|
Also, not wiretapping. Whatever you think of the metadata collection, it's legally and materially distinct from actually recording the content of conversations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
What do all those people complaining about Obama taking vacations and using taxpayer money to fund his massive spending addiction want with Obama? Do they want Obama to not take vacations unless the vacation aims toward solving US problems? Is Obama only allowed to spend the riches he had obtained before he became a President if he's not spending it towards solving the national debt?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:New post from the previous gun nut Learn your conservamemes, guys: http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/courtrulingsonpoliceprotection.php quote:The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:What do all those people complaining about Obama taking vacations and using taxpayer money to fund his massive spending addiction want with Obama? Do they want Obama to not take vacations unless the vacation aims toward solving US problems? Is Obama only allowed to spend the riches he had obtained before he became a President if he's not spending it towards solving the national debt? They want him to live in a box. To answer the second vacation, no, they don't want him out of the country even if it's part of his job. You've never seen them spin an important diplomatic trip as a frivolous European vacation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:What do all those people complaining about Obama taking vacations and using taxpayer money to fund his massive spending addiction want with Obama? Do they want Obama to not take vacations unless the vacation aims toward solving US problems? Is Obama only allowed to spend the riches he had obtained before he became a President if he's not spending it towards solving the national debt? They want him to be a white Republican. Indeed, if he were that, he could even continue his exact same policies (except maybe for treating gay people like humans) and they'd think he was an all-time great president. (I'm assuming that as a Republican he wouldn't even pay lip service to the poor or minorities anymore.) Also, why not just agree with that Nixon/Obama macro? "Good point, right-wingers like Nixon and Obama are scum, we need leftist leaders for a change."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Learn your conservamemes, guys: This just adds a whole new level to the phrase "gently caress the police".
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
If only we could get a guy like nixon back. Clean air and water acts, osha, epa, equal opportunity act... If only those dirty democrats had stayed in line, we could be living in a socialist utopia by now
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:04
|
|
1stGear posted:Very few people these days realize that the Watergate scandal went beyond Nixon ordered some people to burgle a hotel room. As if a sitting president ordering the burgling of his opponent's property is not enough in and of itself. I hear the whole Watergate thing downplayed by conservatives pretty regularly, usually followed by mention of some (actually) minor, or wholly invented, issue from either Clinton's or Obama's administration. There's absolutely no sense of perspective. "All Nixon did was personally order a little bit of burglary, and possible had G. Gordon Liddy murder political opponents. Obama's IRS targeted conservative political groups and stopped them from falsely obtaining 501(c) tax exempt status, THAT'S the real crime!!!!1!" It's like conservative can look at a super-tanker and a bathtub toy boat and say, "Eh, they're about the same size." toanoradian posted:What do all those people complaining about Obama taking vacations and using taxpayer money to fund his massive spending addiction want with Obama? Do they want Obama to not take vacations unless the vacation aims toward solving US problems? Is Obama only allowed to spend the riches he had obtained before he became a President if he's not spending it towards solving the national debt? This one gets stale so fast. I have a conservative friend who is still harping on this. At one point - I swear - he quoted to me that Obama had spent something like forty-two billion dollars on vacations. I asked him where he had heard such a fantastically stupid number and walked him through the math sowing that Obama would have to have spent $30,000,000 per day on vacationing for every day of his presidency at the time for that to be true. I don't understand how anyone could swallow such an obvious falsehood about anything without his bullshit detector going nuts. I mean, it's just not within the realm of possibility, no matter how much you dislike the guy. He no longer quotes actual numbers, just continually tells me that Obama has spent more days on vacation than any other president in the history of our country.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:If only we could get a guy like nixon back. Clean air and water acts, osha, epa, equal opportunity act... If only those dirty democrats had stayed in line, we could be living in a socialist utopia by now Wasn't that mostly the work of the Democratic Congress or at least Nixon wanting to co-opt what he thought was popular? It wasn't really his idea, and remember he was an archconservative loon in private.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Wasn't that mostly the work of the Democratic Congress or at least Nixon wanting to co-opt what he thought was popular? It wasn't really his idea, and remember he was an archconservative loon in private. I'd argue that it was more the result of a popular left movement in the US which no longer exists, but yes, the Democrats controlled both houses at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:I asked him where he had heard such a fantastically stupid number and walked him through the math sowing that Obama would have to have spent $30,000,000 per day on vacationing for every day of his presidency at the time for that to be true. I don't understand how anyone could swallow such an obvious falsehood about anything without his bullshit detector going nuts. I mean, it's just not within the realm of possibility, no matter how much you dislike the guy. He no longer quotes actual numbers, just continually tells me that Obama has spent more days on vacation than any other president in the history of our country. Every day he's been in office he has been vacationing in a socialist nightmare dystopia hellscape, so the entirety of federal spending is his vacation budget. That brings it to about 9.7 billion dollars a day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:I mean, it's just not within the realm of possibility, no matter how much you dislike the guy. He no longer quotes actual numbers, just continually tells me that Obama has spent more days on vacation than any other president in the history of our country. I think I'd just rub his nose in the $42B every time he has an opinion. "Hey, remember when you were an idiot for believing that $42 billion thing? You still haven't fixed the problem."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 13:44
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:I think I'd just rub his nose in the $42B every time he has an opinion. "Hey, remember when you were an idiot for believing that $42 billion thing? You still haven't fixed the problem." He's a pretty good friend and I'd like to keep him. Also, I still hold out hope for a conversion, or at least a lessening of his more ignorant beliefs, and when you continually poo poo on a person, all you do is guarantee that he digs in his heels.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
A coworker went on a big rant at lunch today about how everything we're being told about Ukraine is lies and the current happenings are a sign of an impending nuclear first strike courtesy of the USA. Where the hell that came from is anyone's guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
snorch posted:A coworker went on a big rant at lunch today about how everything we're being told about Ukraine is lies and the current happenings are a sign of an impending nuclear first strike courtesy of the USA. Where the hell that came from is anyone's guess. That's not that crazy, all it requires is an acceptance that nuclear first strikes are a thing America would be stupid enough to attempt. That gives motive for it. It's coming from the fact that UK, US and France all just boycotted the G8 until either Putin leaves Ukraine or is kicked out from the G8 permanently. That'd mean he'd lose his veto, which is important because Kerry has announced that a) this will happen and b) when it does, Russia will get total economic sanctions. I'm not that good at realpolitik but as far as I can make out, I don't think anyone's ever given ALL of Putin's billionaire puppets a reason to rise up against him in numbers more than he can disappear quickly. Economic isolation is a serious threat to Putin's powerbase and will likely push him into making some extremely submissive deals with China, with token Chinese concessions so Putin can claim he got what he wanted and extra. Essentially Kerry just slapped America's dick into Putin's face, hard. There's mood for and even press questions about direct military intervention against Russia, across most of the G8 countries. You can either perceive this as: incredible realpolitik, or preparations for war. And a land war in Russia wouldn't go well, so, nuke would be a reasonable option (if you think nukes are reasonable). And there's your motive for faking it! It's a remarkably consistent bit of crazy!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
snorch posted:A coworker went on a big rant at lunch today about how everything we're being told about Ukraine is lies and the current happenings are a sign of an impending nuclear first strike courtesy of the USA. Where the hell that came from is anyone's guess. If you truly believe nuclear war is upon us you're an idiot if you go to work unless you work at a cocaine and sex factory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:If you truly believe nuclear war is upon us you're an idiot if you go to work unless you work at a cocaine and sex factory. You say that as if working at a cocaine and sex factory is a bad tradeoff for being borderline crazy and retarded at the same time  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Very serious post from a FB "conservative":quote:Barack Obama your foreign policy of withdrawal, nuclear non-proliferation and isolationism has left a void that the left assumed would only be filled by peace and love. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:Very serious post from a FB "conservative": Maybe this isn't the place for a big philosophical tangent, but what I've never understood is, what's the alternative? Do conservatives really want to be the literal world police, jumping into every conflict all around the world indefinitely? Has fighting a two front war for 10+ years in Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously draining our national time, money, and resources not taught them that not every conflict needs to be jumped into? Granted, I think there are certainly times we need to intervene is other countries, for instance all the gang war and unrest in and around the US-Mexico border, but is the argument really that boots-on-the-ground is the perfect solution for every world skirmish? There is no use for diplomacy ever!? I just don't understand that view. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Especially considering what Spangly A wrote about the US laying a diplomatic beatdown on Putin. If their post is anything to go by (and I think it is) we're already in the process of biffing Russia upside the head, we're just doing it without committing troops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
A classmate of mine is a Ukrainian-Canadian and very conservative, and today he walked into our shared office and opened conversation with "I wonder what possessed the US to elect a community organizer as president." Somehow Russia invading Ukraine being Obama's fault has become a cross-border conservative meme. What the hell do they want him to do, preemptively nuke Moscow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
That is, in a twist of bitter irony, exactly what they want him to do. They want the US to stomp around the globe as an imperialist juggernaut, laying waste to anyone and everyone that objects to us dominating the globe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:A classmate of mine is a Ukrainian-Canadian and very conservative, and today he walked into our shared office and opened conversation with "I wonder what possessed the US to elect a community organizer as president." I always fail to understand how pointing out a previous occupation of 'community organizer' is a sick burn. What's the standard conservative comeback if I ask why the US elected film actor Ronald Reagan?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
My usually very liberal friend had this to say last night: "If we had attacked Syria, this never would have happened. We need to show that we have the best military ever. We elected an intellectual as president and now that's what we have." I think he's been listening to his father too much. Ror posted:I always fail to understand how pointing out a previous occupation of 'community organizer' is a sick burn. What's the standard conservative comeback if I ask why the US elected film actor Ronald Reagan? I've heard as a response: "Yeah so he learned how to act under pressure and speak publicly which is what he needs to do as president." Of course if you point out that a community organizer has a variety of skills applicable to leadership positions, you probably just get a rant about ACORN in return.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:48
|
|
Ror posted:I always fail to understand how pointing out a previous occupation of 'community organizer' is a sick burn. What's the standard conservative comeback if I ask why the US elected film actor Ronald Reagan? The idea is that Obama didn't have any relevant experience to be president. That they picked a rank amateur to be elected. This ignores that he was a lawyer, law professor, member of the Illinois state legislature, and a United States Senator.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
 This is the lamest poo poo in the world to me. Ever notice how anybody who posts "STILL TALKING ABOUT MILEY?? I WAS READING THE ECONOMIST"  is either the least informed person you know who thinks the biggest problem facing America is "the deficit" which they think causes unemployment, or is a truther.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:Very serious post from a FB "conservative": if we have mccain this not happen you know, disregarding all the millions of factors having nothing to do with the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Ror posted:I always fail to understand how pointing out a previous occupation of 'community organizer' is a sick burn. What's the standard conservative comeback if I ask why the US elected film actor Ronald Reagan? It's such a bizarre thing. The guy had a job as a community organizer for a couple years after graduating from university, before being a constitutional lawyer, professor, state senator, and senator. It's like if you had a job at McDonald's while in undergrad to pay for your education, and thirty years later when elected president the opposition never shut up about how America elected a fry cook to be president.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Magres posted:That is, in a twist of bitter irony, exactly what they want him to do. They want the US to stomp around the globe as an imperialist juggernaut, laying waste to anyone and everyone that objects to us dominating the globe. Ironically, when Obama seriously considered going weapons hot on Syria, the right wing screamed out in horror that they may be asked to put their money where their mouth was. Now that it is over, it was a show of weakness by Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
No one is going to start World War 3 over loving Crimea. The US and Soviet Union did way more aggressive things during the actual Cold War and you'll notice we're all still here. People don't understand that the age of major industrialized war is over. Between the globalization of our economies and the horrifying devastation that not even non-nuclear weapons can unleash, no major world power is going to go toe-to-toe with another ever again. Its all proxy wars and asymmetrical conflict these days and while those suck in their own special way, its a far cry from WW3!!11! every time a major power gets involved in fighting somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Ironically, when Obama seriously considered going weapons hot on Syria, the right wing screamed out in horror that they may be asked to put their money where their mouth was. Now that it is over, it was a show of weakness by Obama. Which is another reason why Obama can not start a real war. A republican president can do that, if he pisses off the pacifists he doesn't have to care, they would've never voted for him anyway and the right wing base will love him. But for a democratic president starting a war is a pure lose/lose proposition as the republicans would stab him in the back as soon as the first US soldier gets a paper cut during deployment. It's better to let things slide, have the hawks talk poo poo bout him all they want and rely on the votes of people he actually has a chance of winning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
pd187 posted:
I'm pretty sure I haven't seen the words "Justin Bieber" on my wall in years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I'm pretty sure I haven't seen the words "Justin Bieber" on my wall in years. Dudes been in the news a lot lately. He's a total mess in the way child stars usually end up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Xarthor posted:Maybe this isn't the place for a big philosophical tangent, but what I've never understood is, what's the alternative? Do conservatives really want to be the literal world police, jumping into every conflict all around the world indefinitely? Has fighting a two front war for 10+ years in Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously draining our national time, money, and resources not taught them that not every conflict needs to be jumped into? Ror posted:I always fail to understand how pointing out a previous occupation of 'community organizer' is a sick burn. What's the standard conservative comeback if I ask why the US elected film actor Ronald Reagan? I'd go with "famous co-star to a monkey" peak debt posted:Which is another reason why Obama can not start a real war. A republican president can do that, if he pisses off the pacifists he doesn't have to care, they would've never voted for him anyway and the right wing base will love him. But for a democratic president starting a war is a pure lose/lose proposition as the republicans would stab him in the back as soon as the first US soldier gets a paper cut during deployment. It's better to let things slide, have the hawks talk poo poo bout him all they want and rely on the votes of people he actually has a chance of winning. What about Libya? 1stGear posted:No one is going to start World War 3 over loving Crimea. The US and Soviet Union did way more aggressive things during the actual Cold War and you'll notice we're all still here. Is this a direct quote from Alfred Nobel about how we'll never have a first world war, or Orville Wright about how we'll never have a second? They both seem very similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:What about Libya? You mean the war that was shut down within a month by congress?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:What about Libya? That was a 99% risk less standoff action that only cost 4 Americans their lives and the republicans have been trying to burn Obama on that stake for like a year now. Oh and the US actually got into that under the lead of France.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:A classmate of mine is a Ukrainian-Canadian and very conservative, and today he walked into our shared office and opened conversation with "I wonder what possessed the US to elect a community organizer as president." So after a few years of "Uh oh guys, he's going to organize their community  " we're back to "Heh, what is he going to do? Organize our community?  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
peak debt posted:That was a 99% risk less standoff action that only cost 4 Americans their lives and the republicans have been trying to burn Obama on that stake for like a year now. Oh and the US actually got into that under the lead of France. I quote Sun Tzu - A good leader does not seek battle until he knows victory is assured. So it wasn't a stupid war. Does that mean it still wasn't a war? It took six months, one ten thousandth of the cost of the Iraq war, it freed a people, and removed a dangerous dictator from the area. Whats the downside? Are we really gonna call it a failure just cause the Republicans desperately want us to think it is because BENGHAZI!!!!!!?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Xarthor posted:Maybe this isn't the place for a big philosophical tangent, but what I've never understood is, what's the alternative? Do conservatives really want to be the literal world police, jumping into every conflict all around the world indefinitely? Has fighting a two front war for 10+ years in Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously draining our national time, money, and resources not taught them that not every conflict needs to be jumped into? Conservative isn't really a united group when it comes to how the United States should act in foreign relations. On one hand, there are libertarians who want the U.S. Armed Forces no further than the border (and who probably care for us to completely stay out of the Ukraine crisis), and neo-cons who think we should already be knee-deep in foreigner blood. For the Obama critics, there's isn't an alternative, there's just a near-paradoxical conflict. America shouldn't be the world police, but we should be so tough and fearsome that no one would even think of doing something we wouldn't approve of, just in case we stop not being the world's police.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:46
|
|
