BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Enter: Barack Obama, circa 2013:


Scene change: 2015, Obama's words holding steadfa--


It's not boots on ground, it's foot apparel temporarily occupying space on surfaces, Obama told me so!

Inferior Third Season posted:

There are lots of reasons to be against sending ground troops into the middle east. Because the president said he wouldn't two years ago is not one of them.

CommieGIR posted:

Welllllll......

Trabisnikof posted:

Now now, we're not Republicans "nuance" doesn't have to mean "lies" to us.

Trabisnikof posted:

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.

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

Popular Thug Drink posted:

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

Gravel Gravy posted:

If that's the definition anyone wants to go with then they will find a good lot of boots in unexpected places.

Joementum posted:

MSNBC reporter held up a picture of a child to the camera, said it was the couple's child, then said, "oh wait, no it's got a different name on the back".

T. Bombastus posted:

Good stuff. Does Trump have any policy positions that don't boil down to "I'm great, so it would be great"?

Unzip and Attack posted:

Can only speak for myself, but I don't think I've seen anyone advocating what you're saying in the first bullet there. The push against Islamophobia I've seen in reaction to this is the sort that W advocated after 9/11: that associating all Muslims with violence is a bad way to react to this. I don't think I've seen anyone say "we shouldn't persecute Muslims anymore or else this will happen again(and it will be our fault when it does)".

A Winner is Jew posted:

Unzip and Attack posted:

Ok I take it all back. Sedanchair is the idiot you guys should be arguing with. Apparently there is someone who does victim blame mass shooting casualties.

The Iron Rose posted:

"sure it's sad she was raped but she maybe shouldn't have been such a bitch?"


literally the argument y'all are making. even if you accurately describe the motivation for the crime, by phrasing your language in such a way you're implicitly justifying the crime committed.

or explicitly, in the case of sedanchair

The Iron Rose posted:

I didn't say you were blaming the victims. I said you were justifying the crimes committed. And you were.

The Iron Rose posted:

Very true! That doesn't change the fact that the entirety of the fault, in this case, lies upon the shooters, regardless of what treatment they may or may not have been subject to.

Islamophobia and islamophobes are lovely, sure, but it's not their fault by any stretch of the imagination. They're terrible people, but not to blame for this tragedy.

The Iron Rose posted:

Murder is not a rational or acceptable response to discrimination. The discrimination these individuals may have been subject to may well be the cause of their violent attack, but that attack is not the fault of those who discriminated unjustly against them on any level.

The Iron Rose posted:

Perhaps fault is the wrong word. Donald Trump isn't to blame for this attack, nor is the zionist coworker. Just like Sarah Palin isn't to blame for the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords.

Defenestration posted:

Erick Son of Erick is a responsible gun owner who used his second amendment rights to express his displeasure with the first.



https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/673203319528116224

God bless twitter

Hodgepodge posted:

Should I just post "convincing Westerners to radicalize Muslims by demonizing them was the stated objective of the Paris attacks" every page until posters stop arguing that not playing into their hands is "victim blaming"?

Slaan posted:

Even with a pistol that's still pretty bad aim. I've only been to a range 5 or 6 times but I can do better at 30 yards than that.

Maarek posted:

Wait, is D&D against student loan debt forgiveness now?

THE BOMBINATRIX posted:

Who?

And that statement is just about as puriile as what Trump said.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

left without further comment

Radish posted:

Almost every complaint about Obama from the right is so stupid they probably would look smarter if they just admitted they hated him for his race.

Toph Bei Fong posted:

But yeah, all of Cruz's rehearsed mannerisms, the way he moves his hands, the completely memorized scenes from movies and TV shows, the insistence that he is never wrong because he is correct in this specific individual case that he is talking about... He's just grown into his father's oversized suit jacket.

CalmDownMate posted:

http://twitter.com/DoeBQue/status/675046418051112960/photo/1

My sides.

JT Jag posted:

Constellis Holdings

SavageBastard posted:

They're both from an era where this was the more typical way to treat politics.

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

THANK YOU!

I thought I was the only one who felt this way and that I was the crazy one. It's like there's this elephant in the room of deepening income inequality, stagnant wages, etc. and yet NPR et al are acting all optimistic about the economy getting better. It's practically willful ignorance from the way the media portrays the economy now.

JT Jag posted:

Martin Shkreli: secret revolutionary socialist and accelarationist

quote:

A revolutionary "must infiltrate all social formations including the police. He must exploit rich and influential people, subordinating them to himself. He must aggravate the miseries of the common people, so as to exhaust their patience and incite them to rebel.

Boon posted:

It's generally a good thing that even moderator accepted and approved trolls don't get away with factually false statements that people might be led to believe are true.

ReidRansom posted:

Well done, LAUSD.

I mean, I get that you sometimes have to err on the side of caution, even when it's something as stupid as that and you've for whatever dumbfuck reason deemed it "credible", but seriously when is a emailed/called in bomb threat ever actually credible? Yeah, that used to be a thing when it was the IRA or whoever and maybe they sometimes didn't actually want people to die so much as to make some sort of statement, but these days it seems someone wants to do some sort of attack they're just going to do it.

moller posted: