TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What's With All the Spam?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »


Posted by occrider on Nov-02-2004 16:30:

What's With All the Spam?

Seriously ... like you're going to convince somebody today after failing to convince them in the past year or so? Most of the spammage is just shite scare tactics with little to no intelligent arguments anyway.


Posted by Spacey Orange on Nov-02-2004 16:33:

I totally agree, except that they're not scary.


Posted by MisterOpus1 on Nov-02-2004 16:35:

Re: What's With All the Spam?

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Seriously ... like you're going to convince somebody today after failing to convince them in the past year or so? Most of the spammage is just shite scare tactics with little to no intelligent arguments anyway.


Jesus, no shit! Besides, I think most pundits believe it's been decided weeks ago. But on another tangential argument, I really don't understand the rationale of those "undecided" voters up to this point. How the fuck could anyone still be undecided, especially after the debates? Personally I think they're either intellectually lazy or damn wishy washy in all decision making processes of their collective lives. These two candidates couldn't be any more different - how the hell could anyone be undecided?


Posted by tribu on Nov-02-2004 16:36:

If you dont vote for candidate X, your genitals will be removed by alien scientists while the loch ness monster looks on and the tooth fairy broadcasts your predicament via satellite to Santa and the elves at the North Pole.


On a side note, it will be interesting to see how long it takes to sort out this years election mess....

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Jesus, no shit! Besides, I think most pundits believe it's been decided weeks ago. But on another tangential argument, I really don't understand the rationale of those "undecided" voters up to this point. How the fuck could anyone still be undecided, especially after the debates? Personally I think they're either intellectually lazy or damn wishy washy in all decision making processes of their collective lives. These two candidates couldn't be any more different - how the hell could anyone be undecided?


I was undecided until last night. I was a pretty firm Nader vote until the story about Rehnquiest (sp?) broke, at which point I started seriously debating a vote for Kerry, because of my beleifs about Supreme court justices and appointing them. But I decided to do what I thought was right and vote for who I felt was the most competent for the job (and who was actually running).


Posted by Dave Piazza on Nov-02-2004 16:38:

Its vital to get young americans to vote.

I hope a little spamming by me will get them off their asses.

Well I hope


Posted by occrider on Nov-02-2004 16:40:

Wtf I've never seen so many users browsing the polit forum ... people finally come to discuss the issues on election day???


Posted by MisterOpus1 on Nov-02-2004 16:41:

quote:
Originally posted by tribu
If you dont vote for candidate X, your genitals will be removed by alien scientists while the loch ness monster looks on and the tooth fairy broadcasts your predicament via satellite to Santa and the elves at the North Pole.


On a side note, it will be interesting to see how long it takes to sort out this years election mess....



I was undecided until last night. I was a pretty firm Nader vote until the story about Rehnquiest (sp?) broke, at which point I started seriously debating a vote for Kerry, because of my beleifs about Supreme court justices and appointing them. But I decided to do what I thought was right and vote for who I felt was the most competent for the job (and who was actually running).


That's in interesting take, and one I had not considered. I do hope you realize that there is a great deal more on the line than just Rehnquist, but I don't think you were as undecided as you think you were if you were a "pretty firm" Nader voter, so I don't think my question necessarily applies to your rationale. I was more or less referring to those undecideds between Bush and Kerry.


Posted by speedracer_mec on Nov-02-2004 16:43:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Wtf I've never seen so many users browsing the polit forum ... people finally come to discuss the issues on election day???


Yea just like they are letting out all the convicts and crackheads to go to the polls today. Its a strange day indeed


Posted by xKaoSx on Nov-02-2004 16:54:

quote:
Originally posted by tribu
If you dont vote for candidate X, your genitals will be removed by alien scientists while the loch ness monster looks on and the tooth fairy broadcasts your predicament via satellite to Santa and the elves at the North Pole.


On a side note, it will be interesting to see how long it takes to sort out this years election mess....



I was undecided until last night. I was a pretty firm Nader vote until the story about Rehnquiest (sp?) broke, at which point I started seriously debating a vote for Kerry, because of my beleifs about Supreme court justices and appointing them. But I decided to do what I thought was right and vote for who I felt was the most competent for the job (and who was actually running).


I seriously dont see how someone can vote for Nader- Althought you may agree with all his views- blah blah blah- He is not a feasable candidate to win. Im glad YOU at least realized this - unfortunately many others think they're making their voice heard (and pretty much voting for Bush at that point- which im pretty sure would be 3rd on their list)


Posted by Dave Piazza on Nov-02-2004 16:55:

quote:
Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Yea just like they are letting out all the convicts and crackheads to go to the polls today. Its a strange day indeed






Posted by MisterOpus1 on Nov-02-2004 17:00:

Wow, looky at all the logged in users right now:

Dj_Irish, speedracer_mec, xKaoSx, NiteKiD, Shakka, SOLO, tribu, Itarill�, EvilDust, Spacey Orange, DawnTreader, MisterOpus1

Sheesh! I see, so NOW all you newbies care about TA politics, eh? You fair weather political junkies you!

Seriously, I hope more of you new folks stick around after the election. The more the merrier here!


Posted by xKaoSx on Nov-02-2004 17:03:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Wow, looky at all the logged in users right now:

Dj_Irish, speedracer_mec, xKaoSx, NiteKiD, Shakka, SOLO, tribu, Itarill�, EvilDust, Spacey Orange, DawnTreader, MisterOpus1

Sheesh! I see, so NOW all you newbies care about TA politics, eh? You fair weather political junkies you!

Seriously, I hope more of you new folks stick around after the election. The more the merrier here!


meh- Im no n00b nor some old skool but if Kerry wins this place will be quite lively.


Posted by Renegade on Nov-02-2004 17:03:

Re: Re: What's With All the Spam?

Yeah, see this is why we need our own mod here. Not sure if the election's finally getting to everyone but there's been a fair bit of useless crap posted here over the past 24 hours.

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
How the fuck could anyone still be undecided, especially after the debates?


Not sure, but it's a fairly sizeable chunk of the population. Zogby puts the "undecideds" at somewhere from 3-6%:

quote:
Leaners have been factored in to the results. Without leaners factored in: Bush 46%, Kerry 46%, Nader .9%, Undecideds 6%


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews922.html

If that's true it's likely to work out in Kerry's favour:

quote:
Undecided voters tend to cast ballots for a challenger in greater numbers because they are dissatisfied enough with the incumbent that they can't commit to keeping him in office, said David Rohde, a political science professor at Michigan State University in East Lansing.

``If you are not willing to commit yourself to voting for the president, at the end of the campaign you run out of time, so those doubts seem to crystallize and you go for the opponent,'' Rohde said.

[...]

The phenomenon of challengers capturing more of the undecided vote than incumbents is based on voter data from the eight presidential elections since 1956 involving incumbents seeking re-election. Incumbents lost three times: Gerald Ford to Jimmy Carter in 1976; Carter to Reagan four years later; and George H.W. Bush to Clinton in 1992.


http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/new...=top_world_news


Posted by josh4 on Nov-02-2004 17:06:

its all Dave Piazza and speedracer_mec posting 30 different threads on half-topics and sub-topics.
you guys sux


Posted by Itarill� on Nov-02-2004 17:06:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Wow, looky at all the logged in users right now:

Dj_Irish, speedracer_mec, xKaoSx, NiteKiD, Shakka, SOLO, tribu, Itarill�, EvilDust, Spacey Orange, DawnTreader, MisterOpus1

Sheesh! I see, so NOW all you newbies care about TA politics, eh? You fair weather political junkies you!

Seriously, I hope more of you new folks stick around after the election. The more the merrier here!


do lurkers count in the ever so dreaded n00bs category as well?


Posted by tribu on Nov-02-2004 17:08:

quote:
Originally posted by xKaoSx
I seriously dont see how someone can vote for Nader- Althought you may agree with all his views- blah blah blah- He is not a feasable candidate to win. Im glad YOU at least realized this - unfortunately many others think they're making their voice heard (and pretty much voting for Bush at that point- which im pretty sure would be 3rd on their list)


Nader would be a feasible candidate if the centrists and progressives united to rally behind him. Instead, everyone is stuck in a two-party mentality: only Democrats and Republicans may be president. As a result, we have a political system in which corporations and other wealthy individuals and groups essentially fund the re-election of candidates.

If you had to run for re-election to your job every 4 years, and someone paid for you to do so, you would look out for their interests first. The people who voted you in would be somewhere much lower on the list. Both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. I would much rather have a candidate who's first priority is the people who vote him into office. Additionally, Nader has excellent ideas on electoral reform, enviormental policies, and consumer protection. He balanced the budget based on 2002's fiscal tax revenue and provided enough of a surplus to pay off our national debt. He then made the figures avaliable on his website. On top of all that, i beleive Nader is extremely open with the American public and doesnt need a team of spinsters or political skewing to get his point across.

Yes, I did vote for Nader/Camejo this morning. As someone else said, theres much more that the Supreme Court.


Posted by MisterOpus1 on Nov-02-2004 17:09:

quote:
Originally posted by Itarill�
do lurkers count in the ever so dreaded n00bs category as well?


Hehe, oh sure, why not? Whoever said it was "dreaded"? I'd just like to see more folks here instead of us usual suspects arguing about with one another!


Posted by tribu on Nov-02-2004 17:09:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Wow, looky at all the logged in users right now:

Dj_Irish, speedracer_mec, xKaoSx, NiteKiD, Shakka, SOLO, tribu, Itarill�, EvilDust, Spacey Orange, DawnTreader, MisterOpus1


i post here on an erractically regular basis. Since my topics are about 3rd party candidates and other non-partisan topics, theyre generally ignored


Posted by MisterOpus1 on Nov-02-2004 17:14:

quote:
Originally posted by tribu
i post here on an erractically regular basis. Since my topics are about 3rd party candidates and other non-partisan topics, theyre generally ignored


I'm sorry, did you say something?


Posted by Itarill� on Nov-02-2004 17:14:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Hehe, oh sure, why not? Whoever said it was "dreaded"? I'd just like to see more folks here instead of us usual suspects arguing about with one another!


trust me, i've been in here enough just reading everything you all have posted... but when it comes to me posting here, i always have to make sure i have my fire extinguisher sitting right next me...


Posted by josh4 on Nov-02-2004 17:16:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I'm sorry, did you say something?


i love that guy


Posted by Itarill� on Nov-02-2004 17:20:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I'm sorry, did you say something?


brilliant man indeed, josh4...


Posted by MisterOpus1 on Nov-02-2004 17:24:

quote:
Originally posted by Itarill�
trust me, i've been in here enough just reading everything you all have posted... but when it comes to me posting here, i always have to make sure i have my fire extinguisher sitting right next me...


Or a tube of petroleum jelly, whichever your poison.

But seriously, I found it much easier for any newbies here to come in with a more or less "open-minded" approach, even if you feel passionate one political party over the other. Ask questions more often than making assertions.

After awhile, you'll get to feeling more on stable ground where you can start throwing out wild accusations and tin-foil hat conspiracies, hoping to God some of them actually stick. Of course you get flamed every now and then, but occasionally your accusations and vitriole hold water, and then you feel oh so vindicated!

Hence my daily routine!


Posted by squirrelly on Nov-02-2004 22:14:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Wow, looky at all the logged in users right now:

Dj_Irish, speedracer_mec, xKaoSx, NiteKiD, Shakka, SOLO, tribu, Itarill�, EvilDust, Spacey Orange, DawnTreader, MisterOpus1

Sheesh! I see, so NOW all you newbies care about TA politics, eh? You fair weather political junkies you!

Seriously, I hope more of you new folks stick around after the election. The more the merrier here!


Shush old man, you know you've missed me.


Posted by icyhandofcrap on Nov-03-2004 01:05:

quote:
Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Yea just like they are letting out all the convicts and crackheads to go to the polls today. Its a strange day indeed


cough cough a lot of the spam is your fault


Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.