularity/personality contest?

Well, the Democrats did make gains in the Senate. It's hard to make massive reversals against incumbents in the House unless there is a "throw the bums who aren't helping you out" wave underfoot as there was in '94, '06, and '10. It's hard to do that when you're perceived as the ruling party!