U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Felya]

Again, dark side.

Oh, and are you actually going to find where I said that Obama has already won? Or is that another argument that you lost?

He and KDSwain are the only people I have seen predict.

I have a prediction! Regardless of who wins, we will be under 6% unemployment at 1st quarter of 2013. Regardless of who wins, they will take full credit. This will be the most spent holiday of the last 6 years and the winner will take full credit. The housing market will show higher than expected recovery numbers and either one will take credit. I am Nostradanus!

---------- Post added 2012-10-26 at 04:54 AM ----------

No. I'm saying that you think that.. when in fact my avatar has nothing at all to do with politics.

Are you sure you don't think you are saying it because I don't think, what you think, I think? You think?

[conscript]

Or maybe I just liked star wars and thought the entire concept of how palpatine came to power was some good story telling.

No actual better parlor is giving those odds you claim, only fake ones claiming it to appear unbiased in the mold of pretending to be independent. Now show me odds in VEGAS that you can actually place bets on, then maybe I won't just be laughing at nonsense.

Bovada has Obama at -190, Hill in the Uk has him at -250.

[oblivionx]

I'm glad that you're to admit you're wrong, Oblivion.

I admit that you sometimes don't follow replies well and try to turn them into things they are not.

I never directly implied you said the election is over, I was playing at how the host of the not very informed has been claiming so for months now.

[obdigore]

He and KDSwain are the only people I have seen predict.

I have a prediction! Regardless of who wins, we will be under 6% unemployment at 1st quarter of 2013. Regardless of who wins, they will take full credit. This will be the most spent holiday of the last 6 years and the winner will take full credit. The housing market will show higher than expected recovery numbers and either one will take credit. I am Nostradanus!

CBO has predicted this as well, as numerous companies have announced plans to hire hundreds of thousands of seasonal workers for the holidays, and plans to retain a goodly percentage of them.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/16/tech...nal/index.html

[conscript]

As lazy as those stormtroopers were they had to be in Galactic local 9000.

Ya you'd think they would have a union. Although, maybe Darth Vader channeled his inner Target and just strangled them as soon as any of his employees even mentioned the word unionize.

[Felya]

Bovada has Obama at -190, Hill in the Uk has him at -250.

What does that mean?

[Vokal]

Ya you'd think they would have a union. Although, maybe Darth Vader channeled his inner Target and just strangled them as soon as any of his employees even mentioned the word unionize.

The Republican dream.

[Spectral]

What does that mean?

The notation -190 indicates that you have to bet $190 to win $100. It's nearly 2:1 odds.

[Felya]

CBO has predicted this as well, as numerous companies have announced plans to hire hundreds of thousands of seasonal workers for the holidays, and plans to retain a goodly percentage of them.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/16/tech...nal/index.html

Hey! You are ruining my gig here!

[Grizzly Willy]

I admit that you sometimes don't follow replies well and try to turn them into things they are not.

I never directly implied you said the election is over, I was playing at how the host of the not very informed has been claiming so for months now.

So I was misunderstanding your post then. Though, I recall you specifically using "you" when responding to a post of mine. If you had clarified your point later and I missed it, then I apologize.

[conscript]

What does that mean?

A bet that indicates a minus means you have to bet that amount to win $100. So you have to bet $225 to win $100 in the UK if you bet for Obama to win. A bet that shows a positive means you win that much money for betting $100. That UK book has Romney at a +175 meaning you win $175 by betting $100.

Edit: Went and got the correct up to date Obama figure from Hill. Its 225 not 250.

[oblivionx]

So I was misunderstanding your post then. Though, I recall you specifically using "you" when responding to a post of mine. If you had clarified your point later and I missed it, then I apologize.

I'd care about apologies if it wasn't a trend, it's a trend now... You're starting to be a version of the guy attempting to troll me right now in the thread.

Were you sincere at all, you would have been more offended on me implying you aren't independent at all, instead of trying to make some sort of point out of the first and mostly irrelevant part of the sentence (which is what you did).

[obdigore]

I'd care about apologies if it wasn't a trend, it's a trend now... You're starting to be a version of the guy attempting to troll me right now in the thread.

Were you sincere at all, you would have been more offended on me implying you aren't independent at all, instead of trying to make some sort of point out of the first and mostly irrelevant part of the sentence (which is what you did).

Are you giving tips on how to troll now?

[Felya]

The notation -190 indicates that you have to bet $190 to win $100. It's nearly 2:1 odds.

Oh no! Keep Wesley Snipes out of Vegas!!

[Spectral]

Were you sincere at all, you would have been more offended on me implying you aren't independent at all, instead of trying to make some sort of point out of the first and mostly irrelevant part of the sentence (which is what you did).

People would have to take your posts seriously to be offended by them. I'm guessing most people don't bother anymore.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'd care about apologies if it wasn't a trend, it's a trend now... You're starting to be a version of the guy attempting to troll me right now in the thread.

Were you sincere at all, you would have been more offended on me implying you aren't independent at all, instead of trying to make some sort of point out of the first and mostly irrelevant part of the sentence (which is what you did).

I have challenged you on this in the past, but that never seems to get a response from you. I was genuinely being sincere, too. I make mistakes, and I'll admit it when I do.

On the point of biases. Hell, you can ask KingHorse where I stand. I've pointed out that I think the Obama administration is handling the Benghazi issue horribly. I've expressed my utter disdain over the NDAA, and I still don't think he should have signed it.

If I seem like a Liberal apologist, it's because the GOP is crashing hard for me this election. They're doing horribly on women's rights, marriage equality, solutions for the deficit - they are tripping over just about every issue. I don't see much in the way of positive information from them, and that's even when watching Special Report and the Fox Report.

So you want to think I'm a Liberal masquerading under the guise of an independent? Be my guest. I'm still casting my vote for Gary Johnson, and odds are I'm not going to be voting for Tammy Baldwin or Tommy Thompson regardless of what you think.

[oblivionx]

People would have to take your posts seriously to be offended by them. I'm guessing most people don't bother anymore.

Seems like I spawn 5-6 trolls no matter what I say. Though bad trolling is sort of not really trolling. Some have figured out that I just won't bother responding and perhaps realize that I didn't even read past word 2 of their poorly thought out attempt.

For instance, I didn't say anything negative about gays at all. Didn't stop you from trying to accuse me of it. I was raised by a family that had a lot of contact with artists, especially advertising related artists. I grew up seeing gay men at any holiday or gathering... I've stayed at their villa in Italy, as a child... a number of times, and without "parental supervision". But, all that and stereotypically you're the first throwing the stone labeled "gay hater". Nothing in what I said even implies a dislike of gays or even an intolerance of them. I just find it funny that HBO is always trying to get the gay out there. Furthermore, if you don't think it's sort of laughable that the only problem HBO had with showing a series with as much sex, nudity, violence and what not that is in Game of Thrones.. that they need to add a couple of gay scenes to boot (that weren't in the books), and not see it as somewhat humerous at how much HBO tries to do this. There isn't much bother in talking to you, as you are just looking for something to grind your axe on.

How any Republican poster here can be subjected to constant poorly worded insults and near constant TOS violating hate and accusation versus.. with nothing ever done about it, is funnier than HBO trying to work gay into anything they can.

---------- Post added 2012-10-26 at 05:27 AM ----------

So you want to think I'm a Liberal masquerading under the guise of an independent? Be my guest. I'm still casting my vote for Gary Johnson, and odds are I'm not going to be voting for Tammy Baldwin or Tommy Thompson regardless of what you think.

It's a common tactic, extremely common.

Especially locally for me... the most hardcore extreme liberal is always "I'm an independent" because they are acutely aware that "I'm a liberal" is usually followed by people rolling their eyes at every word.

I could be wrong, but my guess is you aren't independent at all.

[Felya]

I just find it funny that HBO is always trying to get the gay out there.

Lets be constructive. Why is it funny? Why do you think gay characters are a reflection of HBO trying to get them out and not reflection of society?

[obdigore]

Oh look. Victim Card and the calling of bias against MMO-Champion.

Meanwhile you still have not even claimed to have read the book, nor even watched GoT, so I'm rather unclear why you are debating them?

Remember, attacking someones argument is not an insult against the person providing the argument, which you seem to constantly forget. But please, keep calling anyone who disagrees with you trolls, that is surely a way to seem logical and honest.

[Deleted]

Seems like I spawn 5-6 trolls no matter what I say. Though bad trolling is sort of not really trolling. Some have figured out that I just won't bother responding and perhaps realize that I didn't even read past word 2 of their poorly thought out attempt.

That kind of attitude is trolling, oblivionx. Or just presumption of others (how can you know if a response to what you say is "poorly thought out" if you've only read two words)?

For instance, I didn't say anything negative about gays at all. Didn't stop you from trying to accuse me of it.

You complained about the inclusion of a homosexual scene in GoT whilst obviously knowing nothing about it and also I think, almost nothing about the series it was in. The only reason you complained apparently is because they added a hinted at event from the book to the camera in the TV adaptation. Do you know why they did that? I've offered to explain to you several times.

I was raised by a family that had a lot of contact with artists, especially advertising related artists. I grew up seeing gay men at any holiday or gathering... I've stayed at their villa in Italy, as a child... a number of times, and without "parental supervision". But, all that and stereotypically you're the first throwing the stone labeled "gay hater". Nothing in what I said even implies a dislike of gays or even an intolerance of them. I just find it funny that HBO is always trying to get the gay out there.

It is very easy when the series you're "trying to get the gay out in" actually has two homosexual characters that in the books are noted as actually being gay.

Furthermore, if you don't think it's sort of laughable that the only problem HBO had with showing a series with as much sex, nudity, violence and what not that is in Game of Thrones.. that they need to add a couple of gay scenes to boot (that weren't in the books),

You understand that in addition to adding some sex scenes they also removed others. Adaptations are adaptations and in the second season they changed, edited, removed and added a lot more than just a solitary sex scene.

and not see it as somewhat humerous at how much HBO tries to do this. There isn't much bother in talking to you, as you are just looking for something to grind your axe on.

The irony is flawless.

How any Republican poster here can be subjected to constant poorly worded insults and near constant TOS violating hate and accusation versus.. with nothing ever done about it, is funnier than HBO trying to work gay into anything they can.[/QUOTE]