Obama Inspires Tons Of New Voters To Vote!

[Loismustdie 0]

I don't care about hungry orphans regardless of context, but that's neither here nor there.

I do for some reason lately. I can't put my finger on it. Actually working on a business plan right now, a little start up, that if things go the way I would like could make some sort of difference in that area. When everything comes to fruition I will make a post about it in here and the religous forum.

[CaneBrain 95]

I just wanted to point out that your standard for supporting evidence is fucking hilarious.

it is easier and far more liberating to just say stuff. ask Bush. I would take 1000 college students over 1000 rednecks in a political thought contest. Unless those students are from FSU.

[Loismustdie 0]

I just wanted to point out that your standard for supporting evidence is fucking hilarious.

Not really. I know alot of college graduates, and the only people that I have found outside of this site who can support there view on supporting Obama is currently... zero. I mean literally zero. Not one could coherently tell me why. A sad time for America.

[strategy 4]

Not really. I know alot of college graduates, and the only people that I have found outside of this site who can support there view on supporting Obama is currently... zero. I mean literally zero. Not one could coherently tell me why. A sad time for America.

I see about the same levels of informed voting on both sides around here. because lawrence is a lefty haven, the conservative groups that come see us tend to be REAL obnoxious. whether or not you agree with being pro-life, I don't understand how KU thought it was okay to let the pro-life group set up a gigantic display with tons of pictures of bloody fetuses on the grounds in the middle of campus for like three days.

[Loismustdie 0]

I see about the same levels of informed voting on both sides around here. because lawrence is a lefty haven, the conservative groups that come see us tend to be REAL obnoxious. whether or not you agree with being pro-life, I don't understand how KU thought it was okay to let the pro-life group set up a gigantic display with tons of pictures of bloody fetuses on the grounds in the middle of campus for like three days.

I hate that stuff as well. It's like the gore excites them on some level. Never will understand that.

[Balloon guy 158]

Peta did that in the town square in Vienna while we were there.Only they had a 8'x8' screen and showed moviesI ordered steak that night

[Jeepster80125 0]

lol. in separate threads, we have conservatives championing the ideas that young people should not vote and that the less people who vote the better.And me and the Dems are elitist just because we think there are a lot of dumbasses in the south and midwest? we just think they are dumbasses but we dont want to disenfranchise them. mostly.

I think there's a difference. There are people like nimue who act arrogantly and think they're better than other people. Then there's the average voter, who I don't think either side would argue is generally an idiot.

[hblask 1]

lol. in separate threads, we have conservatives championing the ideas that young people should not vote and that the less people who vote the better.And me and the Dems are elitist just because we think there are a lot of dumbasses in the south and midwest? we just think they are dumbasses but we dont want to disenfranchise them. mostly.

I think I started this part of the thread, so I have to comment. First, I don't consider myself a conservative, so I'm not sure if you were referring to me or not.Second, I am not advocating voting or not voting based on anything other than "is it important to the voter." And in a country where voting has become a "screw your neighbor before they screw you" contest, everyone has incentive to vote.That's sad. The federal government should not be about seeing which group of citizens can screw which other group of citizens. It should be about defending our rights and providing a fair legal system.

[Nimue1995 1]

[ ] does understand democracy, functions of governement and elections[x] most stupid post i've read so far in this whole forum[x] opinion would fit to countries with aristocratic/oligarchic political systems, definetly monarchy and maybe even dictatorshipsorry, but this puts me on life tilt. to read something like this from a citizen of the country with the first formal democratic constitution ever written and where everybody claims that it is the land of the free and everything. something is damn wrong here.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not. Or even if I'm reading your post correctly. Are you saying that African Americans were NOT intimidated into not voting in the south in the 50's and 60's? Hell that's what the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was about. Even though we're supposedly a democracy, that didn't stop the white supremists in the south from trying to keep African Americans from participating in the democratic process. In the 60's there were still segragated schools and even drinking fountains in the south and other parts of the US as well. History may not be pretty but it's still history just the same.

I do for some reason lately. I can't put my finger on it. Actually working on a business plan right now, a little start up, that if things go the way I would like could make some sort of difference in that area. When everything comes to fruition I will make a post about it in here and the religous forum.

What happened in your mayoral bid?

I think there's a difference. There are people like nimue who act arrogantly and think they're better than other people. Then there's the average voter, who I don't think either side would argue is generally an idiot.

Thanks Jeep, I love you too. Lol, maybe my arrogant side comes out here I dunno. Because I don't think you'd find many who've met me in person that would use that word to describe me. But maybe that's arrogance too on my part to think that,lol. Okay okay guess you're right lol.

[hblask 1]

Lol, maybe my arrogant side comes out here I dunno.

No.Sometimes, you have to consider the source. Don't get me wrong, I seem to agree with Jeepster more than most people on here, so I obviously respect his ideas and thinking, but he does like to come down hard on people, frequently without reason.Or maybe he's just trying to be funny, I'm not sure.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Thanks Jeep, I love you too. Lol, maybe my arrogant side comes out here I dunno. Because I don't think you'd find many who've met me in person that would use that word to describe me. But maybe that's arrogance too on my part to think that,lol. Okay okay guess you're right lol.

ok. see below.

No.Sometimes, you have to consider the source. Don't get me wrong, I seem to agree with Jeepster more than most people on here, so I obviously respect his ideas and thinking, but he does like to come down hard on people, frequently without reason.Or maybe he's just trying to be funny, I'm not sure.

I have taken issue with the language that nim has used in the past, in the political threads. Specifically, an exchange when she didn't understand why her point was being ignored, she said she was just 'trying to educate us'. There have been more than a few instances like this. I don't know why her posts rub me the wrong way, but arrogance seemingly without knowledge bugs me.

[Nimue1995 1]

ok. see below.I have taken issue with the language that nim has used in the past, in the political threads. Specifically, an exchange when she didn't understand why her point was being ignored, she said she was just 'trying to educate us'. There have been more than a few instances like this. I don't know why her posts rub me the wrong way, but arrogance seemingly without knowledge bugs me.

We've been down this road before Jeep. I'd just hope that you'd take my intentions as being good even if I don't express myself in a way that doesn't rub you the wrong way. Meanwhile, I'll take into account your getting riled up at my posts even if they're not meant to do so (except when I'm making a point counter to yours and then you can take it any way you want,lol).

[Loismustdie 0]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not. Or even if I'm reading your post correctly. Are you saying that African Americans were NOT intimidated into not voting in the south in the 50's and 60's? Hell that's what the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was about. Even though we're supposedly a democracy, that didn't stop the white supremists in the south from trying to keep African Americans from participating in the democratic process. In the 60's there were still segragated schools and even drinking fountains in the south and other parts of the US as well. History may not be pretty but it's still history just the same. What happened in your mayoral bid? Thanks Jeep, I love you too. Lol, maybe my arrogant side comes out here I dunno. Because I don't think you'd find many who've met me in person that would use that word to describe me. But maybe that's arrogance too on my part to think that,lol. Okay okay guess you're right lol.

The start up is integral to the Mayoral bid. Let's just say that I need more definition than "the online loony who also works for Charles Schwab."

[Nimue1995 1]

The start up is integral to the Mayoral bid. Let's just say that I need more definition than "the online loony who also works for Charles Schwab."

ROFL!

[CaneBrain 95]

I think I started this part of the thread, so I have to comment. First, I don't consider myself a conservative, so I'm not sure if you were referring to me or not.Second, I am not advocating voting or not voting based on anything other than "is it important to the voter." And in a country where voting has become a "screw your neighbor before they screw you" contest, everyone has incentive to vote.That's sad. The federal government should not be about seeing which group of citizens can screw which other group of citizens. It should be about defending our rights and providing a fair legal system.

both parties and the media (both the Fox News crowd and the MSNBC crowd) are guilty of fostering a color war mentality. I was not singling you or anyone else out.....I was just amused that it seems we can all agree that most voters dont have a clue. Poker Forum elitists....the new sub-group.

[HijackedAffairs 0]

Getting back to the OP, the media has a ratings bias not a liberal bias. Guess who is popular among viewers right now? Obama. Obama's narrative is very popular right now, so the media is going to cover him and cover him in a positive light. Conservatives are always harping about the free market and how it works but seem oblivious to the fact that the media is looking to promote its ratings not a liberal agenda. A fact that should be blatantly obvious. I will agree the media had an Obama bias but it was a reflection of the country's Obama bias.Generally, turnout was not what it was supposed to be because people knew the election wasn't going to be close. Obama led in every single poll for the past month and a half, there was very little suspense. Also, the way the electoral college works each state has its own turnout dynamics. Specific reasons for lower than expected turnout must be looked at on a state-by-state basis.

[hblask 1]

Getting back to the OP, the media has a ratings bias not a liberal bias. Guess who is popular among viewers right now? Obama. Obama's narrative is very popular right now, so the media is going to cover him and cover him in a positive light. Conservatives are always harping about the free market and how it works but seem oblivious to the fact that the media is looking to promote its ratings not a liberal agenda. A fact that should be blatantly obvious. I will agree the media had an Obama bias but it was a reflection of the country's Obama bias.<

This theory would be almost believable if the coverage was slanted the other way during the Republican Revolution and intervening years when the R's took over. It wasn't.

[Loismustdie 0]

Getting back to the OP, the media has a ratings bias not a liberal bias. Guess who is popular among viewers right now? Obama. Obama's narrative is very popular right now, so the media is going to cover him and cover him in a positive light. Conservatives are always harping about the free market and how it works but seem oblivious to the fact that the media is looking to promote its ratings not a liberal agenda. A fact that should be blatantly obvious. I will agree the media had an Obama bias but it was a reflection of the country's Obama bias.Generally, turnout was not what it was supposed to be because people knew the election wasn't going to be close. Obama led in every single poll for the past month and a half, there was very little suspense. Also, the way the electoral college works each state has its own turnout dynamics. Specific reasons for lower than expected turnout must be looked at on a state-by-state basis.

Well, now I am convinced. The media wasn't pushing Obama and history, I was. I had no idea. Well put, sir, the forum is a better place now.

[HijackedAffairs 0]

This theory would be almost believable if the coverage was slanted the other way during the Republican Revolution and intervening years when the R's took over. It wasn't.

Studies have been done on the issue and they have found networks to have a ratings bias. The Republican Revolution isn't really a good thing to look at because 9/11 greatly affected the media coverage. So the 2002 election is pretty much unusable as evidence on way or the other. The 2004 elections, the media seemed pretty balanced. Both candidates weren't the greatest and heavily criticized in the media. Kerry was ripped apart a far bit in the media for being a stiff and phony. Bush for being stupid. This time no negative about Obama resonated at all with the people, but people really responded to the positive narrative of Obama and the media latched on as well.

[HijackedAffairs 0]

Well, now I am convinced. The media wasn't pushing Obama and history, I was. I had no idea. Well put, sir, the forum is a better place now.

Seriously? This is your response? You must know the difference between popular opinion and your opinion.

[hblask 1]

Studies have been done on the issue and they have found networks to have a ratings bias. The Republican Revolution isn't really a good thing to look at because 9/11 greatly affected the media coverage. So the 2002 election is pretty much unusable as evidence on way or the other. The 2004 elections, the media seemed pretty balanced. Both candidates weren't the greatest and heavily criticized in the media. Kerry was ripped apart a far bit in the media for being a stiff and phony. Bush for being stupid.

The Republican Revolution was in the 90's, not in 2001 and beyond. And the coverage was just as biased then as it is now.

[Loismustdie 0]

Seriously? This is your response? You must know the difference between popular opinion and your opinion.

No, I just know I sleep better when I don't waste my time arguing the same old stuff. You may be a different screen name but this is nothing new. Some people are just born to be fooled, bamboozled, whatever, and I find that most people fall in that category. "Well, if the T.V. tells it to me than I must have asked for it, duh." I used to feel bad for this type of person now I just find them in the way more than anything. Believe me, I have tried to learn your ways and I just can't wrap my mind around it. As soon as I start thinking I just eliminate like 95% of what you say based on facts, and the rest is literal bullshit, so what am I supposed to do? I am left with little but the ability to throw out agreeable but sarcastic remarks and pretend that I can tolerate your kind.

[HijackedAffairs 0]

The Republican Revolution was in the 90's, not in 2001 and beyond. And the coverage was just as biased then as it is now.

Still a period of very divided government. I wasn't paying attention then but forgive me if I don't take your word for it. The Republicans also never held the Presidency during that time. 2004 is a much better comparison than the early 1990s.

[hblask 1]

Still a period of very divided government. I wasn't paying attention then but forgive me if I don't take your word for it. The Republicans also never held the Presidency during that time. 2004 is a much better comparison than the early 1990s.

Let me paraphrase that for you:1) You don't know2) You'll go on believing what you want despite evidence to the contrary.Thanks for playing.

[HijackedAffairs 0]

Let me paraphrase that for you:1) You don't know2) You'll go on believing what you want despite evidence to the contrary.Thanks for playing.

What evidence? Laughable.