Election Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-6005

Not caring about what I say is one thing. And it's a valid thing, I don't mind being ignored. And not allowing other people's opinions to overshadow your own is also important. But not caring about what other people are receiving or understanding when you speak - or when you write - might be a mistake. We're all learning to express ourselves all the time, and it's crucial that we find out what other people are understanding when we do. If we don't, we'll continue living in a fantasy world and never glean any sort of pleasure from feeling the touch of other minds in our communication. I hope you keep that in mind and try not to get offended immediately the next time someone disagrees with you. Maybe look at what's being said and why it's being said before following your fingers off the jump.

-Thibault

---

First of all, can you at least spell my name correctly when quoting me?
Second, it was an abbreviated list I made, not everything I was referring to.
Lastly, I didn't literally mean you can't live without those things, but society's demands for a fast internet, a cell phone, and some other key technologies make living without them extremely problematic. If doctors or your kids or parents need to get a hold of you urgently, a cell phone can save precious time rather than playing phone tag. Online banking makes life so much less hectic for people that are very busy or can't get around easily. Without a decent internet connection, research on school projects would be more difficult, as would be online sections of classes. If you don't drive, going to the library isn't the easiest thing. Do you understand what I was saying, yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Godxilla

Just go to www.politifact.com. Search Obama. Read. Understand. Got it?


Call me junior one more time and I'll bust you up like a keg of kerosene.

---

If I saw a keg of kerosene, I'd be smart enough to leave it alone, not go beat the crap out of it.

MOTO, He weakened the country's miltarily by TRULY ending the wars in Iraq and Afganitstan? Obama said that he was going to bring the troops home and thats what he did/doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Melyssa K" Kennedy

If I saw a keg of kerosene, I'd be smart enough to leave it alone, not go beat the crap out of it.

---

haha watch out, you might make him mad and he might blow himself up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiny Vessels

MOTO, He weakened the country's miltarily by TRULY ending the wars in Iraq and Afganitstan? Obama said that he was going to bring the troops home and thats what he did/doing.

---

Do you even begin to understand what I am talking about? Without a miliatry second to none, our days are numbered. He thought Alkaeda (or however it is spelled) was defeated and this is exactly why our ambassador was killed. Obama is fucking up regarding foreign policy. When we leave, the middle east will be a complete free for all. Truely ending it? Don't be fucking naive. We either need to completely gut the middle east or be ready to live with terrorism on a full time basis...on american soil.

You know it wasn't Al Qaeda that stormed the Benghazi embassy, right?

What we're dealing with now is splintered terrorist cells, a lot of them being "lone wolf" type of situations, like the attempted car bombing in Times Square. Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran won't fix that.

Keep repeating that. You may actually beilieve it some day. Obama's admin REPEATEDLY stated it was an attack directly as a result of a video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOTO13

Keep repeating that. You may actually beilieve it some day. Obama's admin REPEATEDLY stated it was an attack directly as a result of a video.

---

First off it's spelled believe :) second it really did start off because of a video...

Obama only won with less than 600 000 votes more than Romney. This was a close call. Of course, people's votes are only for advising the electoral colleges. It's not like the people are smart enough to decide who should be their own president. Well, at least the minority of the US citizens who actually vote. The majority can't be arsed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Melyssa K" Kennedy

First of all, can you at least spell my name correctly when quoting me?
Second, it was an abbreviated list I made, not everything I was referring to.
Lastly, I didn't literally mean you can't live without those things, but society's demands for a fast internet, a cell phone, and some other key technologies make living without them extremely problematic. If doctors or your kids or parents need to get a hold of you urgently, a cell phone can save precious time rather than playing phone tag. Online banking makes life so much less hectic for people that are very busy or can't get around easily. Without a decent internet connection, research on school projects would be more difficult, as would be online sections of classes. If you don't drive, going to the library isn't the easiest thing. Do you understand what I was saying, yet?

---

Sorry about the name, I was blasting through my response and wrote from memory. I assumed you would figure it out.

And nobody is disputing that technology has changed the way we live - not exactly, anyway. However, it wasn't part of the original discussion, which was about trends. I wasn't sold on the analogy you used - I'm still not. If you're claiming that the way we receive information has changed, I can get behind that - in the main, it's true. In the same vein, if you claim that our perception of time has been incorrectly compressed because of integrated technologies (particularly wireless technologies), you're joining a fascinating ongoing discussion on a topic that I'd be only too happy to join.

Now, if you want to discuss the sociological effects of technology, I suppose I could take the devil's advocate position on it. Because while I would agree that some things have changed because of technology, I would just as vehemently disagree that other aspects of our lives have not fundamentally changed, merely been perceived that way. For example, the HDTV was in your list (I understand that the list wasn't meant to be exhaustive), and that really is a fundamentally consumer-aimed good. It adds nothing from previous technological circles and in no way contributes to a jump forward in communications methods - if anything, it just strengthens existing cycles of domination over popular media.

I'm getting off-topic again. Anyway, we were originally talking about whether the last time an incumbent lost was a decent benchmark for establishing a trend. 1992. Keep in mind that in those twenty years, some Americans may have voted in none of those elections, or in all of them. Ditto for the population as a whole - in electoral terms, there is a demographic shift in that time, but how significant it is is debateable. 20 years means keeping a large proportion of the voting population from the first to the last cycle. Comparing it to copyright first (a much longer cycle), and then technology (a much shorter one) are both errant metaphors. That's what we were originally talking about.

If you'd rather act like I'm attacking you, Melyssa, go ahead. I am not.

I think that maybe I will keep my answers to your suggestion that the internet has fundamentally changed the process of doing research for another post. But in a nutshell - I don't think it has, though it may have sped it up. Digitization of research materials is straight textual conversion - only the physical locale changes.