Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Btw, does Obama officially suck?Follow

#352 Oct 19 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This just seems so opposite of his typical stance.
Pretty sure his typical stance is to always be opposite.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#353 Oct 19 2012 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This just seems so opposite of his typical stance.
Pretty sure his typical stance is to always be opposite.


Smiley: thumbsup

____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#354 Oct 19 2012 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's silly to make a big deal about what could happen under a given law without examining what could happen under existing law. It's like insisting that a new car is unsafe because if you fall asleep at the wheel you could crash and die. What happens if you fall asleep at the wheel of your current car? Same thing, right? All police powers carry with them the potential for abuse (or just really bad choices/mistakes). That by itself isn't sufficient argument against allowing them.


It's also silly to give authority figures more easily abused powers under the banner of "They could already abuse the ones they have, so hey, whatever..."

Yea, I'm confused by gbaji here. Your statement would typically be his, seeing as he wants as small a government as possible and as little regulation as possible. This just seems so opposite of his typical stance. I haven't been following this, so did a Republican propose this?


I've honestly lost track. IIRC, the original issue was about immigration checkpoints somehow equating the the Constitution just not applying anymore or something. I called that silly (correctly I think). There was some talk about how this really doesn't violate the 4th amendment. Then someone stormed in ranting about the patriot act, FISA, NDAA, NSLs, etc and how this meant that our government could just arrest and detail any random person they wanted, without trial, and without that person having any legal recourse. I called BS on this as well. The example given in response was a gag order, not on someone arrested and detained without cause or charge, but someone told not to publicly reveal information the government had requested from him related to an investigation. Kinda not in the same ballpark. I then pointed out that the laws being ranted about didn't grant the government the power to do what was being claimed. I said that such things *could* happen, but were rare, normally accidents, and could happen under existing law anyway.

Then someone else (BD I think) tossed out his "here's a guy who was lost in a jail for 2 years" example. Which basically confirmed my point.


I'm not saying we blindly grant power to our government which could be abused. I'm saying that we should assess those laws/powers based on what they actually do, and not wild claims by people who apparently have no clue what they're talking about and can't back up their claims at all. Am I somewhat concerned about the government being able to search an ISPs data and compel said ISP to not tell anyone what the government was looking for? Sure. Is it on the scale of secret police snatching people up in the middle of the night, tossing them into their black helicopters and disappearing them? Nope. Not even close. I just don't think that issues like this are helped by wild exaggeration of the facts. Give me a calm rational argument about problematic components to the patriot act, and I'll agree. Light your hair on fire and insist that the patriot act gives the government infinite power and effectively cancels out the whole constitution, and I'll call you a nutter.


I do get how people who take positions based on being "for or against" something might see that as inconsistent though. For me, it's a matter of degrees.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#355 Oct 19 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,839 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's silly to make a big deal about what could happen under a given law without examining what could happen under existing law. It's like insisting that a new car is unsafe because if you fall asleep at the wheel you could crash and die. What happens if you fall asleep at the wheel of your current car? Same thing, right? All police powers carry with them the potential for abuse (or just really bad choices/mistakes). That by itself isn't sufficient argument against allowing them.


It's also silly to give authority figures more easily abused powers under the banner of "They could already abuse the ones they have, so hey, whatever..."

Yea, I'm confused by gbaji here.


I've honestly lost track. IIRC, the original issue was about immigration checkpoints
That's the problem.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#356 Oct 19 2012 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I've honestly lost track. IIRC, the original issue was about immigration checkpoints
That's the problem.


I think it's less a problem than status quo for this forum.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#357 Oct 19 2012 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not saying we blindly grant power to our government which could be abused. I'm saying that we should assess those laws/powers based on what they actually do, and not wild claims by people who apparently have no clue what they're talking about and can't back up their claims at all. Am I somewhat concerned about the government being able to search an ISPs data and compel said ISP to not tell anyone what the government was looking for? Sure. Is it on the scale of secret police snatching people up in the middle of the night, tossing them into their black helicopters and disappearing them? Nope. Not even close. I just don't think that issues like this are helped by wild exaggeration of the facts. Give me a calm rational argument about problematic components to the patriot act, and I'll agree. Light your hair on fire and insist that the patriot act gives the government infinite power and effectively cancels out the whole constitution, and I'll call you a nutter.


Your problem (at least here in this forum) is your inconsistency. You're willing to turn a blind eye to things like the Patriot Act and NDAA because it's a Republican effort so it must be good, but the minute the discussion turns to domestic legislation (you know, stuff that will actually HELP AMERICANS), you go off on a tangent about "big government this and that" and "eewwwww socialism!"

The reality (and answer to Ugly's somewhat rhetorical question) is that you don't have an opinion. You either argue in blind faith of Republican ideals or take whatever position seems to be the minority for the sake of pure argument. Nobody takes you seriously on either account.


Edited, Oct 19th 2012 4:57pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#358 Oct 19 2012 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
gbaji wrote:
I do get how people who take positions based on being "for or against" something might see that as inconsistent though. For me, it's a matter of degrees.


BrownDuck wrote:
Your problem (at least here in this forum) is your inconsistency.


It's like I'm psychic or something.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#359 Oct 19 2012 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Outside of your claimed pro-choice stance, nothing, and I mean nothing that you have posted about here has ever deviated one iota from the far right agenda. Kind of a strange coincidence, don't you think?

EDIT: In the interest of fairness, if you have clearly deviated elsewhere, please be so kind as to link it.


HUGS,
Bijou

Edited, Oct 19th 2012 4:05pm by Bijou
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#360 Oct 19 2012 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I do get how people who take positions based on being "for or against" something might see that as inconsistent though. For me, it's a matter of degrees.


BrownDuck wrote:
Your problem (at least here in this forum) is your inconsistency.


It's like I'm psychic or something.


The only "degrees" on your dial are "Republican" and "Other".
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#361 Oct 19 2012 at 8:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,801 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Outside of your claimed pro-choice stance, nothing, and I mean nothing that you have posted about here has ever deviated one iota from the far right agenda. Kind of a strange coincidence, don't you think?


He doesn't agree with the far right. He just understands why they are actually correct.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#362 Oct 20 2012 at 1:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not saying we blindly grant power to our government which could be abused. I'm saying that we should assess those laws/powers based on what they actually do, and not wild claims by people who apparently have no clue what they're talking about and can't back up their claims at all. Am I somewhat concerned about the government being able to search an ISPs data and compel said ISP to not tell anyone what the government was looking for? Sure. Is it on the scale of secret police snatching people up in the middle of the night, tossing them into their black helicopters and disappearing them? Nope. Not even close. I just don't think that issues like this are helped by wild exaggeration of the facts. Give me a calm rational argument about problematic components to the patriot act, and I'll agree. Light your hair on fire and insist that the patriot act gives the government infinite power and effectively cancels out the whole constitution, and I'll call you a nutter.

That's a slippery slope right there. Secret data collection is just a few steps away from spiriting away entire villages of people in the middle of the night, like they're doing right now in Syria. And we all know how you feel about slippery slopes.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#363 Oct 20 2012 at 4:35 AM Rating: Decent
*
69 posts
Elinda wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
It's not rare in any administration.
Dimwit.


It should be rare in supposed liberal administrations. Sheep.

Quote:
You need to do some soul-searching to figure out why it is that when Obama does presidential type stuff it **** you off so badly (hint: It has nothing to do with Obama).


Hint: Obviously it doesn't. WTF. It has to do with both parties overwhelmingly supporting violations of The @#%^ing Constitution since 9/11. My issue in this thread is why supposed "liberals" objected with venom when Bush was abrogating the Constitution during his term, but suddenly when Obama was elected they've been mum. They've duct-taped their mouths. See No Hear No Speak No Evil. They'd rather their tribal choice gained power than whatever atrocities that Person in Power actually conducts.

At least if Romney is elected they'd feign outrage and an opposition might show. At least if Romney won the (largely Democratic Party) Mainstream Media might start to ask relevant questions about extent of executive power, Constitional umbrage, etc.

Why am I **** off so badly? The President and majority of elected representives of my country are taking a sh*t on the founding document of my country, the Constitution and its protections, which IMO was a very good document. Maybe you disagree and would like to see Amendment 28: Dismissal of Habeaus Corpus. Amendment 29: Withdraw Amendment 6 guaranteeing right to a speedy trial.

I don't give a @#%^ing sh*t which party is in power, if that's your damning attack. Not sure what it is. Any party in power that **** on the Constitution is sh*t. It's remarkable that partisans continue to apologize and dismiss and turn 180 degrees from what they were outraged at from the previous administration. High School BS. Too scared to be outside your group, so you have no balls.



Edited, Oct 20th 2012 6:37am by Palpitus1
#364 Oct 20 2012 at 5:01 AM Rating: Decent
*
69 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Your problem (at least here in this forum) is your inconsistency. You're willing to turn a blind eye to things like the Patriot Act and NDAA because it's a Republican effort


Are you just ignorant or willfully ignorant? Patriot Act, NDAA, FISA, AUMF is a bipartisan effort. Take a moment to look up bills on Project Vote Smart (http://votesmart.org/) if you actually care to be enlightened. Both parties are complicit. DUH.

And of course, btw, Obama had a majority of Congress his first two years. AMAZING how these horrible things took place when he had Presidential and Congressional opportunity to overturn them!

"Oh, but that's uh, because the GOP had the filibuster! THE FILIBUSTER!@!!!"

"But why then, didn't the Democrats filibuster renewal of Iraq War money during the Bush term? Pelosi threatened it. Oh my, they didn't follow through. Oh my, the Democrats are pussies who stand for nothing.".

ETA: After trying to verify my own link, apparently Project Vote Smart has engaged in a horrible new website layout whose search function sucks, or sold out. But be assured, Democrats' votes on these various bills are equally cynical. I remember my only refuge at The Patriot Act being Russ Feingold. Did I misremember and all other Dem Senators vote against it?

Edited, Oct 20th 2012 7:10am by Palpitus1
#365 Oct 20 2012 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
Let me understand this. You want a Republican in office because you believe the opposition from the left will be more effective when he/she inevitably breaks our trust?

That's some pretty bitter mojo you got there, kid.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#366 Oct 20 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,311 posts
At this point I want Obama to win just so we can watch the racists squirm in discomfort for another four years. So entertaining.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#367 Oct 20 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
Samira wrote:
Let me understand this. You want a Republican in office because you believe the opposition from the left will be more effective when he/she inevitably breaks our trust?

That's some pretty bitter mojo you got there, kid.


It's something being echo'ed by some far leftists in what I characterize as a despondent fit of histrionics as a result of Obama's 'moderacy'.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#368 Oct 21 2012 at 2:42 AM Rating: Decent
*
69 posts
Samira wrote:
Let me understand this. You want a Republican in office because you believe the opposition from the left will be more effective when he/she inevitably breaks our trust?


There's no trust I give. Not sure what you're talking about there.

Yes, the gain of Romney winning would be that "liberals" would suddently start objecting to the bullsh*t that Obama has done in the past four years that liberals have been silent about, since with Romney a Republican will be doing it. This isn't just about "liberals" in society. Perhaps "liberals" aka Democrat Senators and Representatives would start to vote "no" on utterly ridiculous bills, and start questioning Executive Power. DUH.

Quote:
That's some pretty bitter mojo you got there, kid.


What in the **** does this mean? I'm bitter because I value the Constitution above party affiliations and tribalism? I'm bitter because I think if Romney wins, a Democratic opposition would better preserve rights than if Obama gets another term and continues to undermine this? I'm not bitter, I'm a realist. Look into it.

"Thomas Paine, you bitter kid!"

ETA: I'm obviously not comparing myself to Paine. I'm comparing you to some utter moron in the 18th century that would've called him a "bitter kid" rather than actually face what he was saying. And also obviously, just because I cite Paine doesn't mean I'm some Tea Party idiot. <---this edit to avoid at least one superficial reply. If anyone is still wilfully ignorant about what I'm **** about, refer again to my OP listing Obama's egregious actions.

Edited, Oct 21st 2012 5:12am by Palpitus1
#369 Oct 21 2012 at 5:23 AM Rating: Default
*
69 posts


What is "Counterpunch"?

If you want to dismiss leftists as agendaists for some reasons, at least link to someone serious.

Objection to gutting The Constitution....uh it's uh...."histrionics!"

What me worry.
#370 Oct 22 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm a realist.
Weren't you the one that said not voting would actually mean something?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#371 Oct 22 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,958 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm a realist.
Weren't you the one that said not voting would actually mean something?


No, I think that you said that it would mean nothing.
I am not voting. Voting at this point is like mowing your lawn when the house is burning down. You can waste your time feeling all tingly and patriotic.. but you are doing nothing but taking a corpse out to dinner. Not the corpse of the US but the corpse of the federal government.
Just stepping into those booths would make me feel dirty and Americans should be ashamed to take part in them.

You are not voting for president. You are voting for the regional manager for PiggyBank USA.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#372 Oct 23 2012 at 12:51 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
You are not voting for president. You are voting for the regional manager for PiggyBank USA.


And I prefer he not believe in magic underpants. Its just not something I can wrap my head around.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#373 Oct 23 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
No, I think that you said that it would mean nothing.
So reading is on your list of things you abandoned when you started pretending to be religious?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#374 Feb 27 2013 at 6:00 AM Rating: Default
*
69 posts
Lol. Nice job then, Obama, instituionializing FISA for another five years; dodging legal rationale for murudering US citizens; utilizing the full power of the AG to say no lawsuit on your illegalities will ever be held.

Hey, where's our next super HOPE and CHANGE candidate going to arise, that will challenge these egregious affronts? Obviously this has nothing at all to do with party. It has to do with Balls, aka: some adherence to the **** Constitution.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#375 Feb 27 2013 at 6:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,839 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:

Hey, where's our next super HOPE and CHANGE candidate going to arise, that will challenge these egregious affronts? Obviously this has nothing at all to do with party. It has to do with Balls, aka: some adherence to the @#%^ing Constitution.
Hilary's coming. She's got balls.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#376 Feb 27 2013 at 6:27 AM Rating: Default
*
69 posts
Elinda wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:

Hey, where's our next super HOPE and CHANGE candidate going to arise, that will challenge these egregious affronts? Obviously this has nothing at all to do with party. It has to do with Balls, aka: some adherence to the @#%^ing Constitution.
Hilary's coming. She's got balls.


Civil rights-crushing balls, in the name of defending ourselves against terrorists, sure. Let's just further rape the Fouth Amendmaet in the name of freedom.

Female despot rather than male black despot: CHANGE!
#377 Feb 27 2013 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,839 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:

Hey, where's our next super HOPE and CHANGE candidate going to arise, that will challenge these egregious affronts? Obviously this has nothing at all to do with party. It has to do with Balls, aka: some adherence to the @#%^ing Constitution.
Hilary's coming. She's got balls.


Civil rights-crushing balls, in the name of defending ourselves against terrorists, sure. Let's just further rape the Fouth Amendmaet in the name of freedom.

Female despot rather than male black despot: CHANGE!
Yeah, lets stop searching every law abiding citizen that wants to get on a domestic plane flight. Lets get rid profiling and sticking everyone with olive skin on watch lists. Let's stop searching cars because they're driven by a young black man.

Honestly, the government putting out a hit here and there on known international terrorists is really pretty narrowly reaching event in the big picture of human rights.

But froth on....


Edited, Feb 27th 2013 2:29pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#378 Feb 27 2013 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Someone put this idiot back in his cage please. Gbaji's enough, lately. Doesn't need a supporting cast.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#379 Feb 27 2013 at 7:49 AM Rating: Default
*
69 posts
Elinda wrote:
Yeah, lets stop searching every law abiding citizen that wants to get on a domestic plane flight. Lets get rid profiling and sticking everyone with olive skin on watch lists. Let's stop searching cars because they're driven by a young black man.

Honestly, the government putting out a hit here and there on known international terrorists is really pretty narrowly reaching event in the big picture of human rights.


You're so cute, with your trust. And your awe-inspiring faith that Hillary would change things. But apparently you don't think anything needs to be changed anyway. And you seemingly have utterly no care for any non-Americans.

Btw, "known international terrorists" is now "any males of combat age" (signature strikes [do you know this term, ignoramus?]), plus "anyone who will first-respond or show up to a funeral of who we just killed". Or do you even know the current conditions of drone-strike. I'm not going to even link links. Ir you're so utterly ignorant, then sure...HILLARY!
#380 Feb 27 2013 at 7:56 AM Rating: Decent
*
69 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Someone put this idiot back in his cage please. Gbaji's enough, lately. Doesn't need a supporting cast.


Isn't Gbaji a hardcore rightist? I'm a hardcore Constitutionalist and human rights-ist. Guess that might not make various liberals accept my criticisms of Obama, sure. Sorry if I've overstepped my bounds. Still waiting for justification of the egregious crimes from my initial post in this thread btw.

Obama sucks. He has championed every civil rights abuse from the Bush Administration, and tried and succeeded into making it absolute law.

Elinda says Hillary is going to upend all this?? How naive are you people?

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 8:59am by Palpitus1
#381 Feb 27 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
Lol. Nice job then, Obama...

I'm not voting for that guy again!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#382 Feb 27 2013 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,198 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
Lol. Nice job then, Obama...

I'm not voting for that guy again!
You won't have to, he'll be an evil Muslim dictator soon, taking away your guns and freedom.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#383 Feb 27 2013 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
You're so cute, with your trust.
Says the guy crying about the amendments.
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm a hardcore Constitutionalist and human rights-ist.
Is that in addition to your being a realist, or did you drop that? Just curious how many doctrine you pretend to adhere to for future reference.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#384 Feb 27 2013 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,839 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Someone put this idiot back in his cage please. Gbaji's enough, lately. Doesn't need a supporting cast.


Isn't Gbaji a hardcore rightist? I'm a hardcore Constitutionalist and human rights-ist. Guess that might not make various liberals accept my criticisms of Obama, sure. Sorry if I've overstepped my bounds. Still waiting for justification of the egregious crimes from my initial post in this thread btw.

Obama sucks. He has championed every civil rights abuse from the Bush Administration, and tried and succeeded into making it absolute law.

Elinda says Hillary is going to upend all this?? How naive are you people?

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 8:59am by Palpitus1

Actually, I don't see a big Hilary upending anything that you mentioned. Sure, some sop on drone use is needed - not just at the federal level but across the nations states and cities. My hopes for Hilary are more demanding, should she become our leader. I think she's best equipped to get begin to dysfunctionalize our healthcare system. Costs are stifling our entire economy.

Access to affordable health care is a basic human rights issue that is adversely affecting far more of our population than inter/national intelligence procedures - no?

edit - i'm misspelling made up words again.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 8:12pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#385 Feb 27 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Decent
*
69 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
Lol. Nice job then, Obama...

I'm not voting for that guy again!
You won't have to, he'll be an evil Muslim dictator soon, taking away your guns and freedom.


Nice attempt at levity. He is currently and shall be the most current President who debased our 4th amendment (Unreasonable Search and Seizure), and our 1st Amendment (Freedom of Assoication) civil rights. Obama isn't an evil Muslim. He's an evil US Christian President. He has **** you and us all.

FFS, here's just a recent example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/supreme-court-eavesdropping-law-doj-argument

US DOJ advocates that no one has position to challenge a law/email-search, since none can be aware they were so searched, since DOJ searches are classified. Big circular logic to make FISA searches beyond the bounds of law, whether Congressional or Judicial. Who's left to challenge? Apparently NO ONE CAN. Obama is vigorously advancing search without warrant, and vigorously using "classified info" in the Supreme Court so as to dimiss standing to sue/challenge.

Your great hero, Barack Obama.
#386 Feb 27 2013 at 8:48 AM Rating: Decent
*
69 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Is that in addition to your being a realist, or did you drop that? Just curious how many doctrine you pretend to adhere to for future reference.


There's no dissonance between being a realist and a Constitutionalist. For example, a realist might accept the Constitution as is, yet not also invade various countries and drone-bomb various foreigners. Not just for Constitutional reasons, but also becase of realist blowback.

Of course, a rationalist would accept that there are various forces in the US who desire constant blowback and war. Guess I'm actually an optimist, then. Maybe we could like, stop warmongering in order to continue our military-industrial complex (Eisenhower btw, GOP) for at least like uh, two years? Maybe four years?
#387 Feb 27 2013 at 8:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
He's an evil US Christian President. He has @#%^ed you and us all.

FFS, here's just a recent example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/supreme-court-eavesdropping-law-doj-argument

Wouldn't that example be "The SCotUS has **** you and us all"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#388 Feb 27 2013 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,198 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
He has @#%^ed you and us all.
I'm not American though so I don't really give a rat's **** about your constitution.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#389 Feb 27 2013 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Guess I'm actually an optimist, then.
So to answer my question, four doctrines. Are you going to stick to those four, or are you going to add and remove as necessary?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#390 Feb 27 2013 at 9:00 AM Rating: Decent
*
69 posts
Elinda wrote:
Actually, I don't see a big Hilary upending anything that you mentioned. Sure, some sop on drone use is needed - not just at the federal level but across the nations states and cities. My hopes for Hilary are more demanding, should she become our leader. I think she's best equipped to get begin to dyfunctionalize our healthcare system. Costs are stifling our entire economy.

Access to affordable health care is a basic human rights issue that is adversely affecting far more of our population than inter/national intelligence procedures - no?


Yes, that's a good reasons to vote for her rather than any scumbag Republicans in the next race.

Of course, our own American quality of life is paramount to who we elect. I don't expect Hillary to stop bombing and making war on brown people, but she'd be better for our lower economy than a GOP. I might even vote for her too if I could stand a perhaps 2016 promise to bomb Iran or something. Otherwise, I'd vote again for Jill Stein or someone, whose platform doesn't feature murdering others around the world.
#391 Feb 27 2013 at 9:02 AM Rating: Decent
*
69 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
He's an evil US Christian President. He has @#%^ed you and us all.

FFS, here's just a recent example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/supreme-court-eavesdropping-law-doj-argument

Wouldn't that example be "The SCotUS has @#%^ed you and us all"?


It's the endgame. Now all three branches have **** us all.
#392 Feb 27 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Default
*
69 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
Guess I'm actually an optimist, then.
So to answer my question, four doctrines. Are you going to stick to those four, or are you going to add and remove as necessary?


What's your **** question? I'm not going to "add" or "remove". Are you trying to be some philosophical challenge? Are you claiming that various positions can't hold together?

I see you rather as a petulant moron. "Four Doctrines"? A hundred docrines could be consistent. Or two couldn't be. State your objection, ****
#393 Feb 27 2013 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
[quote=Palpitus1]State your objection, **** Calm down. Don't let your illiteracy get you so butthurt, man.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#394 Feb 27 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
Someone put this idiot back in his cage please. Gbaji's enough, lately. Doesn't need a supporting cast.

Rebirth of Shadowrelm! Fumbling out of the ashes and squawking like a mentally retarded phoenix...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#395 Feb 27 2013 at 9:38 AM Rating: Default
*
69 posts
So being a (real) liberal and being sad/objecting that a "liberal" President and supporters are destroying civil rights is now "squawking".

Can you at least give me a more interesting adjective for my being greatly upset that my country's President is destroying our Bill or Rights? If not "squawking", maybe at least "wheening" or "mewling"? After all, I'm just lying here in my own Cheetoes thrashing out at random. I have no idea what's going on in my country.
#396 Feb 27 2013 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
Can you at least give me a more interesting adjective...

Ya get what ya give.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#397 Feb 27 2013 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Someone put this idiot back in his cage please. Gbaji's enough, lately. Doesn't need a supporting cast.


But those of us at boring jobs LIVE for these posts!
#398 Feb 27 2013 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,198 posts
Torrence wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Someone put this idiot back in his cage please. Gbaji's enough, lately. Doesn't need a supporting cast.


But those of us at boring jobs LIVE for these posts!
I'm sure there's better ways to entertain yourself.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#399 Feb 27 2013 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I'm sure there's better ways to entertain yourself.


He creates quality mental images though...

Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm just lying here in my own Cheetoes thrashing out at random.


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#400 Feb 27 2013 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
[quote=Palpitus1]Guess I'm actually an optimist, then.
So to answer my question, four doctrines. Are you going to stick to those four, or are you going to add and remove as necessary?


What's your **** question? I'm not going to "add" or "remove". Are you trying to be some philosophical challenge? Are you claiming that various positions can't hold together?

I see you rather as a petulant moron. "Four Doctrines"? A hundred docrines could be consistent. Or two couldn't be. State your objection, ****

He's letting you off easy. I'd make you adhere to 5k sutras or so.
#401 Feb 27 2013 at 12:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
He creates quality mental images though...
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm just lying here in my own Cheetoes thrashing out at random.

Smiley: rolleyes

Begs the question of who else's Cheetos you'd expect him to be lying in.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CDT
Bijou, ElneClare, Jophiel, Tasera, Anonymous Guests (43)