|
Like It takes some sort of mind to take zingers that aren't particularly funny or witty in the first place and then change them so now your "side" wins the joke.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2010 19:38 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 05:42 |
|
I dunno I kind of miss the heyday of girls talking about getting rid of Bush. I mean there's really no losers in that game.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2010 19:44 |
|
jackpot posted:Well if we're supposed to believe it's a forwarded email from a U.S. soldier, written by a U.S. soldier, we can ignore it right now. Two whilsts, one bloody, lots of polysyllabic words and not a spelling error in the whole bunch. No way a real 'merican wrote that. Port o Prince crime fighting hog posted:Rivera is a left wing news puppy? I thought he worked for Fox? He showed some compassion for poor black people during Katrina (or at least feigned it convincingly).
|
# ? Feb 5, 2010 02:11 |
|
My dad is starting to send me some right wing junk. There are a couple he's sent that I've seen on this very board, so I did a quick check and I don't think I saw any of these here. I really apologize for the formatting but all these stupid chain letters make me wish I couldn't read:A Fellow American posted:THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! Here is another too. Shorter, I promise!! An Old Dying Priest posted:In Washington DC, an old priest lay dying in the hospital. For years he had faithfully served the people of the nation's capital. He motioned for his nurse to come near. I'm thinking of just sending my dad a link to the South Park episode Mystery of the Urinal Deuce as an example of how utterly hosed up their lines of reasoning can be to draw any of the conclusions that they do.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2010 21:36 |
|
Why would anyone want to be a Senator with those kinds of restrictions? Plus, most of those aren't applied to CEOs of businesses, much less civil servants.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2010 21:55 |
|
I believe that proposal's point is that being a senator should be a service for the country, not for one's own interests; ie, putting the interests of the nation ahead of your own. Same idea as the guardians in Plato's Republic (that is to say this is not a new idea).
|
# ? Feb 6, 2010 00:27 |
|
kik2dagroin posted:My dad is starting to send me some right wing junk. There are a couple he's sent that I've seen on this very board, so I did a quick check and I don't think I saw any of these here. I really apologize for the formatting but all these stupid chain letters make me wish I couldn't read: I, too, believe that the best legislative reform that we could pass right now is to require them to either be independently wealthy, or live off of "campaign contributions".
|
# ? Feb 6, 2010 16:50 |
|
ducttape posted:I, too, believe that the best legislative reform that we could pass right now is to require them to either be independently wealthy, or live off of "campaign contributions". I completely agree with you. If the Tea Parties want to take up this legislative fight, I would be in support of their message, but not their methods. But as the said a few posts above, getting them to vote down their power is not very likely to happen anytime soon, if ever. Having never heard anything from my father during the Bush Administration, I find the fact that he's forwarding me politically tinged e-mails calling for reform when his party of affiliation was waging war, running up the national debt, and in general making life for my generation much worse off than when he was my age incredibly galling, if not insulting since the Bush Administration got us here.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2010 18:21 |
|
This conversation is currently "ongoing" on facebook: Gus - Why give miranda rights to terrorists and treat them like a civilian? GG. ------- Julio likes this Julio - Agreed bro, I imagine its easy to make out "you have the right to remain silent" under heavy machine gun fire, morters and rpg's. Me - Why even have a trial at all? Just put them up against a wall and pull the trigger. Who needs due process? Gus - I don't know. No one has balls anymore Me - Guilty until proven innocent for the win! Jamie - Terrorists are not soldiers, nor are they covered by the Geneva Conventions. Why they should be afforded rights under the very same Constitution which they seek to destroy is beyond me. We would not allow a soldier from another country to be tried in our civilian courts, and we definitely do not owe terrorists the privilege either. Me - Richard Ried, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph Gus - And its stupid we can't use the only method of "torture" the U.S. has which is not even torture. We've only done it 3 times and it works well. Sigh. If only it were the 1940s. Nagasaki/Hiroshima methods? Lol Me - You mean the same methods of torture that we tried and hung Japanese soldiers for using on American prisoners of war? Gus - YES! Lol jk. Just the water board thing, forgot what its called. They just lay you upside down and pour water on your face, actually highly effective. But apprently its immoral and not nice. Jamie - The 4 you named are US citizens who have Constitutional protection by virtue of having been born in the US. Military detention and trial is not torture. It is a matter of national security. Me - @Gus: No, it isn't. @Jamie: But they're terrorists, right? And terrorists, by your own admission, seek to destroy our constitution. They're enemy combatants. We should not afford them due process. Jamie - The "guilty until proven innocent" remark is moot; many of these monsters admit readily that they perpetrated the acts that are ascribed to them. Once an admission has been made there should be no need for a trial. Terrorists who are US citizens are US citizens regardless of their intent. The terrorists to whom Gus is referring are by no means US citizens, nor have they ever been. Therefore they do not deserve protection as such. Me - So, let me get this line of logic straight... Misguided teenager who failed to light his underwear on fire: torture him and throw him in a military tribunal. Oklahoma City bomber: He's an okay guy who should get a normal trial. What about Nidal Hassan... let me guess.... military tribunal? But wait... he's a U.S. Citizen.. what will you do? Gus - Eh, not from what I've read, but alright. Me - Gus, the problem with waterboarding is that it's torture. This means that it puts you under so much mental and physical stress that you'd literally admit to anything. If I wanted to, I could waterboard you and only stop once you admit that you like getting pegged in the rear end by dudes. And I'd waterboard you, and I'm 100% sure that you'd crack and "admit" to it. Does this mean you were telling the truth? Of course not. It means that you were just saying whatever you could to make the pain stop. This is why it doesn't work and will never work. the fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Feb 8, 2010 |
# ? Feb 8, 2010 20:59 |
|
the posted:This conversation is currently "ongoing" on facebook: I'm really starting to hate the obsession with the words terrorist and terrorism. The words are so nebulously defined. The fact that people can't see just how loving dangerous it is to agree to something like "terrorists get no trials and are shot on sight" is supremely depressing.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2010 21:55 |
|
the posted:I don't understand the argument that people that aren't born in the US aren't subject to it's laws. What happened to all people are created equal and are equally protected under the law? It's astonishingly embarrassing that these people are proclaiming to protect American values, but their very first instinct is to betray the most fundamental part of the American judicial system. I wish I had the image that is spewing out other 's
|
# ? Feb 8, 2010 22:11 |
|
Craftics posted:I'm really starting to hate the obsession with the words terrorist and terrorism. The words are so nebulously defined. Well you should squeeze in a link to this article http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3264863 Nothing wrong with using waterboarding as a disciplinary tool on a 4 year old - it's just water and not cruel at all
|
# ? Feb 8, 2010 22:31 |
|
Anosmoman posted:Well you should squeeze in a link to this article http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3264863 Nothing wrong with using waterboarding as a disciplinary tool on a 4 year old - it's just water and not cruel at all I... I... gently caress.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2010 22:34 |
|
Gene Simmons posted:I got this and it pissed me right the gently caress off: Ahaha I usually just ignore all conservative propaganda spam I get from my father but I had to blast him on this one because it was so over-the-top-ridiculous.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2010 03:39 |
|
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/missmeyet.asp I know we're not supposed to give 1 smiley posts but just....drat.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2010 07:16 |
|
RagnarokAngel posted:http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/missmeyet.asp I saw this one a while back, but I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. My first inclination is to laugh and applaud the clever troll who paid the money for it, but I'm pretty sure this is actually serious (as in people who really do miss Bush). tek79 fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Feb 10, 2010 |
# ? Feb 10, 2010 16:20 |
|
My dad just sent me this email with a link to a two and a half year old video:quote:Outrageous! I sent him a short email saying: quote:Um, he [Murtha] just died on Monday, so... there you go? And I got this as a reply: quote:Yes that’s true and good thing, sorry to have to say. But…there’s a bunch more if you look at some of the other clips.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2010 16:03 |
|
I don't have sound at work. What is going on there? Some kind of voice vote?
|
# ? Feb 11, 2010 16:44 |
|
I think the best thing you can do is just ask not to send forwarded mails. My dad just made a bunch of excuses when I called him out and said he doesn't even like Lee Iacocca that much and that he simply agrees with the message of the mail. Also that I need to prepare for hell since Obama is the worst president ever, even worse than Obama! I feel bad that he's living his final days angry about nothing and that he has no problems with blatant lies. I really hope I don't turn into something like that once I'm nearly 80.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2010 16:47 |
|
Gripen5 posted:I don't have sound at work. What is going on there? Some kind of voice vote? He asks the ayes to stand and the nays to speak or something, and then some guy asks for a count of each and Murtha ignores him and says the ayes have it. I don't know enough about Congressional procedure to know if this is really An Insult To Our Democracy, but with the dramatic title and it being from Eric Cantor's channel I'm inclined to be suspicious.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2010 16:56 |
|
RagnarokAngel posted:http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/missmeyet.asp I saw this on Fox & Friends this morning, and after talking about it they put up an altered image that swapped the picture of Bush with a picture of the Constitution.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2010 23:06 |
|
Julio - Agreed bro, I imagine its easy to make out "you have the right to remain silent" under heavy machine gun fire, morters and rpg's. [/quote] Yes, I'm sure there are lots of machine guns and RPGs going off when the CIA abducts people off the street or out of their homes.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2010 08:23 |
Pungent Mammy posted:He asks the ayes to stand and the nays to speak or something, and then some guy asks for a count of each and Murtha ignores him and says the ayes have it. The Chair of the House makes the final interpretive decisions as to what constitutes a majority or minority vote. If you watch CSPAN, you're going to see something like this happen frequently, and usually the chair won't even bother counting. They'll say "In the opinion of the chair the ayes/nays have it" and then someone on the opposing side will ask for a recorded yeas/nays. Normally the chair grants this. However, in contentious votes or votes where the leadership really doesn't want to deal with the subject at hand, the Chair will pull a stunt like in that video. It's happened many times in our country and surprise! We still exist. It's funny to call that video "An Insult to Our Democracy" when the Constitution of the United States gives the legislatures the power to set their own rules. These are rules that are agreed upon when each Congress enters session, and Murtha was simply interpreting parliamentary procedure and the rules of the House to benefit his side. It's not an insult; it's what's been done for 200 years.
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2010 19:05 |
|
Gifts for Audiophiles posted:I saw this on Fox & Friends this morning, and after talking about it they put up an altered image that swapped the picture of Bush with a picture of the Constitution. Man, that's hilarious!
|
# ? Feb 15, 2010 19:15 |
|
Toad on a Hat posted:The Chair of the House makes the final interpretive decisions as to what constitutes a majority or minority vote. If you watch CSPAN, you're going to see something like this happen frequently, and usually the chair won't even bother counting. They'll say "In the opinion of the chair the ayes/nays have it" and then someone on the opposing side will ask for a recorded yeas/nays. Normally the chair grants this. However, in contentious votes or votes where the leadership really doesn't want to deal with the subject at hand, the Chair will pull a stunt like in that video. It's happened many times in our country and surprise! We still exist. Thanks a lot for clearing this up. I admit it ostensibly is anti-democratic, but that's the way they've operated since inception.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2010 21:04 |
Pungent Mammy posted:Thanks a lot for clearing this up. I admit it ostensibly is anti-democratic, but that's the way they've operated since inception. In some ways it probably is but you have to remember that if the Chair didn't have final say over it you'd have the Senate's problem x435 because opposing legislators could just quasi-filibuster everything, and in the House that would present an incredible problem and make the Senate look downright normal in comparison. The House was created specifically to cater to the will of the people - that's the reason that they're up for election every two years, and that's part of the reason that majority rules. Also if you watch CSPAN you'll see someone pass slips to the presiding chair before they make a ruling or call a vote (both the House and the Senate) - that's usually the parliamentarian (or a designee), who studies, lives and breathes the rules of each chamber and gives the chair the section of the rulebook that specifically pertains to the issue at hand. As a side note, Joe Biden + 50 Democrats could actually eliminate the filibuster, but they won't because they all know the enormous implications of such a move would reverberate until the country ends. Seth Pecksniff fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Feb 16, 2010 |
|
# ? Feb 16, 2010 03:45 |
quote:WE, OF COURSE, SCRAPPED THE F-22 IN FAVOR OF BANK BAILOUTS...... Raaaaaaaaaarghjhhhh
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2010 20:56 |
|
Vilerat posted:Raaaaaaaaaarghjhhhh "I don't care if they want houses to live in, make more planes damnit!"
|
# ? Feb 18, 2010 20:59 |
|
Vilerat posted:Raaaaaaaaaarghjhhhh I love this. It's ridiculous on so many levels. First, there's all the obvious stuff about how the author/audience care more about having the shiniest weapons than economic collapse/health care/justice. Second, I'm pretty sure the Cold War is over and we don't have to spend all our money keeping up with the Russians anymore. But my favorite part of all is quote:Scratch any ideas of close in air-to-air combat with this aircraft in the future. When is the last time there was a major close-in air-to-air engagement? Vietnam?
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 07:50 |
|
I think it was the Falklands? But you weren't in that. I know fighter jets are a colossal waste of money and war is bad and all that, but I'm a boy, and part of me thinks they're awesome and it's a shame that we haven't seen any fighter jets go up against each other for more than a generation.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 14:27 |
|
No my favourite part is:Vilerat posted:Hopefully China isn't one of them. Is the U.S. at war with China?
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 14:33 |
|
Mornacale posted:When is the last time there was a major close-in air-to-air engagement? Vietnam? From what I understand, American arial combat philosophy is "Shoot them before they see you" Vilerat posted:Raaaaaaaaaarghjhhhh would you mind linking the video? Personally, I would quite enjoy seeing a plane fly backwards. EDIT: it turns out that yes, this plane is vastly superior to anything the Americans have. Why, only a couple years ago, The USAF was playing wargames with the I(ndian)AF who were flying this plane. The IAF won 90% of the encounters (and only had a 3-1 numerical advantage, and the Americans were allowed to use any non-long range weapon). We might as well just wait around for the inevitable Chinese invasion. ducttape fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Feb 19, 2010 |
# ? Feb 19, 2010 14:53 |
|
ducttape posted:EDIT: it turns out that yes, this plane is vastly superior to anything the Americans have. Why, only a couple years ago, The USAF was playing wargames with the I(ndian)AF who were flying this plane. The IAF won 90% of the encounters (and only had a 3-1 numerical advantage, and the Americans were allowed to use any non-long range weapon). We might as well just wait around for the inevitable Chinese invasion. Well that's pretty much why they won right there. Also I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Air Force was restricted to using Pakistani tactics or something like that.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 15:54 |
|
dphrag posted:Is the U.S. at war with China? They have slanted eyes, so yes. My Grandpa posted:This a-mail is to inform all my liberal friends and relatives, that since you must be so embarrassed by now with the performance of your President, that to avoid hurting your feelings I am longer going to e-mail you political information. That's okay, we still love you granpa
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 16:00 |
|
"I have been waiting Cyber space" - what? I know that it must be a typo, but I can't figure out what he meant to say.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 16:02 |
|
Dr. Tough posted:Well that's pretty much why they won right there. Also I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Air Force was restricted to using Pakistani tactics or something like that. IIRC, the US pilots also didn't have AWACS and a couple of other restrictions. Most of the HORRIBLE US DEFEAT/HUMILIATION IN COMBAT EXERCISES should have a long list of *'s next to them.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 16:04 |
|
Dr. Tough posted:Well that's pretty much why they won right there. Also I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Air Force was restricted to using Pakistani tactics or something like that. I'm pretty sure it was purposefully stacked against the Americans because the people running the exercise wanted them to have a poor showing to justify a next-generation fighter plane. For instance, I'm pretty sure we just sent over an typical flight unit, while the IAF was using their best of the best. Air to air superiority is a thing of the past. We can shoot just about any plane out of the sky with missiles, and the only useful role that planes seem to have anymore is destroying land targets. Satellites do a way better job of recon.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 16:05 |
|
SpergyGirl posted:"I have been waiting Cyber space" - what? I'd assume "wasting". I dont know how he got the I and the S mixed up but its the only way that sentence makes sense to me.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 16:15 |
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I'd assume "wasting". I dont know how he got the I and the S mixed up but its the only way that sentence makes sense to me. I don't know how the hell I didn't think of that, but this is most likely what he meant. I've been trying to figure it out all morning. My guess is that another relative finally told him to stop filling up their inbox with poo poo.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 16:24 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 05:42 |
dphrag posted:No my favourite part is: China is the "future peer-competitor" of the USA. That means that they have been identified as the nation most likely to match our military capabilities in the near future, so a lot of doctrine and equipment is being geared towards countering them. You have to be ready for what the likely future conflict is, but it also means that having a large, USSR style enemy is good for the Military-Industrial complex.
|
|
# ? Feb 19, 2010 16:43 |