|
Are poligoons liking House of Cards? I just started watching it and really like it, but the actual stunts Underwood pulls really strain my suspension of disbelief.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:This is generally how I feel about it. The show is entertaining, but half the time incredulity is the only reaction I have to some of the plot lines and/or actions of the characters. The BBQ joint guy is the only person who doesn't talk like a stereotype of a conniving Beltway wonk, and is therefore the only character I never really have an urge to punch in the face. And conveniently, he's a Magical Negro.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:What? I guess you have a point, he's just a wise, black outsider who delivers folk wisdom with a knowing smile. And ribs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The haircuts were stupid, but music was marginally better. No deep messages. Please tell me you're joking.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:They were Montessori kids though. The candidates would probably have fared better in gen pop. Well, maybe not in Greensboro proper. Yeah I'm sure Glenn Beck is going to expose Montessori now. Sharing! Kindness! It's this kind of indoctrination that paves the way to PROGRESSIVISM 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
tbp posted:One of my big pet peeves is illogical thinking Masterful. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Bush is really good for starting just two years ago. Another world leader who should have just been a painter  The Sarkozy portrait is especially good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:The GOP is really good, honest. They didn't mean to hit me, and they're going to get their act together. One day their actions will match their words and they'll be the party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom. You'll see. Ok, you're saying this... God drat this is just so sad, I figured you must have been at least close to the top tax bracket.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Hahaha and one black soldier  e: Lincoln is like "chicken boxing?" and JQ Adams is like "Lincoln??" Note that Lincoln is using a CPI-approved Supportive Nonthreatening Stance. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Normally I can spin out the reasoning but what the hell is that supposed to mean? Equalize the middle class and the rich overnight? Why because we storm your mansions finally?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In order to understand Civilization's Rules, you must think like their Definer. He's saying the rich are not currently equal to the middle class because, unlike the middle class, the rich are not able to give as much money as they would like. You see, it's the rich who are suffering here. Of course, I see it now. There's nothing to stop minimum wage earners from donating 50, 60, even 100 percent of their income to campaigns! It's a setup I tell you!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Now, I hope you understand that I'm saying this as a gun owning democrat (that loves the poo poo out of trap shooting), but really shut the gently caress up about the god drat second amendment. It's important for you, Democrats and Tom Tomorrow to understand that me not being able to buy an AK in the parking lot of Denny's is the same as "taking my guns." And we were positive Obama wouldn't say boo about it, or I was at least, and I was wrong, he jumped onto that third rail for a minute. So I'll never put it past a Democrat to sabotage themselves in this way again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:05
|
|
No one is going to take your loving guns while Hillary is in office if she wins in 2016.*
|
BiggerBoat posted:No, I get all that. Dubya was no idiot. -Post-9/11 imperial overreach was systemic, the product of institutional collusion between neocons and their plants in State, Defense, CIA etc. Bush just signed off on it. Gore would have gotten us into Afghanistan and I think it's possible that flagging popularity could have caused him to go into Iraq as well (remember that Clinton did more than anyone else to destroy Iraq pre-Bush) -Bush is smarter than Obama, and more polished and eloquent than Obama in off-the-cuff situations. Judgments of him as dumb or slow are due entirely to his regional accent and image (which he cultivated masterfully) -Bush had massive charisma, different than Obama's but still evident, and unprecedented emotional/relational intelligence Beliefs like yours ("Bush was dumb") will pave the way for someone with his talents to blindside us yet again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Welp, polished and eloquent used to describe GWB. I guess I've seen it all. Look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx49KA_IW-Y He doesn't have to be as careful in his word choice as does a sitting president, but yes. He's polished and eloquent and you're living in a bubble if you think otherwise. quote:I think attributing the systematic fleecing of the american public that occurred during his tenure to his own Grand Design is just about on the level of yelling about the president somehow controlling the price of gas via a lever on his desk like the well known political cartoon. Who did that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
joeburz posted:again, nothing special. bush as a bright and eloquent speaker is more contrarian than realistic. Well not many people would disagree with characterizing Obama as bright and eloquent, but he doesn't have anything Bush lacks and says "uh" a lot more?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
I can start a "The Rehabilitation of Dubya" thread when I get off work if that makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
That's a good point. But apprehending bin Laden wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Apprehending KSM might have but there was little institutional pressure to do so. And I'm not sure Gore would have been any more inclined to follow up on Clinton's counter-terror moves than Bush was; remember how much Gore had distanced himself from Clinton and, justifiably or not, Clinton's interventions had acquired a strong "wag the dog" flavor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How can you say that with even the slightest measure of certainty? The "Most Important Thing We Know" as the Clinton/Gore administration passed the baton was "this guy (OBL) means business and is not loving around. Here's the intelligence. If you don't believe us, listen to these non-partisan guys (Richard Clark). Forget about blowjobs and seriously, pay attention to this of it's gonna blow up in your face". I wasn't saying that Clinton wasn't completely justified, and the "wag-the-dog" accusation unfounded. But Gore didn't want to be associated with his boss at that point. Now I'm sure that he'd have consulted Clinton extensively once in office, but to what end? Finding and killing bin Laden? How exactly do you imagine terror networks are organized? What about KSM? Zawahiri? Are you saying they could have gotten them all? Quick enough to stop it filtering down to Atta? All they knew was that they were determined to strike. Of course they're determined to strike, they're al-Qaeda! And then we can get to the next issue; let's say they actually thwart 9/11. CIA somehow infiltrates the group of guys that know about it, instead of following their usual HUMINT protocol and interrrogating retarded teenagers. What then? You think they weren't going on to the next plan, or the one after that? All they ever had to do was one big strike, that's what the whole organization was created to do. One big strike and lure the Americans into the grave of empires. It was going to happen one way or another. That's what's so depressing about the "what if Gore" theory of the Bush era. We act as if Gore wouldn't have been drafted into the military-industrial complex--Albert Gore, Jr., of all people, would manage to shake it off. We act as if KSM wasn't bound to strike, with all the cash at his disposal. Because KSM was the architect of 9/11, not bin Laden. Bin Laden was a charismatic figurehead, an eloquent freedom fighter who spurned the trappings of wealth. Killing bin Laden in 2000 would have accomplished exactly as much as it did when we finally got him. Yes, when we got bin Laden--remember that? How we got him ten years after we started looking for him, with all the power in the world, and couldn't find him? Oh but Gore could have found bin Laden, and stopped 9/11. Please. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Congressmen and staffers must get all hot and bothered after watching House of Cards and fumblingly attempt to roleplay Kevin Spacey.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
How many major donors get off on the idea that a congressman is boning their wife? All these scum have open relationships, then they have to act shocked. Cue "rehab."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You could also elaborate on this unless it was a joke in which case "whoosh" on my part. I just think Bush is due for political rehabilitation and we might as well start hashing out the pro/con arguments before the mainstream media starts easing back into it. He's poking his head up more often as well, like for the LBJ commemoration coming up. He's getting set to burnish his legacy, and it's going to be important to make criticisms of him that are especially relevant to him, rather than to any other president put in his set of circumstances. I think the following criticisms of Bush are totally valid -"decisiveness" sometimes prevented him from gathering additional data -hired Donald Rumsfeld -totally tried to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court -a bunch of others But criticisms that he was inarticulate or unusually warlike don't really hold up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:When was the last time a President invaded another country with 100,000+ troops in order to enact regime change? Uh if you impose the condition of 100,000+ troops, 1965 I guess? Otherwise 1989. And the "Bushisms" clip goes exactly to my point. Media were always on the lookout for gaffes, but Obama has produced any number of them. Oh what's that? The "57 states" thing was an obvious gotcha without substance? Well you don't loving say. The media decided "Bush as dumbass" was a story worth telling, and Bush was happy to go along with it. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
menino posted:You can even watch the 57 states thing. Obama knows the number is wrong in the middle of saying the number! Yes, it's a baseless criticism! Just like it was of Bush. Understand?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
.
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The problem is for Obama the only example you have is "57 states" whereas for those other politicians I listed you could compile a page of quotes. I have more. Remember when he compared his bowling to the Special Olympics? Or when he switched the names of the posthumous and living Medal of Honor recipients? Ouch. I think either one of those would have stuck to Bush a little better. Fried Chicken posted:Bush is a blood gargling psychopathic war monger but that doesn't particularly distinguish him. Not does using false pretenses to do it. What does distinguish him is how his wars did not even have the real politik of advancing America's interests (and in fact Iraq was counter our interests given the prior establishment of an interest in Afghanistan) and the sheer incompetence with which he waged them and actively are the situation there worse (eg picking a diplomatic fight with Iran rather than accepting their aid) This is a good criticism of George W. Bush.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Bush didn't fake the intel, Cheney did. By that standard, Obama personally sold guns to the cartels.Unzip and Attack posted:Yeah, that you saw fit to answer without the qualifier was a lovely attempt by you to equate the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of Panama - a comparison so laughable it doesn't even need to be discussed. We get it - you think Bush wasn't warlike. That's cool - you're just wrong and the lengths you're going to support your claim make you look really stupid. I'm saying that your criteria was arbitrary. I could argue that impunity and disregard for international law in military interventions is as good a gauge of being warlike as deployment size. And no, Bush was not especially warlike, circumstances conspired to bring out the war president in him. Nixon and Reagan easily rate higher than him. The difference is that Bush was operating in a monopole world with unprecedented political capital.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPuY5hI96U Any number of sentences strung together.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:You don't think that the fact that Bush engaged in a pointless war against a neutered non-entity that didn't even have theoretical benefits for our country or its interests or even him politically qualifies as 'unusually warlike'? No, just unusually poor at formulating policy goals.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Oh my gosh Kuwait. Truly a juggernaut of combined arms power, to seize mighty Kuwait.Nessus posted:"Far from certain" is a drat sight better than "totally looking for the slightest loving excuse, to the point of abandoning something actually relevant to a national tragedy to focus on their pre-planned war scenario," which I gather accurately describes the Bush White House's op plan there. I believe to some extent this line of argument is a pushback against the "oh they're all the same anyway, man, who gives a gently caress, they're all corrupt *stays home, Bush appoints supreme court justices*" types of folks. It's really not clear at all, and I think expecting Gore to have been less war-crazed than Bush by 2003 is committing the old error of comparing an incumbent to a politician who never held the office. The neocon narrative was pretty much the only one going in foreign policy circles after 9/11. They asserted that they had been proven right, and the only people with a counternarrative were the war protesters that everybody was ignoring and calling traitors. Imagine the pressure Republicans would have put on Gore to invade. Imagine the invective they would have hurled at him unceasingly until he capitulated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Bush'd probably be up there with Reagan in the conservative mind if he had caught bin Laden. He'll be joining him soon enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
dinoputz posted:Just for yuks, I googled the guy's name to see what else he's been up to, and I just now found out he's been known to write for WorldNetDaily. I know I shouldn't be surprised or anything, but now I'm wondering whether his book cover shows up in this forum so often because of the ridiculousness of the subject matter, of if it's considered topical to GOP rebuilding because of his bizarre politics. Martial artists and gun nerds have known that they can always hawk a column to right-wingers since Soldier of Fortune and Black Belt days. I'm plugged into this knowledge 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
quote:Many photos were taken from the subject's Wikipedia entry. Bush based his paintings on the literally first-to-surface, easiest-to-find photos of his subjects. Is this meaningful in any way? If he had one, it would mean Bush's studio assistant is very, very lazy. But in all his discussion of it, Bush's painting practice appears to be a solitary one. He apparently did not tap the enormous archive of photos, taken by the professionals who followed him every day for eight years, which are contained in his giant library. Instead, it seems, he Googled the world leaders he made such impactful relationships with himself, and took the first straight-on headshot he saw. This is a colossal and absolutely typical case of seeing what you want to see in Bush. Bush has been painting for a couple of years. He has not mastered painting technique, as I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you.  These are two completely different images. Bush is an actual painter in that he interprets what he sees. Could somebody say with a straight face that he didn't add tons of meaning to the image? Who loving cares if he used the first GIS result? Guess what those tend to be pretty good images of world leaders. It reminds me of that Oliver Sacks essay about the autistic kid (uh this may or may not be helping my argument) who drew pictures based on photographs, but they were transformed and enlivened. Through painting, Bush has embarked on a journey of discovery to the inner self. There he'll learn to cast off the final traces of his masterfully affected Texan bohunk persona and emerge, as if from fire, reborn, polished, dominant. He'll speak at the 2016 convention and completely put every other speaker in the shade, invigorating a new base of 22-year-old war-lusting racists and preparing them for four years of opposition to an incumbent Hillary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Colbert will be replacing Letterman Wow, how long can that last? Colbert is literally an imp, I don't know if he can just toe a network line every night.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Obama's Sexiest Former Cabinet Members -Kathleen Sibelius -Gary Locke (  )-
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
I think the best way to deal with that rancher would be if some Paiutes caught him on camera at the grocery store and started asking him about his natural rights that predate the BLM. Followed by "ok dude, we'll see you back at the house. Not your house. Well, you probably call it your house." Ridicule seems like the best and safest course to make this guy vanish.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
"Sometimes your own daughter agrees to blow you. Just saying."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
mdemone posted:At the risk of peering more acutely into the abyss...why doesn't the first one count? And who are we talking about here? On account of your fat uncle could be suffusing those precious eggs with the miracle of life.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen if that rancher got the MOVE treatment. The most concrete thing I can think of is "Rand Paul's mailing list would get a fundraising email."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
cafel posted:Oh thank god, my first thought was 'Atlas Shrugged' because that's the go to favorite 'life changing' book for a lot of republicans. Though I have to wonder how kosher this is in regards to the First Amendment. I was kind of thinking The Clansman by Thomas Dixon but I guess that would have been a little over the top.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
That freeper who shot people at the holocaust museum was in his eighties. I suppose we can expect more of them to go out like that. They get to act out their Turner Diaries fantasies, and as a bonus they don't end up spending all their assets on elder care so their children actually receive an inheritance. Then their kids can use that inheritance to finance a trailer to sell SS patches at gun shows! Everybody wins! Except society!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 05:32
|
|