USPOL March

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL March

UrbicaMortis: Feb 16, 2012; Hmm, how shall I post today?

ufarn posted:

Yeah, about that

https://twitter.com/bgittleson/status/706293678919315456

https://twitter.com/ReaganWorld/status/706016004816695296

Isn't Reagan's son quite left wing?

# ? Mar 6, 2016 18:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 23:16

ufarn: May 30, 2009

UrbicaMortis posted:

Isn't Reagan's son quite left wing?

Ron has seemed pretty mellow in the interviews I have seen. He was on Colbert, too. Done speeches at the DNC and supported lots of candidates, was very much against GWB.

ufarn fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Mar 6, 2016

# ? Mar 6, 2016 18:50

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

UrbicaMortis posted:

Isn't Reagan's son quite left wing?

Reagan had multiple sons

# ? Mar 6, 2016 18:52

Youth Decay: Aug 18, 2015

UrbicaMortis posted:

Isn't Reagan's son quite left wing?

Michael is the lovely one who's a conservative shill. Ron is the good and cool one.

Youth Decay fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Mar 6, 2016

# ? Mar 6, 2016 18:56

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Jarmak posted:

Quoting from that dumbass Atlantic article and trying to pass it off as your own knowledge does not make you sound like you know what you're talking about.

"Just because you pulled from a source and I didn't doesn't mean you have better information than I do!"

quote:

So again gently caress off with your nonsense conspiracy theories. The government isn't going to spend the time and resources tracking and striking an innocent 16 year old kid just because they didn't like his dead dad. Especially when its obvious what kind of political poo poo storm it would cause.

and yet I have provided a quote of them making that statement which kicked off the poo poo storm you claim they want to avoid. Never mind the fact that "this is a bad use of resources" isn't a particularly convincing argument given how else we know the resources are being spent.

quote:

Your smoking gun isn't shocking in the least bit, especially considering it was like the third time we had claimed to have gotten al-banna.

uh-huh. So hey, since you claim that he was running around with terrorists and admit that their story has fallen apart, how about you point out these mystery terrorists that he was meeting with?

See, it's funny, my point relies on documented evidence of what happened - that Gibbs did make that statement, that the later justification which didn't match with the stories initially reported was later proven to be false. You claim this is a conspiracy theory.

Your point is that the 16 year old was running around with terrorists - which there is no evidence for - and was killed along with a few master minds - which didn't happen. So a story that justifies it based off no evidence but your fervent belief that just because there is no evidence that doesn't mean the secretive agency wasn't enacting a complex plan that those of us looking at the facts just can't see.

Oh, and your repeated anger that anyone takes evidence rather than accept your theory of events.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 18:57

Syjefroi: Oct 6, 2003; I'll play it first and tell you what it is later.

FilthyImp posted:

Nancy died before she could see a groundswell of support for legal pot, the gateway drug!

As for other drugs? Probably not. We'll see the NE model of advocating for treatment and leniency if a drug ends up taking over the suburbs.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Clinton's drug policy is just that. On her site she doesn't even call it drug abuse or anything negative.

I had to look it up - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/addiction/

quote:

Substance use disorder and addiction

Through improved treatment, prevention, and training, we can end this quiet epidemic once and for all.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 18:59

ohgodwhat: Aug 6, 2005

Unzip and Attack posted:

Because it's just to delicious not to share.

Sounds like an endorsement for former First Lady Hillary

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:00

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

Unzip and Attack posted:

Because it's just to delicious not to share.

Does Ronnie have his own planet now? I've got to think they did the whole post mortem baptism thing and he's chilling on Reagan-world.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:04

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; An alright dude.

Reagan's daughter posed for Playboy.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:10

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Nancy Reagan is dead.

The Grim Reaper's been having a field day this year.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:11

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Syjefroi posted:

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Clinton's drug policy is just that. On her site she doesn't even call it drug abuse or anything negative.

I mean, yeah, sane drug policy would probably be geared more towards treatment than incarceration, but as the other poster noted it's only this way in the NE because their bratty suburb babies discovered Heroin. Have it affect a black neighborhood and suddenly it's a scourge tearing at the heart of America.

Or basically the old Crack vs Coke divide.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:11

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

Rygar201 posted:

I'd like to think that's but it's hard to tell with these people.

He's been making fun of GOP establishment types who keep trying to come up with convoluted reasons Trump will lose because of what having to admit the more obvious "he will win because he's more popular with GOP voters" would say about their party.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:12

sit on my Facebook: Jun 20, 2007; ASS GAS OR GRASS
No One Rides for FREE
In the Trumplord Holy Land

Fried Chicken posted:

"Just because you pulled from a source and I didn't doesn't mean you have better information than I do!"

Ah, but Fried Chicken, you seem to be forgetting! Any male of "fighting age" who lives in Whateveristan and fails the paper bag test is a potential enemy combatant, and therefore this American citizen and minor WAS actually conspiring with terrorists, probably. And even if he wasn't, well, he's dead now so gently caress it. Just trust me, he was a ~bad guy~. Probably.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:16

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

Nancy Reagan is dead.

The Grim Reaper's been having a field day this year.

If Trump and or Cruz dies from some sort of freak accident, we will know that god is tired of this conservative bullshit.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:24

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Fried Chicken posted:

"Just because you pulled from a source and I didn't doesn't mean you have better information than I do!"
and yet I have provided a quote of them making that statement which kicked off the poo poo storm you claim they want to avoid. Never mind the fact that "this is a bad use of resources" isn't a particularly convincing argument given how else we know the resources are being spent.
uh-huh. So hey, since you claim that he was running around with terrorists and admit that their story has fallen apart, how about you point out these mystery terrorists that he was meeting with?

See, it's funny, my point relies on documented evidence of what happened - that Gibbs did make that statement, that the later justification which didn't match with the stories initially reported was later proven to be false. You claim this is a conspiracy theory.

Your point is that the 16 year old was running around with terrorists - which there is no evidence for - and was killed along with a few master minds - which didn't happen. So a story that justifies it based off no evidence but your fervent belief that just because there is no evidence that doesn't mean the secretive agency wasn't enacting a complex plan that those of us looking at the facts just can't see.

Oh, and your repeated anger that anyone takes evidence rather than accept your theory of events.

That article isn't a source, it's an idiot on the internet writing about their opinion, an exceptionally dumb opinion that like you can't seem to understand Gibbs' statement was a glib dismissal of him being collateral damage not saying "we killed him because his father was bad". You don't have any evidence you're just claiming that the fact the CIA isn't willing to release the intel is proof that your absurd theory is correct, which is itself loving absurd.

There's absolutely nothing to gain from going after the kid, it's a significant expenditure of resources, and even the fact we took him out as collateral damage has been a major political problem. You want to run around spouting black helicopter nonsense at least craft a theory that makes sense.

Now I'd be perfectly willing to believe the CIA knew he was there and decided to play willfully ignorant because "gently caress that kid" and "we're not missing our shot at this target over this". That's the kind of government cover-up that actually happens.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:30

Unzip and Attack: Mar 3, 2008; USPOL May

Jarmak posted:

The government isn't going to spend the time and resources tracking and striking an innocent 16 year old kid just because they didn't like his dead dad.

Your entire argument rests upon this value judgment. Just take a step back, consider US foreign policy for the last 50 years, and reassess.

Reminder before you start- we invaded Iraq and caused a million deaths because W was convinced that Gog and Magog were "at work" in the Middle East and he was still pissed that Saddam had supposedly tried to assassinate his father.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:33

Armani: Jun 22, 2008; Now it's been 17 summers since I've seen my mother

But every night I see her smile inside my dreams

Fried Chicken posted:

we live in a nightmare world

The Return of DIY Abortion

Google searches are a weak substitute for an actual survey and study. But messy, poorly categorized data is still data. And it isn't looking good.

This is awesome. Life is awesome.

E: I'm seriously gonna lose my poo poo over this. Time to read a book

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:34

sit on my Facebook: Jun 20, 2007; ASS GAS OR GRASS
No One Rides for FREE
In the Trumplord Holy Land

Jarmak posted:

Now I'd be perfectly willing to believe the CIA knew he was there and decided to play willfully ignorant because "gently caress that kid" and "we're not missing our shot at this target over this". That's the kind of government cover-up that actually happens.

This is exactly what happened, but the key factor is that you're assuming the "target" was a valid one of strategic importance. It was not.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:36

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

stinkles1112 posted:

This is exactly what happened, but the key factor is that you're assuming the "target" was a valid one of strategic importance. It was not.

Al-Banna isn't a valid target?

Unzip and Attack posted:

Your entire argument rests upon this value judgment. Just take a step back, consider US foreign policy for the last 50 years, and reassess.

Reminder before you start- we invaded Iraq and caused a million deaths because W was convinced that Gog and Magog were "at work" in the Middle East and he was still pissed that Saddam had supposedly tried to assassinate his father.

1)No it doesn't

2)This only makes sense at finger painting levels of nuance

Jarmak fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Mar 6, 2016

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:41

sit on my Facebook: Jun 20, 2007; ASS GAS OR GRASS
No One Rides for FREE
In the Trumplord Holy Land

Jarmak posted:

Al-Banna isn't a valid target?

He is definitely either a valid target OR a post-facto justification applied to a drone strike that killed an American citizen and minor.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:43

Youth Decay: Aug 18, 2015

Armani posted:

This is awesome. Life is awesome.

E: I'm seriously gonna lose my poo poo over this. Time to read a book

Reminder that conservatives don't want women to deliver healthy babies either. Medicaid won't pay for abortions and it won't reimburse hospitals enough for them to make a profit on obstetric care. Result: hospitals that primarily serve the poor are shutting down their OB/GYN departments.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:44

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

stinkles1112 posted:

He is definitely either a valid target OR a post-facto justification applied to a drone strike that killed an American citizen and minor.

I think its very likely they thought they had Al-Banna and now it turns out they killed an American and missed their guy.

Massive fuckups being swept under the rug is how real conspiracies and converups happen, not a bunch of dudes over at the CIA running a rogue operation to publicly assassinate teenagers for kicks.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:46

Vienna Circlejerk: Jan 28, 2003; The great science sausage party!

Youth Decay posted:

Ronald's actual son endorsed Bernie Sanders, of course.

Youth Decay posted:

Michael is the lovely adopted one who's a conservative shill. Ron is the good and cool one.

I'm an adoptee and these are lovely things to say.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:47

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Especially since Reagan was an rear end in a top hat and treated him badly.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 19:54

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

HE JUST WANTED RONALD TO LOVE HIM.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:00

Youth Decay: Aug 18, 2015

Vienna Circlejerk posted:

I'm an adoptee and these are lovely things to say.

Sorry.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:03

Vienna Circlejerk: Jan 28, 2003; The great science sausage party!

^ Thanks.

Radish posted:

Especially since Reagan was an rear end in a top hat and treated him badly.

Wow, I didn't know that. Searching around a bit, yeah, pretty drat sad.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:06

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Unzip and Attack posted:

Your entire argument rests upon this value judgment. Just take a step back, consider US foreign policy for the last 50 years, and reassess.

Reminder before you start- we invaded Iraq and caused a million deaths because W was convinced that Gog and Magog were "at work" in the Middle East and he was still pissed that Saddam had supposedly tried to assassinate his father.

No stop. I worked in this area and his "value judgement" is correct. Your opinion, on the other hand, is open speculation based on what? Common perception of US foreign policy absent all form of an inside perspective?

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:06

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

You must kill the children of the foes you slay, lest they grow to exact revenge upon you for your terrible deeds

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:08

Ravenfood: Nov 4, 2011

Youth Decay posted:

Reminder that conservatives don't want women to deliver healthy babies either. Medicaid won't pay for abortions and it won't reimburse hospitals enough for them to make a profit on obstetric care. Result: hospitals that primarily serve the poor are shutting down their OB/GYN departments.

Jesus loving Christ this is horrific.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:11

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

Hollismason posted:

Reagan's daughter posed for Playboy.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/patti-davis-ronald-reagan-gop-candidates/2015/12/23/id/706874/

She sounds cool to me.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:18

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

/image inspired me to read a couple articles on rural hospital consolidation, closures, etc. esp wrt Alabama.

The most interesting part was an offhand comment by a state health official that rural hospitals can't offer the specialty physicians that do 'lucrative revenue generating procedures' that apparently are profit drivers for hospitals.

Also that Alabama apparently has the least competitive insurance market in the nation, 90% served by blue cross/blue shield.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:19