The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='UncleBob']So... the economy isn't completely tanked. Guess if the Republicans are responsible for everything, then they should get the kudos?[/QUOTE]

Nope. Just stating that this economy that everyone seems to think is in shambles is not.

p.s.
nice dodge
 
[quote name='Spokker']What the president said about ATMs is a real head scratcher.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the same has been said for robotic assembly lines and such.

On the other hand, what policy initiative could be made to get corporations to start spending their $2 trillion in capital on growth and labour without being seen as "intrusive govt"? The notion that the president is in charge of jobs sort of reeks of, oh I dunno, socialism?
 
But ATMs didn't really replace areas in which the bank already operated, it expanded the bank to remote locations. It also created an entire industry to create and support those ATMs. If he wants to make a point about automation, the ATM is a really bad example. And the fact that you have easy access to your money in more places probably increased the propensity to consume, which further drives the economy, but that's just my speculation. The ATM industry certainly promotes ATMs for this reason, to increase customer spending.

I don't believe that the president is responsible for jobs, waving a magic wand and putting people to work. In fact, the stimulus was only marginally helpful in putting people back to work. Government does not create jobs, it can only influence the economic climate in which jobs are created, not created or destroyed.
 
[quote name='Clak']Mitt Romney has to be one of the most out of touch goobers in politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-really-liked-sandwich-computer-wawa-231304740.html

Blown away by the damn ordering screen, like it's high technology. They've been doing stuff like that at various places for years, and he tries to use it to somehow prove the government is bad?

I hope you all realize that if you vote for this man, you're no less ridiculous than he is.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Pliskin101']Classic NPD^

LOL

20-30 year olds the new 13-17.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Pliskin101']I don't like Romney either but Obama isn't any better.
I guess if it was Obama at wawa he would have put the system on his kill list.
Obama blames ATMs... LOL like they are new or something. This guy has every excuse for being a failure. Anyone who votes for this clueless out of touch fool is crazy.
[/QUOTE]


I know this is not your most ridiculous series of posts but it amused me to see you criticize someone for what you would say just a few posts later.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I know this is not your most ridiculous series of posts but it amused me to see you criticize someone for what you would say just a few posts later.[/QUOTE]

LMAO. This is got to be one of the top of your most ridiculous posts ever. That fact you don't get sarcasm and the point that I said and did the same thing he did with the other candidate to be SARCASTIC and make a point about the stupidity of it is quite funny.

It is politics if he and the others want to play that stupid game as the candidates do they are just cattle. You see now? Romney = bad Obama same shit = pass... by those yoyo's. Are we going to fall for this all election year long? Are they going to post stupid shit like that all year? Because it goes both ways. Followers sheeeesh. Or should I say sheeples?

edit: oh and the middle post...the one about NPD is in refeernce to that posters Romney post and this OP here by same...http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323285
 
Last edited:
[quote name='nasum']Nope. Just stating that this economy that everyone seems to think is in shambles is not.

p.s.
nice dodge[/QUOTE]

Not a dodge, per-say. I just don't find it useful to retread the same ground where you think our government having billions of dollars tied up in a failing private company is a good thing when there are so many other programs that money could be put to use in.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Egg on my face if you were but in my defense it's hard to tell if you're an actual poster or a joke account.[/QUOTE]

I was and you don't need to defend yourself and there is no egg. I was looking for a way to mirror your post to me but be nice after ( but failed to find a way) because I know inflection ie sarcasm can be hard to convey or recieve on a forum. It's all G...LOL.

Egg is on my face. ;)
 
Last edited:
[quote name='UncleBob']While the technology itself isn't surprising, I've never been to a place that uses it in such a fashion.[/QUOTE]

machinebank.jpg


Ordering a sandwich from a machine is not the type of technological marvel that is going to put America on top.

Romney as businessman is such a fucking sham. He knows how to make money by gutting companies and firing honest hard-working Americans. He doesn't know dick about technology or innovation.
 
I don't believe in reincarnation, but I swear that bob is an old man in a younger man's body.

Anyway businessmen like Romney don't innovate anyway, never have. The people they hire (engineers, designers) innovate. The businessmen just supply them with an environment in which to do it.

Unless we're talking about coming up with new ways of making money by basically doing nothing, then yeah, they're innovative as hell. Come up with some new investment scheme that will ultimately hurt the country, but hey, we're gettin' rich biatch.
 
Can someone refresh my memory on Obama's "job history" (lol what a joke)? Also can someone refresh me on the economy right now and the loss in jobs etc.? Maybe you can throw in Obama's job creation history out of office as well?

LMAO
 
Last edited:
[quote name='camoor']

Romney as businessman is such a fucking sham. He knows how to make money by gutting companies and firing honest hard-working Americans. He doesn't know dick about technology or innovation.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, I don't think he made that money on his own. There was never any risk for him; do you know how much easier it is to succeed in business when you are doing it for fun?
 
I love 'merica. :rofl:

He's the kind of person who would watch Team America and not "get" the America, fuck yeah! song. Instead he'd be sitting there with a tear in his eye.
 
Dohdough and clak remind me of another duo.....

President Clinton: Beavis and Butt-head, on behalf of your fellow Americans I extend my deepest thanks. You exemplify a fine new crop of young Americans who will grow into the leaders of this great country.
Butt-head: Huh huh huh huh. He said, "extend."
Beavis: Oh, yeah.
 
I really hate my curiosity sometimes. Was looking at the "about us" page of the optometrist's office I'm going to next week. The damn optometrist is a teabagger.
 
MSNBC Keeping It Classy...Again

In another edition of 'MSNBC Keeping It Classy," anchor Andrea Mitchell aired an edited video of Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Cornwall, Pennsylvania. In the full-length YouTube video of the speech, Romney jokingly plays on the state divide over convenience stores, Wawa and Sheetz, and discusses how they are examples of how the private sector creates competition and efficiency.
Romney then went on to tell the story of a doctor who wanted to change his billing address but had to deal with a bureaucratic process that lasted months, highlighting the inefficiency that government creates. He compared this experience to his own at Wawa, where he was able to use a touch screen computer to quickly order his hoagie, to show how the competition of the private sector results in the most efficient ways of providing service and doing business.
However, this message was not suitable for Andrea Mitchell or the folks at left-leaning MSNBC, as it didn't quite fit their 'Romney is out of touch' message. Throwing the ethics of journalism out the window, Mitchell and her team edited the video to completely remove Romney's comparison of the private sector experience at Wawa to the nightmarish government one. The video now made it look like Romney was shocked that touch screens could be used to order food at a local convenience store. It was an obvious attempt to make it look like President George H.W. Bush's 'supermarket scanner moment' that harmed his campaign.
After this blatantly manipulated tape aired, the Romney Campaign and the RNC contacted the show, ultimately forcing Mitchell to address the edited video on her show today. Yet, she refused to apologize and instead blamed it on timing. She then showed some of the footage that was missing from the video the network aired.
To see the comparison of the edited video that aired on MSNBC and the real version, click here
 
[quote name='camoor']
machinebank.jpg


Ordering a sandwich from a machine is not the type of technological marvel that is going to put America on top.

Romney as businessman is such a fucking sham. He knows how to make money by gutting companies and firing honest hard-working Americans. He doesn't know dick about technology or innovation.[/QUOTE]

For me, Romney exemplifies everything that is wrong with America and the greed of big business. He made his money leveraging the capital and resources he already had to buy floundering companies, squeeze everything out of them, and throw them away. He didn't care who was out of a job, he didn't care what the history of the company was, whether it was worth trying to save, whether it was possible to save it, etc. He cared about a margin sheet and making the "maximum return" on his "investment" in the company.

Now the guy wants to be President and his history of running companies into the ground is somehow supposed to be the "fresh ideas" and "business experience" we need to turn this country around?

I could really care less how the video was edited. The simple fact that he is championing something that clearly cost someone their job in the name of "efficiency" and "streamlining" is what my problem is. That machine he used to order? How much of it was made right here in America? I'm truly curious to know because I have my doubts. The person who is out of a job is no better off because of that machine. Who's pocket does that "savings" go into? The other employees that are left? The Manager? Yeah, didn't think so.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']For me, Romney exemplifies everything that is wrong with America and the greed of big business. He made his money leveraging the capital and resources he already had to buy floundering companies, squeeze everything out of them, and throw them away. He didn't care who was out of a job, he didn't care what the history of the company was, whether it was worth trying to save, whether it was possible to save it, etc. He cared about a margin sheet and making the "maximum return" on his "investment" in the company.

Now the guy wants to be President and his history of running companies into the ground is somehow supposed to be the "fresh ideas" and "business experience" we need to turn this country around?

I could really care less how the video was edited. The simple fact that he is championing something that clearly cost someone their job in the name of "efficiency" and "streamlining" is what my problem is. That machine he used to order? How much of it was made right here in America? I'm truly curious to know because I have my doubts. The person who is out of a job is no better off because of that machine. Who's pocket does that "savings" go into? The other employees that are left? The Manager? Yeah, didn't think so.[/QUOTE]

You act like new innovations and technology is something...well... new. A creation of late...and somehow it is a bad thing. You also might like to know that sending jobs or allowing and encouraging trade and business globally is not just an R thing or a D thing and is not new either. If you are going to vote based on some alternate reality that is your right but just know that you are a little lost in history, the times, the global economy and so forth.

Obama's job history? His experience? We have only his record as president to look at for REAL job history and I like some of what he has done but overall I think he has done one heck of a lot of damage and much more harm than good.

edit: so that is who we are stuck with again...choosing between bad and worse. I say Obama is the worse in this case.
 
In countries with large populations (I'll use India as an example), there is less automation, and probably always will be, simply because so many people need jobs. I was told that personally while visiting there, because I had noticed there were so many people doing jobs there that here would be done by a machine. It isn't just because they can't afford the machines, it's that with a population around 1 billion, people need jobs. So they'll most likely never be able to have that attitude where profit and efficiency is the most important thing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Plessy v. Ferguson[/QUOTE]
How could I have ever been so wrong! Bob is the TRUE FIGHTER of racial equality here and I'm just a raging racially racist racister.

Between this and his defense of brown people, I have been shown the errors of my ways!
 
Just one example of something the Supreme Court has declared Constitutional, then, later, the decision was later altered.

To believe that the individuals on the Supreme Court are the definitive answer is folly.

It's times like this, I wish I had a portal into an alternate universe so I could see what the same folks (from both sides) are saying about this. It'd be fun.

Am I seriously to believe that Clak, you, and the like would still come out in defense of the Supreme Court had they ruled the entire bill void due to the Unconstitutionality of it?

Because I believe that about as much as I believe Vermin Supreme will be elected in 2012.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Plessy v. Ferguson[/QUOTE]

They wont get it....:roll:

edit: pulled this from the last page and didn't see your new post when I did this one. They still won't get it. I'll even bet someone on my ignore list called you racist.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='UncleBob']Am I seriously to believe that Clak, you, and the like would still come out in defense of the Supreme Court had they ruled the entire bill void due to the Unconstitutionality of it?[/QUOTE]

Hell, we don't even have to guess what the Democrat reaction would have been if SCOTUS had decided to strike it down. When they originally said they would hear the case, Obama himself said that it wasn't their place to review it, which was a pretty ignorant and embarrassing statement for a former constitutional law professor to say. Now that they ruled in his favor, the party line is that basically that SCOTUS is the final word on the subject. If they had lost, they would went have went back to the claim that they had no authority in the first place.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Hell, we don't even have to guess what the Democrat reaction would have been if SCOTUS had decided to strike it down. When they originally said they would hear the case, Obama himself said that it wasn't their place to review it, which was a pretty ignorant and embarrassing statement for a former constitutional law professor to say. Now that they ruled in his favor, the party line is that basically that SCOTUS is the final word on the subject. If they had lost, they would went have went back to the claim that they had no authority in the first place.[/QUOTE]

And if SCOTUS struck it down, we'd have the GOP saying it was the final word instead. That's the fun of such a bipartisan political system where the side you're not on is always wrong and trying to destroy the country.

[quote name='UncleBob']Plessy v. Ferguson[/QUOTE]

Until 1954, Plessy was Constitutional. And, until there is an Amendment that says otherwise or a SCOTUS ruling that overturns this (unlikely anytime soon), this ruling remains constitutional as well. To say a Supreme Court ruling doesn't make something Constitutional is a fairly ridiculous assertion. Pretty much the sole reason SCOTUS exists is to determine the constitutionality of various issues.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Until 1954, Plessy was Constitutional.[/QUOTE]

So... what amendment passed in 1954 that changed the Constitution in such a way that made Plessy v. Ferguson Unconstitutional?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... what amendment passed in 1954 that changed the Constitution in such a way that made Plessy v. Ferguson Unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]

Amendments aren't the only way a Supreme Court ruling can be overturned.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Amendments aren't the only way a Supreme Court ruling can be overturned.[/QUOTE]

Are we discussing if something is Constutional or the process of overturning a Supreme Court decision? Because those aren't the same thing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Are we discussing if something is Constutional or the process of overturning a Supreme Court decision? Because those aren't the same thing.[/QUOTE]

You're the one who brought up amendments as if that's the only way something's constitutionality can be changed.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']You're the one who brought up amendments as if that's the only way something's constitutionality can be changed.[/QUOTE]

So... you know a way to change the Constitution without an amendment?
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Second half of my sig is relevant[/QUOTE]

You know I am understanding a little bit of where you are coming from.

It's just those links you provided before were not the best ones to use when trying to get your ideas or point across. The second one kind of did some victim blaming about 9/11 in a counetr arguement about the immigration thing and the free market and I gave my opinion on the first.

I don't know you but seem like a pretty descent person so keep up the good fight. ;)
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh and btw, just in case anyone here didn't already know it, Rand Paul is a fucking twit.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...eats-its-still-not-constitutional-127702.html
"just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.
Click to expand...

Actually Randall, it does.[/QUOTE]

It does makes it constitutional, at least until a different couple of people on the SCOTUS declare it to be otherwise later on.


[quote name='UncleBob']So... you know a way to change the Constitution without an amendment?[/QUOTE]
No, but I'm sure he knows a way to change the SCOTUS without an amendment.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... you know a way to change the Constitution without an amendment?[/QUOTE]

I thought we were talking about constitutionality, not amendments nor changing the Constitution.

If you want to make an argument, make an argument. It'd make it a lot easier to determine what your point is rather than all these questions that really have nothing to do with what I have said.
 
[quote name='cantatus']i thought we were talking about constitutionality, not amendments nor changing the constitution.

If you want to make an argument, make an argument. It'd make it a lot easier to determine what your point is rather than all these questions that really have nothing to do with what i have said.[/quote]

[quote name='msut77']get used to saying that.[/quote]
lolz
 
[quote name='Cantatus']I thought we were talking about constitutionality, not amendments nor changing the Constitution.

If you want to make an argument, make an argument. It'd make it a lot easier to determine what your point is rather than all these questions that really have nothing to do with what I have said.[/QUOTE]

The point is quite simple. The Supreme Court doesn't make a decision based on the Constitution. They make the decision based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

That's why one group deemed "Separate but Equal" Constitutional, while another deemed it Unconstitutional.

The Constitution didn't change - thus the constitutionality of it did not change. Merely 6-10 individuals give their interpretation of what it means - but it doesn't change what it is.

It's like if Obama's interpretation of the Health Care Act is that it's "not a tax". Doesn't change the fact that it is a tax just because he says it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top