Snafu betting parlor: Most Likable Mod

Enter At Your Own Risk (Shit Gets Cray Cray).

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Whatis6times9 » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:52 pm

Most of these decisions were coming for a long time and would have happened no matter what, I'm willing to be some of them got delayed to avoid accusations of trying to sway the election, also when you look at every single source article they mention the changes being due to changes in demand for products or overproduction, corporate restructuring or some other factor.
Image
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8976
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby DaCrum » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:57 pm

Found one that didn't. Murray Energy Co. directly blames the election of Obama on the layoffs.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Q.U. » Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:15 pm

Q.U. wrote:When I want real news I watch the Daily show.


Oh, and if that's not enough news for me, then I go watch the Onion News Network.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Blood Lord » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:12 pm

DaCrum wrote:Not really. Glenn doesn't HAVE to do research because he's not a news person. He's entertainment

Yeah. He still has to do his research. He doesn't have a show if he doesn't.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18996
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Right behind you.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Q.U. » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:52 pm

Blood Lord wrote:
DaCrum wrote:Not really. Glenn doesn't HAVE to do research because he's not a news person. He's entertainment

Yeah. He still has to do his research. He doesn't have a show if he doesn't.

You meant to say: He does have a great show if he neglects to check any facts and just makes up some random shit to scare people with.

Glenn Beck on Obama's trip to India wrote:Some people say that it is up to $2 Billion for 10 days. Is that true? I don't know! (...) And how many ships will be there? 34 warships possibly! I don't know!


That's right Glenn. Ignore those silly people with all the boring data down at the white house and just ride along the Fox News fake report train. Choo-choo.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Blood Lord » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:57 pm

Is that last part about Fox really that necessary?
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18996
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Right behind you.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Blood Lord » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:59 pm

I mean come on. We can have an intelligent, adult conversation without the need to blast news networks. Its not like the ones you watch are any better then Fox or Glenn Beck.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18996
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Right behind you.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Q.U. » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:10 pm

They are.

Because.

Here's the amazing thing.

I don't really watch any.


And no, that statement is where it needs to be, I've seen all the bullshit peddled by both Fox and MSNBC both ways, and how many times they got caught on it. That's right. Fox gets caught on outright lies and misinformation all the damn time. Especially compared to the rest of the news. There is no station that is "fair and balanced" out there, every one makes mistakes, some even have the decency to admit to those and amend them the following day. You take all news with a pinch of salt, because the way the market works, pandering to the ignorant breaking-news-searching consumer, forces you to do so. But if a news station doesn't even admit its shortcomings, then I have no reason to take it seriously at all. Which is why I don't do that with most news stations.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Blood Lord » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:17 pm

I'm not arguing its short comings. I'm saying you need to be a bit more respectful towards people. Try being nice.

Yes, all of them get it wrong once and a while, and they are all biased. However, I believe their problem with accuracy is that everyone wants to be the first to report the big news.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18996
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Right behind you.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Q.U. » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:41 pm

I called Beck factually incoherent doom-sayer. Which I actually consider to be pretty spot on. If you think that's me not being nice then, well, all I can say is sometimes the truth just isn't nice to people.

And yes, it's the "big scoop" effect that leads them to report hastily and inaccurately. But that was only half of my point. I do realise why that is the case, and to be honest I can still accept this way of doing things. But the main point is, the complete disregard for "coming clean" on mistakes and misinformation. It's a news station, and it is meant to report information. If the information reported turns out to not be accurate, then pointing that out and correcting the information is in my honest opinion a lot more important for an honest news station than getting on with the next big story. There is a frightening level of letting people say all the most ridiculous bullshit and getting away with it. But it is the news organisations that are supposed to call the politicians out on their bullshit and point out their mistakes. Have you listened to the bullshit from both sides during the elections? How much of it has gotten picked up by the news? This is why Romney could relax at the end and just let it rip and say whatever he wanted, because there was hardly anybody checking it. And Obama did the same in the end. It was actually painful to watch.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Marquis de Soth » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:44 pm

Rough Giraffe wrote:No, I think the link I posted is quite factually reliable. Are you're implying that the website is lying in some way?


I would take any information from a site owned by someone with an obvious bias towards either side of the political spectrum with a grain of salt. "Facts" aren't the problem here, it's how they're presented.
Marquis de Soth

offline
 

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Birdofterror » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:50 pm

Ah, now I have 2 Internets. 2 Hard earned Internets. If we keep having gambling parlors around here I could be as rich as Soul one of these days.

On the note of one of the side bets; the one where someone wagered if Romney would be in the next South Park or not I think should be open to debate.

It was always sort of implied that the shit spewing duck is Romney. The duck was in the new episode.

On the note of Entertainment based news: I watch every episode of Colbert and Daily show. I can barely stand any "real" news that isn't the weather anymore. So many fuckers trying to talk over each other all the time tends to make my ears bleed.
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

The Chronometal Wars, a fan-fiction taking place in the PPGD Universe. Catastrophe is the only certainty.
Bird oft Error
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 am
Location: You see where I am.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:55 pm

By the way, has anyone been paying attention to Florida over the last week or so? Why's it taking so long to reach a decision? Maybe because of the massive voter fraud?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Blood Lord » Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:35 am

I hate Florida.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18996
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Right behind you.
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:54 am

Huh. Turns out there's also allegations of voter fraud in my home state of Pennsylvania. In fact, it seems that many of the Battleground states are in similar situations.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Tuor » Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:57 am

I'm starting to know how the Republicans felt in 2000
"Suddenly Frodo noticed that a strange-looking weather-beaten man, sitting in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him, showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was drawn close about him, and in spite of the heat of the room he wore a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen as he watched the hobbits."
Rest Easy Ethan
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18435
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:22 am
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Valhallen » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:02 am

Rough Giraffe wrote:By the way, has anyone been paying attention to Florida over the last week or so? Why's it taking so long to reach a decision? Maybe because of the massive voter fraud?
The election supervisor who posted the report that prompted the article you linked wrote:NOTE* - TURNOUT PERCENTAGES WILL SHOW OVER 100% DUE TO A TWO PAGE BALLOT. NOT ALL VOTERS VOTED THE SECOND CARD CONTAINING THE AMENDMENTS




Anyway, Florida finally called it, which takes care of another outstanding bet.

Also, any thoughts on whether the shit-spewing duck from the South Park episode should count as an appearance by Romney?
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:28 am

Valhallen wrote:
The election supervisor who posted the report that prompted the article you linked wrote:NOTE* - TURNOUT PERCENTAGES WILL SHOW OVER 100% DUE TO A TWO PAGE BALLOT. NOT ALL VOTERS VOTED THE SECOND CARD CONTAINING THE AMENDMENTS
Can you tell me how many individual two-page cards were submitted?
The article I linked wrote:The 2012 Presidential Ballot in Florida consisted of two pages. Both pages were two sided giving voters the opportunity to vote for candidates for public office on page 1 and 11 Constitutional ballot initiatives on page 2. The issue being correctly discussed is: Does each ballot consist of two cards? If yes, then there would be two times the number of cards as votes cast or in the case of St. Lucie County 175,554 times 2 there would be an expected 351,108 cards (two page ballots) cast.


Valhallen wrote:Anyway, Florida finally called it, which takes care of another outstanding bet.
But is that really official if they're set to do a recount on the 14th? Were the results of the Bush/Gore election in Florida in 2000 considered official before the recounts?

Valhallen wrote:Also, any thoughts on whether the shit-spewing duck from the South Park episode should count as an appearance by Romney?
I dunno, it could be taken as an allegory for Obama. See? I can do it too.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby DaCrum » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:35 am

RD, that was dumb and you should feel dumb.

And why does Florida even need to recount? Obama wins either way. :|
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:44 am

You do realize that the elections were about more than just Obama and Romney, right? :|
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby DaCrum » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:54 am

Yes. I was particularly worried for Proposition 30 in California.

But as many times as I need to say this, Romney and Obama are both incredibly conservative. I voted for the one who is literally one point closer to me than the other. Stop whining and accept the fact that the US isn't really going to change at all in policies or criteria from Obama to Romney.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:16 am

I can't exactly be happy about that. And no, Obama is not incredibly conservative. No Conservative would ever agree that's true, even if you rattled off every single one of Obama's policies one after another. He's in favor of gun control, higher taxes for the wealthy and larger government, among other things. He is decidedly Left-leaning.

I think what it comes down to is a definition of Conservatism. We seem to be using different definitions. It's not really a string of policies as it is a mindset. Perhaps you should read up on what it means to be a Conservative, since I'm not sure it's really all that clear to you.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby DaCrum » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:30 am

WHEN HAS HE EVER INDICATED THAT HE WANTS FEDERAL GUN CONTROL?!? I swear to God, half of conservatives tell me Obama wants to take away their guns when he's given literally NO indication, thought or action on the subject of gun control.

He leans left by a point. A fuckin point. Rightwings need to realize how much they've skewed our political spectrum and how damned conservative we are.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:29 am

Man, DC, you are really in the dark about the gun control issue.

He opposed legislation in 2004 protecting gun owners who protect themselves with guns in their own homes; he supported a handgun ban in 2007; he extended favors to Eric Holder---a man who famously said that we need to "brainwash" people into thinking that guns are bad; he's been lying and trying to shift blame regarding the Fast And Furious scandal; and he supports the UN's Arms Trade Treaty, which would basically allow the UN to dictate the kind of guns we're allowed to buy and sell.

Sure, Obama doesn't have very many open attacks against the Second Amendment to his name, but there's a reason for it. If you were trying to restrict gun ownership in a society where guns are prized possessions, would you be blatant about it or would you try to somehow slip it past people? Would you appeal to people who owned guns or would you try to shape public opinion through people who have never owned a gun?

It's political Chess. And if we aren't careful, he's going to win.

Go ahead and ridicule me. Call my ideas crazy. Say it won't happen. But what will you say to me if and when it does happen?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Snafu betting parlor: Election 2012

Postby Valhallen » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:32 am

Rough Giraffe wrote:
Valhallen wrote:
The election supervisor who posted the report that prompted the article you linked wrote:NOTE* - TURNOUT PERCENTAGES WILL SHOW OVER 100% DUE TO A TWO PAGE BALLOT. NOT ALL VOTERS VOTED THE SECOND CARD CONTAINING THE AMENDMENTS
Can you tell me how many individual two-page cards were submitted?
The article I linked wrote:The 2012 Presidential Ballot in Florida consisted of two pages. Both pages were two sided giving voters the opportunity to vote for candidates for public office on page 1 and 11 Constitutional ballot initiatives on page 2. The issue being correctly discussed is: Does each ballot consist of two cards? If yes, then there would be two times the number of cards as votes cast or in the case of St. Lucie County 175,554 times 2 there would be an expected 351,108 cards (two page ballots) cast.
Check out the Summary Report. There were 123,301 votes in the presidential election out of 175,554 registered voters. There were 123,750 votes on the amendments (though there are somewhat fewer for the last amendments - perhaps some people didn't fill out both sides). Since the presidential ballots counted are more like 70% of registered voters instead of 140%, do you concede that your linked article is much ado about nothing?

Rough Giraffe wrote:But is that really official if they're set to do a recount on the 14th? Were the results of the Bush/Gore election in Florida in 2000 considered official before the recounts?
The presidential results are now in with a completed count (a difference of more than .5% avoids a mandatory recount, and Romney isn't contesting). There won't be a recount for the presidential election, so that's it. The recount (if we're thinking of the same one) is for Representative West, whose race is rather close and who does not want to concede without a recount.

Rough Giraffe wrote:I dunno, it could be taken as an allegory for Obama. See? I can do it too.
Actually, it was indeed a surrogate for Obama in an earlier episode, while it first appeared in a different episode as a character in a movie trailer. It seems to represent different things in different situations, so birdofterror has some justification in his objection to my call on the bet of whether or not the South Park episode would feature Romney. I'm wondering if others agree or not, because if there's strong agreement that the duck represented Romney, I'll count the duck as a Romney appearance.

Rough Giraffe wrote:I can't exactly be happy about that. And no, Obama is not incredibly conservative. No Conservative would ever agree that's true, even if you rattled off every single one of Obama's policies one after another. He's in favor of gun control, higher taxes for the wealthy and larger government, among other things. He is decidedly Left-leaning.
It seems you haven't read this post of mine. There's a whole big section on right/left and conservative/lberal there, which includes this British assessment that Obama would be a Tory (a member of the UK Conservative Party). To the actual liberals in the world, most of Obama's policies as implemented are indeed very conservative. For example, Obama didn't even propose single-payer health insurance as a negotiating position, while Obamacare as implemented is a huge expansion of private insurance.

Rough Giraffe wrote:I think what it comes down to is a definition of Conservatism. We seem to be using different definitions. It's not really a string of policies as it is a mindset. Perhaps you should read up on what it means to be a Conservative, since I'm not sure it's really all that clear to you.
And that's a terrible definition (not that it actually defines what Conservatism is). Conservatives don't want to pay for things they already bought (i.e. raise the debt ceiling or taxes), and they reject the notion of compromise out of hand? "...the core principles of a small government and fiscal responsibility..."? Without an actual explanation of the invoked ideology, there's nothing to distinguish "Conservatism" from Anarchism, Marxism, or even the Democratic party platform. I think that DaCrum was using something more like the dictionary definition: "1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." Please read that big post of mine. it really is terribly relevant.

DaCrum wrote:WHEN HAS HE EVER INDICATED THAT HE WANTS FEDERAL GUN CONTROL?!? I swear to God, half of conservatives tell me Obama wants to take away their guns when he's given literally NO indication, thought or action on the subject of gun control.
He's said a few times, mostly in his career as a Senator, that he would like the assault weapons ban reinstated. He just didn't campaign on it outside of a single line in the last debate. If past performance is any indication, he will do nothing at all on gun control.

@RD: He's been President for almost four years now. If he really wanted to restrict gun rights, why wouldn't he do it in his first term rather than waiting for and gambling on the availability of a second term?
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to BeeAre's Undesirables

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], MERASMUS! and 2 guests