INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: skyblue1 on November 06, 2012, 10:14:45 PM
-
Obama wins
-
:2thumbsup: :party: :crowd: :celebrate: :oranna: :bounce:
-
:2thumbsup: :party: :crowd: :celebrate: :oranna: :bounce:
:thumbup:
-
Can't wait to see Mittens' speech lol
-
Just did. He was quite gracious, IMO.
-
Thank god he's praying for obama.
-
Don't thank god. Let god thank him.
-
Makes little difference. Don't get me wrong, Romney was batshit insane and it's good Obama won.
-
Agreed. I've found myself thinking of the emperor in Star Wars every time I see him. There's something deeply unpleasant about him.
-
:2thumbsup: :party: :crowd: :celebrate: :oranna: :bounce:
FUCK YEAAAHHHH
-
*breathes sigh of relief*
-
Doesn't matter. It's still a totally wrongful system.
-
"Now we have another oppressor, who is not as bad as his competitor. Great. He also has a little bit darker skin, so we can delude ourselves that he is seriously for the rights of blacks. Splendid. He has continued the wars that his Republican predecessor started, but he has gotten the peace price, so we can say to ourselves that he is a friend of peace. Excellent."
:facepalm2:
-
Makes little difference. Don't get me wrong, Romney was batshit insane and it's good Obama won.
Seconded.
Romney was just plain scary.
-
Makes little difference. Don't get me wrong, Romney was batshit insane and it's good Obama won.
Seconded.
Romney was just plain scary.
What was really scary is the fact he was not the scariest of the republicans just the one that got nominated to run for president.
-
Hooray! Not-Romney won!
And maybe in four years one of the candidates will be outright good, instead of the less-bad choice.
-
You're such an optimist.
-
Hooray! Not-Romney won!
And maybe in four years one of the candidates will be outright good, instead of the less-bad choice.
Yes, and you come to Heaven when you die, and Santa Claus lives on the North Pole :tard:
-
After last night’s election, it appears to me that the overarching accomplishment of the Tea Party over the past four years has been to push American voters further to the left in opposition and protest. After 32 straight defeats, gay marriage won referendum votes in three states last night. We elected an openly gay senator and legalized marijuana in two states! I don’t know if any of these things would have happened if the right had been represented by moderation. The Tea Party has been very good to us liberals, and I want to thank them for their support.
-
I like Obama. He's not perfect, no. He needs to lay off the religion, although I realise tha's not gonna happen in the US any time soon. He;s not left-wing enough either. But I like the guy.
On the BBC this morning they were interviewing random americans, obama supporters and romney freaks. And this one crazy bitch was saying "It's like our country's turning into a, uh, a, uh... COMMUNIST country"
lol communism
COMMUNISM
lol
-
I watched some of the coverage on FOX btw, just for the lulz. Who's the weird british guy with the glasses and why was he there? What a dick
Also loved how the Republicans on there were pretty much saying americans were just too thick to understand the issues and THAT's why they didn';t vote Republican. haha nice
-
At least, under a strict communist rule, we wouldn't have to deal with pretending to have a choise... A supreme ruler would be making all the bad decisions, without the public feeling guilty about it, or quarreling about who voted for him and who didn't :M
-
:nerdy:
-
I'll be the one to say it...the two-party sham continues. Obama is clearly going to piss quite a few people off and The Republicans will most likely win the 2016 Election. Cycle of disappointment ladies and gentlemen. On the bright side, i'm sure some Mormon power brokers in a dimly-lit conference room in Salt Lake City, Utah were pissed when they learned that they would not be running an entire country and will have to be happy with running Utah.
-
I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016
Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time
-
I think the Republicans are losing ground.
-
I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016
Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
-
Obama is clearly going to piss quite a few people off and The Republicans will most likely win the 2016 Election.
The depth of your political analysis is stunning :nerdy:
Not even Nate Silver can call an election 4 years in advance. You should write a book, or start a website, or .... something.
-
Obama is clearly going to piss quite a few people off and The Republicans will most likely win the 2016 Election.
The depth of your political analysis is stunning :nerdy:
Not even Nate Silver can call an election 4 years in advance. You should write a book, or start a website, or .... something.
:orly: History repeats itself mate.
-
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
Politics is not as simple as you would like to make it.
The Republican party has two choices right now. They can retool, move to the center, and become a national force once again. This will include ejecting almost all of their current funding, so I find it very unlikely to happen. The other option is to double down on their past ideas, in which case they will go he way of the Whigs. They may retain some regional power for a few decades, mostly in the South, but in the end they will become a piece of history.
-
It's not unlikely. In Sweden we have 8 parties in the parliament. Except for SD they all belong to one of two "blocks", so it's pretty similar to America, although the issues are much different. The social democrats and the communists, and sometimes also the green party, are usually in power, although now we have had a "liberal-conservative" (by Swedish standards, that are extremely to the left) government since 2006.
-
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
Politics is not as simple as you would like to make it.
The Republican party has two choices right now. They can retool, move to the center, and become a national force once again. This will include ejecting almost all of their current funding, so I find it very unlikely to happen. The other option is to double down on their past ideas, in which case they will go he way of the Whigs. They may retain some regional power for a few decades, mostly in the South, but in the end they will become a piece of history.
Or they could simply attempt to suppress more voters. As long as the Dems and the GOP continue to control the elections, neither party will die and the cycle will continue.
-
It's not unlikely. In Sweden we have 8 parties in the parliament. Except for SD they all belong to one of two "blocks", so it's pretty similar to America, although the issues are much different. The social democrats and the communists, and sometimes also the green party, are usually in power, although now we have had a "liberal-conservative" (by Swedish standards, that are extremely to the left) government since 2006.
Two party rule in this country is a financial problem. Once the Republicans prove (as they have begun) that they are no longer a national force, the money will start to flow elsewhere. A third party will emerge, likely fiscally conservative and socially moderate, with a big boner for military spending. This will draw off the military industrial complex donations and fund something that can actually compete.
-
personally I'm happy the brother won, :zoinks:
I dont care about politics however. I am pretty exitied about all the horse cock the republicans are sucking down today though.
Its very entertaining to sit back and watch.
Those poor poor good ol boys. :laugh:
-
I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016
Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?
-
I also agree with odeon. Seems to me the Republicans will HAVE to lose ground, no matter what the Democrats and Obama do. They'll either have to change, or accept that they're not gonna win. Their policies and current set up clearly aren't working for younger voters.
TA I think if what you were saying was right, Romney would have won this week, forget 2016
-
btw this is a view from half way across the atlantic, and I don't understand american politics as much so accept I could be totally talking out of my ass here, but that is how it looks to me :P
-
Half way across the atlantic? Why did I say that? I'm completely on the other side of the atlantic. I blame my lack of sleep last night.
I'll stop posting now, that's four in a row.....
-
Half way across the atlantic? Why did I say that? I'm completely on the other side of the atlantic. I blame my lack of sleep last night.
I'll stop posting now, that's four in a row.....
And there was me, thinking you finally started some serious exercising. Was dreaming of you with a glorious torso, and hideous six pack.
For what it's worth, hearing politic analysts say here that the Republicans are losing ground, because more and more they are starting to get the club for older angry white men. Kinda made sense, an Atlantic ocean, a North-sea, and an IJsselmeer away. Glad Romney did not win indeed.
-
Should have made two posts out of that.
-
Hooray! Not-Romney won!
And maybe in four years one of the candidates will be outright good, instead of the less-bad choice.
Yes, and you come to Heaven when you die, and Santa Claus lives on the North Pole :tard:
OK, fine, maybe by then legalizing recreational marijuana will get voted in in my state and I'll be too high all the time to care.
-
A third party will emerge, likely fiscally conservative and socially moderate, with a big boner for military spending. This will draw off the military industrial complex donations and fund something that can actually compete.
I see where you're coming from with the fiscally conservative and socially moderate party, but why do you think it will be funded by military donations? Wouldn't the military be likely to stick with the failing Republicans, since they have an extremely regimented and traditional ethos? Corporations on the other hand follow the money, so if the Republicans are no longer an effective investment, then they would start investing elsewhere - like with a party that advocated small government and few regulations.
-
I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016
Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?
What sane person would cast a vote for the Mormon Church to run the United States? That turned a lot of people away, and the fact that Romney put his foot in his mouth too many times.
-
A third party will emerge, likely fiscally conservative and socially moderate, with a big boner for military spending. This will draw off the military industrial complex donations and fund something that can actually compete.
I see where you're coming from with the fiscally conservative and socially moderate party, but why do you think it will be funded by military donations? Wouldn't the military be likely to stick with the failing Republicans, since they have an extremely regimented and traditional ethos? Corporations on the other hand follow the money, so if the Republicans are no longer an effective investment, then they would start investing elsewhere - like with a party that advocated small government and few regulations.
The military is a business, mainly, and therefore it goes where the money goes.
-
I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016
Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?
What sane person would cast a vote for the Mormon Church to run the United States? That turned a lot of people away, and the fact that Romney put his foot in his mouth too many times.
Turns out quite a few would. I very much doubt he lost the election because he is a Mormon.
-
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/romneys_transition_site.html (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/romneys_transition_site.html)
-
I literally didn't make up my mind who to vote for until the moment I cast my vote. I felt Obama was blocked by Republican party in Congress. I'm still not convinced he and his advisers have the negotiating/political skills to achieve what has to be done. I felt that Romney was out of touch and I knew he wasn't liked by most European governments.
In the end it came down to who I felt showed a stronger commitment to Judeo-Christian teachings about treating your fellow man. And that was still a tough one because of Obama's abortion stance (Not going to get into that :CanofWorms: because I'm still trying to strengthen my thoughts on abortion).
In the end I voted for Obama. As I say at each President's inauguration, "He won't be the best President we've ever had, but he won't be the worst either. He's what we've got."
-
Around 89% of the people polled about the subject in Sweden wanted to see Obama re-elected so no, Romney isn't particularly well liked.
-
Around 89% of the people polled about the subject in Sweden wanted to see Obama re-elected so no, Romney isn't particularly well liked.
About the same here.
-
btw this is a view from half way across the atlantic, and I don't understand american politics as much so accept I could be totally talking out of my ass here, but that is how it looks to me :P
You seem to understand it better than TA does.
-
I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016
Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?
What sane person would cast a vote for the Mormon Church to run the United States? That turned a lot of people away, and the fact that Romney put his foot in his mouth too many times.
So ... what you are saying is that your previous analysis where the presidency should switch parties every election cycle can actually be influenced and modified by reality?
-
Reality can be a bitch. :P
-
I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016
Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?
What sane person would cast a vote for the Mormon Church to run the United States? That turned a lot of people away, and the fact that Romney put his foot in his mouth too many times.
Well, millions did... And if you look at the republican party, while they might not all be mormons, they're pretty much all religious nutcases, so I don't see what difference it makes really. And you could say the same thing in 2016. You don't know who'll be running then. So maybe you;ll be saying afterwards "well my theory was right, but what sane person would vote fo [.......]?"
-
I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016
Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time
The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.
Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?
What sane person would cast a vote for the Mormon Church to run the United States? That turned a lot of people away, and the fact that Romney put his foot in his mouth too many times.
Well, millions did... And if you look at the republican party, while they might not all be mormons, they're pretty much all religious nutcases, so I don't see what difference it makes really. And you could say the same thing in 2016. You don't know who'll be running then. So maybe you;ll be saying afterwards "well my theory was right, but what sane person would vote fo [.......]?"
The problem with his analysis is that he has it exactly backwards. The people most likely to believe that a vote for Mittens is a vote for the Mormon church to run things are the evangelicals that make up the Republican base, and who voted for him anyway. The secular Democrats like me think all religions are nuts and don't really put much effort into trying to divide them into camps. They all believe in a man in the sky, and they all belong to a church who has a leader. Does that mean that leader runs the country? I doubt it. Do I think the Mormon church running the country is a scarier prospect than the Pope, or the head of the Methodists? No, not really.
-
:orly: How do I have it backwards?
Mormons take their religion seriously and they love power, Catholics and Methodists really don't care. They already run an entire state and a major university, so why would they not want to run an entire country? I'm simply going on past electoral history when I say whoever pisses the most people off loses. Case in point, 2008.
-
I think he just explained how you have it backwards. :orly:
-
:orly: How do I have it backwards?
Mormons take their religion seriously and they love power, Catholics and Methodists really don't care. They already run an entire state and a major university, so why would they not want to run an entire country? I'm simply going on past electoral history when I say whoever pisses the most people off loses. Case in point, 2008.
Oh yeah, Catholics are SUPER laid-back when it comes to matters of power.
-
:orly: How do I have it backwards?
Mormons take their religion seriously and they love power, Catholics and Methodists really don't care. They already run an entire state and a major university, so why would they not want to run an entire country? I'm simply going on past electoral history when I say whoever pisses the most people off loses. Case in point, 2008.
Oh yeah, Catholics are SUPER laid-back when it comes to matters of power.
Benedictus just asked the local convent to add you in their thanking prayers again. :indeed:
-
:orly: How do I have it backwards?
Can't make it much clearer. Maybe I don't understand your point? Perhaps a video could clear things up? ;)
-
:orly: How do I have it backwards?
Can't make it much clearer. Maybe I don't understand your point? Perhaps a video could clear things up? ;)
:yawn:
The point: This has a replay of 2000 written all over it, and America is screwed no matter who wins because politicians don't give two shits about what the people (the 99%) want. They only do their jobs for personal gain. As long as the two parties control the election, the cycle of greed will continue.
-
We all do what we do for personal gain. If you are lucky, others will benefit, too.
-
:orly: How do I have it backwards?
Mormons take their religion seriously and they love power, Catholics and Methodists really don't care. They already run an entire state and a major university, so why would they not want to run an entire country? I'm simply going on past electoral history when I say whoever pisses the most people off loses. Case in point, 2008.
Oh yeah, Catholics are SUPER laid-back when it comes to matters of power.
It's not as if we have our own bank or anything. :pope:
-
We all do what we do for personal gain. If you are lucky, others will benefit, too.
Everybody uses whatever they have.
--- Garrett Breedlove 8)
-
:orly: How do I have it backwards?
Mormons take their religion seriously and they love power, Catholics and Methodists really don't care. They already run an entire state and a major university, so why would they not want to run an entire country? I'm simply going on past electoral history when I say whoever pisses the most people off loses. Case in point, 2008.
Oh yeah, Catholics are SUPER laid-back when it comes to matters of power.
It's not as if we have our own bank or anything. :pope:
Uh, yes you do.
The Vatican Bank: The Most Secret Bank In the World
By Avi Jorisch
Head of the Vatican bank Ettore Gotti Tedeschi (Image credit: AFP via @daylife)
Italian prosecutors have now detained the former head of the Vatican’s bank after searching his home and former office for suspected criminal behavior. Catholics and followers of the Holy See will be disappointed to learn that the Vatican’s bank appears to be embroiled in yet another financial scandal. After a number of very embarrassing episodes in recent years, the Pope pledged to comply with international standards on illicit finance and clean up the bank’s image. The European Union has an important role to play in helping the Vatican mitigate risk and come into full compliance; the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), set up by the G-7 to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, has a responsibility as well.
The Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), commonly referred to as the Vatican Bank, is a privately held financial institution located inside Vatican City. Founded in 1942, the IOR’s role is to safeguard and administer property intended for works of religion or charity. The bank accepts deposits only from top Church officials and entities, according to Italian legal scholar Settimio Caridi. It is run by a president but overseen by five cardinals who report directly to the Vatican and the Vatican’s secretary of state. Because so little is known about the bank’s daily operations and transactions, it has often been called “the most secret bank in the world.”
The bank’s president, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, a well-known and well-regarded figure throughout European banking and social circles, was effectively sacked when the board passed a unanimous “no-confidence” vote in late May. Hired in 2009 with the hope that he would clear the IOR’s reputation, he was fired, according to the Vatican announcement, because he failed to fulfill the “primary functions of his office.” Tedeschi echoed this when he told prosecutors that he came to the office only two days a week, spending the vast majority of his time as the head of Spain’s Banco Santander office in Milan.
Tedeschi and the Vatican Bank have recently been investigated on two separate occasions for money laundering. This past March, JP Morgan Chase closed a Vatican account in Milan after the IOR was “unable to respond” to questionable money transfers, according to Italy’s leading financial newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore. In 2010, Italian authorities seized €23 million ($30 million) from a Vatican account at Italy’s Credito Artigiano Spa, following allegations that IOR violated anti-money-laundering laws. Tedeschi and the bank both denied wrongdoing, and no charges were ever filed. The money was released after IOR promised to pass measures to come into full compliance with the FATF’s international standards on money laundering and terrorism financing.
But it appears that the Vatican’s promise to comply was nothing less than controversial in the Holy See’s inner circle. A book published last week by Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi details intrigue, corruption, power struggles, bribes, money laundering, and a lack of desire to follow the dictates of the FATF—and its European sister organization, MONEYVAL—to fight illicit finance. The “Vatileaks” scandal, as it has come to be known, is based on over 4,000 internal Vatican documents. It has embarrassed the Vatican and cast a cloud over its effort to demonstrate financial transparency and shed its reputation as a tax haven.
In November 2011, MONEYVAL carried out an assessment to determine how well the Vatican has complied with best practices, and to what degree it has implemented controls to curtail abuse of the international financial sector – according to MONEYVAL insiders, these findings will be made public next month. The Vatican had made a request to be put on MONEYVAL’s money-laundering “white list,” a coveted grade in the international financial market. Both Nuzzi’s book and Tedeschi’s removal as head of the bank cast doubt on the Vatican’s ability to achieve this status.
As the international community reviews its options vis-à-vis the Vatican, both the FATF and the MONEYVAL are uniquely placed to pressure the IOR to reform. Both organizations have scores of trained staff members who can assist the Vatican to implement a robust anti-money-laundering regime that would satisfy both the EU and the international community.
It would also be beneficial if the Italian government were to step in, given its close ties with the Vatican. Traditionally, the Ministry of Economy and Finance has designed the policy aspects of Italian money-laundering and terrorism-finance efforts, while the financial intelligence compliance functions fall under the Ufficio Italiano dei Cambi (UIC), in collaboration with the Guardia di Finanza (GdF). Italy has received high marks from the international community for its part in ensuring the safety and soundness of the international financial sector. Italian government agencies would thus seem to be the ideal candidates to lead the Vatican back to the straight and narrow
In today’s interconnected financial world, instituting measures to mitigate abuse of the international financial sector is part of the cost of doing business. Unquestionably, one of the most serious public policy challenges the international community will face in the foreseeable future is how to use every tool in its arsenal to make progress against those who exploit tainted money. While the Vatican answers to a higher calling, the EU, FATF and MONEYVAL should insist that its earthly responsibilities are equally important.
(Author) Avi Jorisch, a former U.S. Treasury Department official, is a Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC.
-
^ I know there is a Vatican bank, my Pope was lying. ;)
-
^ I know there is a Vatican bank, my Pope was lying. ;)
The really, really super secret one is the Bank of the Church of England.
-
^ I know there is a Vatican bank, my Pope was lying. ;)
The really, really super secret one is the Bank of the Church of England.
There is such a thing? :o
-
Did anyone notice they've announced the new Archbiship of Cunterbury? Some anti-gay twat (but ah, he approves of women biships, how tolerant and forward thinking! :zoinks: )
-
At least, under a strict communist rule, we wouldn't have to deal with pretending to have a choise... A supreme ruler would be making all the bad decisions, without the public feeling guilty about it, or quarreling about who voted for him and who didn't :M
Are you implying the americans actually do have a choice? I hope not Zegh. I credited you as being a lot smarter. Global bankers, blah blah. They make the real decisions. For america, and everyone else.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ctszOwgnCrk/0.jpg)
-
:include:
-
^ I know there is a Vatican bank, my Pope was lying. ;)
The really, really super secret one is the Bank of the Church of England.
There is such a thing? :o
Yes. Deposits should be cash or cheques made out to Queen Victoria. ;)