The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

hostyl1;9050130@camoor: It's ironic that the part of the PPACA that seems to draw the most ire is the individual mandate... and that's something "Candidate" Obama campaigned against (Hillary wanted it though). Obama and Congress basically put the individual mandate in to appease the insurance companies; guaranteeing them healthy individuals buying in in return for offering (some would say shitty) care to those with pre-existing conditions. It was a clear buy off. And Romney said Obama and Congressional Democrats hate businesses. ;) ... So if anything said:
status quo[/I] has the majority subsidizing *their* costs, brought about by nothing other than their laissez-faire approach to their health care. For them to be *mad* about the PPACA just makes me want to vomit!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explaination Hostyl, it was very informative. I admit that healthcare is one of the issues I am not deeply knowledgable about, but I do know that I will vote for the guy that advocates for a system where as many people as humanly possible have access to affordable healthcare.

It's really the only ethical choice you can make - the so-called Christians who are against universal healthcare are the worst kind of phonies.

[quote name='bic']Hahaha.

"We passed a bill that will cost us an additional 2 trillion over the next decade, even though the actual bill is nothing like we (liberals) really wanted and costs have shot up, doctor visits down; at least we know costs have already been rising for years."

Way to look at the glass half full.[/QUOTE]

I know you disagree but the man deserves a better response then this. Coming back with unsubstatiated bullshit just makes you look like a fool.
 
A new healthcare bill was passed. Costs are going up. WHY cANT YOU PEOPLE MAKE THE CONNECTION.

[quote name='UncleBob']I believe it was correct to begin with - a bit over half the eligible voters voted and a bit over half of those voted for Obama. You can't say "30% of people" because that doesn't take into account non-eligible voters (minors, illegal immigrants, etc.).

Quick search says we had approximately 307,000,000 "legal" people in the US in 2008. Obama received approximately 63,700,000 votes - so, ignoring the illegal population, Obama got about 20.7% of the people to elect him.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about you, but when I hear people complain about either Bush or Obama, and then I find out they didn't vote AT ALL, I get a little annoyed. How can you complain about the consequences of the political process when you don't even take the only action you can that might make a difference i.e. vote?

[quote name='hostyl1']It's ironic that the part of the PPACA that seems to draw the most ire is the individual mandate... and that's something "Candidate" Obama campaigned against (Hillary wanted it though). Obama and Congress basically put the individual mandate in to appease the insurance companies; guaranteeing them healthy individuals buying in in return for offering (some would say shitty) care to those with pre-existing conditions. It was a clear buy off. And Romney said Obama and Congressional Democrats hate businesses. ;)[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']Also, Obama wasn't exactly clear on his health care plans - for example, he ripped Clinton on the idea of the "individual mandate"...[/QUOTE]

Very true. It wasn't until Obama began embracing the idea that the individual mandate, an idea with conservative roots (Bob Dole, Romney, Heritage Foundation) became equal to socialist muslim marxism overreaching government.

By the way, that awesome meaningless Ohio ref. on individual mandates...a referendum on 'Obamacare'...(even though that was only one portion of the bill and was always the most unpopular)...but isn't it also a referendum on 'Romneycare' too?
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't know about you, but when I hear people complain about either Bush or Obama, and then I find out they didn't vote AT ALL, I get a little annoyed. How can you complain about the consequences of the political process when you don't even take the only action you can that might make a difference i.e. vote?[/quote]

I don't get annoyed.
Honestly, I don't know why I bother to vote.
Both major candidates are jokers, every time and it really doesn't make a difference who you vote for because 95%+ of the other idiots are going to vote for one of the same two guys who are going to keep doing the same things with minor differences.
 
[quote name='IRHari']A new healthcare bill was passed. Costs are going up. WHY cANT YOU PEOPLE MAKE THE CONNECTION.[/quote]

To piggyback, a proverb of statistics: Correlation does not equal/imply causation. (cite1, cite2, cite3)



I don't know about you, but when I hear people complain about either Bush or Obama, and then I find out they didn't vote AT ALL, I get a little annoyed. How can you complain about the consequences of the political process when you don't even take the only action you can that might make a difference i.e. vote?
Click to expand...

Actually, that doesnt bother me too much in the specific case of presidential elections. Thanks to the electoral college, there are only a select number of states in which the outcome is in any question. Unless you're talking about a landslide sweep by one of the candidates, races in places like Hawaii, Alabama, California, North Dakota, Washington, DC, Mississippi, etc. are decided before a single ballot is cast. What does a vote mean for a Republican in the District of Columbia? Not much more than a waste of time.

Voting for a 3rd party in a national election is also a waste of time practically. Sure you can *say* you were involved in the process, but it wont amount to much. I'm not sure any 3rd party presidential candidate has ever carried a state in modern (post WWI) times. So if you dislike either of the two major party candidates, not voting doesnt bother me a bit. Or maybe the ballots need to adopt the 'Jessie Ventura Option' and have a "None of the Above" option. (Methinks NotA would win a lot of races ;))

OTOH, it amazes me that people are so detached from their state and local governments. Here is where your individual vote/effort can have some real impact. 3rd party candidates have actually *won* statewide races.

Very true. It wasn't until Obama began embracing the idea that the individual mandate, an idea with conservative roots (Bob Dole, Romney, Heritage Foundation) became equal to socialist muslim marxism overreaching government.
Click to expand...

Dont leave out Speaker Newt Gingrich in your list. The individual mandate was something he advocated way back in 1995 (and doubled-down on in 2011, to his credit and detriment).
 
Bob
% of a % without defining a value for X, and your second line states that 52.9% of eligible voters voted for Obama, but then you say that 30% of eligible voters voted for Obama. One of those is incorrect. Essentially, you're including eligible non-voters in your final figure to create a statement while ignoring that eligible non-voters didn't vote.
long story short, cake cannot be had and eaten.

It's the same with that whole "the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes" tripe, of course a reasonable person assumes that means that the top 1% earns a vast majority of the income by which they end up paying more as a percentage. Your talking heads somehow succeed in turning that into an emotional statement of "they sure are carrying a huge burden". Well, you ever see a "Shit Happens" bumper sticker on a Maybach?

still waiting for bic to address how my statement is different than his, not likely to happen but it would still be funny to watch.
 
[quote name='nasum']Bob
% of a % without defining a value for X, and your second line states that 52.9% of eligible voters voted for Obama, but then you say that 30% of eligible voters voted for Obama. One of those is incorrect. Essentially, you're including eligible non-voters in your final figure to create a statement while ignoring that eligible non-voters didn't vote.[/QUOTE]

Nada - the 52.9% is out of the people who voted (which is a subset of "Eligible voters").

1000 people were eligible to vote.
Only 568 of those eligible voters voted. (56.8%).
Of those 568 votes, Obama received 300 votes (roughly 52.9%).

1000 eligible voters and only 300 voted for Obama - i.e.: 30% of eligible voters.

voters.jpg


Obviously, it's not to scale, but:
Red (and inside) is the people legally here in the US.
Blue (and inside) is the people eligible to vote.
White/Yellow are the people who voted.
Yellow are the people who voted for Obama.

In this case, yellow "represents" ~53% of the white ("actual voters") area, 30% of the blue ("eligible voters") area and 22% of the red ("legal people") area. There's also an area out side of the red area that includes people here illegally - but that's not depicted.
 
oh hells to the yeahs, MS Paint Venn Diagram war is ON!

correct.jpg


You can't include eligible voters in your first statement, then remove them and then add them back in as it suits your needs to show that somehow Obama won with 30% of "the vote" because that is not an accurate statement. To use your same colour scheme, the red portion does not represent the whole (or a unit of 1 for example) because the addition of your blue and red portions equal 1.

also, since that was the first time in many years that I've logged into my photobucket account, I almost forgot about this thing:
prostreet_n1_03.jpg

good lord is that a pretty bike
 
[quote name='nasum']You can't include eligible voters in your first statement, then remove them and then add them back in as it suits your needs to show that somehow Obama won with 30% of "the vote" because that is not an accurate statement.[/QUOTE]

That's not what's happening though. Obama won with 52.9% of the vote. However, only 30% of eligible voters voted for him.

I can remove "Eligible Voters" from the second statement (those who voted for Obama) because it's redundant. Ineligible voters votes weren't counted (except in Chicago).

Here:
56.8% of eligible voters voted in 2008.
Obama received 52.9% of the votes cast by eligible voters.

So, approximately 30.0% of eligible voters elected Obama. Not "the people".
Click to expand...

And I'm not saying Obama only got 30% of the vote. I'm saying 30% of eligible voters voted for him. Thus, to say "the people" elected him... it's a bit of an inaccuracy.
 
So, you're on an island. Here are your people:

vote1.jpg
Hi People!

Today, it's time to vote for our new island mayor! Now, you on the far left, you're under 18, so you don't get to vote. And the guy next to you? He's from a different island, so he doesn't get to vote either. That leaves:

voter2.jpg

You guys! Those of you above the red line, you all get to vote today! So, go, cast your vote for your favorite candidate for mayor!

Polls close - it looks like these are the people who cared enough about the system to get out and vote:
voter3.jpg

Those of you above the blue line rock - you did your duty and went out and voted - thank you.

We've counted up all the votes and it looks like the winner is ThatGuy, thanks to the guys above the green line who voted for him!
voters4.jpg

Obviously, it was a land-slide victory, with ThatGuy getting a full 60% of the vote, while his opponent only received 40%. It's plainly obvious that the majority of the entire island supports ThatGuy in his every endeavor! Go forth, ThatGuy, and rule with your iron fist.

Just ignore the fact that while you had 60% of the vote, only five-out-of-ten eligible voters cared enough to actually vote at all - only three of those eligible voters voted for you... so only 30% of the eligible voters actually supported you being elected.

(We won't delve into the other two islanders, as we can't show who they actually supported or would have voted for had we given them the chance to vote.)
 
they're gay so they don't count

Here's the problem with your thesis, you're attributing "support" only to voters and assuming that non-voters are against the winning candidate. What if two more people wanted to vote but they had the shits and couldn't make it to the polls? They would have voted for ThatGuy, but didn't want to risk crapping their pants in front of their neighbors.

I understand how/why you think your application is correct as the math is indeed sound. However, you're putting emotion into non-voters that are eligible voters that can't be scientifically proven. Again, you haven't defined value X and you're using a % of a % of what you think is X to prove a point that cannot be proven. By saying that "30% of eligible voters support Obama" you're implying that 70% did not which isn't the case. It's a silly tactic used by the likes of those that you are better than to imply shenanigans that do not exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']they're gay so they don't count

Here's the problem with your thesis, you're attributing "support" only to voters and assuming that non-voters are against the winning candidate. What if two more people wanted to vote but they had the shits and couldn't make it to the polls? They would have voted for ThatGuy, but didn't want to risk crapping their pants in front of their neighbors.[/quote]

People who don't get out to vote *don't* support a candidate. Period. Because, in the end, that's the only thing that matters when it comes to getting them into office - how many people voted for them.

As for your particular story, it's pretty easy to vote now-a-days. You don't even have to leave the house:
Couch.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']People who don't get out to vote *don't* support a candidate. Period. Because, in the end, that's the only thing that matters whenit comes to getting them into office - how many people voted for them.[/QUOTE]

That's so dumb.

That's like saying "Basketball players who don't make baskets *don't* help the team. Period. Because, in the end, that's the only thing that matters whenit comes to winning the game - which team has the highest score"
 
[quote name='camoor']That's so dumb.

That's like saying "Basketball players who don't make baskets *don't* help the team. Period. Because, in the end, that's the only thing that matters whenit comes to winning the game - which team has the highest score"[/QUOTE]

Nada.

You're correct - it matters which team has the higher score - but that requires making baskets *and* keeping the other team from making baskets.

Unless you're out there killing people who planned to vote for the other guy, your vote is really all that matters.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Nada.

You're correct - it matters which team has the higher score - but that requires making baskets *and* keeping the other team from making baskets.

Unless you're out there killing people who planned to vote for the other guy, your vote is really all that matters.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I guess if you understand nothing about basketball the analogy is going to fly right over your head. Suffice to say - you're wrong.
 
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber" - Plato

However if you don't vote you are an idiot.
 
[quote name='nasum']
% of a % without defining a value for X, and your second line states that 52.9% of eligible voters voted for Obama, but then you say that 30% of eligible voters voted for Obama. One of those is incorrect. Essentially, you're including eligible non-voters in your final figure to create a statement while ignoring that eligible non-voters didn't vote.
long story short, cake cannot be had and eaten.

It's the same with that whole "the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes" tripe, of course a reasonable person assumes that means that the top 1% earns a vast majority of the income by which they end up paying more as a percentage. Your talking heads somehow succeed in turning that into an emotional statement of "they sure are carrying a huge burden". Well, you ever see a "Shit Happens" bumper sticker on a Maybach?

still waiting for bic to address how my statement is different than his, not likely to happen but it would still be funny to watch.[/QUOTE]

I cannot be bothered to wade through the latest "argument".

Ask the moron contingent here the same question I asked Bic.

Are you actually saying healthcare reform isn't important?

If not, you aren't saying anything at all.

After that all they can do is try to distract you with bullshit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']However if you don't vote you are an idiot.[/QUOTE]

w/r/t the Presidential seat, like I said earlier, I disagree. (To steal from South Park) When your choice is between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche - or voting for someone else who isn't even going to come close to second place, I don't really blame anyone for not voting.

Voting for the President is like playing a game of "Would you rather..." where there's really no good outcome.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']If everyone who stayed home voted for a fringe candidate they believed in, maybe we could put some scare into the machine.[/QUOTE]

I could get behind that. :)
 
My favorite part of the debate was where Newt was talking about non-military things we can do to stop Iran from getting nukes. "Take out their scientists...all of it deniable"
 
:rofl: That was hilarious...

Because the tea party loves crazy more than they hate black, and I'm crazier than a shit house rat. :lol:
 
[quote name='Clak']:rofl: That was hilarious...

Because the tea party loves crazy more than they hate black, and I'm crazier than a shit house rat. :lol:[/QUOTE]

I thought that was the best part too!
 
ok UB, apparently you don't understand the absurdity of your assertion that 30% of eligible voters support position X. Would that mean that 70% of eligible voters are against position X? If so, how on earth did position X pass in the first plass when it's abundantly clear that the majority is against position X?

I mean shit man, a fucking 5 year old can see through your argument yet you cling to it while the ship is sinking.

Again, you're only using one portion of the facts to present some stance that a minority was in favor of this particular legislation (meanwhile the Obama campaign was more than just healthcare). If you're going to attempt to use math to prove a point, be mindful that math is correct and if you use it incorrectly it will make an ass of you. So, if "only 30% is in favour", you must define the rest of the equation by stating that the % of eligible voters that voted for McCain is the part of 70% of remaining eligible voters that aren't in favour (hint, it's less than 30%) and the remainder is piled in with ambivalence. When you use the loaded language of "support" you imply that 70% is "against" and this is simply untrue.
 
[quote name='nasum']ok UB, apparently you don't understand the absurdity of your assertion that 30% of eligible voters support position X.[/quote]

Because only 30% of eligible voters voted for it.

Need I remind you that your point of view was that it was 30% "of people" - I'm simply narrowing it down by saying that it was /not/ 30% of people.

Would that mean that 70% of eligible voters are against position X?
Click to expand...
No.

It means that 30% of eligible voters are for it.
It means that 20% of eligible voters are against it.
It means that 50% of eligible voters don't give a flying rat's end.

If so, how on earth did position X pass in the first plass when it's abundantly clear that the majority is against position X?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to take a few civics classes. Very few - if any, major elections require 50%+1 of eligible voters to vote for a particular thing in order for it to pass/win. Our system is set up so that it requires a majority of the votes cast in order to win.

I mean shit man, a fucking 5 year old can see through your argument yet you cling to it while the ship is sinking.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure you and a five year old might share the same point of view regarding this.

When you use the loaded language of "support" you imply that 70% is "against" and this is simply untrue.
Click to expand...

I imply nothing. I merely stated facts. ~30% of eligible voters voted for Obama.

Is that really any worse than saying "The people elected Obama." when "the people" who actually elected him consists of about 30% of the eligible voting population?
 
I think I finally understand why others around here get fed up with you. I never said your math was wrong, just that the conclusion you draw, and the implications thereof, are not supported by the math you present.
You may not think that you're implying 30/70, but without stating the smaller portions of 70%, you are indeed implying that it is 30/70. It's the same BS tactic used by Sean Insanity/Rush/Beck/etc... They claim to use facts but they distort those facts by not stating the whole scenario. You've fallen into the trap so well that you don't even see that you're using it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

Is that really any worse than saying "The people elected Obama." when "the people" who actually elected him consists of about 30% of the eligible voting population?[/QUOTE]
It worked in Blazing Saddles for the Bush administration.
 
wait a second, Newt was a highly paid consultant at Freddie Mac?!

picard_wtf_DONT_QUESTION-s300x266-71337-580.jpg


I just... GAH!
It never fucking ends with these clowns!
 
[quote name='nasum']I think I finally understand why others around here get fed up with you. I never said your math was wrong, just that the conclusion you draw, and the implications thereof, are not supported by the math you present.[/quote]

Well, to be fair....
[quote name='nasum']If you're going to attempt to use math to prove a point, be mindful that math is correct and if you use it incorrectly it will make an ass of you.[/QUOTE]

You didn't come right out and say my math was wrong...

You may not think that you're implying 30/70, but without stating the smaller portions of 70%, you are indeed implying that it is 30/70.
Click to expand...

So, I'm curious. What does it imply to say "The people elected Obama"?

Because, the world according to you is that I can't say "30% of eligible voters elected Obama" - which you're now admitting is correct (I think... you're kinda flopping on that point), but I can say "The people elected Obama" - which has a much wider meaning.

[quote name='Clak']It worked in Blazing Saddles for the Bush administration.[/QUOTE]

Not for me, it didn't. To be fair, though, there wasn't much about Bush that worked for me.
 
Did you guys know that tomato paste on a school lunch pizza was considered a vegetable??? Holy fuck balls. I always thought that meme about Reagan calling ketchup a vegetable was just a proposal and not actually enacted. Thanks republifucks!

This has been making the news rounds, so google it if you want to learn more about it. It's related to the spending bill that just passed.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Did you guys know that tomato paste on a school lunch pizza was considered a vegetable??? Holy fuck balls. I always thought that meme about Reagan calling ketchup a vegetable was just a proposal and not actually enacted. Thanks republifucks!

This has been making the news rounds, so google it if you want to learn more about it. It's related to the spending bill that just passed.[/QUOTE]

Was this just a Republican backed proposal? Most of the things I saw made it sound like it passed both sides easily. Any way you look at it or who is to blame its about as moronic and moronic gets. It also shows again that we love to talk deficit reduction but its all talk. Stuff like this will increase the cost to this nation by massive amounts via diabetes and other illnesses later.
 
They didn't "back" the proposal because that particular allowance already exists within USDA guidelines. What they did was fight against USDA proposals, with the help of powerful lobbys, to disqualify it as being a vegetable, reduce sodium levels, reduce potato-based offerings, and increase whole grain-based ingredients.

I mean this is pretty basic shit. If you're going to have a kid in public school, wouldn't you WANT them to be served a healthy meal? WTF my brain hurts.
 
My question is what margin of Democrats to Republicans got behind this? I understand why it was done(the same ole same ole)just I was under the impression it was bipartisan not something Republicans jammed through.
 
I didn't say all the results were, only that I'm getting canadian sites when it's usually ALL US based. You DO know that google uses location-based search results right?

Either way, the only thing I'm seeing is that it was the republifucks that were looking to strip USDA recommendations from the bill. Looking at which party voted yea or nea on the entire bill is practically pointless because you vote on the entire bill and not portions of it.
 
UB:
The math is correct. 52% of 58% is appx 30%, the point you're trying to make with that math is what is incorrect. Obama won with 58% of the vote, not 30%. There is an important distinction there.

In a hypothetical scenario where there was 100% turnout, 58% still wins. You're changing 58% to 30% because it suits some need you have for it to appear that a losing item actually won due to conspiracy. That is factually incorrect.
 
Tomato paste is a vegetable, but a tomato is a fruit, but tomato paste is made from tomatoes, because it's IN THE fuckING NAME, YOU WHORESIPPING DICKTARDS.

So pizza is a fruit. That's why we put pineapple on it.
 
You know, despite Pizza Hut being kind of gross, a think crust with chicken, jalapenos, pineapple and extra sauce is actually pretty damn good.
 
Id say and now I want pizza...but I always want pizza. Ah well if congress can chalk up tomato sauce as pizza = veggie I think I can chalk up Jack and Coke = Fruit...I dont know how...but I can. So apparently tonight my pizza dinner with jack and coke till im smashed = well balanced meal, well at least after I toss in the left over peanut butter pie from my wife's birthday party, after all PB is a healthy fat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top