|
|
Post by LedZeppelin on Nov 4, 2008 21:52:10 GMT -8
hurray, he won!
|
|
ferrousmoon
Diamond Membership
<3
holding it hostage[ss:Whot's]
Posts: 854
|
Post by ferrousmoon on Nov 4, 2008 21:58:08 GMT -8
 Hopefully he has enough arms and fingers to fix the holes in the damn dam. If anyone can, out of our choices, I think he was the best bet. Yes we can! eheh. |
|
|
|
Post by Compbasher on Nov 4, 2008 22:15:50 GMT -8
Glad to have been apart of it.
Sidenote: To the particularly rude fans at McCain's concession speech: Grow the hell up. Show some pride in defeat. Even your candidate, classy and respectful in defeat, told you more than once to stop your ridiculous brashness and you still made yourselves look like douchebags. Way to support a cause greater than yourselves; that is the betterment of the United States of America and to our allies around the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♪Mr.Obv♫ on Nov 4, 2008 22:28:42 GMT -8
Yeah, I have to agree with you there. I love how the Obama fans actually showed their appreciation for John McCain by applauding, something the McCain fans somehow don't know how to do.
Any Californians in here looking at the Prop. 8 numbers? Personally, I hope it fails.
|
|
|
|
Post by LostPeon™ on Nov 5, 2008 1:05:03 GMT -8
If I wanted socialism, I would have moved to Sweden.
|
|
|
|
Post by alotofzerg on Nov 5, 2008 9:40:18 GMT -8
Congratulations America on your brilliant voting skill.
The best man won, good news for us all!
|
|
ferrousmoon
Diamond Membership
<3
holding it hostage[ss:Whot's]
Posts: 854
|
Post by ferrousmoon on Nov 5, 2008 11:34:05 GMT -8
Sweden wouldn't have you lost : ) ~
Obama election parties took to the streets here, dancing, chanting, cheering, honking, letting off fireworks and kept at it till past midnight. Hopefully this kind of energy and enthusiasm is well deserved, and utilized for some real progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by LostPeon™ on Nov 5, 2008 12:19:30 GMT -8
Hooray, stock markets are down already on this glorious news!
|
|
|
|
Post by LedZeppelin on Nov 5, 2008 14:40:27 GMT -8
how is obama a "socialist" and mccain not
and dont say its progressive income taxes, because those have been around since 1913 at the federal level
and no, hes not a marxist calling for the abolition of private property, or a "leftist" advocating for state ownership of industry
and for my last point, wouldnt no-bid contracts for haliburton, corn subsidies, as well as, oh lets see, social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, hell, even taxes, function as not only examples of state ownership but also as redistribution of wealth
every country is socialist, get over it
|
|
|
|
Post by gobbleykins on Nov 5, 2008 18:36:48 GMT -8
Was Lost joking? Maybe? Maybe not? Find out next time on triviahost, every Wednesday on the Internet.
Personally (I didn't watch the debates), I don't see too much distinction between the two. If I was American, I would have voted for Obama, but I would've called for a more radical leader than either of those two candidates; I found McCain agreed with Obama on quite a number of topics and this is the reason for my statement.
In all honesty, almost anybody would have been better than W. That is all.
|
|
PhoenixFlare500
Diamond Membership
I like chocolate[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 896
|
Post by PhoenixFlare500 on Nov 5, 2008 19:28:40 GMT -8
In all honesty, almost anybody would have been better than W. That is all. Amen to that. |
|
|
|
Post by doom3x on Nov 5, 2008 19:34:56 GMT -8
I saw a conservative friend point out the stock market news too, and I couldn't avoid replying to her. She wasn't "surprised" that markets were down after Obama's election. I couldn't just let that go.
My reply:
I asked her if she could prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if McCain had won the stock market would have gone up, rather than down. If she can't, then she cannot be certain that the market's poor performance is a direct reaction to Obama's election, since she can't confirm for me whether the result would not have been the same for his opponent.
Put more simply: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. After it, therefore because of it. It's a logical fallacy. If you have an event, A, and another event, B, and A precedes B, you could assume that A caused B. This is a mistaken assumption, however, since in the given statements, there exists no evidence that A directly caused B, merely that A preceded B.
If we extend that to the markets we see the following: Obama is elected---->markets go down. Therefore Obama's election led to a market decline. There's simply no evidence to support it. A preceded B, but A didn't necessarily cause B. Unless someone can show me that McCain's election------>markets go up, then assuming the converse to be true of Obama is a logical fallacy.
Sorry Lost...they can take you and your logical fallacies in Sweden!
|
|
PhoenixFlare500
Diamond Membership
I like chocolate[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 896
|
Post by PhoenixFlare500 on Nov 5, 2008 20:51:21 GMT -8
You'd also have to control extraneous variables. i.e. The rest of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by LostPeon™ on Nov 5, 2008 23:08:43 GMT -8
I saw a conservative friend point out the stock market news too, and I couldn't avoid replying to her. She wasn't "surprised" that markets were down after Obama's election. I couldn't just let that go. My reply: I asked her if she could prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if McCain had won the stock market would have gone up, rather than down. If she can't, then she cannot be certain that the market's poor performance is a direct reaction to Obama's election, since she can't confirm for me whether the result would not have been the same for his opponent. Put more simply: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. After it, therefore because of it. It's a logical fallacy. If you have an event, A, and another event, B, and A precedes B, you could assume that A caused B. This is a mistaken assumption, however, since in the given statements, there exists no evidence that A directly caused B, merely that A preceded B. If we extend that to the markets we see the following: Obama is elected---->markets go down. Therefore Obama's election led to a market decline. There's simply no evidence to support it. A preceded B, but A didn't necessarily cause B. Unless someone can show me that McCain's election------>markets go up, then assuming the converse to be true of Obama is a logical fallacy. Sorry Lost...they can take you and your logical fallacies in Sweden! Your argument has no bearing on my comment. I never speculated on the state of the stock market if McCain were to win. I was simply pointing out that everyone seems to think Obama is some kind of miracle worker and will fix all our "problems" with his promise of "change." Sure, things are changing... but seems to be for the worse in the stock market game. The markets are down in direct correlation to Obama's victory, regardless of what would have happened if McCain were to win. |
|
|
|
Post by Compbasher on Nov 6, 2008 2:30:12 GMT -8
So prop 8 is regrettably looking favorable with 99% precincts reporting as of late Wednesday evening with 52% of the ballots voting in favor of the proposition. What happened to Cali's trail-blazing tendency with equal rights (more specifically, gay rights)?
|
|
Hopefully he has enough arms and fingers to fix the holes in the damn dam. If anyone can, out of our choices, I think he was the best bet. Yes we can! eheh.
