SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »

Futuresight: Oct 11, 2012; IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

If he really wanted to keep his promise he could have all the remaining prisoners extrajudicially killed and then close down an empty Gitmo.

Just sayin.

# ? Jan 5, 2017 22:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 17:13

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

twodot posted:

I'm seeing a want in this sentence and not a can't.

What physical process is preventing this from happening? Like I can see it's possibly a bad idea, but I don't understand what you think is stopping this from happening that the President can't overcome.

I'm seeing some concerns in this sentence and not a can't. Like if they prefer American detention to where we would drop them off, then I suppose let them stay, but that isn't a matter or can or can't.

Once Congress decided to pass bills specifically blocking him from doing anything decent with the Guantanamo detainees, Obama's hands were tied. Of course, the catch is that Obama had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress for the first two years of his term, and had a Senate majority for the first four years, so Congress didn't become an impossible barrier until his second term. He failed to push for it early, repeatedly backed down from the slightest bit of opposition, and made essentially no effort to whip Congressional Dems. The administration demonstrated its ability to overcome Congress when it wanted to - but most of the time, it didn't. Over and over again, they retreated from plans and schemes for fear of political backlash. By the time Congress first passed a law banning Guantanamo detainees from US soil altogether - in Dec 2010, when the new Congress hadn't started yet and therefore Dems still had majorities in both houses - the Obama administration had already squandered two whole years of near-complete control of the government.

He can't close Gitmo now, but he had his chance to do so, and he let it pass by because he was scared it would be unpopular. It's too late now.

# ? Jan 5, 2017 22:18

EwokEntourage: Jun 10, 2008; BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.

twodot posted:

Right, I agree that Obama does not want to shut it down. I'm arguing merely that he could.

Again, we could do this, maybe it's a bad idea, maybe Yemen thinks we would be breaking the law, but it's not like we consulted with Pakistan before raiding Bin Laden. It's just a matter of preferences not possibilities.

What's the point of this argument? He could do a lot of things If you don't bother to include consequences in the equation.

# ? Jan 5, 2017 22:24

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

EwokEntourage posted:

What's the point of this argument? He could do a lot of things If you don't bother to include consequences in the equation.

Because stuff like this is just wrong (edit: I suppose unless this is a case of using literally in a not literal fashion):

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's literally not a thing Obama can do.

It's fine to argue that all possible consequences are worse than continuing to detain 46 people that we openly admitted we don't have enough admissible evidence to charge them with any sort of crime, but at least acknowledge that it's a choice our government, and Obama in particular, continues to make. The laws of physics aren't keeping those people in prison.

# ? Jan 5, 2017 22:42

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

If the Senate can deny the President one of the more important Constitutional duties he has, then we're already skirting at the very edge of rule of law anyway. The Presidency is clearly a joke, everyone hates Congress, and soon we're going to have a totally illegitimate Justice on the Supreme Court. The GOP will do whatever the Constitution barely lets them get away with, and it's probably not going to be long before they drop the pretense of even that. Hell, with the voter restrictions they're implementing nationwide it's arguable they already have. Maybe it's time to quit pretending we have a functioning government and just do the right thing even if it "degrades" the bullshit institutions that obviously aren't doing gently caress-all to serve us anymore anyway?

Main Paineframe posted:

Once Congress decided to pass bills specifically blocking him from doing anything decent with the Guantanamo detainees, Obama's hands were tied. Of course, the catch is that Obama had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress for the first two years of his term, and had a Senate majority for the first four years, so Congress didn't become an impossible barrier until his second term. He failed to push for it early, repeatedly backed down from the slightest bit of opposition, and made essentially no effort to whip Congressional Dems. The administration demonstrated its ability to overcome Congress when it wanted to - but most of the time, it didn't. Over and over again, they retreated from plans and schemes for fear of political backlash. By the time Congress first passed a law banning Guantanamo detainees from US soil altogether - in Dec 2010, when the new Congress hadn't started yet and therefore Dems still had majorities in both houses - the Obama administration had already squandered two whole years of near-complete control of the government.

He can't close Gitmo now, but he had his chance to do so, and he let it pass by because he was scared it would be unpopular. It's too late now.

Good lord if I ever hear anyone utter the words "political capital" ever again I'm probably going to choke them out.

# ? Jan 5, 2017 22:45

AVeryLargeRadish: Aug 19, 2011; I LITERALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO NOT BE A WEIRD SEXUAL CREEP ABOUT PREPUBESCENT ANIME GIRLS, READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE!!!

Kilroy posted:

If the Senate can deny the President one of the more important Constitutional duties he has, then we're already skirting at the very edge of rule of law anyway. The Presidency is clearly a joke, everyone hates Congress, and soon we're going to have a totally illegitimate Justice on the Supreme Court. The GOP will do whatever the Constitution barely lets them get away with, and it's probably not going to be long before they drop the pretense of even that. Hell, with the voter restrictions they're implementing nationwide it's arguable they already have. Maybe it's time to quit pretending we have a functioning government and just do the right thing even if it "degrades" the bullshit institutions that obviously aren't doing gently caress-all to serve us anymore anyway?

Good lord if I ever hear anyone utter the words "political capital" ever again I'm probably going to choke them out.

Then get out there and start chucking Molotovs, be the change you wish to see.

# ? Jan 5, 2017 22:50

Number Ten Cocks: Feb 25, 2016; by zen death robot

Kilroy posted:

soon we're going to have a totally illegitimate Justice on the Supreme Court

Do tell.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 00:04

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Then get out there and start chucking Molotovs, be the change you wish to see.

There are better ways to undermine poo poo.

Number Ten Cocks posted:

Do tell.

Did you take any civics in elementary school, perchance?

# ? Jan 6, 2017 01:31

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

What physical process is preventing this from happening? Like I can see it's possibly a bad idea, but I don't understand what you think is stopping this from happening that the President can't overcome.

I suppose the "physical process" would be a bunch of Cuban border guards with AKs, who aren't answerable to Obama. We're you thinking the US military would force them to rush the fence at bayonet point?

twodot posted:

Because stuff like this is just wrong (edit: I suppose unless this is a case of using literally in a not literal fashion):

It's fine to argue that all possible consequences are worse than continuing to detain 46 people that we openly admitted we don't have enough admissible evidence to charge them with any sort of crime, but at least acknowledge that it's a choice our government, and Obama in particular, continues to make. The laws of physics aren't keeping those people in prison.

This may be the stupidest loving thing I've ever read in D&D, and that is a high bar indeed. This is a thread about the Supreme Court of the United States. I think people would realize that the going in assumption is that, for the purposes of discussion here, conversations are constrained by the laws and institutions of the United States as they exist now. Like, yeah, I guess there is no law of physics that would prevent Obama from staging a military coup and solving the Guantanamo problem by making the detainees fight former Republican congressmen two at a time for their freedom, or ordering the military to put sandbags over the heads of all 59 and kicking them out of the back of C-130s over their home countries strapped to a parachute (or without a parachute, whatever) but the opinion of the Supreme Court, Congress, or the public don't loving matter very much on those situations do they?

# ? Jan 6, 2017 01:34

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Dead Reckoning posted:

... staging a military coup and solving the Guantanamo problem by making the detainees fight former Republican congressmen two at a time for their freedom

# ? Jan 6, 2017 01:41

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

Good lord this thread took a turn to the stupid. It's like some of you want a Republican supermajority for the rest of your lives, because 'bama stomping his feet and pardoning real actual terrorists would be a great way of guaranteeing that!

twodot posted:

Ok, so release them from being prisoners, hire them as staff, and relocate them to whatever US base they like, fly them in Air force One if you have to. I don't get why people act like moving 40 people from point A to point B is something the President can't do even if Congress gets huffy about it.

I'm amazed you've even figured out breathing after posting something this stupid.

twodot posted:

Because stuff like this is just wrong (edit: I suppose unless this is a case of using literally in a not literal fashion):

It's fine to argue that all possible consequences are worse than continuing to detain 46 people that we openly admitted we don't have enough admissible evidence to charge them with any sort of crime, but at least acknowledge that it's a choice our government, and Obama in particular, continues to make. The laws of physics aren't keeping those people in prison.

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, everyone that is still there is unambiguously a Real Bad Dude hope this is of some help!

TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jan 6, 2017

# ? Jan 6, 2017 02:11

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

everyone that is still there is unambiguously a Real Bad Dude hope this is of some help!

You don't know that.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 02:18

chyaroh: Aug 8, 2007

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

Good lord this thread took a turn to the stupid. It's like some of you want a Republican supermajority for the rest of your lives, because 'bama stomping his feet and pardoning real actual terrorists would be a great way of guaranteeing that!

I'm amazed you've even figured out breathing after posting something this stupid.

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, everyone that is still there is unambiguously a Real Bad Dude hope this is of some help!

I believe that in 2017 the Executively acceptable term is "Real Bad Hombre". I'm sure it will appear in a majority decision before the end of the year.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 02:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

I suppose the "physical process" would be a bunch of Cuban border guards with AKs, who aren't answerable to Obama. We're you thinking the US military would force them to rush the fence at bayonet point?

Ok, so we can do it, you just think it's a bad idea.

quote:

This may be the stupidest loving thing I've ever read in D&D, and that is a high bar indeed. This is a thread about the Supreme Court of the United States. I think people would realize that the going in assumption is that, for the purposes of discussion here, conversations are constrained by the laws and institutions of the United States as they exist now. Like, yeah, I guess there is no law of physics that would prevent Obama from staging a military coup and solving the Guantanamo problem by making the detainees fight former Republican congressmen two at a time for their freedom, or ordering the military to put sandbags over the heads of all 59 and kicking them out of the back of C-130s over their home countries strapped to a parachute (or without a parachute, whatever) but the opinion of the Supreme Court, Congress, or the public don't loving matter very much on those situations do they?

You're right, this is the Supreme Court thread, so how do you think these laws and institutions actually play out? Congress says "You can't spend money to do that", the President says "gently caress you, the military is one giant slush fund basically by design, your law is unconstitutional", and who do you find that has actual damages to bring a case from the President spending some military effort on releasing people from prison who haven't even been charged? (edit: And follow up, what sort of remedy is this hypothetical person seeking? The government should spend even more money re-locking them up?)

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, everyone that is still there is unambiguously a Real Bad Dude hope this is of some help!

Speaking of being the Supreme Court thread, maybe we should respect the idea that people deserve an open trial prior to being sentenced to prison forever?

twodot fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jan 6, 2017

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:28

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Kilroy posted:

we're going to have a totally illegitimate Justice on the Supreme Court.

You're a loving idiot. The Republicans acted way out of the ordinary in their own interests. Way out of the ordinary =! totally illegitimate.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:38

EwokEntourage: Jun 10, 2008; BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.

twodot posted:

Because stuff like this is just wrong (edit: I suppose unless this is a case of using literally in a not literal fashion):

It's fine to argue that all possible consequences are worse than continuing to detain 46 people that we openly admitted we don't have enough admissible evidence to charge them with any sort of crime, but at least acknowledge that it's a choice our government, and Obama in particular, continues to make. The laws of physics aren't keeping those people in prison.

Well, it literally might be impossible for Obama . The military can and likely would simply refuse to do it. If it is an illegal order, or they believe it is an illegal order, they can refuse and simply run out the clock on the presidency. Saying the president can do it isn't so simple.

Could the us just dump them in some other country? Yes they could. Who's going to stop the us if they really wanted to? The us could also do a bunch of other poo poo unilaterally, but it's not gonna happen, which is why I asked what was the point of asking why they don't do it.

EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jan 6, 2017

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:39

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

EwokEntourage posted:

Well, it literally might be impossible. The military can and likely would simply refuse to do it. If it is an illegal order, or they believe it is an illegal order, they can refuse and simply run out the clock on the presidency. Saying the president can do it isn't so simple.

I'll settle for "the President has the authority to issue orders that would close it, given the fact that humans have agency, and that Obama isn't a trained pilot, he would need several people to actually follow those orders. In the absence of him issuing those orders, it's reasonable to conclude that Obama prefers to not issue those orders, rather than that he believes he couldn't muster a sufficient number of people to carry out those orders". Though the whole "the soldiers at GTMO are seriously interested in only following lawful orders" thing is a deeply weird argument to me.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:46

U-DO Burger: Nov 12, 2007

It's kind of weird to see someone who's upset at the injustice of Guantanamo be okay with closing it by sending the prisoners off to be captured/killed by a third party

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:50

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

EwokEntourage posted:

Could the us just dump them in some other country? Yes they could. Who's going to stop the us if they really wanted to? The us could also do a bunch of other poo poo unilaterally, but it's not gonna happen, which is why I asked what was the point of asking why they don't do it.

I've never asked why they don't do it, I know why they don't. I'm arguing against people saying Obama couldn't act unilaterally should he want to.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:50

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

DeusExMachinima posted:

You're a loving idiot. The Republicans acted way out of the ordinary in their own interests. Way out of the ordinary =! totally illegitimate.

Nah they just decided that certain duties of the Senate under the highest law of the land, don't apply to them if the timing is politically inconvenient. That's more than "way out of the ordinary" and the resulting Justice appointed by the following President is not a legitimate SCOTUS Justice.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:52

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

U-DO Burger posted:

It's kind of weird to see someone who's upset at the injustice of Guantanamo be okay with closing it by sending the prisoners off to be captured/killed by a third party

Any prisoners that are voluntarily at a US black site as a means of personal protection should be allowed to stay there.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:52

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

I mean you might as well say we're going to keep having elections every other week until enough Republicans are elected to Congress - same diff.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 03:53

EwokEntourage: Jun 10, 2008; BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.

twodot posted:

I've never asked why they don't do it, I know why they don't. I'm arguing against people saying Obama couldn't act unilaterally should he want to.

Ok, I understand this, but what's the point? Do you just want an acknowledgement the president can act unilaterally?

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:17

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

EwokEntourage posted:

Ok, I understand this, but what's the point? Do you just want an acknowledgement the president can act unilaterally?

Yes! Or at least for people to stop claiming he can't, do I need to re-quote the "Obama literally can't do this" quote?.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:21

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Kilroy posted:

Nah they just decided that certain duties of the Senate under the highest law of the land, don't apply to them if the timing is politically inconvenient. That's more than "way out of the ordinary" and the resulting Justice appointed by the following President is not a legitimate SCOTUS Justice.

What exactly do you think the Senate's legal obligations currently are when it comes to SCOTUS nominees?

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:25

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

Yes! Or at least for people to stop claiming he can't, do I need to re-quote the "Obama literally can't do this" quote?.

I'm still going to stand by that, because in the reality that everyone (but you, apparently) lives in, even if Obama decided to issue a series of blatantly illegal orders flying in the face of the stated will of Congress in a Hail Mary attempt to close Gitmo, the leadership of the military would not follow them. He can no more compel the military to follow an illegal order than he can force Congress to change their minds about bringing detainees to the CONUS.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:27

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

DeusExMachinima posted:

What exactly do you think the Senate's legal obligations currently are when it comes to SCOTUS nominees?

Article II, Section 2, US Constitution

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:31

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Potato Salad posted:

Article II, Section 2, US Constitution

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Yeah yeah I know that, I'm asking him. The Senate obviously didn't consent. Their reason for not consenting was 100% transparent and simultaneously 100% legal because there are no forbidden reasons for denying consent.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:34

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm still going to stand by that, because in the reality that everyone (but you, apparently) lives in, even if Obama decided to issue a series of blatantly illegal orders flying in the face of the stated will of Congress in a Hail Mary attempt to close Gitmo, the leadership of the military would not follow them. He can no more compel the military to follow an illegal order than he can force Congress to change their minds about bringing detainees to the CONUS.

I still think the argument that "orders to detain 40 people without charge indefinitely are definitely legal orders soldiers will follow, but spending money to release those people from detention is super illegal, and soldiers definitely won't do that" is REALLY weird, but I suspect we won't reach agreement on that.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:35

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

DeusExMachinima posted:

Yeah yeah I know that, I'm asking him. The Senate obviously didn't consent. Their reason for not consenting was 100% transparent and simultaneously 100% legal because there are no forbidden reasons for denying consent.

I think there's a strong argument that they also have a constitutional duty to "advise" which they failed to fufill by refusing to even hold a hearing on the nominee. If they don't accept a nominee, they should (arguably) at least have to say why they refuse said nominee so that the President can appoint a nominee that complies with their requirements.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:37

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I think there's a strong argument that they also have a constitutional duty to "advise" which they failed to fufill by refusing to even hold a hearing on the nominee. If they don't accept a nominee, they should (arguably) at least have to say why they refuse said nominee so that the President can appoint a nominee that complies with their requirements.

Ding ding ding.

Second sentence has to do with etiquette, but the first is my (amateur) reading of dereliction of duty law.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:39

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

It's not like it went to the floor and the dude failed a straight up vote, it's being blocked by one dude who heads one committee.

However, the Senate gets to make their own rules for this poo poo so that he is doing that isn't in violation of anything.

The half~ish of the country that vote Republican don't want Scalia's seat shifting left, so nobody's getting voted out over this, and that's the big check on the power of these guys. So here we are.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:42

duz: Jul 11, 2005; Come on Ilhan, lets go bag us a shitpost

twodot posted:

Yes! Or at least for people to stop claiming he can't, do I need to re-quote the "Obama literally can't do this" quote?.

Yes, he could be a dictator and do anything, how does that further the discussion?

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:42

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

twodot posted:

I still think the argument that "orders to detain 40 people without charge indefinitely are definitely legal orders soldiers will follow, but spending money to release those people from detention is super illegal, and soldiers definitely won't do that" is REALLY weird, but I suspect we won't reach agreement on that.

If it's just a matter of spending money being the forbidden act, I bet he could find some nutty british big game hunters who'd foot the relocation expenses to get to hunt those 40 dudes for sport on a private island somewhere, and then everybody wins except the prisoners, but really, how nice are their prospects NOW?

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:43

U-DO Burger: Nov 12, 2007

Obama could have closed Guantanamo unilaterally by nuking it so imo it's pretty dishonest to suggest he was powerless

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:45

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I think there's a strong argument that they also have a constitutional duty to "advise" which they failed to fufill by refusing to even hold a hearing on the nominee. If they don't accept a nominee, they should (arguably) at least have to say why they refuse said nominee so that the President can appoint a nominee that complies with their requirements.

There's no law defining the proper way to advise or consent, it's blatantly left vague. Your strong argument is just like your opinion man. The Volokh Conspiracy basically speaks my thoughts on it better than I ever could, that it's all 100% legally legitimate despite the fact that you (and I) think it's unwise. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.c627a11f8e0f

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:48

A GIANT PARSNIP: Apr 13, 2010; Too much fuckin' eggnog

botany posted:

no I'm gonna say the fact that the US has been imprisoning 30odd people without charging them with a crime or otherwise respecting their human rights is more of an issue

So what's your solution? Sneak them back into their countries of origin? Smuggle them into Eastern Europe? Open the cell doors and release them into the Cuban jungle? Drop them off on The Principality of Sealand?

I agree 100% that we hosed up but where exactly should we go from here?

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

duz posted:

Yes, he could be a dictator and do anything, how does that further the discussion?

It prevents the discussion from denying reality? Maybe I'm weird, but I'm strongly opposed to discussions predicated on denying reality, and the number of people who continue to say "no, this is literally impossible" makes me think this is worth fighting for. PSA Since this is apparently unclear, if you think Obama could close GTMO, and it's just a bad idea, I've never said you're wrong, and if you just don't reply to me I will shut up.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 04:48

duz: Jul 11, 2005; Come on Ilhan, lets go bag us a shitpost

twodot posted:

It prevents the discussion from denying reality? Maybe I'm weird, but I'm strongly opposed to discussions predicated on denying reality, and the number of people who continue to say "no, this is literally impossible" makes me think this is worth fighting for. PSA Since this is apparently unclear, if you think Obama could close GTMO, and it's just a bad idea, I've never said you're wrong, and if you just don't reply to me I will shut up.

So being unwilling to put "become a dictator" on the table is denying reality? Did you watch the first episode of Black Mirror and wonder what the problem was since loving a pig is physically possible?

# ? Jan 6, 2017 05:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 17:13

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

duz posted:

So being unwilling to put "become a dictator" on the table is denying reality? Did you watch the first episode of Black Mirror and wonder what the problem was since loving a pig is physically possible?

Uh yes to your first question, if people were posting that David Cameron was literally incapable of loving pigs, I'd tell them they are wrong as well.

# ? Jan 6, 2017 05:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »