Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The American Presidency: This Thread Is 'Inartful'.

1356763

Posts

  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    A Farker in defense of Clark:
    Just because Gen. Clark has won:

    * Joint Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon
    * Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)
    * Distinguished Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
    * Silver Star Medal
    * Legion of Merit (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
    * Bronze Star
    * The Purple Heart
    * Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
    * Army Commendation Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
    * Kosovo Campaign Medal
    * Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
    * National Defense Service Medal (with Service Star)
    * Army Staff Identification Badge
    * Viet Nam Service Medal (with 3 Service Stars)
    * Combat Infantry Badge
    * Parachutist Badge (Airborne)
    * Ranger Tab
    * The Army Service Ribbon
    * Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom)
    * Commander of the Legion of Honor (France)
    * Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
    * Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands)
    * Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy
    * Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal)
    * The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland
    * Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
    * Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain)
    * The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium)
    * Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic)
    * Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic
    * Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia
    * Madarski Konnik Medal, Order of the Madara Horseman, First Class with Swords First Class with Swords (Bulgaria)
    * Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia)
    * First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania)
    * Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia)
    * The Skandeberg Medal (Albania)
    * Order of Merit of Morocco
    * Order of Merit of Argentina
    * Grade of Prince Branimir with Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and The Meritorious Service Cross of Canada
    * Balkans Peace Award
    * Secretary of State's Open Forum Distinguished Public Service Award
    * Lady Liberty Award for National Security and World Peace
    * Presidential Medal of Freedom
    * Legacy of Leadership Award
    * White House Fellowship


    he thinks he knows comething about the military.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Obama has collected 50% more donations from military personnel than McCain has

    When's the last time a Democratic candidate got more donations from military personnel than a Republican candidate?

    camo_sig2.png
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Now wait just a cotton-pickin'...
    The Senator says his call Monday for supporters to avoid denigrating military service was not a reference to Wesley Clark’s comment about McCain. "I think in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago."

    Also says Clark does not owe McCain an apology...McCain campaign accuses Obama of repudiating his own repudiation, and says, "Apparently Barack Obama now thinks that smear attacks on John McCain’s military service are fair game."

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • Rufus_ShinraRufus_Shinra Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Off of the top of my head, here are some of the campaign's biggest political blunders as reported by the media:
    -Barack Obama says that voters are bitter.
    -Hillary Clinton says white people are voting for her.
    -Some McCain surrogate says that a terrorist attack would help John McCain.
    -Wesley Clark says that getting shot down in a plane is not a qualification to be President.
    -Barack Obama says that his grandmother's racism was embarrassing.
    -Ron Paul and Reverand Wright says that a lot of the terrorist animosity towards us is because of our actions in the Middle East.
    -McCain says he would not have a problem being in Iraq for 100 years if the situation became like how we're stationed in Germany and South Korea now with no combat deaths.

    Does anyone else notice the pattern of these huge blunders?
    Spoiler:

    Here's the problem- we don't discuss the actual issues, just these stupid quotes. Sometimes they're simply taken out of context (e.g., Barack Obama "throwing his grandmother under the bus"). But a lot of time our insistence on stupid quotes prevents us from seeing the actual truth. This Wesley Clark quote is just another example of how people can't see the underlying truth because there's a political blunder we can all get upset about.

    And the Democrats are guilty of this as well. I hate how Democrats keep pulling out the line that McCain doesn't care if the Iraq war goes on for 1000 years. It earns them votes, but it prevents America from having an actual discourse about the underlying issues. The truth is that McCain doesn't want the war to continue BUT he wants to develop an American empire. He wants permanent military bases, influence in the region and a say in where the oil goes. That's what Democrats should be attacking him on, but it doesn't fit into a damn sound bite so it never gets brought up.

    Argh.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Well, #3 is debatable. If an attack actually happened, the Republicans might not look so hot on terrorism prevention anymore, thus losing the one argument that seems to actually hit home with voters. Other than that, yeah.

    Especially the 100 years thing. I agree with them that it's damning, but for your reasons rather than zomg war forever!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2008
    Tonight's P.O.V. (on PBS) was pretty interesting. It's about election day '04.

    Check your local-listings for the time it'll reair.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Eh, #3 would let McCain rail against all those nasty civil rights we still have and how he'd be empowered to remove them.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    The controversy will have been worth it if it keeps McCain from pressing the POW button all the time.

    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Rufus_ShinraRufus_Shinra Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Well, #3 is debatable. If an attack actually happened, the Republicans might not look so hot on terrorism prevention anymore, thus losing the one argument that seems to actually hit home with voters. Other than that, yeah.

    Especially the 100 years thing. I agree with them that it's damning, but for your reasons rather than zomg war forever!
    #3 is debatable, but I think there's almost a 95% chance it would benefit the Republicans. Terrorism breeds fear. It's fear that lead us to overlook the facts and rush into a war in Iraq. It's fear that lead us to betray our values for the sake of "immediate security". When people get fearful, they see things in black and white. And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good. Republicans will take on the enemies, bring the fight to them. They will be relentless in their war on terror.

    That logic just works on the American public, people get carried away, they lose sight of things. We won't be able to have a sane conversation about foreign policy if there is a terrorist attack. And when that happens, you can bet your ass the Republican candidate gains 10 points.

    If you need any more proof:
    bush_total_1may_umn.png

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Well, #3 is debatable. If an attack actually happened, the Republicans might not look so hot on terrorism prevention anymore, thus losing the one argument that seems to actually hit home with voters. Other than that, yeah.

    Especially the 100 years thing. I agree with them that it's damning, but for your reasons rather than zomg war forever!

    #3 occurred because the Democrats blocked FISA's modernization months ago, like they're doing now. How dare they endanger American lives and abloo bloo bloo. When I'm President I'll hold those surrender monkeys accountable and something.

    I'm kind of surprised that, in the spirit of 'debate' over terrorism nobody mentions that there was a successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11 resulting in 5 deaths and whose perpetrators have not yet been caught despite DHS, Gitmo, the wars, warrantless surveillance, and other 'improvements' instituted by the Republicans over the last 7 years. It's the perfect body blow, yet everyone stays their hand.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    The controversy will have been worth it if it keeps McCain from pressing the POW button all the time.

    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?
    - During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if “military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief.” McCain said, “Absolutely not…I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary.” [National Journal, 2/15/2003]

    - I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I’ve never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999]

    - Earlier this year at Washington’s Gridiron Club, where humor is the required fare, McCain lay bare what underlies his candidacy. Wearing a jacket outlandishly festooned with dozens of fake military medals, McCain said, “The question I ask myself every morning while shaving in front of the mirror is: OK, John, you’re an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/7/1999]
    He alludes to his POW experience all the time and used footage of himself recovering in a military hospital for his first general election ad, but I don't recall him saying that it directly qualifies him to be president.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Well, #3 is debatable. If an attack actually happened, the Republicans might not look so hot on terrorism prevention anymore, thus losing the one argument that seems to actually hit home with voters. Other than that, yeah.

    Especially the 100 years thing. I agree with them that it's damning, but for your reasons rather than zomg war forever!

    #3 occurred because the Democrats blocked FISA's modernization months ago, like they're doing now. How dare they endanger American lives and abloo bloo bloo. When I'm President I'll hold those surrender monkeys accountable and something.

    I'm kind of surprised that, in the spirit of 'debate' over terrorism nobody mentions that there was a successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11 resulting in 5 deaths and whose perpetrators have not yet been caught despite DHS, Gitmo, the wars, warrantless surveillance, and other 'improvements' instituted by the Republicans over the last 7 years. It's the perfect body blow, yet everyone stays their hand.

    Pffff, it only counts as a terrorist attack if foreigners are involved.

  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good.

    There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this hoseshit. No single party owns fearmongering. No single party owns bullheaded thinking on certain issues. If you believe that, you're simply ignorant of history or incapable of instrospection. Want to know who overreacted after 9/11? 98% of America.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Titmouse wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Well, #3 is debatable. If an attack actually happened, the Republicans might not look so hot on terrorism prevention anymore, thus losing the one argument that seems to actually hit home with voters. Other than that, yeah.

    Especially the 100 years thing. I agree with them that it's damning, but for your reasons rather than zomg war forever!

    #3 occurred because the Democrats blocked FISA's modernization months ago, like they're doing now. How dare they endanger American lives and abloo bloo bloo. When I'm President I'll hold those surrender monkeys accountable and something.

    I'm kind of surprised that, in the spirit of 'debate' over terrorism nobody mentions that there was a successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11 resulting in 5 deaths and whose perpetrators have not yet been caught despite DHS, Gitmo, the wars, warrantless surveillance, and other 'improvements' instituted by the Republicans over the last 7 years. It's the perfect body blow, yet everyone stays their hand.

    Pffff, it only counts as a terrorist attack if foreigners are involved.

    We don't know if they weren't. Like I said, nobody's been brought to justice. Even though we now have a new cabinet level department for security, have been data mining and tapping phones without judicial oversight, and going to town on brown people's nuts with wires and water bottles. How come we still haven't caught anybody approaching 7 years on?

    tea-1.jpg
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous WALK 3X FASTER New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good.

    There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this hoseshit. No single party owns fearmongering. No single party owns bullheaded thinking on certain issues. If you believe that, you're simply ignorant of history or incapable of instrospection. Want to know who overreacted after 9/11? 98% of America.
    Does this mean the words "democrats helped pass the Patriot Act" will leave your vocabulary?

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: WaffleMous#1483
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Does this mean the words "democrats helped pass the Patriot Act" will leave your vocabulary?

    That's not an inconsistent response to the idea that Republicans are entirely responsible for it.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    He alludes to his POW experience all the time and used footage of himself recovering in a military hospital for his first general election ad, but I don't recall him saying that it directly qualifies him to be president.

    So then he's not actually "pressing the POW button" all the time - at least, not in a way that what Clark said would contradict or prevent.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    The controversy will have been worth it if it keeps McCain from pressing the POW button all the time.

    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?
    - During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if “military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief.” McCain said, “Absolutely not…I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary.” [National Journal, 2/15/2003]

    - I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I’ve never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999]

    - Earlier this year at Washington’s Gridiron Club, where humor is the required fare, McCain lay bare what underlies his candidacy. Wearing a jacket outlandishly festooned with dozens of fake military medals, McCain said, “The question I ask myself every morning while shaving in front of the mirror is: OK, John, you’re an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/7/1999]
    He alludes to his POW experience all the time and used footage of himself recovering in a military hospital for his first general election ad, but I don't recall him saying that it directly qualifies him to be president.

    I don't think McCain is saying it qualifies him to be president, just that it's an advantage he has. Here's the general idea of what's going on:

    McCain: I'm running for president. Don't forgot I was a POW.
    Clark: So?

    Clark isn't attacking McCain's service, he's just saying that the fact that he was a POW really has no influence on his possible presidency. Clark is right and McCain isn't wrong for trying to foster votes in this fashion. The media is the villian in this equation.

  • Rufus_ShinraRufus_Shinra Registered User
    edited July 2008
    And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good.

    There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this hoseshit. No single party owns fearmongering. No single party owns bullheaded thinking on certain issues. If you believe that, you're simply ignorant of history or incapable of instrospection. Want to know who overreacted after 9/11? 98% of America.
    True, the Democrats are in no way innocent of overreaction to 9/11 and terrorism in general. True, Democrats simplify some issues just as much as Republicans, and some issues more than the Republicans (see free trade/protectionism). But, I think when it comes to the matter of the war on terrorism it is fact that the leaders of the Republican party have consistently painted this as an issue of us vs. them. It has gotten to the point that our government denies suspected terrorists of human rights. This is not a case of confirmed terrorists not getting their POW rights, this is an infringement on the most basic rights of not being tortured and the right to habeas corpus.

    It is not just a matter of our values, but of our foreign policy in general. The issue of whether we should go to war in Iraq was a matter of "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and the issue of why was simple, "They hate us for our freedom". There is a constant conflagration of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and Muslims as one collective entity responsible for terrorism. All of these things have lead to a severely distorted picture of the conflict we currently engage in. This sentiment has been encouraged, facilitated and even created by the Bush administration.

    Now all of these oversimplifications are not the fault of the permanent Republican Party, and the Democratic Party has been party to many of the same things. But the fact is that the Republican party as run by George W. Bush, which is to say the Republican party of the last eight years, has dominated these sentiments and will continue to do so at least for the entirety of this election season.

    I stand by statement.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good.

    There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this hoseshit. No single party owns fearmongering. No single party owns bullheaded thinking on certain issues. If you believe that, you're simply ignorant of history or incapable of instrospection. Want to know who overreacted after 9/11? 98% of America.

    The over-reactions of the GOP-run Executive branch are both more numerous and more sweeping than the over-reactions of the bipartisan Congress. Attempting to downplay how the Bush Jr. administration has used 9/11 as an excuse for massive foreign policy blunders and a repeated skullfucking of the Constitution with the equivalent of "Well mom, everyone else was doing it" is laughable historic revisionism.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Guys, guys, we've had this conversation with Deacon like 10 times now. Let's not do this again. He's content to view the world through his black republican eye-glasses, we're content to instead wear our more stylish liberal/Obamacan/Not republican glasses. Who knows which set of eye wear is the least distorting, allowing the wearer to see reality more clearly.
    Spoiler:

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SalSal Damnedest Little Fellow Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Man, I don't really like any of these choices. Clark eliminated himself, Biden has his foot in his mouth, Sebelius isn't exciting at all, Gore should keep doing what he's doing now, and Richardson is a huge tool.

    Damn it.

  • ZephyrZephyr Registered User
    edited July 2008
    obama is exciting enough for two

    sebelius!

    16kakxt.jpg
  • unilateralunilateral Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I'm really pulling for Richardson. I think he did pretty good in those last few debates with just him, Obama and Hillary. He has a lot of foreign policy experience apparently, which is what everyone keeps saying Obama needs. He also seems to have some good experience and positions on energy policies. Plus, he just seems like a nice dude.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    unilateral wrote: »
    I'm really pulling for Richardson. I think he did pretty good in those last few debates with just him, Obama and Hillary. He has a lot of foreign policy experience apparently, which is what everyone keeps saying Obama needs. He also seems to have some good experience and positions on energy policies. Plus, he just seems like a nice dude.

    Yes, but did you hear his explanation for his favorite SCotUS gaffe? He just assumed that anybody appointed by JFK would be the best, with no forethought. With that kind of clumsiness, how is there even a chance that he wouldn't make a mule's ass of himself at least once?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • unilateralunilateral Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    unilateral wrote: »
    I'm really pulling for Richardson. I think he did pretty good in those last few debates with just him, Obama and Hillary. He has a lot of foreign policy experience apparently, which is what everyone keeps saying Obama needs. He also seems to have some good experience and positions on energy policies. Plus, he just seems like a nice dude.

    Yes, but did you hear his explanation for his favorite SCotUS gaffe? He just assumed that anybody appointed by JFK would be the best, with no forethought. With that kind of clumsiness, how is there even a chance that he wouldn't make a mule's ass of himself at least once?

    Ah. I admit I haven't really followed him since the primaries. I did a bit of research during that time, but not too in depth. I knew I shoulda done a litte bit more before posting that here.

    But hey, maybe he could be the comic relief of the white house, like Quayle.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    unilateral wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    unilateral wrote: »
    I'm really pulling for Richardson. I think he did pretty good in those last few debates with just him, Obama and Hillary. He has a lot of foreign policy experience apparently, which is what everyone keeps saying Obama needs. He also seems to have some good experience and positions on energy policies. Plus, he just seems like a nice dude.

    Yes, but did you hear his explanation for his favorite SCotUS gaffe? He just assumed that anybody appointed by JFK would be the best, with no forethought. With that kind of clumsiness, how is there even a chance that he wouldn't make a mule's ass of himself at least once?

    Ah. I admit I haven't really followed him since the primaries. I did a bit of research during that time, but not too in depth. I knew I shoulda done a litte bit more before posting that here.

    But hey, maybe he could be the comic relief of the white house, like Quayle.

    ...Obama wants a second term. And Richardson's foreign policy credentials only exist on his resume. Beyond that he's just meh, and arguably behind Obama himself. Either go full bore for the foreign policy experience, like a less gaffe prone Biden/Clark, or go economics.

    tea-1.jpg
  • matisyahumatisyahu Registered User
    edited July 2008
    He alludes to his POW experience all the time and used footage of himself recovering in a military hospital for his first general election ad, but I don't recall him saying that it directly qualifies him to be president.

    So then he's not actually "pressing the POW button" all the time - at least, not in a way that what Clark said would contradict or prevent.

    Regardless of whether McCain frequently advertises his military experience as a presidential qualification, there's a public perception that he's going to be good on foreign policy because he is a famous soldier. That is a wishy-washy sentiment, because being "good on foreign policy" can mean a lot of things, but it's just a prevailing notion in the campaign coverage and it's supported by opinion polls. This is the idea that Clark was trying to contradict, he wasn't trying to "smack down" McCain or whatever the media is running with, by pointing out that McCain's military experience did not include a large command etc etc.

    i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
  • polajumpolajum Registered User
    edited July 2008
    And if you want a black and white party it's the Republicans. Muslims are evil, America is good.

    There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this hoseshit. No single party owns fearmongering. No single party owns bullheaded thinking on certain issues. If you believe that, you're simply ignorant of history or incapable of instrospection. Want to know who overreacted after 9/11? 98% of America.

    I confess myself a bitter, follow-the-money cynic.

    Who benefited by the overreaction after 9/11? The hawk wing of the Republican party. Who was in charge pushing the overreaction? The same.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Isn't the "POW button" the thing that Mario or Luigi jumps up and hits to knock all the turtles over? I don't think McCain is that spry...

    Okay, Morning Joe just reported that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" taught to operatives in 2002 were the same as those implemented by Red China during the Korean War. Disregarding basic human rights sure didn't take long.

    Of course, my impression of Bush's torture/detainment policy is that it's similar to Henry VIII's.

    "Milord, the Duke of Normandy has been seen in the young lady's company."
    "Throw him into the dungeon!"
    "But, milord, there's no evidence of..."
    "Just do it!"

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Former Black President Happy that he Paved the Way for Obama.
    I...may have helped open the eyes of the American people. And I mean the American people from across the board -- from the poorest to the richest, every color and creed, every religious base -- to prove the possibility there could be an African-American president, a female president, any type of president that puts the people first.

  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    The controversy will have been worth it if it keeps McCain from pressing the POW button all the time.

    Yeah uh if I can ask a stupid question, does McCain himself make the case that his military record directly qualifies him for the Presidency? I know I've heard him diss Obama about not being in the military on some policy point, but... does he actually go around saying this all the time?

    Have you seen any of his commercials?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Also, those techniques were used to elicit false confessions.

    Brilliant.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Vice President Biden had this to say: "Get those fuckin cameras out of my face, I'm trying to watch a ballgame here."

    In my dreams.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    And how sad is this this?

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Guys, guys, we've had this conversation with Deacon like 10 times now. Let's not do this again. He's content to view the world through his black republican eye-glasses, we're content to instead wear our more stylish liberal/Obamacan/Not republican glasses. Who knows which set of eye wear is the least distorting, allowing the wearer to see reality more clearly.

    Well, there's a big difference between the younger Shinra's two posts. The second contains some well thought out, specific critiques - if you think you can get away with "lol republicans think in black and white and hate muslims", think again.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Also, those techniques were used to elicit false confessions.

    Brilliant.

    "Hey, the Communists got people to say exactly what they wanted to hear; that's exactly what we're going for!"

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The fist bump thing is by far the stupidest nontroversy of a campaign season that seems to have been defined by nontroversies.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
This discussion has been closed.