Adif understanding

United States

#909 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain just how likely was Romney to get elected, against a mountain of polls that showed otherwise and how he was less evil.
You're just proof that all a majority means sometimes, is that more people are wrong. When you support a candidate who fits your belief, you speak freely. Now you're just exposing yourself for the fascim promoting broke wienie that you are.
You have nothing, yet you'll vote for one who'll take that away in a heartbeat. Wonderful.
Like it or not, Romney lost by just over 2% of the popular vote. What third party candidate came that close? Now I know attention to detail or even reality is not your strong point, but would you say he was more likely to win then the libertard candidate?

When you support a candidate with no chance at winning, you purposely allow the candidates you do not like the most to win and rule over you. Hell, Garry Johnson could manage to only get 3.5% of the vote in his home state where he had been governor. Romney was a hell of a lot more electable and likely to win than all the alternatives in the race.

But you keep tilting at windmills and crying that all the politicians do everything you do not like if that's what you have to do.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#910 Jan 20, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Like it or not, Romney lost by just over 2% of the popular vote. What third party candidate came that close? Now I know attention to detail or even reality is not your strong point, but would you say he was more likely to win then the libertard candidate?
When you support a candidate with no chance at winning, you purposely allow the candidates you do not like the most to win and rule over you. Hell, Garry Johnson could manage to only get 3.5% of the vote in his home state where he had been governor. Romney was a hell of a lot more electable and likely to win than all the alternatives in the race.
But you keep tilting at windmills and crying that all the politicians do everything you do not like if that's what you have to do.
It was 4%, but whose counting.
Solodeals

Utrecht, Netherlands

#911 Jan 20, 2013
Solodeals - New Social Community!

www.solodeals.nl

* Free Community Forum
* Earn Money Forum
* Black Market
* SEO Jobs
* Buy / Sell Website/Domains
* Buy / Sell Small Jobs

New Forum! Register For Free!!

www.solodeals.nl
Adif understanding

United States

#912 Jan 20, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It was 4%, but whose counting.
I guess it matters where I look. You are correct when I look at accurate information. But it doesn't dislodge my point, the alternatives to Romney didn't even come close to being likely to win.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#913 Jan 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142...
The Mistake that is the Libertarian Party
by Randy Barnett
Excerpt:
Are Democrats better than Republicans on personal liberty? Neither has been great on that score, but Democrats have been the bigger disappointment. When I took the medical-marijuana case to the Supreme Court in 2004, I got zero votes from the left side of the court while garnering the votes of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor. And President Obama's Justice Department has reneged on his campaign promise to refrain from going after medical-marijuana dispensaries.
Neither party wants to question the futile and destructive "war on drugs." But Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.
Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal power—beginning with repealing ObamaCare—and pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?
You mean the NewsCorp owned WSJ? The Fox News of the business papers.

I too felt that the fiscal disaster should have been a top priority for Gary Johnson. It's a top priority to me, call me a leftist for wanting to get our fiscal house in order with the least imposing tax of all. Everyone on Topix would see an enormous decrease in their taxes due simply to having a very finite number and amount of transactions.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#914 Jan 20, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Like it or not, Romney lost by just over 2% of the popular vote. What third party candidate came that close? Now I know attention to detail or even reality is not your strong point, but would you say he was more likely to win then the libertard candidate?
When you support a candidate with no chance at winning, you purposely allow the candidates you do not like the most to win and rule over you. Hell, Garry Johnson could manage to only get 3.5% of the vote in his home state where he had been governor. Romney was a hell of a lot more electable and likely to win than all the alternatives in the race.
But you keep tilting at windmills and crying that all the politicians do everything you do not like if that's what you have to do.
Hey, it only takes one at a time to wise up and open their eyes, it multiplies from there. The mindless drones, such as yourself, are generally a lost cause, you'd vote Republican if they ran on draining your blood to keep a fresh transfusion for a banker.

Oh, and Romney lost by 4% and 126 electoral votes. That's the number that counts, the electoral votes.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#915 Jan 20, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It was 4%, but whose counting.
65 million votes, and not even half the country turned out to vote.
Yes, he won - but hardly a rousing success.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/elec...
Adif understanding

United States

#916 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, it only takes one at a time to wise up and open their eyes, it multiplies from there. The mindless drones, such as yourself, are generally a lost cause, you'd vote Republican if they ran on draining your blood to keep a fresh transfusion for a banker.
Oh, and Romney lost by 4% and 126 electoral votes. That's the number that counts, the electoral votes.
you are delusional. when the libertarian party gets serious,
i'll take another look. but as long as they are playing slap ass and trying to take votes from republicans so democrats get elected, they will remain unelectable. You may suck that dick thinking its a Popsicle made from the cool aid, I don't care. I already know you are an idiot.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#917 Jan 20, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
65 million votes, and not even half the country turned out to vote.
Yes, he won - but hardly a rousing success.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/elec...
Wrong again.

US total adult population is 237,657,645, over 129,000,000 voted. Out of the total adult population there is a percentage of ineligible voters, so the voter turnout was over 50% of the adult, eligible population easily.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#918 Jan 20, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>you are delusional. when the libertarian party gets serious,
i'll take another look. but as long as they are playing slap ass and trying to take votes from republicans so democrats get elected, they will remain unelectable. You may suck that dick thinking its a Popsicle made from the cool aid, I don't care. I already know you are an idiot.
It was a slanted start as you appeared with no ideas to begin with. You read a few wiki entries and thought you had become a master on the subject. When faced with fact and logic, well, you've pulled a Zero.

You're just a tiny, know nothing, nobody.
Adif understanding

United States

#919 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a slanted start as you appeared with no ideas to begin with. You read a few wiki entries and thought you had become a master on the subject. When faced with fact and logic, well, you've pulled a Zero.
You're just a tiny, know nothing, nobody.
like i have said several times now. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#920 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
US total adult population is 237,657,645, over 129,000,000 voted. Out of the total adult population there is a percentage of ineligible voters, so the voter turnout was over 50% of the adult, eligible population easily.
You are right - according to this, 57.5%. Still not all that, though. A lot of people didn't vote at all.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/electi...
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#921 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
US total adult population is 237,657,645, over 129,000,000 voted. Out of the total adult population there is a percentage of ineligible voters, so the voter turnout was over 50% of the adult, eligible population easily.
57.5% of eligible voters, that is. How many adult citizens as of the last census? Oh, wait - they didn't track which were citizens and which were not.
Adif understanding

United States

#922 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
US total adult population is 237,657,645, over 129,000,000 voted. Out of the total adult population there is a percentage of ineligible voters, so the voter turnout was over 50% of the adult, eligible population easily.
206,072,000 citizens are eligible to vote. Obama received 65,899,660 votes or about 32% of the eligible voting population's vote. Parent's point still stands, it was not a rousing success. It also appears that less people voted in the 2012 election then in the 2008 election.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statisti...

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#923 Jan 20, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>like i have said several times now. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.
Sure, you've said it. The only proof of delusion you've offered is evidence of your own.

So, Zero jr., as I said several days ago, at least get into high school and pass a few courses, then you'll at least be on the level of Zero and -tip-

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#924 Jan 20, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right - according to this, 57.5%. Still not all that, though. A lot of people didn't vote at all.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/electi...
I don't have the number of registered voters but it's certainly not 100% of legally aged adults.

A lot of people never vote. I used to not vote but a good friend who knew I liked to gripe about government in general told me that if I didn't vote, I had no right to gripe. As I've accepted blindly whatever I get. That prompted me to take action.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#925 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, you've said it. The only proof of delusion you've offered is evidence of your own.
So, Zero jr., as I said several days ago, at least get into high school and pass a few courses, then you'll at least be on the level of Zero and -tip-
You're not always this stupid, but you seem to be making a special effort lately.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#926 Jan 20, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>206,072,000 citizens are eligible to vote. Obama received 65,899,660 votes or about 32% of the eligible voting population's vote. Parent's point still stands, it was not a rousing success. It also appears that less people voted in the 2012 election then in the 2008 election.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statisti...
2012's turnout, while lower than either 2004 & 2008 was a vast improvement over the slipping turnouts in the 1992,1996 & 2000 elections.

You take a wrong point and twist and contort it every way imaginable and you end up looking more wrong and outright stupider, hey, it's your grave, dig it as deep as you'd like.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#927 Jan 20, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not always this stupid, but you seem to be making a special effort lately.
I realize that you're operating from quite a mental disadvantage but -tip- I could never get near the level of asininity you reach.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#928 Jan 20, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that you're operating from quite a mental disadvantage but -tip- I could never get near the level of asininity you reach.
Has your mouth considered suing your brains for non-support?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bibi 19 min Duke for Mayor 42
America needs Jesus Christ and the Word of God 34 min BizzyBee 89
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 1 hr Kamikaze Kommie 5,801
NAACP furious over special School for Hispanics 1 hr Brice N Livingston 2
Rev Cafe seedy hangout 2 hr Catman Dave 6
What ails the black family? Hard realities! 2 hr d pantz 247
Bibibop 2 hr Go Feed Yourself 9
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:07 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:07AM
Buffalo Bills' 5 Best Free-Agent QB Options to Compete with EJ Manuel
NFL11:39 AM
Browns OC wants Manziel 'obsessed' with football
NBC Sports 8:28 PM
Reports: Ted Ginn visiting Titans, 49ers
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Top Free-Agent Targets
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Top Free-Agent Targets