I thought that of all the candidates, Romney was the most moderate of them all. If anything, had he stuck to his guns, rather than try and appease the Tea Party extremists, he had a pretty good chance of winning. Post the GOP nomination, Romney should have gone back to taking a moderate stance, which would have helped him immensely with some of the moderate voters. Instead, he tried appeasing the far right, at which point he pretty much lost any chance of a victory.

Personally, I felt that between Obama and Romney, this country could not lose. While they weren't ideal, they were both pretty competent, well-educated, and sharp, with a proven track record. I'm not sure any of the other GOP contenders even stood a chance (Rick Santorum? Newt Gingrich? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? Heck, Ron Paul?).

I thought Microsoft was trying to re-brand itself as a devices and services player. So, what does it mean when they bring on board a technical, enterprise guy as the CEO?

To me, it would seem that they're ignoring everything Apple has taught the industry -- usability, good design, and marketing.

Instead, they'll become the next IBM and be a large behemoth who just does enterprise tech "stuff".

Quite sad. And I'm pretty sure eventually they'll eventually spin off their Xbox division.

Gandhi did not receive a Nobel.

White Americans organized systems to keep black people from achieving the same success available to other ethnic minorities.

Yeah, but they did it to other white Americans too. White sharecroppers were subjected to much the same treatment as blacks were -- if not by law, socioeconomically, they were nevertheless slaves. Hell, the game is rigged against most Asians and whites today thanks to affirmative action -- an ethnic "minority" with a lower score has it easier than an Asian or a white with a much higher score.

If you want to fix it, fix it socioeconomically across the board. You cannot decry racism on one hand and apply the same select hypocrisy to other groups.

The maturity of the article, combined with the vulgar name calling and his own admission that he did not read the book, makes me question anything he has to say. A quick search shows his penchant for beating people up and getting himself incarcerated, none of which particularly helps his case.

In contrast, Amy and Jed are both Yale professors, and if nothing else, their hypotheses are backed up by some semblance of data.

He also employs sheer hyperbole in interpreting the piece:

Yesâ"the Nigerians. According to Chua and Rubenfeld, Nigerians are one of Americaâ(TM)s Eight Master Races. The bookâ(TM)s promotional material states that âoeNigerians earn doctorates at stunningly high rates.â Doctorates in whatâ"childhood witchcraft? Baby farming? Penis panics? How to murder someone via telephone? How to transform yourself into a goat? They are highly accomplished in the art of Internet scamming, Iâ(TM)ll give them that. But I suspect that Nigerians may be mere tokens on this list, tossed in at the end to avoid overt accusations of racism.

If he had read the piece, he'd have read the following:

Immigrants from many West Indian and African countries, such as Jamaica, Ghana, and Haiti, are climbing Americaâ(TM)s higher education ladder, but perhaps the most prominent are Nigerians. Nigerians make up less than 1 percent of the black population in the United States, yet in 2013 nearly one-quarter of the black students at Harvard Business School were of Nigerian ancestry; over a fourth of Nigerian-Americans have a graduate or professional degree, as compared with only about 11 percent of whites.

So yeah, I don't think the word "salient" really applies here. He's nothing more than a dimwit troll, and his language, demeanor, and reading skills only highlight that.

The Obama administration doesn't compromise. They give ultimatums, and when they don't pass he circumvents the law by using executive orders.

How much Fox News do you watch a day? I just really like to gather data on that fact when I see such a polarized person.

The OP stated an opinion, one that's not entirely untrue, as I showed you in my later comments.

You assumed the following, based on his comment:

1. That he was polarized because he disagreed with Obama's policies
2. And disagreeing with Obama's policies would imply he had a propensity to watch Fox News

If you still insist that you're impartial, I'd like to point out that you have not asked that question to any of the other posters who have *supported* Obama. Impartiality might be more believable if your Fox News questions weren't directed at those who disagreed with Obama.

So, either you're lying about being impartial or you're assuming that there's a relation between the two. It can't be both. Gathering data requires a control group and an unbiased sample, and your method indicates neither.

But go ahead, keep trolling.

It's even worse than you know.

I posted this on another thread, but I quote below:

The worst travesty to date is the Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. It was brought to court by the Obama administration and argued by Elena Kagan says that even talking to terrorist groups for "strategies of nonviolence" can be considered advice, which should be considered material support. And they won. So, if you tried to talk a terrorist out of their terrorist acts and move to a path of peace, you would be providing material support. Heck, if you proselytized to a terrorist, you'd be treated the same way. These are executive decisions -- without review, without recourse, which is what makes them worse.

With draconian laws like this, all you need to do is have a chat on the dietary benefits of celery with a suspected terrorist and you could get be held without charge on the grounds of "national security".

Perhaps not explicitly, but you certainly implied it.

Through fear, not genuine goodwill.

It's like someone who is good because they are constantly afraid of being sent to hell over someone who is good because they're genuinely a good person, and need no "incentive".

In each case, take away the fear and you revert back to barbarism. I'd rather have a society that is internalized with politeness and good values, not one where people constantly live in fear.

Steins;Gate bro.

What are you talking about?
I'm trying to gather data. Your post makes no sense.

Alright, since you asked nicely, here's the thread so far.

The Obama administration doesn't compromise. They give ultimatums, and when they don't pass he circumvents the law by using executive orders.

How much Fox News do you watch a day? I just really like to gather data on that fact when I see such a polarized person.

What a pile of rubbish. Even pretty liberal folks, such as Noam Chomsky, have called out the Obama administration's penchant for doing that. Not only doing it, but also for setting a pretty horrible precedent by misusing the executive powers.

I mean to say that one need not be a Fox News fan to question His Master's Voice. For instance, I am pretty liberal on most accounts, although I consider myself fairly staunch when it comes to some fundamental principles as they are outlined in the magna carta and elsewhere - that we are all free men with inalienable rights, and that we are all innocent until proven guilty and so on.

So your assertion and assumption that those that oppose Obama watch Fox News is silly. In fact, while I do not even own a television, most of what I do enjoy watching are fairly liberal - Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and so on. But back to my original point -- I was merely saying that the OP isn't wrong, and that even most staunch liberals would question the Obama administration's tactics if they are halfway educated.

Take the National Defense Authorization Act, for one, codifies practices carried out by both Bush II and the Obama administrations -- in fact, they're done with bipartisan support. It provides the option for military detention for US citizens -- sure, it's not mandatory, but it's a very ominous first step. You should read what the Executive Orders actually say on this, as well, which provides sweeping powers to arrest citizens on account of national security.

The worst travesty to date is the Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. It was brought to court by the Obama administration and argued by Elena Kagan says that even talking to terrorist groups for "strategies of nonviolence" can be considered advice, which should be considered material support. And they won. So, if you tried to talk a terrorist out of their terrorist acts and move to a path of peace, you would be providing material support. Heck, if you proselytized to a terrorist, you'd be treated the same way. These are executive decisions -- without review, without recourse, which is what makes them worse.

Take another example, that of Omar Khadr, the first Guantanamo case to come to a military commission -- not court, mind you -- under Obama. The charge was that he tried resisting an attack on his village. The kid was 15. He was labeled a terrorist and kept in Bagram in Afghanistan for 8 years and then Guantanamo after that, where he's either given the choice to plead guilty and be released in eight years or plead not guilty and be detained forever. This violates pretty much every international convention on the treatment of both soldiers and juveniles. Ironically, Khadr is a Canadian citizen, but surprisingly, Canada hasn't asked to extradite him, but I digress.

I could go on, but the fact remains that the OP is quite accurate in his assessment of the Obama administration. Anyone who does any amount of research into domestic political and IR policies can quite easily see how the administration has done a scary job of using executive orders to circumvent any opposition. It sets a very bad precedent, and it's amazing how few people are aware of it.

Obama isn't the best choice -- he was the best choice *given* the alternatives. And having strong opinions about his performance doesn't make any of us polarized, Fox News watching crazies.

How much Fox News do you watch a day? I just really like to gather data on that fact when I see such a polarized person.

What a pile of rubbish. Even pretty liberal folks, such as Noam Chomsky, have called out the Obama administration's penchant for doing that. Not only doing it, but also for setting a pretty horrible precedent by misusing the executive powers.

You said that, not me. My point was to highlight the common influences behind colonialism and American imperialism.

As An American, I refuse to take credit or blame for stuff the British Empire did.

We have plenty of fucked up behavior in our own history, thankyouverymuch.

I wasn't talking about Americans specifically -- I was talking about the fact that wasn't the first time that something like that had happened.

But since you brought it up, as a fellow American, I disagree. After all, the Americas *were* populated by the peoples of those fine isles.

Just because someone drew an arbitrary line around a land and declared independence doesn't mean there weren't common social and cultural elements. From the sun shall never set in Britannia to the American Manifest Destiny, the story continues.

Well, yea. That's evident by the fact they offered him money, instead of signing the contract, getting him drunk, then peeing on the contract up as they steal all his land.

To be fair, they *did* do that ca. 1600 to the entire Indian subcontinent, at the behest of a corporation, no less ("The British East India Company"). Took ~300 years before they could be overthrown, only to end up with a much more dangerous problem (India and Pakistan, both with nuclear capabilities).