Obama's "bitter" remark

[quote name='dmaul1114']I just mention it always so people know not to bother responding to my posts since I wont' see their replies....not to gloat. I couldn't care less about winning or losing arguments with random losers on the net.

That said, I'm just going to stay out of the politics forum as I'm set in my ways and don't care about other's views on the topic--especially from people on this forum that's rapidly devolving to gamefaqs levels of discourse overall.[/quote]

The original Darth Maul was never big on talking things out either ;)
 
[quote name='daroga']Yeah, I wasn't necessarily implicating you with that. I've just seen it used in that regard and it's silly.

Generally speaking, the vs. forum has some of the most intelligent conversation on the boards. Maybe the most frustrating too, because usually it's dealing with far more important things than which GTA4 version to get. Likewise, I think just about everyone that posts here is at your same level of commitment to their beliefs, views, etc. I don't post here to persuade or be persuaded, but generally just to get a better idea of what and how other people are thinking. If you go at it from that angle, it's a far better experience. :)[/QUOTE]

fuckING POP-IN DUDE!

Pop-in. Who wants to get that Xbox 3-shitty version now, huh!?!?!?!?!

;)
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I can be persuaded, but only by the truth.[/quote]Generally speaking, the threads here aren't fact vs. lie; they're opinion vs. opinion. Not always, but usually.

And myke, you're such a fanboy. :p

:whee:
 
Heh. Truth be told, I was up writing late last night and occasionally glanced over at the 4+ GTAIV threads (not the designated LinkinPrime "Official Disscussion and Info" threads, mind you ;)), and they were all

"POP-IN!"
"3.3GB INSTALL!"
"15microseconds faster loading!"
"DLC!"
"Um...DLC too!"

That, after reading those (and being sour because I'm tired from writing, much like I am right now), I almost said "you know what? I really have better things to do than spend time on this site" and never come back.

Didn't happen, of course - but I think I've hit my threshold when I read so much stupidity and just think to myself "not even gonna bother."
 
The vs. threads are hit or miss. There are some great posters here, but it can be tough b/c these topics (politics, religion, breast size, etc..) are held near and dear, at the core of people's belief systems.

Whoever said that people don't come here to get their opinions changed is right. They don't. It can be tough to change people's opinions when they're not based in fact or reason.

At the same time though, I have learned and had some of my views changed (or tweaked) from some of the reading I've done. The degree of the effectiveness of deterrence (from my first week on CAG IIRC) is one of these issues.

Some threads are just appalling but most seem to be thought out, on topic, and mostly avoid insults and flames.

I'm a huge advocate of deferring to the experts (most lawyers are, lol). Some members obviously know more about certain topics than others: not many are going to challenge myke about criminology, nor daroga re: bible study. At the same time, I'm not easily convinced that one is an expert, nor that they know more than me about a given topic until they've proven so.

Just FYI: I think it is interesting to note and learn from different people's posting/arguing styles. Many (BMull, myke, myself, etc.) like to participate front and center, while others like to throw jabs from the sidelines (evanft, Ikohn). Then there are others who are just completely fuckin off their rocker (not gonna name names) and spout the most absurd and ridiculous shit, that people from both sides of the issue are ROFL.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I can be persuaded, but only by the truth.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately 90% of what is labeled as truth these days was either "discovered" by an agenda driven engine or is still relative anyway.

[quote name='pittpizza']

Whoever said that people don't come here to get their opinions changed is right. They don't. It can be tough to change people's opinions when they're not based in fact or reason.[/quote]
I said that last week. Maybe it was me.


I'm a huge advocate of deferring to the experts (most lawyers are, lol). Some members obviously know more about certain topics than others: not many are going to challenge myke about criminology, nor daroga re: bible study. At the same time, I'm not easily convinced that one is an expert, nor that they know more than me about a given topic until they've proven so.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, kind of.

I concede that there are people here that have spent far more time than I have studying a certain topic. But that doesn't make me consider their opinions and posts more than anyone else.

When it's all said and done, most people have their mind made up about the world, and reality. And they are only going to seek out, study, and regurgitate that which reinforces that reality.

Just FYI: I think it is interesting to note and learn from different people's posting/arguing styles. Many (BMull, myke, myself, etc.) like to participate front and center, while others like to throw jabs from the sidelines (evanft, Ikohn). Then there are others who are just completely fuckin off their rocker (not gonna name names) and spout the most absurd and ridiculous shit, that people from both sides of the issue are ROFL.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are referring to me in the latter category. Bravo if so!

But, pizza, I actually enjoyed this post of yours and I agree with most of it.

For what it's worth, what I come to this forum for, and what I get out of it, is just trying to learn about other people's opinions. I am not out to convince anyone they are wrong or that I am right. Chances are minimal anyone will change my mind, I think the rest of you feel the same way.
I just feel there is great value in understanding where others come from, and why they think differently than me.
 
US top court rules states can demand voter ID

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that all states can demand photo identification papers from voters in a decision which could roil the US presidential race six months before the elections.


In a country which has no national identity card, the judges voted by six votes to three to uphold an appeals court decision backing an Indiana law, which demands voters provide proper ID such as a passport or driving license.
The decision, which ruled requiring photo identification did not violate Americans' constitutional rights, could lead to many being turned away at the polling booth, critics say.
"The evidence in the record is not sufficient to support a facial attack on the validity of the entire statute," the court said in the split decision written by judge John Paul Stevens.
But he did not rule out that the court could re-examine the case if it turns out that someone is barred from voting in a case which is likely to become a hot political potato.


In Indiana, some 43,000 out of the 4.7 million residents of voting age, primarily elderly people, have neither a passport nor a driving license. Those living in poorer districts or minorities also often fall into the category.
Such voters are traditionally Democratic Party supporters, so the decision is likely to spur a huge debate, just months from the November elections.
"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters," Stevens wrote.
"Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate record-keeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.


"While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear."
Traditionally electoral officers have checked identities by verifying that the voter's signature corresponds to the one given when they registered to vote.
But as part of a modernization drive put in place after the debacle of the 2000 presidential elections, more than half of the states have brought in laws ordering voters to show ID at voting stations, even if just a library card.
The Indiana law, adopted in 2005, is one of the country's strictest. But critics say it is too restrictive as no one has ever been prosecuted in the state for trying to vote in someone else's place.


Conservative judge Antonin Scalia said the law was "eminently reasonable" as the "burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe."
But in a dissenting opinion, judge David Souter said Indiana's law was unconstitutional as it "threatens to impose non-trivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the state's citizens, and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting."
The case had been brought by the Democratic Party and civil rights groups, which argued that the risk of fraud came more from inflated voters lists and irregularities via postal votes, two issues not addressed by the law.
"This decision is a body blow to what America stands for -- equal access to the polls," said Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.
"The Indiana law purports to solve a problem that does not exist and it could very well disenfranchise many, many citizens."



What really annoys me is there is no concern about these computer voting machines with no printouts that can screw with hundreds of votes, but they are worried about petty voter fraud that is statistically insignificant. Anything that makes it harder for a person to vote should be struck down. Whether it be White Male Landowners or Poll Taxes, people felt that these laws were fair at one point too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top