I actually want to expound on what I said above...

I remember people in the media referring to Pres Bush as just Bush, and the same goes for Pres Obama. It seems to me, that he was always referred to as Pres Clinton however... I mean some people may of used some nick names... But the media by and large used his title, at least that's how I remember it.

I don't care what you think about a given President's policies or plans, they at the least deserve the respect due the office, but that seems to be something we've lost.

Likely it all started with Nixon, and the Vietnam war. But it has gotten to the point in which party has become more important than anything else, and even if one side makes a fairly reasonable suggestion, the kneejerk reaction by the other party is to say no. And to be completely clear, that's true of both parties in the US right now, the only difference is which party is in control.

Couldn't disagree more. People don't deserve respect just for acheieving political office. Also, referring to someone by title suggests more than respect to me, it smacks of deference.

You say that as if deference is a bad thing.

Yes, I do.

guessing these were mostly democrats?

(Actually, most likely they were just NUTS...)

"While 20% of Republicans [polled?] believed Obama is the antichrist heralding the End Times, only 13% of independents did and just 6% of Democrats."

Assuming the poll was representative of the entire population (who knows, maybe people who hold such beliefs may be more likely to volunteer information for a poll), I still have two questions to ask:

1. 20% believing vs 80% not believing...which is more indicative of the party as a whole?

2. A not-wholly-insignificant percentage of Independents and Democrats believed the same thing, so why single out the small subset of Republicans?

I understand the whole thing was meant as a joke, and I can understand generalizing on views that are actually representative of most of the party (e.g. "Republicans oppose gun control." Maybe not 100% of them do, but the vast majority seem to align with this statement, so the dissenters would be the exception rather than the rule). However, to generalize by taking a fringe view and attributing it to the whole population is not only a bit insulting, but also significantly undermines whatever joke was being made (unless it was intended as satire, but that can be really tough to pull off on a message board).

You spoilt it with facts

Yeah, we really should have kept the warranty on those levees...

A few concrete walls, whoever thought that would be enough should be made to drink the floods.

The average dike here is a wall made of dirt and rocks, covered with grass and a road on top wide enough for a few car lanes.

The main one is 300 feet wide at the top, with a highway. During WW2 heavy fighting, including artillery, occured without seriously damaging it. .

Plus some pretty impressive mobile storm surge barriers:

guessing these were mostly democrats?

(Actually, most likely they were just NUTS...)

"While 20% of Republicans [polled?] believed Obama is the antichrist heralding the End Times, only 13% of independents did and just 6% of Democrats."

Assuming the poll was representative of the entire population (who knows, maybe people who hold such beliefs may be more likely to volunteer information for a poll), I still have two questions to ask:

1. 20% believing vs 80% not believing...which is more indicative of the party as a whole?

2. A not-wholly-insignificant percentage of Independents and Democrats believed the same thing, so why single out the small subset of Republicans?

I understand the whole thing was meant as a joke, and I can understand generalizing on views that are actually representative of most of the party (e.g. "Republicans oppose gun control." Maybe not 100% of them do, but the vast majority seem to align with this statement, so the dissenters would be the exception rather than the rule). However, to generalize by taking a fringe view and attributing it to the whole population is not only a bit insulting, but also significantly undermines whatever joke was being made (unless it was intended as satire, but that can be really tough to pull off on a message board).

You spoilt it with facts

and STILL missed the point.

Even if there was just 1% of republicans who could be found to state he was the antichrist, it already undermines the "what do you mean republicans think that? well, me and my pals don't think so NONE of us think that - who are they?" statement.

But hey, all in good fun, I don't actually believe all republicans are crazy. As much of a cliche as this is, "some of my best friends are republicans."

guessing these were mostly democrats?

(Actually, most likely they were just NUTS...)

"While 20% of Republicans [polled?] believed Obama is the antichrist heralding the End Times, only 13% of independents did and just 6% of Democrats."

Assuming the poll was representative of the entire population (who knows, maybe people who hold such beliefs may be more likely to volunteer information for a poll), I still have two questions to ask:

1. 20% believing vs 80% not believing...which is more indicative of the party as a whole?

2. A not-wholly-insignificant percentage of Independents and Democrats believed the same thing, so why single out the small subset of Republicans?

I understand the whole thing was meant as a joke, and I can understand generalizing on views that are actually representative of most of the party (e.g. "Republicans oppose gun control." Maybe not 100% of them do, but the vast majority seem to align with this statement, so the dissenters would be the exception rather than the rule). However, to generalize by taking a fringe view and attributing it to the whole population is not only a bit insulting, but also significantly undermines whatever joke was being made (unless it was intended as satire, but that can be really tough to pull off on a message board).

You spoilt it with facts

and STILL missed the point.

Even if there was just 1% of republicans who could be found to state he was the antichrist, it already undermines the "what do you mean republicans think that? well, me and my pals don't think so NONE of us think that - who are they?" statement.

But hey, all in good fun, I don't actually believe all republicans are crazy. As much of a cliche as this is, "some of my best friends are republicans."

And if my claim had ever been that no Republican believed it, that claim would indeed have been undermined. However, that was never my claim. Rather, my statement was challenging the claim that Republicans (in general) believe President Obama is the antichrist, by pointing out that it doesn't seem to fit with my own experience. The "which Republicans" question also emphasizes the idea that the believers are a subset (and, as we now know, a rather small subset), rather than being representative of the whole.

Again, I don't doubt that there exist people (Republican or otherwise) who believe this, but I object strongly to trying to lump all members of a group together with a view held by a small minority.

[quote name="Robin Graves" post="2289607"

Ofcourse that asshat of my PM has to go all "Britain can leave now and they should get on with it!" I swear the retards we got for goverment in Belgium...

Well, not being able to vote for him doesn't help either. You can't vote on a francophone party as you're from Limburg and the French/Wallonian part can't vote for Flemish parties. Meaning politicians don't give a s**t about half the country and are not above insulting the part which can't vote for them.

[quote name="Robin Graves" post="2289607"

Ofcourse that asshat of my PM has to go all "Britain can leave now and they should get on with it!" I swear the retards we got for goverment in Belgium...

Well, not being able to vote for him doesn't help either. You can't vote on a francophone party as you're from Limburg and the French/Wallonian part can't vote for Flemish parties. Meaning politicians don't give a s**t about half the country and are not above insulting the part which can't vote for them.

(You know this already,Cununculus, but) Belgium is avery weird country politicaly.

And for the record I hate the whole bunch of who's in power at the moment (Rant about how they are a bunch of bickering children out to gauge the common man, redacted for space)

I would describe it as the small version of the EU. Maybe that's why some want to leave

(Redacted a rant about politicians who should back the common man, but are friends with large companies who fund parties on yachts and all that)

Time for change, but a change to... what. ..?

Total anarchy?

What? Fury Road made post apocalypse society seem so...fun!

[quote name="Robin Graves" post="2289607"

Ofcourse that asshat of my PM has to go all "Britain can leave now and they should get on with it!" I swear the retards we got for goverment in Belgium...

Well, not being able to vote for him doesn't help either. You can't vote on a francophone party as you're from Limburg and the French/Wallonian part can't vote for Flemish parties. Meaning politicians don't give a s**t about half the country and are not above insulting the part which can't vote for them.

(You know this already,Cununculus, but) Belgium is avery weird country politicaly.

And for the record I hate the whole bunch of who's in power at the moment (Rant about how they are a bunch of bickering children out to gauge the common man, redacted for space)

I thought everybody in Belgium was sensible, smart, compassionate, good at solving crimes and had a funny moustache.

Total anarchy?

What? Fury Road made post apocalypse society seem so...fun!

Silly fiction aside...especially as for people who enjoy star wars can see...

'Anarchy' does not equal 'post apocalyptic society ruled by warlord's

This is why the Somalia argument doesn't hold up when people say " if you want anarchy go to Somalia"

Being dominated by lunatics who hold all the guns and power is not anarchy....it's extreme government.

Total anarchy?

What? Fury Road made post apocalypse society seem so...fun!

Silly fiction aside...especially as for people who enjoy star wars can see...

'Anarchy' does not equal 'post apocalyptic society ruled by warlord's

This is why the Somalia argument doesn't hold up when people say " if you want anarchy go to Somalia"

Being dominated by lunatics who hold all the guns and power is not anarchy....it's extreme government.

Or the midwest.

Total anarchy?

What? Fury Road made post apocalypse society seem so...fun!

Silly fiction aside...especially as for people who enjoy star wars can see...

'Anarchy' does not equal 'post apocalyptic society ruled by warlord's

This is why the Somalia argument doesn't hold up when people say " if you want anarchy go to Somalia"

Being dominated by lunatics who hold all the guns and power is not anarchy....it's extreme government.

Or the midwest.

Okay okay I was kidding ofcourse.

Huh, didn't even know that was a saying "if you want anarchy go to Somalia". It's a stupid saying tough.

I thought everybody in Belgium was sensible, smart, compassionate, good at solving crimes and had a funny moustache.

And wonen are without a mustache. They are not dwarfs after all

Frankly I do like to live here aan lot

[quote name="Robin Graves" post="2289607"

Ofcourse that asshat of my PM has to go all "Britain can leave now and they should get on with it!" I swear the retards we got for goverment in Belgium...

Well, not being able to vote for him doesn't help either. You can't vote on a francophone party as you're from Limburg and the French/Wallonian part can't vote for Flemish parties. Meaning politicians don't give a s**t about half the country and are not above insulting the part which can't vote for them.

(You know this already,Cununculus, but) Belgium is avery weird country politicaly.

And for the record I hate the whole bunch of who's in power at the moment (Rant about how they are a bunch of bickering children out to gauge the common man, redacted for space)

I thought everybody in Belgium was sensible, smart, compassionate, good at solving crimes and had a funny moustache.

Well... all those things apply to me.

Well except the compasio- err I mean the crime solving bit. Yeah I'm not exactly a great detective.

Also you forgot "massive case of OCD" when describing Hercule Poirot. Dude has it bad! But it adds to his charm.

Atleast he's not a cocain addict! Boom! take that Sherlock Holmes!

Well... all those things apply to me. Well except the compasio- err I mean the crime solving bit. Yeah I'm not exactly a great detective. Also you forgot "massive case of OCD" when describing Hercule Poirot. Dude has it bad! But it adds to his charm. Atleast he's not a cocain addict! Boom! take that Sherlock Holmes!

Well, you say "addict", I say "aficionado"...

Total anarchy?

What? Fury Road made post apocalypse society seem so...fun!

Silly fiction aside...especially as for people who enjoy star wars can see...

'Anarchy' does not equal 'post apocalyptic society ruled by warlord's

This is why the Somalia argument doesn't hold up when people say " if you want anarchy go to Somalia"

Being dominated by lunatics who hold all the guns and power is not anarchy....it's extreme government.

What stops lunatics with guns from abusing peaceful Star Wars fans in this non-Somalian anarchy?

Insurance companies.

Insurance companies.

Can you elucidate a little?

Insurance companies.

Can you elucidate a little?

Only with the right cocktail of cough medicine.

Insurance companies.

Can you elucidate a little?

Only with the right cocktail of cough medicine.

And the other three food groups... sugar,bath salts and vodka.

But, sure I'll describe one way to keep a hypothetical armed biker gang from taking over my neighborhood.

Although I personally wouldn't worry much about it.

But...if I was concerned. I would want a decent insurance policy against such stuff.and would buy one from whatever company offers the best coverage for the best price.

If I was the insurance company...and I was concerned about it..i would want to hire armed guards or some such to roam around protecting the neighborhood I'm insuring. ..because it's a lot cheaper than paying out for policies if the neighborhood gets wrecked by tattoed musclemen on motorcycles with machine guns.

Let's just call them cops...since that's similar to what the government police are supposed to do.

Now...as a concerned customer...i might wonder..."well, how do I know this insurance company won't use its 'cops' to take over the town itself?"

So, I choose an insurance company that allows third party audits of its warehouses and weapons and tanks or whatever else dumb crap it thinks is necessary. And if it looks a little like they are buying or building more than I'm comfortable with then I stop buying insurance from them. And so would anyone else.

Then it becomes sort of hard to have helicopters with lasers if you have no customers paying for it.

So, basically...everything works very similarly to how it does now. With the important difference being...it's paid for voluntarily. And if people don't like it...it doesn't get paid for.

Unlike.oh...i don't know...the state...wich claims to provide these sorts of things....takes your money by force to pay for it...then has the nerve to call it a 'service'.

I mean...that's one way I suppose.

In the end I don't really care how the chainsaw wielding mohawk and assless pants wearing biker gangs are dealt with.

I just don't advocate the use of force to solve social problems.it just isn't necessary.

But, sure I'll describe one way to keep a hypothetical armed biker gang from taking over my neighborhood.

Although I personally wouldn't worry much about it.

But...if I was concerned. I would want a decent insurance policy against such stuff.and would buy one from whatever company offers the best coverage for the best price.

If I was the insurance company...and I was concerned about it..i would want to hire armed guards or some such to roam around protecting the neighborhood I'm insuring. ..because it's a lot cheaper than paying out for policies if the neighborhood gets wrecked by tattoed musclemen on motorcycles with machine guns.

Let's just call them cops...since that's similar to what the government police are supposed to do.

Now...as a concerned customer...i might wonder..."well, how do I know this insurance company won't use its 'cops' to take over the town itself?"

So, I choose an insurance company that allows third party audits of its warehouses and weapons and tanks or whatever else dumb crap it thinks is necessary. And if it looks a little like they are buying or building more than I'm comfortable with then I stop buying insurance from them. And so would anyone else.

Then it becomes sort of hard to have helicopters with lasers if you have no customers paying for it.

So, basically...everything works very similarly to how it does now. With the important difference being...it's paid for voluntarily. And if people don't like it...it doesn't get paid for.

Unlike.oh...i don't know...the state...wich claims to provide these sorts of things....takes your money by force to pay for it...then has the nerve to call it a 'service'.

I mean...that's one way I suppose.

In the end I don't really care how the chainsaw wielding mohawk and assless pants wearing biker gangs are dealt with.

I just don't advocate the use of force to solve social problems.it just isn't necessary.

So basically, you do away with pooling of resources and redistribution from rich to poor, and those with the ability to pay get protection and those without are screwed. Sounds lovely.

Nah. I do away with force.

An insurance policy like that would be dirt cheap. Anyone can afford it.

Plus, what he just described is a governmental system, just a very bad and dysfunctional one.

Now, in your hypothetical "utopia" those corporations that you are hiring to protect you will also secretly fund the maurauders so that there is a constant threat to their customers, encouraging them to continue to pay and giving the company an excuse to increase prices whenever they want.

Basically, you DO want a society that uses force to solve societal problems, you just don't want it to be evenly applied to all citizens.