|
Ignite Memories posted:Wait wait wait go back to the part where someody is paying a bartender $150 / hr No-one is paying a bartender $150/hr. They are paying $150/hr for a bartender. Feel free to guess how much of that the bartender sees.
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
messagemode1 posted:Well he answered the wrong question. He thought he was answering "would you have done the same thing as W with the same info" and not the actual question. His answer even implies he misunderstood it that way with the comment about how Hillary would've done the same with the intelligence at the time. To me his answer implies that like George W, Jeb will put family before country.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:I mean yes you can backpedal, but when you answered the question with not just a "yes" or a "no" but with a whole sentence it gets a little bit harder. But it reads very much as he thought she asked if he would have done it with the intelligence at the time.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:But it reads very much as he thought she asked if he would have done it with the intelligence at the time. I'm not really sure the average voter would be able to make that distinction even if they did stop to think about it, which they probably won't.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
I see Meg realized everyone started ignoring his poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:But it reads very much as he thought she asked if he would have done it with the intelligence at the time. As time's gone on, we've learned more about how the intel that was the casus belli for the Iraq war was patently bullshit. I think that Jeb's pretty much screwed no matter how he answers the question. If he says "No" then he's pretty much acknowledging that his brother's administration at best turned a blind eye to factual intel in favor of intel that supported an invasion, and at worst actively fabricated intelligence to wage a war for glory and profit. If he says "Yes" then either a) he's admitting that his administration would be a the mercy of potentially bad actors in the intelligence community, or b) would take the same line as his brother and seek bad or fabricated intel if it supported their version of reality. The difference between a and b is only whether or not we think that his administration would have good intentions, or self serving intentions.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:This could lead to some confusion So it goes in circles?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:But it reads very much as he thought she asked if he would have done it with the intelligence at the time. It's lovely because he said "I would" in response to "if you knew what we know now", then added the modifiers at the end. Stick the first few words into a campaign ad, and I think it can be this season's version of "the fundamentals of the economy are strong".
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Weltlich posted:If he says "No" then he's pretty much acknowledging that his brother's administration at best turned a blind eye to factual intel in favor of intel that supported an invasion, and at worst actively fabricated intelligence to wage a war for glory and profit. Honestly he should've just distanced himself as much as possible. There are plenty of wishy-washy answers he could have given. Clinton has been distancing herself from Bill's policy decisions in a lot of ways and honestly Bush needs to do the same with George W if he wants to win the primary. I think his lack of skill at deflection and unwillingness to create distance is creating opportunities for other candidates to gain an advantage. That being said, the people voting in the Republican primary probably don't care about this and likely won't find out about it anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:So it goes in circles? No, it only takes right turns to save time and gasoline, just like UPS trucks. Who new that Cruz supporters were so environmentally conscious! 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Never mind.
Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 21:53 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Honestly he should've just distanced himself as much as possible. There are plenty of wishy-washy answers he could have given. Clinton has been distancing herself from Bill's policy decisions in a lot of ways and honestly Bush needs to do the same with George W if he wants to win the primary. I think his lack of skill at deflection and unwillingness to create distance is creating opportunities for other candidates to gain an advantage. I'd say that distancing himself from his brother's administration is also distancing himself from his (theoretical) base. There is a lot of doublethink that goes on around the war in Iraq, but for most of the right-wing voters, it was a just and good war that Obama lost because he pulled out of Iraq too soon. But I agree, generally, that most of the Republican party neither cares nor pays attention. I'm just hypothesizing on some future general election.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Wait, she chose a gun that killed people? ...as opposed to what, Nerf?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Catering is serious money. Charges like $70 for a dozen bagels at a hotel is not uncommon in tier 1 cities like New York, Chicago, LA, etc. During the GAO scandal days there were a series of stories in the Washington Post about how this or that govt agency spent outrageous amounts of money for catering because they paid $4 per muffin or $3 per cup of coffee. The comments were filled with the usual "fire all government employees" conservatives but there was a funny undercurrent of people that either worked in the hospitality industry or organized events for their companies which were saying things like "How the hell did they get X Conference Center down to those prices? When we held an event there they charged us triple those rates with larger minimum orders!" It seems the only encounter people have with catering is for weddings and there is a ton of bitching over how much that costs even though there is massive competition. If you ever book somewhere that requires you to use their food service you are in serious budgetary trouble.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Jon Stewart spent like the entire 2004 election comparing him to Emmett Kelly's "Sad Clown". John Kerry looks like Herman Munster.   As for Chris Christie's grocery bill, Is he buying food for just himself, or a family? I'm sure he's not trying to save money on chuck roast and select grade cuts, but groceries for a family can get expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:...as opposed to what, Nerf? 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Weltlich posted:but for most of the right-wing voters, it was a just and good war that Wilhelm lost because he pulled out of France too soon.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Jeb explains his answer to the Iraq War question:quote:"I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about given what people knew then, would you have done it? Rather than knowing what we know now. And knowing what we know now, clearly there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead up to the war and the lack of focus on security," Bush told Hannity. "My brother's admitted this. And we have to learn from that." ... Okay, fair enough. Everyone gets a mulligan. So now Jeb can unequivocally say that, knowing what he knows now, he - quote:"Yeah, I don't know what that decision would've been," Bush responded. 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Jeb explains his answer to the Iraq War question: He meant what he said the first time. Only now that there is blowback does he want to retcon history. Gosh, why does that sound familiar? Spun Dog fucked around with this message at 23:23 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Jeb explains his answer to the Iraq War question: Would I have ordered the CIA to manufacture evidence to support the war boner that my brother's administration (the same group of people in my would-be administration) had for Iraq? I dunno, maybe. lol
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
With all the sperglords in the forums, that smiley is super useful. Beep boop what you said didn't make sense 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Right wingers blame the Kaiser for defeat This is the sum of our fears.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The AR15 is probably the most popular gun in America and is the second most iconic gun after the Kalashnikov. I'm willing to wager a lot of money it wasn't chosen for the photoshoot as a subtle gently caress you to parents of dead children, especially when they're willing to say that openly and to their faces already. This. It would only be exceptionally creepy if they went and built the gun to have all the same brand of parts and accessories as Lanza's mom's XM-15. The AR15 is about as ubiquitous as it gets when it comes to modern rifles in the United States.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This. It would only be exceptionally creepy if they went and built the gun to have all the same brand of parts and accessories as Lanza's mom's XM-15. I suppose it might help to check if she discusses the shooting in her book, but  like anyone here is gonna read that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Jeb explains his answer to the Iraq War question:
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:He meant what he said the first time. Only now that there is blowback does he want to retcon history. Gosh, why does that sound familiar? I doubt it, the way he phrased the answer was certainly referring to the decision made at the time. His reference to Hillary shows that, in my opinion. quote:"And so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody," he added. "And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got." He says "with the intelligence at the time,' clearly he's not answering the question that was asked. But still, he gave the Dems an amazing video clip that they can repeat over and over next year. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 00:21 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQbPewOXukw
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I doubt it, the way he phrased the answer was certainly referring to the decision made at the time. His reference to Hillary shows that, in my opinion. Michael Chertoff, Porter Goss, Stephen Hadley, Michael Mukasey, George W. Bush are just a few of the intellectual titans on his foreign policy team. I'm not about to give him the benefit of the doubt on this since everybody he's surrounding himself with probably still thinks the Iraq invasion was a good idea. Even more succinct:
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Nice!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Can't get fooled again!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Can Bernie still run as a third paty in the general election, since hes not actually a democrat? It would be really funny if he spoilered HRC.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Zo posted:Can Bernie still run as a third paty in the general election, since hes not actually a democrat? It would be really funny if he spoilered HRC. He said he wouldn't for exactly that reason.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Zo posted:Can Bernie still run as a third paty in the general election, since hes not actually a democrat? It would be really funny if he spoilered HRC. He can, but it's doubtful he will. Unlike Nadar, he has some sense of scruples. While he might not openly endorse HRC, I doubt he'll throw the election just to make a point. That said, if he thinks he can generate enough of a groundswell to have a legitimate shot at winning he might run. I really doubt that will happen though. Either he'll take the Democratic nomination, or he'll bow out.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:He said he wouldn't for exactly that reason. Weltlich posted:He can, but it's doubtful he will. Unlike Nadar, he has some sense of scruples. While he might not openly endorse HRC, I doubt he'll throw the election just to make a point. I see. Thanks. But on the other hand, it seems like the threat of running as a spoiler would be the only thing to force the democrat establishment to not treat him like a joke, and maybe actually adopt some of his policies? It's not worth actually throwing the election over of course, just seems unfortunate you can't have it both ways.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
The Democrats have shown over multiple cycles that their reaction to a challenge from the left, which results in a loss, only means that they weren't being conservative enough for America.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Zo posted:I see. Thanks. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 01:42 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:During the GAO scandal days there were a series of stories in the Washington Post about how this or that govt agency spent outrageous amounts of money for catering because they paid $4 per muffin or $3 per cup of coffee. The comments were filled with the usual "fire all government employees" conservatives but there was a funny undercurrent of people that either worked in the hospitality industry or organized events for their companies which were saying things like "How the hell did they get X Conference Center down to those prices? When we held an event there they charged us triple those rates with larger minimum orders!" Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 01:52 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Zo posted:I see. Thanks. The threat of running as a spoiler would ensure that the Democrats ostracized him and would also ensure he was treated exactly like a joke (see: Nader), as well as ensuring that not only are his favorite policies not getting adopted, they'd probably be getting spit on and burned down by the Republican president. Unlike half of D&D, Bernie isn't an rear end in a top hat who'd spit on things he cares about just to try and make some point of pride. When he doesn't win the primary, he most likely will endorse Hillary and probably even help campaign for her.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Can we trust Sanders on that? And more important, can we trust his supporters?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Kalman posted:The threat of running as a spoiler would ensure that the Democrats ostracized him and would also ensure he was treated exactly like a joke (see: Nader), as well as ensuring that not only are his favorite policies not getting adopted, they'd probably be getting spit on and burned down by the Republican president. I hope his support is backhanded and that he doesn't campaign for her. Hillary is basically a mostly-sane Republican with marginally liberal ideas (when they're convenient to have). Her winning the election will result in the same Republican obstructionism and conservative-democrat games as we've seen the last eight years.* I can't imagine that is something Bernie actually wants to see. *Some sick part of me wants to see her love for power and money struggle against her hatred of republicans. It might end up that she would govern far left of where her own past actions indicate she believes just to spite the republicans. And I'd take that, kind of like I'd take Tea Partiers voting for Bernie (never will happen but it is just illustrative) just to spite Republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:17
|
|