|
Sorus posted:Yeah, because the best way to deal with the people killing you is to make them angry. Yea they were JUST about to stop killing people until this.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
I'm shocked the residents of Baltimore have so much restraint. That whole relationship between the black community and the police has been toxic for decades. A few police cars is pretty minor. They have good reason to burn a whole lot more to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Well, if you look at the 60s it actually takes a lot over a very long time to get to tipping points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:What else do you think the people of Baltimore should do? Have someone take a mic and urge Baltimore to rise as one because the police are killing people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:I'm sorry, what does the State Department have to do with war again? Was Hillary Clinton the Secretary of Defense at some point, because I never heard that one. It was Clinton and Power who convinced Obama to go to war in Libya, over Gates' objection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Quote of the night, "There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians." ~ Ted Cruz. You know who else gave speeches about fascism...... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Gotta disagree. The GOP taking control of the House in 94 was in keeping with the election's fundamentals. I think it was GWU that did a study on that last December, but it was a predictable outcome driven largely by shifting demographics. The same transition in 1994 that gave Bush the governor's mansion turned out for him in 2000 and 2004 I agree. I waffled over the adjective to use to describe the effect of the Clinton transition on '94. It was part of the problem, and not an insignificant part, but credit must be given to the fundamentals of that election as well as Newt's masterful repackaging of Perot's platform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Quote of the night, "There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians." ~ Ted Cruz. He's not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:He's not wrong. Can you at least say something offensive
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
^^^ all their posting is offensive.Sorus posted:Yeah, because the best way to deal with the people killing you is to make them angry. Maybe they're trying to kill their killers first and are just bad at it because they lack the hands on experience police have at it. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
uggy posted:I know I'm not the only person that's asked for this before but I sort of couldn't keep up with the thread for a while. Does anybody have that excellent post that talks about charter schools handy? I think it was a goon that made it and it was really good and poo poo. I saw one quoted in another thread, is this what you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
So tonight is the White House Correspondent's dinner. Which means jokes. A lot of good ones. I'll leave the direct quotes for Joementum, since some of them are clear QotD winners. But I love me some Key and Peele, so here is Luther, Obama's anger translator Angry Obama is the president I always wanted. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Apr 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Angry Obama 2016
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:But I love me some Key and Peele, so here is Luther, Obama's anger translator
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Khaleesi is coming to Westeros
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Which Obama's Katrina was that? 19 or 20? That whole bit is gold.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Angry Obama is the president I always wanted. It really would be nice to see him spend his last two years just being honest like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Caros posted:It really would be nice to see him spend his last two years just being honest like that. In Fear of a Black President (which everyone should read), TNC spells it out. People were afraid of electing a Black President, but in fact Obama turned out to be a President who happened to be black - they were afraid of someone who had been steeped in the injustices of the American system determined to break them, and instead got someone fully ok with them whose skin contained more melanin than those before him who crafted and executed the system he would now enhance and execute. But they still freaked out like he was the former.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:No I mean the illegal NSA spying that people are pretending is legal because politicians in both parties really like having access to our dick pics. Dog they got like 50 laws covering their rear end for that. Illegal is not the same as being a thing you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Dog they got like 50 laws covering their rear end for that. Illegal is not the same as being a thing you don't like. And just because they promise they are following those laws doesn't mean they are. Criminal and illegal are not the same thing, canine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
I have to imagine this is basically Obama's internal thoughts when dealing with the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And just because they promise they are following those laws doesn't mean they are. Criminal and illegal are not the same thing, canine. I mean, morally/ethically wrong and illegal certainly aren't the same thing, but I thought criminal and illegal were synonymous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And just because they promise they are following those laws doesn't mean they are. Criminal and illegal are not the same thing, canine. They're still not illegal, no matter how much you don't like them. Samurai Sanders posted:They...aren't? In theory something can be illegal without being criminal. Like I don't know, running a stop sign usually doesn't count as "criminal". But all criminal things are illegal, else they're merely immoral rather than criminal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I have to imagine this is basically Obama's internal thoughts when dealing with the GOP. That he doesn't even crack a smirk (which adds to the CG feeling of that), is really telling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Exceptional straight-man act there, really. Can we get more of this Angry Obama? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:They...aren't? Just because something isn't allowed under the law doesn't mean its criminal, like most illegal actions taken on behalf of government agencies or civil offenses generally. Nintendo Kid posted:They're still not illegal, no matter how much you don't like them. I'm saying that as stupidly broad as our surveillance laws and as limited their safeguards, there is ample evidence that the intelligence community are not complying with what minimum standards the laws require.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And just because they promise they are following those laws doesn't mean they are. Criminal and illegal are not the same thing, canine. Prove they aren't, then you can talk about how criminal the programs are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:They...aren't? There's a whole range of conduct that is illegal/unlawful but not criminal, that's why civil proceedings exist
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Prove they aren't, then you can talk about how criminal the programs are. Well, seeing how I'm saying they aren't criminal just not within the bounds of the massive programs authorized, I don't need to really prove anything then. But yes, we'll see how well these post-snowden test cases go and who knows we might be allowed to know if these programs are following the law and court orders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
McAlister posted:The fact that this treatment is not extended to out-groups is precisely my point, yes. I'm not sure about the framing of out group and in group. At least, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I think it is more that the media feels comfortable with attacking Hilllary with unsubstantiated evidence than other candidates because of established media narratives. Mainly that the Clintons are scandal ridden/corrupt people. This is a hold over from Bill Clinton's time in office and the right wing attacks on him and her. It is an easy sale by the media and grabs attention. It's not like Obama started as an in group figure. There was no negative narrative already existing for the media to latch on to that would not come off as racist, so they didn't. In 2008, it was easier to go with a postive sale. You could say that this defines the in group/out group narrative, but I think the framing is just off. It seems more likely that the media just felt it easy to latch on to pre-existing narratives and not challenge it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:What else do you think the people of Baltimore should do? If they didn't break the law there wouldn't be a problem 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Maybe it's just the internet making everyone's opinions heard simultaneously, but it feels like we're reaching a breaking point on this kind of stuff. I didn't think it was possible but FB and reddit are getting straight up Storm front racist at this point, openly advocating black genocide in well-rated parent comments. At the same time, it seems like black folks are feeling more comfortable about showing their anger over police abuse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Maybe it's just the internet making everyone's opinions heard simultaneously, but it feels like we're reaching a breaking point on this kind of stuff. I didn't think it was possible but FB and reddit are getting straight up Storm front racist at this point, openly advocating black genocide in well-rated parent comments. At the same time, it seems like black folks are feeling more comfortable about showing their anger over police abuse. Facebook is entirely catered to your own sphere of acquaintances so it's more like your friends are a lot more racist than you thought they were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Facebook is entirely catered to your own sphere of acquaintances so it's more like your friends are a lot more racist than you thought they were. No. I'm referring to the groups I'm a member of (so I can see all the fun FWD: FWD: FWD: material).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Maybe it's just the internet making everyone's opinions heard simultaneously, but it feels like we're reaching a breaking point on this kind of stuff. I didn't think it was possible but FB and reddit are getting straight up Storm front racist at this point, openly advocating black genocide in well-rated parent comments. At the same time, it seems like black folks are feeling more comfortable about showing their anger over police abuse. I especially like this Internet character, I'm sure you've all seen at least one of them. Gets a speeding ticket: "MOTHERFUCK THE POLICE I HOPE EVERY PIG WHO PUTS ON A BADGE DIES OF DICK CANCER BUNCH OF GOD-DAMNED LOSERS AND VIOLENCE FREAKS gently caress THEM WHERE THEY LIVE SONS OF BITCHES." Sees video of cops choking Eric Garner: "Well they have a tough job and put their lives on the line so who are we to criticize or exercise any judgment whatsoever on these valiant and selfless heroes of the modern world and well he was breaking the law so..." The law: Completely meaningless if it applies to you, justification for cold-blooded murder of bleaghs at all other times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
The guy who wrote the book on the Clinton's Foundation and the foriegn donations was on This Week and pretty thoroughly thrashed for providing no evidence of impropriety.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Boon posted:The guy who wrote the book on the Clinton's Foundation and the foriegn donations was on This Week and pretty thoroughly thrashed for providing no evidence of impropriety. If there's no fire then where is all this smoke coming from. You got an answer for that smart guy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:I especially like this Internet character, I'm sure you've all seen at least one of them. Also it's great because you know these people didn't give two shits when those two people from Bundy's ranch killed cops in Vegas and draped themselves with the Gadsden Flag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
My favorite part of the WHCD was every shot of Wolf Blitzer not laughing on C-SPAN.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
McAlister posted:This is where I think popular wisdom on D&D is getting it completely wrong. I think this has a lot of merit, but I think you overstate the effect that it had on Obama's relationship with Republicans. However one of the more significant problems he's had has been somewhat poor relationships with Democratic legislators and I think you've got a finger on part of that problem: he's a Democratic president but a lot of those people are not on the good terms with Obama that you'd think they'd be. I think he only really started to improve on that in the last two years or so. However when it comes to Republicans, I think there might be some personal animosity there but it's more driven by their base. Part of what makes the Tea Party powerful in the Republican party is their willingness to primary Republicans who are not 'pure' enough, and being 'soft on Obama' is the surest way to be seen as insufficiently pure. There's also quotes every so often from some Republican senators about how they personally like Obama, but that doesn't affect their behavior. I don't think that Lindsey Graham, for example, believes much of the poo poo he's said over the past few years, but he's got to say it to avoid being primaried. Those reasonable Republicans cannot afford to let up on the gridlock because someone will jump in and try to primary them if they try. The other thing about 'liking' Hillary is that for the past six years Republicans have praised Hillary in some ways as an attack on Obama. She's been the mythical reasonable Democrat that Obama could be contrasted with and ascribed whatever quality the speaker wanted to drat Obama for not having. She's also not been a political figure since 2008, which matters: the Republican base hasn't been primed against her because she hasn't been leading any political push they want to shut down since her own health care proposal in the 90s. I think that once she's a candidate and possibly a president, the base will get just as primed against her as they are against Obama now. My recollection is Obama was reasonably popular among Republicans until he actually started governing - the shift from Candidate Obama to President Obama also cost him support or tolerance there. I think though that Obama's poor relationship with legislators caused a lot of harm that could have been alleviated, both in getting more and better bills passed for the two years he had a majority, and in avoiding the fights between legislators who thought he was doing the wrong thing after that. I don't think that personal relationships with legislators would have significantly changed the dynamic of gridlock though: that's because the Republican base hates Obama and even people who would like to work with him can't risk it. It might have been helpful in the time after Scott Brown where he always needed to peel off one Republican, but after that I don't really see it. Hillary will face the same dynamic unless she's able to win big enough to take back the House: nothing's going to get passed though that and the crazies aren't going to relinquish their control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 16:21
|
|
