Obama Threatens To Veto Now That Congress Works
|
Obama threatens to veto now that Congress works
Or you could just not respond with cries of hypocrisy and instead address the point at hand? Just a thought.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » See everyone does know what being a hypocrite means. It only took challenging someone to find mine "OMG I pointed out SPELLING!" for them to realize it. So from now on when I call you liberals a hypocrite I expect you all to not play the "That's not being a hypocrite" card. Because now you have confessed that you do actually understand what it means. Everyone is hypocritical from time to time, but you constantly accuse people of being hypocritical when they are being contrary, snark, purposefully obtuse, or just plain right. You also constantly insult people's intelligence in posts rife with grammatical and spelling errors. A typo here and there is normal, I rip you about it because of how you approach disagreements in that manner. Feel free to dismiss a genuine olive branch, though. Enuyasha said: » Altimaomega said: » See everyone does know what being a hypocrite means. It only took challenging someone to find mine "OMG I pointed out SPELLING!" for them to realize it. The fact of the matter is you people are hypocritical on far more things than just pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes. Which is the stupidest thing ever to do on an internet forum. So from now on when I call you liberals a hypocrite I expect you all to not play the "That's not being a hypocrite" card. Because now you have confessed that you do actually understand what it means. We sit here every thread and have this same conversation :( Seriously wtf lol.. You cannot find anything I've said that is legitimately hypocritical and you have the nerve to say I don't understand what it means.. Wow *** Wow. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Or you could just not respond with cries of hypocrisy and instead address the point at hand? Just a thought. Or you could not post hypocrisy in the first place and have an adult conversation. That one's all yours Enu.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » See everyone does know what being a hypocrite means. It only took challenging someone to find mine "OMG I pointed out SPELLING!" for them to realize it. So from now on when I call you liberals a hypocrite I expect you all to not play the "That's not being a hypocrite" card. Because now you have confessed that you do actually understand what it means. Everyone is hypocritical from time to time, but you constantly accuse people of being hypocritical when they are being contrary, snark, purposefully obtuse, or just plain right. You also constantly insult people's intelligence in posts rife with grammatical and spelling errors. A typo here and there is normal, I rip you about it because of how you approach disagreements in that manner. Feel free to dismiss a genuine olive branch, though. From time to time sure, but that is all a few posters here do. You being one of them.. I'll take your olive branch if you agree to actually stop being hypocritical. Altimaomega said: » Enuyasha said: » Altimaomega said: » See everyone does know what being a hypocrite means. It only took challenging someone to find mine "OMG I pointed out SPELLING!" for them to realize it. The fact of the matter is you people are hypocritical on far more things than just pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes. Which is the stupidest thing ever to do on an internet forum. So from now on when I call you liberals a hypocrite I expect you all to not play the "That's not being a hypocrite" card. Because now you have confessed that you do actually understand what it means. We sit here every thread and have this same conversation :( Seriously wtf lol.. You cannot find anything I've said that is legitimately hypocritical and you have the nerve to say I don't understand what it means.. Wow *** Wow. Altimaomega said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Or you could just not respond with cries of hypocrisy and instead address the point at hand? Just a thought. Or you could not post hypocrisy in the first place and have an adult conversation.  I do good? Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Or you could just not respond with cries of hypocrisy and instead address the point at hand? Just a thought.
[+]
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Or you could just not respond with cries of hypocrisy and instead address the point at hand? Just a thought. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » See everyone does know what being a hypocrite means. It only took challenging someone to find mine "OMG I pointed out SPELLING!" for them to realize it. So from now on when I call you liberals a hypocrite I expect you all to not play the "That's not being a hypocrite" card. Because now you have confessed that you do actually understand what it means. Everyone is hypocritical from time to time, but you constantly accuse people of being hypocritical when they are being contrary, snark, purposefully obtuse, or just plain right. You also constantly insult people's intelligence in posts rife with grammatical and spelling errors. A typo here and there is normal, I rip you about it because of how you approach disagreements in that manner. Feel free to dismiss a genuine olive branch, though. From time to time sure, but that is all a few posters here do. You being one of them.. I'll take your olive branch if you agree to actually stop being hypocritical. Do we have to put the definition under your nose for you to ignore yet again? Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » See everyone does know what being a hypocrite means. It only took challenging someone to find mine "OMG I pointed out SPELLING!" for them to realize it. So from now on when I call you liberals a hypocrite I expect you all to not play the "That's not being a hypocrite" card. Because now you have confessed that you do actually understand what it means. Everyone is hypocritical from time to time, but you constantly accuse people of being hypocritical when they are being contrary, snark, purposefully obtuse, or just plain right. You also constantly insult people's intelligence in posts rife with grammatical and spelling errors. A typo here and there is normal, I rip you about it because of how you approach disagreements in that manner. Feel free to dismiss a genuine olive branch, though. From time to time sure, but that is all a few posters here do. You being one of them.. I'll take your olive branch if you agree to actually stop being hypocritical. Do we have to put the definition under your nose for you to ignore yet again? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » it was 4 D to 3 R with 1 3 http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/senate/louisiana/#.VKR1jivF-QE Point still stands, LA laws are LA laws, and have been like this for many years. No point in bitching about it when it isn't advantageous to you in one election. Did they serious shrink to the level of accusing individual stats of not supporting their position? LA has been trending red for a while now, it's part of the bible belt and the recent hyper-progressive rhetoric really rubs people there the wrong way. And that whole 50% run off thing is actually the proper way to go about it, you have an open election where anyone can be put on the ballot. If the election doesn't produce a clear winner who had over 50% votes then you have a second election with just the top two candidates regardless of party. Its about the most fair and open system you can get. There were nine candidates in the initial election with both parties having multiple people. This enables the voters to chose who they want elected instead of party officials picking out their preferred candidate or having only extreme left / right candidates make it to the final ballot. http://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_elections,_2014 http://ballotpedia.org/Blanket_primary http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Louisiana,_2014 California also has a very similiar system. After reviewing the numbers, the Republican candidate was hurt far more then the Democrat candidate. In the initial primary virtually all democrat voters had voted for the incumbent with there being extremely few defectors. Mary Landrieu had 42.1% of the votes with less then 2% defecting to other Democratic candidates. Bill Cassidy had 41% of the votes with 14.8% having defected to another Republican candidate, namely Rob Maness at 13.8%. Total Republican votes were 55.8% which is why LA was called as going red even before the December final election. The December election closely mirrored the primary in vote distribution.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » it was 4 D to 3 R with 1 3 http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/senate/louisiana/#.VKR1jivF-QE Point still stands, LA laws are LA laws, and have been like this for many years. No point in bitching about it when it isn't advantageous to you in one election. Did they serious shrink to the level of accusing individual stats of not supporting their position? um..no? LA has been trending red for a while now, it's part of the bible belt and the recent hyper-progressive rhetoric really rubs people there the wrong way. Louisiana has slowly become a tinge of purple by district.districts make up states. also, when districts are restructured for key election cycles its kind of skewing numbers at that point. And that whole 50% run off thing is actually the proper way to go about it, you have an open election where anyone can be put on the ballot. If the election doesn't produce a clear winner who had over 50% votes then you have a second election with just the top two candidates regardless of party. Its about the most fair and open system you can get. There were nine candidates in the initial election with both parties having multiple people. This enables the voters to chose who they want elected instead of party officials picking out their preferred candidate or having only extreme left / right candidates make it to the final ballot. http://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_elections,_2014 http://ballotpedia.org/Blanket_primary must be pretty bad if the politically brain dead in arizona dont want it. http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Louisiana,_2014 pretty sure Landrieu won the majority of the vote with over 16 thousand votes over her opponent. The state requires 50% of the vote so they can deter voters from voting in a run off, even your numbers state that the turn out on the runoff itself was lower than the initial voting period. With nine candidates and a slew of other *** for local voting, pretty sure when only a portion of the 9 candidates receive a majority of the votes there is a clear winner elected by the people whom the elected would serve. Requiring over half of the vote only ensures that a state split and developing in districts with a dissenting populous goes to a runoff. California also has a very similiar system. and? After reviewing the numbers, the Republican candidate was hurt far more then the Democrat candidate. In the initial primary virtually all democrat voters had voted for the incumbent with there being extremely few defectors. Mary Landrieu had 42.1% of the votes with less then 2% defecting to other Democratic candidates. Bill Cassidy had 41% of the votes with 14.8% having defected to another Republican candidate, namely Rob Maness at 13.8%. Total Republican votes were 55.8% which is why LA was called as going red even before the December final election. The December election closely mirrored the primary in vote distribution.Generally speaking, the two republican candidates were either 1) endorsed by sarah palin and 2) ran an anti-obama campaign for a year plus including facebook sponsored posts. So yea, skewed information with a self fulfilling prophesy formed by people that knew how to work social media and late night infomercials (Guess who fully believes in that nonsense without fact checking what they just saw). Not to mention: your entire rant is quite irrelevant as it has nothing to do with what you quoted. also, if elections were simple total adding including your competitors, thered be no need for a runoff. cause you know, human behavior isnt applicable to actually showing up to the polls in the first place, which may have deterred 201 thousand (and some change,cause theres a definite difference between total voters on day one to day two.) voters from returning for the runoff across the state (Read: across one or more districts). This also reflects unto the republican vote as the votes are not 1:1 there either in the totals for the runoff (it is also far less). Also, obvious/suggestible electioneering between races. so like, again: your rant is irrelevant. Enuyasha said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » it was 4 D to 3 R with 1 3 http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/senate/louisiana/#.VKR1jivF-QE Point still stands, LA laws are LA laws, and have been like this for many years. No point in bitching about it when it isn't advantageous to you in one election. Did they serious shrink to the level of accusing individual stats of not supporting their position? um..no? LA has been trending red for a while now, it's part of the bible belt and the recent hyper-progressive rhetoric really rubs people there the wrong way. Louisiana has slowly become a tinge of purple by district.districts make up states. also, when districts are restructured for key election cycles its kind of skewing numbers at that point. And that whole 50% run off thing is actually the proper way to go about it, you have an open election where anyone can be put on the ballot. If the election doesn't produce a clear winner who had over 50% votes then you have a second election with just the top two candidates regardless of party. Its about the most fair and open system you can get. There were nine candidates in the initial election with both parties having multiple people. This enables the voters to chose who they want elected instead of party officials picking out their preferred candidate or having only extreme left / right candidates make it to the final ballot. http://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_elections,_2014 http://ballotpedia.org/Blanket_primary must be pretty bad if the politically brain dead in arizona dont want it. http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Louisiana,_2014 pretty sure Landrieu won the majority of the vote with over 16 thousand votes over her opponent. The state requires 50% of the vote so they can deter voters from voting in a run off, even your numbers state that the turn out on the runoff itself was lower than the initial voting period. With nine candidates and a slew of other *** for local voting, pretty sure when only a portion of the 9 candidates receive a majority of the votes there is a clear winner elected by the people whom the elected would serve. Requiring over half of the vote only ensures that a state split and developing in districts with a dissenting populous goes to a runoff. California also has a very similiar system. and? After reviewing the numbers, the Republican candidate was hurt far more then the Democrat candidate. In the initial primary virtually all democrat voters had voted for the incumbent with there being extremely few defectors. Mary Landrieu had 42.1% of the votes with less then 2% defecting to other Democratic candidates. Bill Cassidy had 41% of the votes with 14.8% having defected to another Republican candidate, namely Rob Maness at 13.8%. Total Republican votes were 55.8% which is why LA was called as going red even before the December final election. The December election closely mirrored the primary in vote distribution.Generally speaking, the two republican candidates were either 1) endorsed by sarah palin and 2) ran an anti-obama campaign for a year plus including facebook sponsored posts. So yea, skewed information with a self fulfilling prophesy formed by people that knew how to work social media and late night infomercials (Guess who fully believes in that nonsense without fact checking what they just saw). Not to mention: your entire rant is quite irrelevant as it has nothing to do with what you quoted. also, if elections were simple total adding including your competitors, thered be no need for a runoff. cause you know, human behavior isnt applicable to actually showing up to the polls in the first place, which may have deterred 201 thousand (and some change,cause theres a definite difference between total voters on day one to day two.) voters from returning for the runoff across the state (Read: across one or more districts). This also reflects unto the republican vote as the votes are not 1:1 there either in the totals for the runoff (it is also far less). Also, obvious/suggestible electioneering between races. so like, again: your rant is irrelevant. So like, do you support an emergence of a three party system? Altimaomega said: » Enuyasha said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » it was 4 D to 3 R with 1 3 http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/senate/louisiana/#.VKR1jivF-QE Point still stands, LA laws are LA laws, and have been like this for many years. No point in bitching about it when it isn't advantageous to you in one election. Did they serious shrink to the level of accusing individual stats of not supporting their position? um..no? LA has been trending red for a while now, it's part of the bible belt and the recent hyper-progressive rhetoric really rubs people there the wrong way. Louisiana has slowly become a tinge of purple by district.districts make up states. also, when districts are restructured for key election cycles its kind of skewing numbers at that point. And that whole 50% run off thing is actually the proper way to go about it, you have an open election where anyone can be put on the ballot. If the election doesn't produce a clear winner who had over 50% votes then you have a second election with just the top two candidates regardless of party. Its about the most fair and open system you can get. There were nine candidates in the initial election with both parties having multiple people. This enables the voters to chose who they want elected instead of party officials picking out their preferred candidate or having only extreme left / right candidates make it to the final ballot. http://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_elections,_2014 http://ballotpedia.org/Blanket_primary must be pretty bad if the politically brain dead in arizona dont want it. http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Louisiana,_2014 pretty sure Landrieu won the majority of the vote with over 16 thousand votes over her opponent. The state requires 50% of the vote so they can deter voters from voting in a run off, even your numbers state that the turn out on the runoff itself was lower than the initial voting period. With nine candidates and a slew of other *** for local voting, pretty sure when only a portion of the 9 candidates receive a majority of the votes there is a clear winner elected by the people whom the elected would serve. Requiring over half of the vote only ensures that a state split and developing in districts with a dissenting populous goes to a runoff. California also has a very similiar system. and? After reviewing the numbers, the Republican candidate was hurt far more then the Democrat candidate. In the initial primary virtually all democrat voters had voted for the incumbent with there being extremely few defectors. Mary Landrieu had 42.1% of the votes with less then 2% defecting to other Democratic candidates. Bill Cassidy had 41% of the votes with 14.8% having defected to another Republican candidate, namely Rob Maness at 13.8%. Total Republican votes were 55.8% which is why LA was called as going red even before the December final election. The December election closely mirrored the primary in vote distribution.Generally speaking, the two republican candidates were either 1) endorsed by sarah palin and 2) ran an anti-obama campaign for a year plus including facebook sponsored posts. So yea, skewed information with a self fulfilling prophesy formed by people that knew how to work social media and late night infomercials (Guess who fully believes in that nonsense without fact checking what they just saw). Not to mention: your entire rant is quite irrelevant as it has nothing to do with what you quoted. also, if elections were simple total adding including your competitors, thered be no need for a runoff. cause you know, human behavior isnt applicable to actually showing up to the polls in the first place, which may have deterred 201 thousand (and some change,cause theres a definite difference between total voters on day one to day two.) voters from returning for the runoff across the state (Read: across one or more districts). This also reflects unto the republican vote as the votes are not 1:1 there either in the totals for the runoff (it is also far less). Also, obvious/suggestible electioneering between races. so like, again: your rant is irrelevant. So like, do you support an emergence of a three party system? Evidence to prove this: His own rants about the LA 2014 Senate race.
[+]
Quote: According to him, only if the liberal wins all the time. Evidence to prove this: His own rants about the LA 2014 Senate race. This is what I really don't get.... people have spoken and elected who they wanted to elect. It was a fair and open election, and one that wasn't between two extremist's. Both are fairly moderate when compared to the rest of the nation. It's like these people actually believe, as in religious level belief, that anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't do things their way is somehow defective. With that level of close mindedness no wonder the Dems are losing favor, they have become their own religion. Hopefully they get some moderate folks setting their platform and stop trying to cram progressive ideology down everyone's throats. I mean ... do the liberals actually think that an election system where they are the only party on the ballot and automatically win is the way to go? Are they seriously thinking we should implement Iran's or North Korea's election system where only the politically correct answer is available?
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Quote: According to him, only if the liberal wins all the time. Evidence to prove this: His own rants about the LA 2014 Senate race. This is what I really don't get.... people have spoken and elected who they wanted to elect. It was a fair and open election, and one that wasn't between two extremist's. Both are fairly moderate when compared to the rest of the nation. It's like these people actually believe, as in religious level belief, that anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't do things their way is somehow defective. With that level of close mindedness no wonder the Dems are losing favor, they have become their own religion. Hopefully they get some moderate folks setting their platform and stop trying to cram progressive ideology down everyone's throats. I mean ... do the liberals actually think that an election system where they are the only party on the ballot and automatically win is the way to go? Are they seriously thinking we should implement Iran's or North Korea's election system where only the politically correct answer is available? Well, an election system that favors one demographic is the same issue they took with voter ID laws and the same issue that conservatives took with overly generous absentee and early voting laws. Everyone is out to change the game in their favor. The problem with LA's run-off system is that it's almost never necessary and strongly discourages independent candidates. It's also not just liberals in LA who dislike 50%+ laws or liberals in general, many conservatives dislike them because it adds unnecessary cost and time to an already disgustingly costly and time-consuming process that doesn't lead to better representation and discourages voter participation.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Quote: According to him, only if the liberal wins all the time. Evidence to prove this: His own rants about the LA 2014 Senate race. This is what I really don't get.... people have spoken and elected who they wanted to elect. It was a fair and open election, and one that wasn't between two extremist's. Both are fairly moderate when compared to the rest of the nation. It's like these people actually believe, as in religious level belief, that anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't do things their way is somehow defective. With that level of close mindedness no wonder the Dems are losing favor, they have become their own religion. Hopefully they get some moderate folks setting their platform and stop trying to cram progressive ideology down everyone's throats. I mean ... do the liberals actually think that an election system where they are the only party on the ballot and automatically win is the way to go? Are they seriously thinking we should implement Iran's or North Korea's election system where only the politically correct answer is available? I actually like the way the democrats have been headed the past decade and hope they keep it up. More and more people are actually realizing exactly what you just said. As long as the democrats keep preaching it the more votes they will lose and the only people that remain will be considered out of touch with reality. Much like the liberals on this site. Edit: I'm guessing only a mod can change my post without actually making a new post.. Nice try, and very childish.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Quote: According to him, only if the liberal wins all the time. Evidence to prove this: His own rants about the LA 2014 Senate race. This is what I really don't get.... people have spoken and elected who they wanted to elect. It was a fair and open election, and one that wasn't between two extremist's. Both are fairly moderate when compared to the rest of the nation. It's like these people actually believe, as in religious level belief, that anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't do things their way is somehow defective. With that level of close mindedness no wonder the Dems are losing favor, they have become their own religion. Hopefully they get some moderate folks setting their platform and stop trying to cram progressive ideology down everyone's throats. I mean ... do the liberals actually think that an election system where they are the only party on the ballot and automatically win is the way to go? Are they seriously thinking we should implement Iran's or North Korea's election system where only the politically correct answer is available? Well, an election system that favors one demographic is the same issue they took with voter ID laws and the same issue that conservatives took with overly generous absentee and early voting laws. Everyone is out to change the game in their favor. The problem with LA's run-off system is that it's almost never necessary and strongly discourages independent candidates. It's also not just liberals in LA who dislike 50%+ laws or liberals in general, many conservatives dislike them because it adds unnecessary cost and time to an already disgustingly costly and time-consuming process that doesn't lead to better representation and discourages voter participation. Why does their election system favor one demographic?
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Edit: I'm guessing only a mod can change my post without actually making a new post.. Nice try, and very childish. Now time for this... 
[+]
Anna Ruthven said: » Altimaomega said: » Edit: I'm guessing only a mod can change my post without actually making a new post.. Nice try, and very childish. Now time for this... Ahh I see, its only okay when the liberals troll on this site. My bad.. Should be getting to be about time for this now right? Or are you just gonna break out the ole.. Because someone has a different view than you.. Altimaomega said: » Anna Ruthven said: » Altimaomega said: » Edit: I'm guessing only a mod can change my post without actually making a new post.. Nice try, and very childish. Now time for this... Ahh I see, its only okay when the liberals troll on this site. My bad.. Should be getting to be about time for this now right? Or are you just gonna break out the ole.. Because someone has a different view than you.. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Quote: According to him, only if the liberal wins all the time. Evidence to prove this: His own rants about the LA 2014 Senate race. This is what I really don't get.... people have spoken and elected who they wanted to elect. It was a fair and open election, and one that wasn't between two extremist's. Both are fairly moderate when compared to the rest of the nation. It's like these people actually believe, as in religious level belief, that anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't do things their way is somehow defective. With that level of close mindedness no wonder the Dems are losing favor, they have become their own religion. Hopefully they get some moderate folks setting their platform and stop trying to cram progressive ideology down everyone's throats. I mean ... do the liberals actually think that an election system where they are the only party on the ballot and automatically win is the way to go? Are they seriously thinking we should implement Iran's or North Korea's election system where only the politically correct answer is available? Well, an election system that favors one demographic is the same issue they took with voter ID laws and the same issue that conservatives took with overly generous absentee and early voting laws. Everyone is out to change the game in their favor. The problem with LA's run-off system is that it's almost never necessary and strongly discourages independent candidates. It's also not just liberals in LA who dislike 50%+ laws or liberals in general, many conservatives dislike them because it adds unnecessary cost and time to an already disgustingly costly and time-consuming process that doesn't lead to better representation and discourages voter participation. Why does their election system favor one demographic? It favors older people who have free time and discourages younger people from voting even the first time. That heavily favors republicans. Some of us actually try to have a reasonable discussion about politics (and to the extent, religion) on this website. I know I do.
Yes, we bicker every now and then, but that's the nature of the beast. I don't know what's going on between Anna and Altima, I don't really care to be honest because that's between the two of them. Only thing I don't like is when people come here and spout their insane ideas without offering proof to back it up, and then cry about it later on.
[+]
Only it wasn't removed, it was changed. Big, Huge, Gigantic, difference.. Also, if you actually do pay any attention to P&R the few others start the trolling long before I come in 99% of the time. I would LOVE to be able to have conversations on this forum without the total B.S. they start.. But given they are never punished and continue to do it I figured... If you can't beat them join them.
Altimaomega said: » Only it wasn't removed, it was changed. Big, Huge, Gigantic, difference.. Also, if you actually do pay any attention to P&R the few others start the trolling long before I come in 99% of the time. I would LOVE to be able to have conversations on this forum without the total B.S. they start.. But given they are never punished and continue to do it I figured... If you can't beat them join them.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.