What the 2012 election taught us

What the 2012 election taught us

There are 10317 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 6, 2012, titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#10637 May 28, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>There should be a point where Topix can step in and just say you lie too f*king much.
http://prisonplanet.com/911_predictions.htm

ON September 26, 2001 the European Newspaper
De Telegraaf Reported the Following Story:
�De Telegraaf

A calendar which was printed in Egypt for the month of September shows a
crashing passenger plane with Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty as a
backdrop. The calendar was printed in May, a full three months before the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America, and has caused an uproar in the Dutch
town of Almere, Netherlands.

The calendar was distributed at an Islamic school long before the World Trade
Center attacks. The Mayor was alerted to the calendar's existence in the local
Islamic school in the town of Almere, and immediately notified the Dutch
internal security service (BVD) about the strange coincidence. The BVD is
reportedly investigating the matter.

The Almere Town Council has "urgently advised" the management of the
Islamic School Foundation to "cooperate with the Dutch authorities and help
determine the calendar's origin."

The head of the Islamic school, allegedly had a large number of calendars in
her possession from the end of May to the beginning of June, well-informed
sources informed De Telegraaf. When confronted with the calendar images,
she responded in a shocked, startled manner, asking "How did you get this"
before shrouding herself in silence when further questioned by journalists.

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#10638 May 28, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>There should be a point where Topix can step in and just say you lie too f*king much.
They knew about Sept 11 long before you, goofball!

They know something you do not know, idiot!

They now say Obama was planted by Saudi Arabia. Are they now "wrong" again?

You are clueless!

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#10639 May 28, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah. Like when you idiot dupes repeat that obvious lie from Obama about some demonstration caused by a video that didn't even exist when Al Qaeda planned the attack, and only 17 people around the world saw on the internet before Obama began spewing the lie about it.
By the way, can you tell us when was the last time you remember something resembling the truth came out of Obama's mouth?
Youtube show 16 views that day!

Were you number 17?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10640 May 28, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
In the mean time, a video no one knew about would be used as a pre-arranged excuse so as to use it to implement anti-blasphemy laws in the world and United States as part of Obama's intention to slowly implement Shariah law in America.
A perfect plan! Two birds with one stone!
Remember Obama's own words: "my Muslim faith". Liberals are so easy to fool!
I think it's worse than that.
Al Qaeda was supposed to kidnap Stevens.
The White House was supposed to divert attention from Al Qaeda, thus not appear to be directly connected with Al Qaeda. After Stevens is kidnapped, the media attention would be on where Stevens is, what condition he is in, and the progress of the "negotiations" to get him back. How the event occurred would not be of interest, especially after the White House issued their planned lie to misdirect the population away from Al Qaeda. The negotiations would be with the Muslim Brotherhood.
But, Plan A didn't happen. Stevens was killed.
The stupid incompetent imbeciles in the White House didn't even have a contingency plan in case something went wrong. They just kept going with Plan A. The lie for two weeks from th eWhite House was all part of Al Qaeda's plan A.
The bottom line here is, the White House is actually conspiring with Al Qaeda.
And the Democrats (one of which is here claiming to not be a Democrat, which is a common tactic used here) wants us to think that's unimportant.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10641 May 28, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Youtube show 16 views that day!
Were you number 17?
I thought it was 17 total hits before Obama lied about it. To me, that sounds like the only people in the world who watched it on the internet were the people who made it. What that means is, before Obama lied about it, nobody in the entire world saw it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10642 May 28, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
In the mean time, a video no one knew about would be used as a pre-arranged excuse so as to use it to implement anti-blasphemy laws in the world and United States as part of Obama's intention to slowly implement Shariah law in America.
We can always depend on you to say the stupidest thing on Topix once a week, Jose.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10643 May 28, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it's worse than that.
Al Qaeda was supposed to kidnap Stevens.
Tell us about the black UN hellycopters, PA!
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#10644 May 28, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have seen some of what I have seen, then you have never seen a mono-class system in a union environment, which was the original contention.
"meaningless drizzle"
We are a constitutional republic. Compliance with the Constitution is critical, repeat: critical to meet the definition of a constitutional republic. If you don't meet the definition of a constitutional republic, then you meet the definition of some other form of government, such as Orwelllian dictatorship or mass murdering communist dictatorial oligarchy, for examples.
No, it sure as hell isn't "meaningless drizzle", and you are among the most ignorant to think it is.
Benghazi...
...
Al Qaeda's plan... Yes, I can interpret events and come up with a reasonable conclusions. For instance:
.....
Again a logical fallacy. There is a difference between "some" and "all." You are pushing your point past your own blindness. Just because we both watched the same football game, doesn't mean we both turned to Fox News after the game and blindly believed all they had to say. You need to find a different source of information. They lie continuously.

The meaningless drizzle refers to continuously shouting "Benghazi" implying Obama was somehow the terrorist who committed the act. Again, just because Obama didn't use the words you demanded, doesn't mean he lied. Even if he did so what? Politicians lie, that is what they do. Name one that hasn't. At least after two hours he used the words Fox News demanded; but they are still screaming he didn't use those words quickly enough.

As to a constitutional republic, that was the design. I agree that compliance with the constitution is mandatory; and that without that compliance you have a different form of government. In our particular case, we have no compliance with the constitution. Examples abound, with the 2000 ruling by the USSC that our election was void and they get to appoint the president. Then there is the open statement by the government that they have voided habeas corpus and can put anyone in jail at any time, no evidence needed; no due process, just a vague accusation. Then there is the lawlessness of the bush white house, and nothing was ever even investigated. Don't forget the massive election fraud that has been in place for a long time. And don't forget the lobbyist system where corporations buy the congress and get to write the laws.

That results in a fascist government; along with all the dysfunction of a fascist government.

As to Al Queda's plan, you have no clue. You don't even know who they are. You don't know what weapons they have. You don't know their plans. You don't know where they recruit new members. You don't know where they are hiding. Are you even aware they are opposed to the Syrian leadership and we are on their side in trying to overthrow the government? Do you really want to side with them again? If you have any evidence they participated in the 9/11 attacks, what is it?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10645 May 28, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
A calendar which was printed in Egypt for the month of September
Tin foil.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10646 May 28, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
They knew about Sept 11 long before you, goofball!
Tin foil.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10648 May 28, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Again a logical fallacy. There is a difference between "some" and "all." You are pushing your point past your own blindness. Just because we both watched the same football game, doesn't mean we both turned to Fox News after the game and blindly believed all they had to say. You need to find a different source of information. They lie continuously.
The meaningless drizzle refers to continuously shouting "Benghazi" implying Obama was somehow the terrorist who committed the act. Again, just because Obama didn't use the words you demanded, doesn't mean he lied. Even if he did so what? Politicians lie, that is what they do. Name one that hasn't. At least after two hours he used the words Fox News demanded; but they are still screaming he didn't use those words quickly enough.
As to a constitutional republic, that was the design. I agree that compliance with the constitution is mandatory; and that without that compliance you have a different form of government. In our particular case, we have no compliance with the constitution. Examples abound, with the 2000 ruling by the USSC that our election was void and they get to appoint the president.
"If you have seen some of what I have seen, then you have never seen a mono-class system in a union environment, which was the original contention."
You can conclude from that statement that I never saw in the sum total of my observations in unions what you described to me was your complete sum of observations in unions.
Knowing unions as well as I do, I called you a liar. I still think you've never observed what you described. I pointed out just a couple of the differences in status that exist in any union local.
I still don't think you were being truthful. I think you ovserved a stratified society in your union observations.
You should work on your reading and comprehension of the written English language. If you read my posts, I never accused Obama of doing anything. I state so very often. For Obama to do something wrong, he actually has to fucking do something. Obama has never done anything in his life. He was a poor student at Occidental. He never even attended classes at Columbia, thus nobody in his class ever met him, and there is no record of him in any Columbia publication. After Columbia he goes to Chicago (Frank Marshal Davis and Vernon Jarrett) where he becomes alilgned with William Ayers, then to Harvard where nobody knows anything about what he did there, then back to Chicago where in all likelihood he never even took the bar exam (Michelle had to surrender her law license to avoid prosecution in an insurance fraud case), two stints as a summer intern, something called "Project Vote", never saw the inside of a court room as a lawyer, and somehow gets put in front of a class in the University of Chicago Law School where the real faculty there describe him as "lazy and unqualified", then he begins a political career in the goddam home of William Ayers.
To date, Obama has never done anything but regurgitate some party line he was instructed to repeat.
Obama has never done anything in his life, and he didn't change just because it was arranged for him to win another election.
Vallerie Jarrett is the person making the presidential decisions.
So, for Obama to be a terrorist, he would actually have to do something, and not be like the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School describe him - "lazy and unqualified".
Trying to blame Obama is chasing your tail. He doesn't do anything. He's not even involved in government. His only function is to read a prepared speech from time to time. That's why he appears like a buffoon every time he speaks without a prepared speech in his face.
Now, let's get back to the issue you continually run away from - the Cold War.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10649 May 28, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
...Examples abound, with the 2000 ruling by the USSC that our election was void and they get to appoint the president. Then there is the open statement by the government that they have voided habeas corpus and can put anyone in jail at any time, no evidence needed; no due process, just a vague accusation....
You need to read the opinion of the Supreme Court in the 2000 case. It wasn't just one ruling. In the process, they ruled that specific number of votes be given to Gore, and because there still wasn't an agreeable resolution between the parties, they applied the strictest interpretation to the Constitution where it descirbes the only authority the federal government has in an election where citizens of the free states vote. You should read that Article, then post where the ruling violated the text of the Constitution. Right now, all you're doing is mindlessly regurgitating the party line propaganda.
And, yes, the Democrats fully intend to eliminate the right to habeas corpus.

Now, back to your regurgitation of the Democrat party line:

"...criminal Bush administration...."

I didn't read any specifics in your post. Can you remind us of the criminal acts of the Bush administration?
Crime #1 -?????????
Crime #2 -?????????
etc.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10650 May 28, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
As to Al Queda's plan, you have no clue. You don't even know who they are. You don't know what weapons they have. You don't know their plans. You don't know where they recruit new members. You don't know where they are hiding. Are you even aware they are opposed to the Syrian leadership and we are on their side in trying to overthrow the government? Do you really want to side with them again? If you have any evidence they participated in the 9/11 attacks, what is it?
Perhaps you missed the part where they used explosives to enter the compound. And, you probably also missed the part of the video where they were carrying RPGs when they entered the compound. You probably missed the part where they were well enough prepared to position, then reposition two fucking mortars.
Whomever you are relying upon to keep you informed, I'd fire them if I were you.
"New members" Since we haven't captured any "new" members of Al Qaeda since Obama took office, I suppose it's a safe assumption the "new" members are from the exact same countries as the members Bush captured. Unless, you have some information about the source for the jihad being other than Wahhabist sects and regions.

The Syrians are alligned with the Shi'ite Iranians. The Suni terrorists are Wahhabists. The conflict in Syria has more to do with Suni - Shi'ite bullshit than anything else. Both sides are terrorists. Both sides are at war with the United States. Both sides want to destroy Israel and kill the jews.
You'd know this if you had any kind of an education in the Middle East and a knowledge of history there.
I probably have an advantage over you in that regard, me being the only person in this conversation that has lived in the Middle East. So, if you are not aware of some things I lived around, I can understand that.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#10651 May 28, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to read the opinion of the Supreme Court in the 2000 case. It wasn't just one ruling. In the process, they ruled that specific number of votes be given to Gore, and because there still wasn't an agreeable resolution between the parties, they applied the strictest interpretation to the Constitution where it descirbes the only authority the federal government has in an election where citizens of the free states vote. You should read that Article, then post where the ruling violated the text of the Constitution. Right now, all you're doing is mindlessly regurgitating the party line propaganda.
And, yes, the Democrats fully intend to eliminate the right to habeas corpus.
Now, back to your regurgitation of the Democrat party line:
"...criminal Bush administration...."
I didn't read any specifics in your post. Can you remind us of the criminal acts of the Bush administration?
Crime #1 -?????????
Crime #2 -?????????
etc.
I have read all the rulings of the USSC in bush vs Gore. They clearly violated the constitution, unless you can provide how any section of any text can deal with direct self contradictions. The USSC clearly stated that all votes must be counted, then they ruled the votes cannot be counted, in direct contradiction to their own statements. The USSC never ruled that Gore should receive some specific number of votes, that is bizarre. The USSC did not apply the constitution in any way. They are not allowed to void states elections.

Democrats eliminate habeas corpus?? bush already did that. The democrats simply extended it, which is a good reason to oppose the democrats.

It is funny that you always refer to the democrats in trying to defend bush's crimes. The democrats might not participate in the crimes, but they certainly enable and help cover up those crimes.

If you want a partial list because you are too lazy to look any of them up, try outting Valerie Phlame, ordering children to be tortured in Guantanamo, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which bush is a convicted war criminal, repeated violations of the constitution such as elimination of habeas corpus; and his ridiculous signing statements, which completely change the meaning of the bills he signed. Don't forget his lying to congress to start wars for oil. The list goes on and on and on, but then if you take the republican party line of deny, deny, deny, then you don't have to look at how bad they are.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10652 May 28, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
Obama has never done anything in his life,.
How many times have you been elected president?

Try to not mix it up with the number of long haul truck drivers you satisfied this morning out at the rest stop.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10653 May 28, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
Crime #1 -?????????
.
The Bush War in Iraq.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10654 May 29, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read all the rulings of the USSC in bush vs Gore. They clearly violated the constitution, unless you can provide how any section of any text can deal with direct self contradictions.....
....
It is funny that you always refer to the democrats in trying to defend bush's crimes.....
Your first statement: "They clearly violated the constitution."
Perhaps you should do something different than the usual politicians we have. How about you put text from the ruling in your post, then put the text from the Constitution that was violated.
All I can get from your post is just a bunch of mindlessly regurgitated party line mantra.
"All votes must be counted."
Perhaps you were in a coma when the committee counting the votes were punching the chad for Gore.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that, if I remember the actual number, 250 or so votes must be counted for Gore. Check http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949....
The USSC didn't void the state election. They merely turned jurisdiction back over to the state. The Constitution was applied strictly. The Constitution severely restricts the role of the federal government in elections. You'd know that if you ever even read the Constitution.
What crimes is Bush guilty of?
Who convicted Bush?
Her name is spelled "Valerie Plame".
Valerie Plame was the head of the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq WMD Programs. Valerie Plame was the person responsible for vetting all intelligence given to the president concerning WMD programs in Iraq. The intelligence being given to the president was what Valerie Plame deemed accurate, in accordance with her job description.
You are obviously ignorant of this issue, most likely because your only information comes from party line indoctrination.
A really good question to ask now is, what was the source of intelligence Valerie Plame was supposed to vet before giving to the president?
Do you even have a clue about where our intelligence on Iraq was coming from?
Obviously not. That information would definitely not be part of your indoctrinated party line material. I'll help you educate yourself. To learn the condition of our intelligence capabilities at the time, search "Bill Clinton CIA human rights purge" and just start reading. Also, search "Bill Clinton FBI charter foreign intelligence". To learn what was actually happening in Iraq at the time, search "Saddam Hussein UN oil for food" to read about how Saddam Hussein had rebuilt his war machine with money stolen from the UN's oil-for-food scam.
Or, just look at how the world was making us look like idiots and Al Qaeda was bombing us as if they were on a schedule.
Now, shall we return to the first discussion you ran away from?
The Cold War:
How about you give us a list of events in history you think is representative of how the United States became involved in Vietnam.
You have an excellent resource to refer to. Harvard University actually created a Department of Vietnam Studies within the John F Kennedy School of Government. The first head of that department was one of the very few people in that bunch of frauds pretending to be Vietnam veterans in the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Thomas Vallely. You probably never heard of this person. John Kerry's brother Cameron and Vietnam veteran Thomas Vallely are arrested in Lowell, Massachusetts in the basement of a building that housed the campaign headquarters of opposing candidate Tony DiFruscia. Cameron Kerry and Vallely are charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny.
John Kerry burglarized his opponent's campaign headquarters, and immediately after that, Harvard University created the Department of Vietnam Studies and named this same burglar Thomas Vallely its first department head.
With all the assets of Harvard University, it seems very likely they have a very extensive study on the history of US involvement in Vietnam. Let us know what you come up with.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10655 May 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bush War in Iraq.
Please tell us how Bush fighting the war the Arabs started in Iraq was a crime.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10656 May 29, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Please tell us how Bush fighting the war the Arabs started in Iraq was a crime.
Iraqis are not Arab, Shug.

And Iraq is not part of the US.

Iraqis did not invade US; US invaded Iraq.

Find those WMDs yet?

Wipe your chin.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10657 May 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Iraqis are not Arab, Shug.
And Iraq is not part of the US.
Iraqis did not invade US; US invaded Iraq.
Find those WMDs yet?
Wipe your chin.
Oh, pardon me. "Mesopotamians". Is that better, dufus?

Iraqis are Arab, you idiot. It's Iranians that claim to not be Arab, you moron. The difference between Iranian and Arab is about as significant as the difference between someone from Indiana and someone from Kansas.

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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Fox News cuts Stacey Dash loose, and her critic... 5 hr oil driller 1
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 6 hr Panks 2,797
News Who says Mormons aren't Christians? (Oct '11) Mon Cheryl 32,093
News Former US President George H.W. Bush hospitalis... Jan 18 Fit2Serve 2
News Romney on minimum wage: 'We ought to raise it' (May '14) Jan 12 misbehaved 27
News Race and Beyond: Let's Talk About Race and Poverty (Oct '12) Jan 8 Human 177
News Elway Shoots down Run for Office in Colorado Jan 3 Evilgelicalling 3
More from around the web