|
SedanChair posted:You feel that? That's the feeling you get when a politician you like tells lies. Now now, we're not Republicans "nuance" doesn't have to mean "lies" to us.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Now now, we're not Republicans "nuance" doesn't have to mean "lies" to us. It wasn't "nuance" when Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson did it, it was lying. It's lying now. People don't want any troops in the Middle East and Obama and the Pentagon are conspiring to deceive them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:It's hard to cut Obama slack when he's been actively opposing sending in any significant amount of force to directly confront ISIS. It's not just 'he's doing something he said he wasn't', he has repeatedly said it's the objectively wrong thing to do. Who has the energy to give a gently caress about our disastrous wars anymore? We got other problems
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:"I have been a conservative all my life. I have never met anybody, any conservative who wants to ban contraceptives." This is clever. I'm assuming he's taking the position that any medication that has any theoretical potential to interfere with implantation is an abortifacient. This means that "contraceptives" is defined basically only as condoms. Not going to like it when the Cruz administration's FDA bans NSAIDs though...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Here's a hot (probably-not-new) Republican idea: boycott all non-white stores, because they all will just send their money back to The Bad Places and spend it all on Doing Terrorisms. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/avoid_foreign-owned_convenienc.html#incart_most-comments
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It wasn't "nuance" when Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson did it, it was lying. It's lying now. People don't want any troops in the Middle East and Obama and the Pentagon are conspiring to deceive them. Except there's a legal distinction between deploying special forces and deploying ground combat troops. "Boots on the ground" is a dumb term that's stuck, but it is shorthand for ground combat forces and generally hasn't ever included special forces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except there's a legal distinction between deploying special forces and deploying ground combat troops. Then we're not talking about a legal distinction, we're talking about choosing to use a "shorthand" term with no legal meaning which is presented to the American public as meaning "American troops of any kind who walk on the ground in theater" and then, when that implicit promise is broken, to retreat into the legal definition. Do you agree that it is deceptive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Then we're not talking about a legal distinction, we're talking about choosing to use a "shorthand" term with no legal meaning which is presented to the American public as meaning "American troops of any kind who walk on the ground in theater" and then, when that implicit promise is broken, to retreat into the legal definition. Do you agree that it is deceptive? So using a term as it's been used for decades in the manner that it's been use for decades is wrong?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Then we're not talking about a legal distinction, we're talking about choosing to use a "shorthand" term with no legal meaning which is presented to the American public as meaning "American troops of any kind who walk on the ground in theater" and then, when that implicit promise is broken, to retreat into the legal definition. Do you agree that it is deceptive? it's not deceptive, you just have a definition of a vague term which is not the commonly accepted definition of the vague term
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Boots on the ground. Boots on the ground. Lookin' like a fool with your boots on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
In other news, something I wasn't expecting -- a notable resignation from the fallout of the Laquan McDonald shooting:quote:Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that he had formally asked for the resignation of Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who Emanuel hand-picked as the city's top cop in 2011. Wasn't actually expecting any resignations, but at the same time this seems like the usual routine of picking someone to publicly take the heat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is clever. I'm assuming he's taking the position that any medication that has any theoretical potential to interfere with implantation is an abortifacient. This means that "contraceptives" is defined basically only as condoms. No he's just lying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:No he's just lying. Plan B and other hormonal contraceptives being abortifacients is the view of many evangelicals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:In other news, something I wasn't expecting -- a notable resignation from the fallout of the Laquan McDonald shooting: It's not enough. There are so many people involved in the cover up. I want names of the person who deleted surveillance footage, who took in a witness and told them they didn't see anything. They must be prosecuted for conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's not deceptive, you just have a definition of a vague term which is not the commonly accepted definition of the vague term It's not presented as vague, it's presented as being very straightforward. Ask voters what they think "boots on the ground" means, I wonder how many will say "infantry but certainly not SF."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not presented as vague, it's presented as being very straightforward. Ask voters what they think "boots on the ground" means, I wonder how many will say "infantry but certainly not SF." i disagree, and in the absence of polls, we're going to have to continue to disagree a much more rational definition of boots on the ground is 'a significant presence of combat troops in a conflict' and not 'an american's shoe has touched the soil' as shorthand special forces don't even have to be based in syria like combat troops would be. obama doesn't become a liar just because one of them jumps off a helicopter. there's no reason to fishmech this
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:In case there was any doubt left: the county clerk's office said that a clerical error put F instead of M for the shooter's gender. Just another example of Big Government incompetence. Privatize the records office. Market competition will stop these clerical errors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
greatn posted:It's not enough. There are so many people involved in the cover up. I want names of the person who deleted surveillance footage, who took in a witness and told them they didn't see anything. They must be prosecuted for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Do you think Rahm Emanuel should resign as well? The dirty on him is that he used his power to delay the release of the video so that it wouldn't interfere in his reelection. On one hand, idle gossip. On the other, it's Rahm Emmanuel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Do you think Rahm Emanuel should resign as well? Yes. Of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:It's hard to cut Obama slack when he's been actively opposing sending in any significant amount of force to directly confront ISIS. It's not just 'he's doing something he said he wasn't', he has repeatedly said it's the objectively wrong thing to do. Alternatively: paging fade5 to the thread please, fade5 to the thread BetterToRuleInHell posted:Do you think Rahm Emanuel should resign as well? The dirty on him is that he used his power to delay the release of the video so that it wouldn't interfere in his reelection. Does "be hanged from the nearest lamppost until dead, while small children taunt him and throw stones at him as he struggles against slow strangulation" count as resign? If so, yes. Rahm has actively helped this poo poo happen, and is actively destroying what little worked for the poor while directly gifting the results from said destruction to the rich. gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Enter: Barack Obama, circa 2013: So you're saying Obama is a liar because he sent ground forces to Iraq two years after he said he wouldn't send them to Syria. Does this mean you've accepted the legitimacy of the Islamic State? I guess if you like your caliphate, you can keep your caliphate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:No he's just lying. Excuse me, your bias is showing. He's making claims. Critics say, his claims are wrong. You decide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Rahm should resign just for the conniption fit it would send MIGF into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Does "be hanged from the nearest lamppost until dead, while small children taunt him and throw stones at him as he struggles against slow strangulation" count as resign? If so, yes. Tell me how you really feel, Fried Chicken. Man, I remember when goons thought Rahm was a cool dude sending dead fish to people. What happened to you, Rahm old buddy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:It's hard to cut Obama slack when he's been actively opposing sending in any significant amount of force to directly confront ISIS. It's not just 'he's doing something he said he wasn't', he has repeatedly said it's the objectively wrong thing to do. It's almost as if situations can change and hurling the full weight of the U.S. Military at random countries on a loving whim isn't the best approach to foreign affairs. Wantonly invading soverign nations without international agreement is objectively the wrong thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i disagree, and in the absence of polls, we're going to have to continue to disagree I don't think you'd be so comfortable with this vagueness if somebody other than Obama was doing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:remember when goons thought Rahm was a cool dude I can't imagine how terrifying it must be to think multiple MIGFs exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think you'd be so comfortable with this vagueness if somebody other than Obama was doing it. I'll wait till he invades a country for non-existent WMDs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's almost as if situations can change and hurling the full weight of the U.S. Military at random countries on a loving whim isn't the best approach to foreign affairs. Wantonly invading soverign nations without international agreement is objectively the wrong thing to do. Hey man, tell that to Obama, I'm not the one sending Special Forces to directly confront ISIS! vvvvv Ride it out until the 2016 election vvvvv BetterToRuleInHell fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Hey man, tell that to Obama, I'm not the one sending Special Forces to directly confront ISIS! Man, don't want refugees fleeing to the EU/US, but don't want to actually solve the issue of a genocidal terrorist group. What's a man to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Rahm will probably just re-use his previous apology imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Man, don't want refugees fleeing to the EU/US, but don't want to actually solve the issue of a genocidal terrorist group. It's actually a pretty sticky issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Because they know people literally don't know anything about the refugee resettlement process and don't do even the most basic of fact-checking. A significant portion of Americans believe that being a refugee means that someone shows up in a boat on the shore, is given a green card and is given a house/medical care/a secure job/stacks of raw cash. This is something people actually believe, and I have heard from the mouths of otherwise sensible human beings. So yeah, its not just not fact-checking, its not accepting any source that's not Rush Limbaugh or the likes because 'they all lie' or 'are just a liberal/Democrat mouthpiece.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think you'd be so comfortable with this vagueness if somebody other than Obama was doing it. If that's the definition anyone wants to go with then they will find a good lot of boots in unexpected places.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think you'd be so comfortable with this vagueness if somebody other than Obama was doing it. you're wrong, as usual special forces are deployed to lots of places without a traditional military commitment. there's no reason to stick to the sperg definition here
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's actually a pretty sticky issue. Which is why they sent Special Forces and are sticking still to an air support role otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Aren't special forces raids and air strikes the most effective counter-terror methods to date? Seems like this would be rather relevant to the current strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Oracle posted:You've forgotten outright refusal to accept claims from any source they don't consider legitimate. I have a Boomer-aged cousin who rants about this poo poo on Facebook, I linked him to the state dept's briefing on the whole process and he dismissed it with 'we all know the government's been lying about this give me PROOF' and when I asked him what sort of proof would satisfy him, I got no reply. I loving hate that poo poo. Like, I don't think its a big deal to kind of dismiss some of the bullshit salon.com, huffingtonpost.com, or whoever has put out there sometimes, but when you can post a few articles on something that all prove the same loving thing and these assholes still dismiss it? gently caress that. Where the gently caress is the critical thinking that hmmm maybe the source of information that handwaves everything else on the face of the god drat planet as lying maybe maybe isn't being very loving truthful in the first place? I can't tell you how many times I up and roll my loving eyes at the dumb poo poo I've read on these liberal websites. But you know what? I don't walk away from it still thinking that everyone else is the liar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:43
|
|