 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Kefka |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 |
| User | Post | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2298/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Problem with Iggy: he cared to find out that blank posts are possible... Jk bro, your remixes are the rox0rs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2299/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How many pitchers do you think each side will use in game 7?  They'll probably both go through their entire staff by the time they reach the 21st inning. And the NLCS will reach 7 games too! And the Astros will win! w00t! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2300/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| damned Cards... on a good note, BOSTON LEADS 6-0!!! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2301/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Originally posted by Davideo7 Your header certainly holds true here. You gave no examples of racist remarks, you are ignorant in that you can't see that the general population actually gave the edge to Kerry and not Bush in the debates, and as far as your other post about women, perhaps the women YOU talk to are voting for him, but I have seen no evidence ANYWHERE suggesting that the majority of women that will be voting will be voting for Bush. Besides, several commissions and Congressmen have been writing reports with EVIDENCE (something I have yet to see you use) that is helping Kerry and hurting Bush. So to say Bush will dominate the election is just stupid. Especially when your reason is that he dominated the debates, and that Kerry is a racist woman-hater who people don't trust. EDIT: for those who don't know, his header says: "This is probably just another dumb ass post by me" EDIT2: Here's an excerpt of a post I made at another forum; I thought it had a few things for people to think about, and it regards Iraq and what we are doing there. I think someone like Danielle would find some interesting things to read in this post: '...yes, I'm sure there were some terrorists there, but no one that was a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. America certainly was not endangered, which seems to be what Bush keeps on saying. And he seems to be the only person left on his own administration saying that. Even trigger-happy Rumsfeld acknowledges the facts; Powell acknowledges the facts; Cheney acknowledges those facts; everyone but Bush acknowledges them. And if he does acknowledge them, he certainly doesn't talk like he does so. The fact is, if the reason for going to Iraq was to protect America, then there was no point in going there. It doesn't matter whether there were WMDs there or not, though that seems to be a hefty issue as well. Iraq posed no threat to America, so there was no reason to conquer it, which we have basically done. We are not only getting oil and other valuable resources from there, but we are also occupying it, and essentially turning it into a U.S. territory. It is following the same path that much of South America did when the countries down there were in the process of being occupied by the U.S.; America's excuse was that they were making it a democratic country, when in fact they are overtaking it and implanting all of the U.S. cultures and trying to kick out as much of the Iraqi culture as possible. Britain did the same with so many countries in the past. In our history books, you will find many positive statements about the Britains "modernizing" the countries that they took over, but then when you get to the part about India breaking away, you find that they have a negative tone toward Britain, as they do when America breaks away. We seem to look at the British Empire at its prime as a conquering, evil group of people... yet in those same books, USA's conflicts with South America give USA the benefit of the doubt and say that we were helping those countries become more democratic. In fact, what followed our "efforts to make those countries a democracy" were dictatorships. So, in short, America basically sponsored dictators in South America. We are now occupying Iraq and "trying to turn it into a democracy"... because the greatest indicator of what current actions will be in a given situation is what actions happened in the past in the same situations, what is to make us think that there will not be yet another dictatorship coming into Iraq once America has drained the place of all the resources it might want or need?' If you would like to see the whole post, go to here and read the really long ass post by ForeverNoobish, which is me. EDIT3: as a side note, sometimes we actually have good debates there; if you are interested in some other viewpoints, including those of extremists from both ends, check that specific forum in TKZ out sometime. (edited by Kefka on 10-21-04 11:58 PM) (edited by Kefka on 10-22-04 12:16 AM) (edited by Kefka on 10-22-04 12:18 AM) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2302/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Originally posted by Ziffski Simplicity is really beautiful when it is used so gallantly as it was here. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2303/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| *cough*RIPOFF*cough* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2304/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In other other news, Jon Stewart's new book on "America: [something something] on Democracy Inaction" is hilarious... unfortunately, no, I can't remember the title, but the book itself is in my backpack right now... I won't spoil it... yet... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2305/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I was just interested in finding out people's thoughts on this (in my opinion) serious issue. As you can guess, the price of oil is constantly rising because there is becoming far less of it throughout the world, but with the increase in population throughout the world, and the massive number of things that oil is used in, the desire for the product is rising as well (simple 2nd grade supply & demand properties, folks). Also, many people probably already know that oil is a NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE... well, yes, it can renew itself, but it takes over 1000 years for a small amount of oil to be renewed. The substance is being used at a far greater rate than it can renew itself, so basically, we are going to run out of oil sometime, and probably somewhat soon, as the world population keeps increasing exponentially, and the desire for oil still increases all the while. For this matter, I present a couple of questions: 1) when will we run out of oil? 2) what will energy companies need to be using as a replacement for oil, which makes up a huge amount of their revenue (well, for most of them, anyway)? I can't make a very good guess on when we will run out of oil, as I don't know the EXACT rate at which we are using it right now. However, I can make a guess as to what energy companies should start focusing on as a replacement... no, it's not solar or electricity... it's ethanol. Corn, a RENEWABLE RESOURCE, is a major product that is used to make this fuel. Will we be able to make cars and other modern tools be able to run on ethanol? I can't tell for sure, but it seems promising. If we can, then we certainly won't need to worry about running out as much, because there are plenty of places all over the world that can grow substantial amounts of corn throughout the year. Also, in case there are those who are taking an entirely different side on this, is losing the ability to use oil even an issue right now? Should energy companies even be concentrating on finding a replacement? Other thoughts and input, please. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2306/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I'm sure for those that would visit this forum regularly, you don't need to be told what the electoral college is... if so, ask, and then someone (probably not me, cause I'm tired right now) will most likely explain it. Anyway, here are a few common arguments for and against it (I won't give my arguments yet, because I want to see other opinions first): Pro-Abolition Argument(s) : The electoral college discounts the votes of many in several states. The power should be given back to the people, and not be kept with the delegates. There is better communication, so the delegates have no political edge over a normal people now. Anti-Abolition Argument(s) : Changing something of this magnitude could force a change in many other parts of the constitution, and that would be way too time consuming. Before you make a constitutional amendment, you have to see what effect it has on the rest of the document. Furthermore, if it were a popular vote, then the small states, which there are many of, would have little to no significance in the election. With the electoral college, they are significant. Again, I'm not going to state my side until others have stated theirs. Don't try to guess what side I'm on and start attacking me one way or the other, either. So, what is YOUR opinion on this? EDIT: fixed bold tags (edited by Kefka on 10-24-04 04:29 AM) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2307/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You only need to have the majority of the population in favor of you in 11 states to win the election. 11/50 states hold the majority of the electoral votes! Now, some mentioned how the votes of the people in smaller states would have no significance if it went to a popular vote... however, in HUGE states, such as California, there are tons of people who's votes don't count because they were not in the majority in that state. There are plenty of Bush-voters in Southern California whose votes aren't worth a crap anymore because practically all of Northern Cali voted for Kerry. Even if only 30% of Cali's population voted for Bush, that would still be more votes than the total amount possible in smaller states such as Rhode Island. You are potentially throwing away a huge number of votes with the electoral college the way it is now. I think that if you are going to have an electoral college of sorts, then you need to do it in a way where the individual electoral votes come from each individual district in a state as opposed to the state as a whole, because the way it is now, as I have said, tons of people in states like Cali and Florida are not being counted afterwards because they were in the minority for the entire state's vote. If it was a popular vote, you wouldn't have that problem. Everyone's vote would count. To say that the electoral college is what makes every vote count where the popular vote can't do that is foolish, because it is the exact opposite. To put it in numbers: Cali has 54 electoral votes. They also have 30 million potential voters. Florida has 27 electoral votes, and 15 million potential voters. Suppose that everyone in those states decided to vote, and they decided to all vote for either Kerry or Bush (though this would never happen, bare with me, as you will see the point). In California, 16 million people vote for Kerry, and 14 million vote for Bush. Kerry carries all 54 electoral votes. In Florida, of the 15 million voters, 14 million choose Bush, and Kerry gets 1 million. Now, in these two states, Bush has a very big lead, with 28 million votes to Kerry's 17 million. However, because of the electoral college, Kerry wins this segment of the race because he leads 54-27 on the electoral scoreboard. Now, if you are a Bush fan and saw these statistics, you would be irate, no? Just some things to think about when considering the electoral college and the popular vote... Now, as for my opinion, we should actually keep it, but break each state up into further districts so that we don't have a crapload of votes all being in one state. Deleware has districts for this, so why can't Florida, Cali, etc. ? I think that would solve a lotta problems. Oh, btw, don't let my post fool you... I HATE Bush |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(restricted)|
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2310/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Wow, the whole concept of flooding a school to miss an exam... it's all Greek to me! |
(Heh, sorry, couldn't resist) (restricted) |
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2312/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
"OMG! They are Republican! Therefore, it must mean they can't read!" |
Seriously, this is a bunch of bullshit. If 96%+ of the nation is literate, and 43%+ of the voters in the nation are supporting Bush, how is it possible that they all can't read? Also, many rich people are Republican. Rich people usually have superior education to poor and middle class people. Rich people therefore can read most of the time. You know, I'm sure there are some Kerry supporters that can't read, either. However, both them and Bushies who can't read all fall into a ridiculously negligible group. Therefore, you can't hold the disabilities of a small few against an entire population, in this case, of Bush supporters.
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2313/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins Yea, but with a popular vote, they only count the votes of those that voted, and don't consider how much weight a state has a possibility of holding.
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2314/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Originally posted by Gavin What's odd is, I actually found that line funny. (restricted) |
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2316/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Originally posted by black dragoon Before, we didn't have too many sources to get it from, and our quantity of oil in those sources was dropping, so the price went up. Now, the price is going slightly down only because we are ripping shitloads of oil from the Middle East, so we have lots more. However, if you'd bother reading other topics, you'd realize that the global trend will have gas prices going up, because oil is a non-renewable resource (well, it takes 1000+ years to renew), and it is being consumed quickly, so everything that uses oil, including gas, will go up in price over time.
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2317/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
I'm probably missing the eclipse right now as I choose to be on the comp, huh? |
 (restricted) | | |||||||||||||||||||
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Kefka |
