|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Makes airline reservations a bitch, though. "It's Te-ROR-rist, you racist bastard." Eh, not that tough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTDC70SLgXk
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Mister Bates posted:'Hassan Terrorist' is the best name ever. I should have registered as "Active Shooter".
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:In addition to what's already been posted - and if you're feeling glib - you can link to Obama's actual accomplishments: We need radical change and Obama isn't the guy who can do it. It doesn't even seem like he WANTS to do it. How can anyone but the most flag-waving of party Democrats support him in any way more significant than "better than the other guy"?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Interlude posted:We need radical change and Obama isn't the guy who can do it. It doesn't even seem like he WANTS to do it. How can anyone but the most flag-waving of party Democrats support him in any way more significant than "better than the other guy"? No Presidential Administration is capable of making radical change by itself. That is by design. We aren't some top-down monarchy where if the president gets a stupid haircut, it becomes all the rage. The president might be the single most powerful individual in the US, but his position is administrative and has powers plus limitations in line with that function. If you want radical change, there is a clearly delineated path to achieve it in our system, though the reality is of course less clear cut. You need to get massive popular support and ram a bill through Congress. The President isn't SUPPOSED to be able to change the course of the country without the will of the people as expressed by Congress at his back for very obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Why is Gitmo on there?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
Interlude posted:We need radical change and Obama isn't the guy who can do it. It doesn't even seem like he WANTS to do it. How can anyone but the most flag-waving of party Democrats support him in any way more significant than "better than the other guy"? We hold out hope that if we pretend our Morale has improved they won't have to continue the daily beatings.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
greatn posted:We hold out hope that if we pretend our Morale has improved they won't have to continue the daily beatings. That is part of the strategy necessary to getting what you want. If the Democrats voted in the same lockstep manner Republicans are able too, they would be able to pass substantially more legislation and have a focused view of where to bring America. The issue with being the big tent party is that this doesn't happen. If more Democrats just blatantly and openly supported the President we would see a more liberal agenda going through.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of Obama either but conservatives bashing him for not closing Gitmo or for the effects of the sequester is like the height of childishness. If someone other than the Democrats in general and Obama in particular had been responsible for either of those things the Republicans would likely be praising them for it. Republican polemics have literally been reduced to "arbitrarily attach Obama's name to X Thing that People Dislike, even if we would likely support X Thing otherwise."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Interlude posted:Ugh this site is pointless as gently caress. The economy and the environment are falling apart, the war on drugs rages on, we're still spending trillions on the military while talking about cutting entitlements, and the business criminals got - are still getting away with - everything they could want. But he appointed a Latina to the Supreme Court so I guess we should just shut up. Reminds me of that other site with Obama's campaign promises ranking buying his kids a dog next to ending wars. This might be more to your liking then: http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Why is Gitmo on there? So the "Benghazi whistleblower" hearings were yesterday. Nothing new was revealed, but since hearings always seem to result in an uptick of stupid Facebook posts, I thought I'd share one of the more interesting things to come out of the hearings: Their testimony undermined a lot of Benghazi conspiracy theories, such as quote:1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi Their "star witness" could only muster mild outrage over an F-16 not being magically scrambled to buzz the consulate (seriously, WTF would that even do?!), and over the delayed deployment of an ill-equipped "Special Forces" team that could hope to do little more than secure the Benghazi airport. Consider using that information the next time someone on your feed gets mad that Obama didn't magically teleport Rambo into the consulate or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:No Presidential Administration is capable of making radical change by itself. That is by design. We aren't some top-down monarchy where if the president gets a stupid haircut, it becomes all the rage. The president might be the single most powerful individual in the US, but his position is administrative and has powers plus limitations in line with that function. quote:If you want radical change, there is a clearly delineated path to achieve it in our system, though the reality is of course less clear cut. You need to get massive popular support and ram a bill through Congress. The President isn't SUPPOSED to be able to change the course of the country without the will of the people as expressed by Congress at his back for very obvious reasons. FCKGW posted:This might be more to your liking then: http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Interlude posted:Ugh this site is pointless as gently caress. The economy and the environment are falling apart, the war on drugs rages on, we're still spending trillions on the military while talking about cutting entitlements, and the business criminals got - are still getting away with - everything they could want. But he appointed a Latina to the Supreme Court so I guess we should just shut up. Reminds me of that other site with Obama's campaign promises ranking buying his kids a dog next to ending wars. I don't want to jump on the automatic "Blame Bush" bandwagon, but the fact is that Obama inherited a huge mess. The sheer inertia of all of the terrible things that Bush implemented or exacerbated has got to be extraordinarily difficult to even slow down, much less stop or change directions with. You can't just pull out of a region after destabilizing the gently caress out of it with military actions for years. The economy and the environment are not things that can be "fixed" in four years by one administration. Military spending is ridiculous, but let's not forget that much of that is nevertheless stimulative on the economy, because a lot of it goes to jobs and manufacturing. A lot of it doesn't, but it's not as easy as "cut military spending" and you know that. I suspect that the promises that Obama made during the '08 campaign were completely genuine, but they were made by a candidate who probably did not fully appreciate the mess he was stepping into. This is not necessarily intended as excuses for the things Obama has or has not done - some of it is very contra what many of his supporters (including me) wanted to see - but we need to recognize that George Bush's administration was literally one of the worst and most destructive in the history of the US, and that kind of damage on top of the worst economy in decades cannot just be mopped up in a few years.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Walter posted:I don't want to jump on the automatic "Blame Bush" bandwagon, but the fact is that Obama inherited a huge mess. The sheer inertia of all of the terrible things that Bush implemented or exacerbated has got to be extraordinarily difficult to even slow down, much less stop or change directions with. Nobody can still believe this. It's been over four years. His MO is talking a progressive game while actively sabotaging any real progress behind the scenes and continuing all of Bush's policies. Notice how much havoc the Republicans can wreak the second they get into office? That's because they actually want those things and will fight to get them.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Nobody can still believe this. It's been over four years. His MO is talking a progressive game while actively sabotaging any real progress behind the scenes and continuing all of Bush's policies. Yeah I could buy that for the first four years but he's showing no indication of interest in progressive economic policy in his second term so I'm not sure where the faith comes from. If you really want something you fight for it as the Republicans have shown. Just look at how fast they ram poo poo through when they win a state house even in the face of what the citizens clearly want (as in the case of Michigan). I understand that the GOP has the house and Reid hosed up the filibuster rules but if his answer to that is to propose watered down Republican ideas and give well meaning speeches he's basically useless.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
The bully pulpit is bullshit and counterproductive. Obama is so polarizing any thing he pushes for is immediately opposed by forty Senators and the majority if the House. He campaigned ruthlessly to pass a lovely compromise bill supported by 90 percent of the public and it couldn't even get out of the Senate. It probably wouldn't have even been up for a vote for th House.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:Their "star witness" could only muster mild outrage over an F-16 not being magically scrambled to buzz the consulate (seriously, WTF would that even do?!), and over the delayed deployment of an ill-equipped "Special Forces" team that could hope to do little more than secure the Benghazi airport.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Interlude posted:Then he should be drumming up that massive popular support. In 2009 he could have pushed for anything he wanted. He could have led the people against the banks. He could have ended the drug war. We were ready, but the fact of his fundamental cowardice slowly began to reveal itself. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/inside-obamas-presidency/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/ quote:On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration. Remember that the first thing he did as President was try to get a stimulus bill passed. He went to the House Republicans with a proposal that already included a lot of things Republicans wanted, thinking that this was really important and maybe they could be bipartisan since stopping the recession was such a big loving deal, and they walked out without even looking at it. He couldn't have done any of the things you listed no matter how much he campaigned for them.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Yeah, been hearing a lot about the ELITE SPECIAL FORCES that could have been flown in (four soldiers in Tripoli, who wouldn't have been able to do much in Benghazi, and couldn't possibly have been needed on duty in Tripoli in case additional attacks happened there). They had some former top guy on Fox yesterday complaining that they didn't have some teams ready to go or be on high alert because it was 9/11 after all. Apparently for the rest of our lives we need to live in constant fear of that date. It's absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Fun fact: the US military has quick reaction forces ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 24 hours with ammo and supplies pre-packaged on aircraft. They were deployed but forces from the embassy in Tripoli had already evacuated the CIA annex before they arrived. It takes time to get people places. Who knew?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:The bully pulpit is bullshit and counterproductive. Obama is so polarizing any thing he pushes for is immediately opposed by forty Senators and the majority if the House. quote:He campaigned ruthlessly to pass a lovely compromise bill supported by 90 percent of the public and it couldn't even get out of the Senate. It probably wouldn't have even been up for a vote for th House.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Notice how much havoc the Republicans can wreak the second they get into office? That's because they actually want those things and will fight to get them. There might be a little factor you're missing, like control over both parts of Congress.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:There might be a little factor you're missing, like control over both parts of Congress. There's a not easy to ignore number of blue dog democrats who all have their pet issues that they will go against their party for. Just look at how the recent gun show background check vote turned out. A nominal majority can't get you everything.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
peak debt posted:There's a not easy to ignore number of blue dog democrats who all have their pet issues that they will go against their party for. Just look at how the recent gun show background check vote turned out. A nominal majority can't get you everything. At least when the House of Representatives went Republican, blue dogs suffered among the worst casualties of any bloc in the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:The bully pulpit is bullshit and counterproductive. Obama is so polarizing any thing he pushes for is immediately opposed by forty Senators and the majority if the House. Obama is perfectly capable of drumming up public support or public anger over issues. In 2012, he put together the "Julia" video and really hammered the Republicans over their War on Women poo poo. He was hitting them in speeches daily, naming names of crap Senators, bad legislation, and obstructive jerks. Making the Julia video and stuff like that aren't enumerated powers, they're part of the bully pulpit, and it is indeed a powerful thing that he knows how to use. He just won't do it unless his job is on the line. Type "Obama press pool" into Google, and you will find 4 years of reporters from every news agency complaining that Obama routinely ignores the press corps that is assigned to report every word he says. He leaves them behind, doesn't allow them access to events, rarely answers questions, and basically deals with them as little as possible. It's a valuable tool he refuses to use, except in 2012 when he used them as an opportunity to get a leg-up on Republicans during the media cycle. He could spend every damned day talking about Gitmo or universal healthcare, but it's not a big deal to him.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Obama's doing about as good as we can expect any president to be doing for the foreseeable future. He's a corporatist shill and I doubt there are many people left that would deny it, but he's slightly less terrible than your average Republican on certain social issues, and until something drastic occurs to upset the current meritocracy, that's about the best we can hope for.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:No Presidential Administration is capable of making radical change by itself. That is by design. We aren't some top-down monarchy where if the president gets a stupid haircut, it becomes all the rage. Didn't Kennedy kill hats for guys?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Which is why Saxton Hale had him killed.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:This might be more to your liking then: http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ The first thing I saw claimed he opposes same sex marriage and the second was a complaint about him supporting nuclear power. Bizarre.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Obama is perfectly capable of drumming up public support or public anger over issues. In 2012, he put together the "Julia" video and really hammered the Republicans over their War on Women poo poo. He was hitting them in speeches daily, naming names of crap Senators, bad legislation, and obstructive jerks. Making the Julia video and stuff like that aren't enumerated powers, they're part of the bully pulpit, and it is indeed a powerful thing that he knows how to use. He just won't do it unless his job is on the line. Unfortunately public support and anger don't get bills through Congress. Edit. Didn't mean for that to be terse. Basically he can raise public support for stuff but Republicans are fine being unpopular as long as Obama doesn't get anything done. Also Republican voters are less likely to support stuff if Obama is for it, meaning by public ally endorsing stuff he can make it harder to get things done. peak debt posted:There's a not easy to ignore number of blue dog democrats who all have their pet issues that they will go against their party for. Just look at how the recent gun show background check vote turned out. A nominal majority can't get you everything. Even though some Dems broke ranks, so did some Republicans. The bill did get a majority, but you need 60 votes to pass stuff In the Senate. jackofarcades fucked around with this message at 04:43 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
I hate to interrupt obama apologist hour but here's a long soldier-worshipping forward that is remarkable in how many words they wrote about absolutely nothing.quote:Letter from an airline pilot: He writes:
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
My aunt is a never-ending fountain of right-wing conspiracies. She's a real treasure, since she often makes up her own!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
KillerJunglist posted:Oh boy, this guy is back on my feed. Sorry I'm like 5 pages late on this but I found this on Reddit that I like as a rebuttal to the  
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
The Texas Democratic Party facebook page has posted a response to Cruz's lovely meme:
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Oh god political parties are getting in meme wars.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Oh god political parties are getting in meme wars. I'd say we've hit rock bottom, but then of course they could have a live youtube debate on reddit or something.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
The Republicans aren't the only ones who can make poorly done memes. From the Iowa Democratic Party: 
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
I actually do get a TON of left-wing memes and image macros in my feed from the polar opposite of the guy who posts the right-wing crap. Most of the left-wing ones are pretty bland and nowhere near as hateful so they are easy to ignore. I don't feel like going through his timeline, as I would have to wade through countless Dr. Who and Zombie memes, but there I do remember seeing a bunch of stupid ones.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:The Republicans aren't the only ones who can make poorly done memes. I think all this proves is that Democrats are better at photoshop. Most conservative memes I see look like they were made with generators or in MS Paint.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Oh god political parties are getting in meme wars. People have been dealing in short, easy to circulate and remember phrases since ages past. Memes are just the next step of this. See: 'Taft is fat' as an earlier political meme.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
quote:short, easy to circulate and remember phrases That is a meme. "Meme" is not limited to image macros, it is a self-perpetuating idea, the mental equivalent of a gene.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 10:11
|
|