Obama wins the election

  On 11/8/2012 at 5:23 PM, scones to die for said:

White people mourning Romney.

 

http://whitepeoplemo...ney.tumblr.com/

  On 11/8/2012 at 7:07 PM, jefferoo said:

http://obamaaaaaaaa.ytmnd.com/

lol!

Also... loony or photo bomb?

(From the WPMR page)

There's a good follow-up article here, slamming those who are overreacting to Romney's loss: http://joashline.com/2012/11/presidential-election-sad-and-tragic-day-for-our-nation.html

  On 11/8/2012 at 7:28 PM, luke viia said:

 

And Karl Rove is the one to blame, his managed superPAC spent over 400 million and achieved nothing. That's why his meltdown on Fox was so tasty when they called Ohio going to Obama. And there are apparently many donor's who expect explanations. Fuck Rove.

  On 11/7/2012 at 8:32 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Oh god, I just took a gander at AnnCoulter.com forums to see how well they took it.

 

And I glimpsed a part of humanity that made me deeply sad.

This has become an endless source of entertainment.

Obama wins Florida, now just kick Rick Scott the fuck out!

Eric Holder sys he might be leaving as attorney general, i wouldn't stay either if the people above me told me not to investigate blatant war crimes and then wanted me to continue covering them up

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/08/report-holder-announces-he-might-not-stay-on-as-attorney-general/

  On 11/8/2012 at 8:22 AM, goDel said:

The language of "no compromises" is the language of extremists.

i take it you didn't pay attention to the article at all, and then to end your point with a statement like this? words alone cannot express my disgust. So I take it you're cool with Obama gutting medicare and social security? By calling Glenn an 'extremist' which is one of the oldest most impotent tactics in the book for arguing against someone's point, makes it hard for me to take anything you say seriously from this moment forward. Your arguments and points were reasonable up until this point.

so what you got 2 say 2 those tears Awepittance?

Best Obama Speech Ever:

  On 11/9/2012 at 6:47 AM, compson said:

Best Obama Speech Ever:

 

http://youtu.be/pBK2rfZt32g

This gets increasingly digestible if you imagine that Obama is actually an incredibly fit, slightly dopey chick in yoga pants.

  On 11/9/2012 at 6:44 AM, vamos scorcho said:

so what you got 2 say 2 those tears Awepittance?

I neither feel elated or horribly disappointed, if i could cry from my apathy i would. Have you stopped trolling both threads now? Forgive me if i'm mistaken, i just honestly couldn't tell from your posts.

  On 11/8/2012 at 10:13 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/8/2012 at 8:22 AM, goDel said:

The language of "no compromises" is the language of extremists.

 

i take it you didn't pay attention to the article at all, and then to end your point with a statement like this? words alone cannot express my disgust. So I take it you're cool with Obama gutting medicare and social security? By calling Glenn an 'extremist' which is one of the oldest most impotent tactics in the book for arguing against someone's point, makes it hard for me to take anything you say seriously from this moment forward. Your arguments and points were reasonable up until this point.

Don't overreact. You're taking Glenns predictions as given facts. The obvious part will be: yes, there will be compromise. What it will look like, who knows. Glenn has his ideas. And apparently you follow him on his lips. Whether or not that's reasonable is another story by itself. From my point of view, the discussion doesn't sound much different to Tea partiers crying about Obama going after their beloved gun-laws. And being al angry about it.

If you want to be reasonable, you can be concerned. If you're already angry about some supposed future, you should look into that reasonable mirror of yours and tel yourself to wake the F up.

I'm not angry about the election or the future, but calling Glenn an extremist or comparing him to a tea partier i think is over the line, and yeah *that* sort of pisses me off. It delegitimizes what you want to say in our of-late spirited debates.

edit: Up until now (and hopefully this changes) Glenn has been one of the most prolific critics of the Obama administration the left. I don't take everything he says as gospel, but it get's lonely out here sometimes being what most people would consider an idealist. He's the only working journalist today who is very much on the same wave length as me. I can honestly say that his upcoming appearance on my sister's show, Breaking the Set is the most exciting news i've heard all year.

  On 11/9/2012 at 9:30 AM, Awepittance said:

I'm not angry about the election, but calling Glenn an extremist or comparing him to a tea partier i think is over the line, and yeah *that* sort of pisses me off. It delegitimizes what you want to say in our of-late spirited debates.

???

Angry about the election? Where did I say or imply that? It's about Glenns expectations of what will be happening. Yes, that much I read.

Again, it's just silly to be all riled up about some expectations as if they are given facts. Just like those darned Tparts do. And yes, I'd like to point out some unwanted parallels. Because I see a couple. Glenns might bring some more reasonable content, but the principle is much the same, IMO.

sorry i realized i meant to say the election and the future, a lot of Glenn's predictions have come true and they are not hyperbolic or predictions like a tea partier would make about Obama grabbing guns, etc.

He's talking about an inevitable budget compromise, which will happen rather soon.

Compromise is reasonable if the opposing platforms are reasonably factual. I am all for open debate on how to improve the economy and the role of government. But one side seems to think the sole solution is more tax breaks for the wealthy, and I might be wrong, but hasn't the past 30 years shown that to 1)raise deficits 2)no job growth 3)increase wealth inequality which is at a high point atm

My understanding of economics is small, but it seems like the Great Depression gives us a pretty good idea of what doesn't work (cutting spending) and what does. Tho again WW2 and other unique factors between these periods leaves me open to compromise/debate the issue. I just think the GOP has lost enough credibility as budget balancers and job creators that it should be included in the equation/pretense of compromising. But that responsibility generally relies on the opposing leaders and they play a pretty weak game when it comes to infusing this context into the mainstream when these issues are hot.

edit: And as Awepittance said, there are few progressive journalists on the left side of things. His delivery naturally becomes aggressive due a lack of discussion given to him from the mainstream. As opposed to the tea party.

FWIW: I do hold Glenn in high regard. But he's at his best, imo, when interpreting and explaining things that have happened or are happening.

When he's giving predictions, he's not much different to a handpalm reader, or some analist at Wallstreet giving predictions about the stockmarket.

And whether the 'opposing' platform might be reasonable or not is another story. For starters, it's about people with a different opinion. Please, drop the 'opposing' war-language. If you're so idealistic, please be consistent about it and try to see their best intentions (even though they appear to be way in cuckoo-land). Make love, not war.

Acknowledge there's lots of emotions involved in politics currently. And emotions tend to filter a lot of *facts*. Especially when there's a lot information available, it's easy to pick out what confirms ones own beliefs.

If you want to talk about facts, one fact is that almost half of the country wanted a Republican president. Whether you agree with that other half or not is another story. Painting them as poor people out of their minds will not bring them to your reality.

  On 11/9/2012 at 9:52 AM, goDel said:

And whether the 'opposing' platform might be reasonable or not is another story. For starters, it's about people with a different opinion. Please, drop the 'opposing' war-language. If you're so idealistic, please be consistent about it and try to see their best intentions (even though they appear to be way in cuckoo-land). Make love, not war.

 

Acknowledge there's lots of emotions involved in politics currently. And emotions tend to filter a lot of *facts*. Especially when there's a lot information available, it's easy to pick out what confirms ones own beliefs.

 

If you want to talk about facts, one fact is that almost half of the country wanted a Republican president. Whether you agree with that other half or not is another story. Painting them as poor people out of their minds will not bring them to your reality.

Opposing platforms was just meant to describe both sides that oppose one another. Not one.

And I was only talking about GOP leadership, not the general population who I have said is more agreeable on the issues but split culturally. Not sure where you got the assumption that I think half the country is wacko. Conservatism is a respectable political philosophy but it relies on upholding the rule of law and real small government policy (not pseudo christian bullshit, unless you disagree with separation of church/state, which would not be conservative).

  On 11/9/2012 at 9:44 AM, compson said:

edit: And as Awepittance said, there are few progressive journalists on the left side of things. His delivery naturally becomes aggressive due a lack of discussion given to him from the mainstream. As opposed to the tea party.

So Glenn is allowed to deliver his message aggressively, but Tpartiers aren't? Perhaps those T-partiers feel like they aren't being heard as well?

  On 11/9/2012 at 9:58 AM, compson said:

Opposing platforms was just meant to describe both sides that oppose one another. Not one.

And my point was to try to look past the opposition to see the different opinion.

  Quote

And I was only talking about GOP leadership, not the general population who I have said is more agreeable on the issues but split culturally. Not sure where you got the assumption that I think half the country is wacko. Conservatism is a respectable political philosophy but it relies on upholding the rule of law and real small government policy (not pseudo christian bullshit, unless you disagree with separation of church/state, which would not be conservative).

That GOP leadership is supported by almost half of the population.

I promise this will be the last time i post something 'negative' in this thread, it is from a fellow extremist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790&feature=share

  On 11/9/2012 at 10:14 AM, goDel said:

  On 11/9/2012 at 9:44 AM, compson said:

edit: And as Awepittance said, there are few progressive journalists on the left side of things. His delivery naturally becomes aggressive due a lack of discussion given to him from the mainstream. As opposed to the tea party.

 

So Glenn is allowed to deliver his message aggressively, but Tpartiers aren't? Perhaps those T-partiers feel like they aren't being heard as well?

 

  On 11/9/2012 at 9:58 AM, compson said:

Opposing platforms was just meant to describe both sides that oppose one another. Not one.

 

And my point was to try to look past the opposition to see the different opinion.

 

  Quote

And I was only talking about GOP leadership, not the general population who I have said is more agreeable on the issues but split culturally. Not sure where you got the assumption that I think half the country is wacko. Conservatism is a respectable political philosophy but it relies on upholding the rule of law and real small government policy (not pseudo christian bullshit, unless you disagree with separation of church/state, which would not be conservative).

 

That GOP leadership is supported by almost half of the population.

I'm saying Glenn will naturally scream because he is the only voice in the nation saying what he's saying (not really, but metaphorically). Tea Party platforms had the mainstream media loud speaker, so it's fine if they are passionate. I was just describing the natural tendency of speaking up about something not spoken of.

I am not avoiding the opposing opinion. Not sure why you keep suggesting. I have conservative friends/family and I am always open to discuss politics respectfully. I am simply suggesting the parties have more accountability for their history.

You are assuming "supported" equates to agreement of GOP leadership 100%. That's generalizing! So don't try and paint my viewpoint on our population, you seem to be the one doing that.