Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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 New (and On Notice) Obama Thread

1343537394046

Posts

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    One might suggest, however, that his tenacious bipartisanship in the face of republican recalcitrance helped to expose most of their horribleness. Sadly at the expense of getting things done, but it's much harder for the right to continue to push their exculsionary agenda without people finally noticing.

    The last few years Bush was in office wasn't enough?

    For whom? The people who voted for him because he was the kind of guy they'd have a beer with? The kind of people who are just now noticing how shitty their side is are the people who'd been clinging to 'both sides' arguments. Slowly, ever so slowly, some people are finally seeing that no matter how bad one side can be, the other is demonstrably worse.

    Some of those people were coming over to sanity with Bush. That said, it's foolish to expect all Republicans to embrace the light and become Democrats no matter how cray cray the party is. That's not who the Democrats sole focus should be on, its pleasing their voters - even the GOP know this.

  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    One might suggest, however, that his tenacious bipartisanship in the face of republican recalcitrance helped to expose most of their horribleness. Sadly at the expense of getting things done, but it's much harder for the right to continue to push their exculsionary agenda without people finally noticing.

    The last few years Bush was in office wasn't enough?

    For whom? The people who voted for him because he was the kind of guy they'd have a beer with? The kind of people who are just now noticing how shitty their side is are the people who'd been clinging to 'both sides' arguments. Slowly, ever so slowly, some people are finally seeing that no matter how bad one side can be, the other is demonstrably worse.

    Some of those people were coming over to sanity with Bush. That said, it's foolish to expect all Republicans to embrace the light and become Democrats no matter how cray cray the party is. That's not who the Democrats sole focus should be on, its pleasing their voters - even the GOP know this.

    And most of them went right off the fucking cliff crazy when a black man got elected to the White House.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Buttcleft
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    One might suggest, however, that his tenacious bipartisanship in the face of republican recalcitrance helped to expose most of their horribleness. Sadly at the expense of getting things done, but it's much harder for the right to continue to push their exculsionary agenda without people finally noticing.

    The last few years Bush was in office wasn't enough?

    For whom? The people who voted for him because he was the kind of guy they'd have a beer with? The kind of people who are just now noticing how shitty their side is are the people who'd been clinging to 'both sides' arguments. Slowly, ever so slowly, some people are finally seeing that no matter how bad one side can be, the other is demonstrably worse.

    Some of those people were coming over to sanity with Bush. That said, it's foolish to expect all Republicans to embrace the light and become Democrats no matter how cray cray the party is. That's not who the Democrats sole focus should be on, its pleasing their voters - even the GOP know this.

    And most of them went right off the fucking cliff crazy when a black man got elected to the White House.

    They were off that cliff before Obama got into the White House. They're the Republicans who were the 30%er's and the portion that hated Bush for not going far enough. It was never possible for the Democrats to appease them.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
    Harry Dresden
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular

    29% of your contry think that Jar-Jar was a good thing.

    Listen, until now I've never been a eugenics supporter. But I think desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Jar-Jar was a good thing.


    It helps me avoid people who make a fictional character into srsbsns.

    Julius
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Mvrck wrote: »
    One might suggest, however, that his tenacious bipartisanship in the face of republican recalcitrance helped to expose most of their horribleness. Sadly at the expense of getting things done, but it's much harder for the right to continue to push their exculsionary agenda without people finally noticing.

    The last few years Bush was in office wasn't enough?

    For whom? The people who voted for him because he was the kind of guy they'd have a beer with? The kind of people who are just now noticing how shitty their side is are the people who'd been clinging to 'both sides' arguments. Slowly, ever so slowly, some people are finally seeing that no matter how bad one side can be, the other is demonstrably worse.

    Some of those people were coming over to sanity with Bush. That said, it's foolish to expect all Republicans to embrace the light and become Democrats no matter how cray cray the party is. That's not who the Democrats sole focus should be on, its pleasing their voters - even the GOP know this.

    And most of them went right off the fucking cliff crazy when a black man got elected to the White House.

    They were off that cliff before Obama got into the White House. They're the Republicans who were the 30%er's and the portion that hated Bush for not going far enough. It was never possible for the Democrats to appease them.

    Republicans always go full retard when a Democrat is in office.

    Never like they did when they lost to President Obama, however. Who won despite Republican attempts at levels of Voter Supression

    Buttcleft on
    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    One might suggest, however, that his tenacious bipartisanship in the face of republican recalcitrance helped to expose most of their horribleness. Sadly at the expense of getting things done, but it's much harder for the right to continue to push their exculsionary agenda without people finally noticing.

    The last few years Bush was in office wasn't enough?

    For whom? The people who voted for him because he was the kind of guy they'd have a beer with? The kind of people who are just now noticing how shitty their side is are the people who'd been clinging to 'both sides' arguments. Slowly, ever so slowly, some people are finally seeing that no matter how bad one side can be, the other is demonstrably worse.

    Some of those people were coming over to sanity with Bush. That said, it's foolish to expect all Republicans to embrace the light and become Democrats no matter how cray cray the party is. That's not who the Democrats sole focus should be on, its pleasing their voters - even the GOP know this.

    And most of them went right off the fucking cliff crazy when a black man got elected to the White House.

    They were off that cliff before Obama got into the White House. They're the Republicans who were the 30%er's and the portion that hated Bush for not going far enough. It was never possible for the Democrats to appease them.

    Republicans always go full retard when a Democrat is in office.

    Never like they did when they lost to President Obama, however. Who won despite Republican attempts at levels of Voter Supression

    All that is is a higher degree, they haven't change strategies. Had Bush remained a favored son to the GOP and Obama was a white man they'd still be trying to impeach him over bullshit. In the mean time a Republican president can commit war crimes openly and the Democrats won't or can't pursue justice while they're in office (and afterward with a Dem in the White House), even against people who aren't high ranking politicians. The Democrats have been silent over Bush administration's offenses since he left office and there is no attempt at investigations or prosecutions for the laws that were broken and they're meant to be the "good" party.

    Harry Dresden on
    Edith Upwards
  • zllehszllehs Hiding in a box, waiting to strike.Registered User regular
    Whats more astonishing is the Rights rewriting of history.

    So let me get this straight...

    We went to war in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people... not WMDs and we didn't torture and even if we did (which we didn't) it was to ensure our protection and we have to do ANYTHING to ensure our freedom right?

    Democrats have been spineless when it comes to holding republican Presidents accountable for their lies and CRIMES for decades now.

    SEE: Ronald Reagan (See Ronald Reagan for "Rewriting history" too)

    chrishallett83Edith UpwardsSpoitGaddezMrVyngaard
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Lalala, what's over here then?
    Melonlegs wrote:
    Rep. Steve King (R-IA) refused to utter the word "impeachment" on Sunday, but warned that if President Obama used executive action to defer more deportations of undocumented immigrants, it might be the only option left for Congress.

    "None of us want to do the thing that’s left for us as an alternative," King said on "Fox News Sunday" when host Chris Wallace asked if Obama delayed more deportations could lead to impeachment.

    "I think Congress has to sit down, have a serious look at the rest of this constitution, and that includes that ‘i’ word that we don’t want to say," King continued, explaining that executive actions would trigger impeachment talk. "And I only say that now on this program because I want to encourage the president, 'Please don’t put don’t put America into a constitutional crisis.'"

    When Wallace pressed King on whether impeachment was "on the table," King echoed his concerns on immigration.

    “Where would we draw the line otherwise? If that’s not enough to bring that about, then I don’t know what would be," he said. "We’ve never seen anything in this country like a president that says, "I’m going to make up all immigration law that I choose, and I’m going to drive this thing regardless of the resistance in Congress.'"

    King has called for impeachment before, though most Republicans in the House say that they don't want to impeach the President.

    Can anybody read that? I'm only seeing 'derpderpderpderpderp'.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    In related news...
    After stumbling out of the gate last month, militia activists in Texas are now appearing along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a vigilante campaign to “secure our border” in the midst of a refugee crisis involving unaccompanied children from Central America.

    According to a handful of news reports out of Texas, the militiamen – who initially were nowhere to be seen after publicizing their plans last month – are now conducting patrols in some areas in hopes of stopping incursions by border crossers.

    [...]

    Strikingly, the patrols are being organized secretively, and all the militiamen involved have insisted on anonymity.

    This can only end well.


    Like the picture of the doods playing at Ghooooooooosts! Also, that flag? It's a thing. This seems to cover it:
    The flag is representative of the estimated 3% of Americans that actually fought at any one time in the first revolutionary war.

    The III%er movement was started by Sipsey Street Irregulars owner Mike Vanderbogh. Those that follow the III% movement are essentially saying that they will be the III% fighting when/if the time comes again.

    Yup. This can only end well.

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    He really said, "the 'I' word"?

    It's like being back in elementary school.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Wasn't it Louis CK who said that if you're going to use that kind of euphemism, you might as well just say the word since now everybody is thinking it? If you feel you can't say the word, and bowdlerising it isn't going to help, then how about not saying it at all?

    Just sayin'.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    In related news...
    After stumbling out of the gate last month, militia activists in Texas are now appearing along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a vigilante campaign to “secure our border” in the midst of a refugee crisis involving unaccompanied children from Central America.

    According to a handful of news reports out of Texas, the militiamen – who initially were nowhere to be seen after publicizing their plans last month – are now conducting patrols in some areas in hopes of stopping incursions by border crossers.

    [...]

    Strikingly, the patrols are being organized secretively, and all the militiamen involved have insisted on anonymity.

    This can only end well.


    Like the picture of the doods playing at Ghooooooooosts! Also, that flag? It's a thing. This seems to cover it:
    The flag is representative of the estimated 3% of Americans that actually fought at any one time in the first revolutionary war.

    The III%er movement was started by Sipsey Street Irregulars owner Mike Vanderbogh. Those that follow the III% movement are essentially saying that they will be the III% fighting when/if the time comes again.

    Yup. This can only end well.

    I'm sure you're going to get 9 million americans who want to fight a brutal fight to the death against the cops or become suicide bombers because Obama ... uh

    I guess he uh

    I'm not sure what Obama did to them, he hasn't even really raised their taxes

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    You go to government with the tyrant you have, not the tyrant you'd like to have.

    Me? I'd like to have Vetinari. Short of that? I find I'm okay with the current levels of tyranny.

    chrishallett83TofystedethSurfpossumJobless AnarchistNought
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    In related news...
    After stumbling out of the gate last month, militia activists in Texas are now appearing along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a vigilante campaign to “secure our border” in the midst of a refugee crisis involving unaccompanied children from Central America.

    According to a handful of news reports out of Texas, the militiamen – who initially were nowhere to be seen after publicizing their plans last month – are now conducting patrols in some areas in hopes of stopping incursions by border crossers.

    [...]

    Strikingly, the patrols are being organized secretively, and all the militiamen involved have insisted on anonymity.

    This can only end well.


    Like the picture of the doods playing at Ghooooooooosts! Also, that flag? It's a thing. This seems to cover it:
    The flag is representative of the estimated 3% of Americans that actually fought at any one time in the first revolutionary war.

    The III%er movement was started by Sipsey Street Irregulars owner Mike Vanderbogh. Those that follow the III% movement are essentially saying that they will be the III% fighting when/if the time comes again.

    Yup. This can only end well.

    I fully expect there to be reports within a month of those proud American patriots shooting children and putting their bodies on display because they dared to cross the border.

    Buttcleft on
    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
  • HuuHuu Registered User regular
    In related news...
    After stumbling out of the gate last month, militia activists in Texas are now appearing along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a vigilante campaign to “secure our border” in the midst of a refugee crisis involving unaccompanied children from Central America.

    According to a handful of news reports out of Texas, the militiamen – who initially were nowhere to be seen after publicizing their plans last month – are now conducting patrols in some areas in hopes of stopping incursions by border crossers.

    [...]

    Strikingly, the patrols are being organized secretively, and all the militiamen involved have insisted on anonymity.

    This can only end well.


    Like the picture of the doods playing at Ghooooooooosts! Also, that flag? It's a thing. This seems to cover it:
    The flag is representative of the estimated 3% of Americans that actually fought at any one time in the first revolutionary war.

    The III%er movement was started by Sipsey Street Irregulars owner Mike Vanderbogh. Those that follow the III% movement are essentially saying that they will be the III% fighting when/if the time comes again.

    Yup. This can only end well.

    So a bunch of morons grab their guns to go oppose a bunch of starved and confused children crossing the border.

    Sounds like proud Texans to me.

  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    Huu wrote: »
    In related news...
    After stumbling out of the gate last month, militia activists in Texas are now appearing along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a vigilante campaign to “secure our border” in the midst of a refugee crisis involving unaccompanied children from Central America.

    According to a handful of news reports out of Texas, the militiamen – who initially were nowhere to be seen after publicizing their plans last month – are now conducting patrols in some areas in hopes of stopping incursions by border crossers.

    [...]

    Strikingly, the patrols are being organized secretively, and all the militiamen involved have insisted on anonymity.

    This can only end well.


    Like the picture of the doods playing at Ghooooooooosts! Also, that flag? It's a thing. This seems to cover it:
    The flag is representative of the estimated 3% of Americans that actually fought at any one time in the first revolutionary war.

    The III%er movement was started by Sipsey Street Irregulars owner Mike Vanderbogh. Those that follow the III% movement are essentially saying that they will be the III% fighting when/if the time comes again.

    Yup. This can only end well.

    So a bunch of morons grab their guns to go oppose a bunch of starved and confused children crossing the border.

    Sounds like proud Texans to me.

    Sometimes I wish we'd let Mexico just take back Texas

    and Arizona.

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
    SquigieMild Confusion
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    You know, I'm hardly a scholar on the subject of immigration in the US from latin America, but it seems to me that if you have kids travelling from fucking Honduras to get a better life in the US they've probably done more to have a shot at citizenship then most people who got it by accident of birth.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    RchanenChanusHuuMarathonKamarCorehealerMrVyngaardCalicaWraith260Jobless AnarchistStolls
  • yossarian_livesyossarian_lives Registered User regular
    So what happens if/when these dudes murder someone crossing the border? The situation is already fucked, the last thing we need is a bunch of domestic terrorists murdering children. Oh wait, I'm so very sorry. We can't call them terrorists because they're white god fearing conservatives. Maybe the president will have to send in the National Guard if only to protect these kids from the "patriots" patrolling the border.

    "I see everything twice!"


  • frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    One might suggest, however, that his tenacious bipartisanship in the face of republican recalcitrance helped to expose most of their horribleness. Sadly at the expense of getting things done, but it's much harder for the right to continue to push their exculsionary agenda without people finally noticing.

    The last few years Bush was in office wasn't enough?

    For whom? The people who voted for him because he was the kind of guy they'd have a beer with? The kind of people who are just now noticing how shitty their side is are the people who'd been clinging to 'both sides' arguments. Slowly, ever so slowly, some people are finally seeing that no matter how bad one side can be, the other is demonstrably worse.

    Some of those people were coming over to sanity with Bush. That said, it's foolish to expect all Republicans to embrace the light and become Democrats no matter how cray cray the party is. That's not who the Democrats sole focus should be on, its pleasing their voters - even the GOP know this.

    And most of them went right off the fucking cliff crazy when a black man got elected to the White House.

    They were off that cliff before Obama got into the White House. They're the Republicans who were the 30%er's and the portion that hated Bush for not going far enough. It was never possible for the Democrats to appease them.

    Republicans always go full retard when a Democrat is in office.

    Never like they did when they lost to President Obama, however. Who won despite Republican attempts at levels of Voter Supression

    All that is is a higher degree, they haven't change strategies. Had Bush remained a favored son to the GOP and Obama was a white man they'd still be trying to impeach him over bullshit. In the mean time a Republican president can commit war crimes openly and the Democrats won't or can't pursue justice while they're in office (and afterward with a Dem in the White House), even against people who aren't high ranking politicians. The Democrats have been silent over Bush administration's offenses since he left office and there is no attempt at investigations or prosecutions for the laws that were broken and they're meant to be the "good" party.

    There's good reason for this, the Dems are doing the right thing. Every president we've had has committed crimes, and every conflict we've ever been in has involved war crimes or crimes against humanity. If we were to actually charge every president for the crimes they commit, we'll we'd be hanging both Bushes, Clinton, Carter, and Obama right about now. We wouldn't be able to prosecute a war, or even defend ourselves, if we didn't do horrific things. That's the nature of the beast and why we should avoid wars if at all possible, and make damn sure the reason is important enough to justify all the shitty things that happen in wars when we don't. Granted W's crimes were worse than Clinton's, but it's not the criminality of W's wars that stands out, it's the sheer fail parade they were. Frankly we don't know the depth of Obama's yet, but for sheer criminality and brutality W doesn't really stand out. He stands out in that he fucked it all up.

    Which is why the Democrats are doing the responsible thing and not going down that road to hell paved with good intentions, and the idiot Republicans want to open a can of worms. The lack of prosecution from the Democrats is a very good reason to vote for them and proves they are responsible.

    l7qudl3uxpxz.jpg

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    100,000+ dead Iraqis: not brutal! And lying to start a war: not criminal!

    Anyway, your point really is that Ford was an asshole and utterly wrong. Because Carter's the only President since Nixon who couldn't have been impeached for a serious felony or covering up a felony. This is a problem for a democracy.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    iTunesIsEvil
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    It's true that if every election ended in the new government prosecuting the previous one, we'd have some problems. But the end result of your argument is that politicians are above the law, that the only consequences keeping them in line is their next election. That's also a pretty dangerous path and it's one we've been walking for at least a few decades now, with the resulting increase in executive power and decrease in the public's trust in government. Is there no middle ground there?

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    joshofalltradesenlightenedbumGnome-InterruptusJuliusRoz
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's true that if every election ended in the new government prosecuting the previous one, we'd have some problems. But the end result of your argument is that politicians are above the law, that the only consequences keeping them in line is their next election. That's also a pretty dangerous path and it's one we've been walking for at least a few decades now, with the resulting increase in executive power and decrease in the public's trust in government. Is there no middle ground there?

    Not without a broad societal agreement on what constitutes a crime for an elected official.

  • frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's true that if every election ended in the new government prosecuting the previous one, we'd have some problems. But the end result of your argument is that politicians are above the law, that the only consequences keeping them in line is their next election. That's also a pretty dangerous path and it's one we've been walking for at least a few decades now, with the resulting increase in executive power and decrease in the public's trust in government. Is there no middle ground there?

    They are kinda above the law. We've tortured before, we've killed millions, we've interned the Japanese, we nuked people. But it is "above the law" because it's needed for it to work. A lot of the work the intelligence community and military does is flat out illegal if you or I were to do it. And if someone did it to our nation we'd kill them if we had the chance, and that's why the side that loses in a war gets tried and the side that wins doesn't.

    The judgement should come through elections. I'll leave 2000 out because nobody knew what they were buying into, but we as a nation sent Bush back into office in 2004 knowing full well what the fuck was going on. That's our chance to fix things and make things right. To an extent we did that with Obama, because he was always an establishment on economics and a fiscal conservative, but he was against the war and thus he won. We could have sent a stronger message in 2004 but we didn't. As an electorate we have to decide what is wrong and what is right, because the powers we grant our leaders are vast and lethal so they can deal with the threats we face.

    I don't blame Obama or the Democrats for not putting the prior administration on trial, that was the correct decision. I blame the country for electing Bush to a second term, that was the wrong decision.

    l7qudl3uxpxz.jpg

    Gaddez
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's true that if every election ended in the new government prosecuting the previous one, we'd have some problems. But the end result of your argument is that politicians are above the law, that the only consequences keeping them in line is their next election. That's also a pretty dangerous path and it's one we've been walking for at least a few decades now, with the resulting increase in executive power and decrease in the public's trust in government. Is there no middle ground there?

    Not without a broad societal agreement on what constitutes a crime for an elected official.

    Hummers. Hummers and being black.

    chrishallett83
  • ArdolArdol Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's true that if every election ended in the new government prosecuting the previous one, we'd have some problems. But the end result of your argument is that politicians are above the law, that the only consequences keeping them in line is their next election. That's also a pretty dangerous path and it's one we've been walking for at least a few decades now, with the resulting increase in executive power and decrease in the public's trust in government. Is there no middle ground there?

    They are kinda above the law. We've tortured before, we've killed millions, we've interned the Japanese, we nuked people. But it is "above the law" because it's needed for it to work. A lot of the work the intelligence community and military does is flat out illegal if you or I were to do it. And if someone did it to our nation we'd kill them if we had the chance, and that's why the side that loses in a war gets tried and the side that wins doesn't.

    The judgement should come through elections. I'll leave 2000 out because nobody knew what they were buying into, but we as a nation sent Bush back into office in 2004 knowing full well what the fuck was going on. That's our chance to fix things and make things right. To an extent we did that with Obama, because he was always an establishment on economics and a fiscal conservative, but he was against the war and thus he won. We could have sent a stronger message in 2004 but we didn't. As an electorate we have to decide what is wrong and what is right, because the powers we grant our leaders are vast and lethal so they can deal with the threats we face.

    I don't blame Obama or the Democrats for not putting the prior administration on trial, that was the correct decision. I blame the country for electing Bush to a second term, that was the wrong decision.

    The hell it is.

    We as a country do not need to commit atrocities in order to ensure our own survival.

    Harry Dresdenchrishallett83ButtcleftKamarMild ConfusionlonelyahavaAngelHedgieMan in the MistsStollsMrVyngaard
  • frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    Ardol wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's true that if every election ended in the new government prosecuting the previous one, we'd have some problems. But the end result of your argument is that politicians are above the law, that the only consequences keeping them in line is their next election. That's also a pretty dangerous path and it's one we've been walking for at least a few decades now, with the resulting increase in executive power and decrease in the public's trust in government. Is there no middle ground there?

    They are kinda above the law. We've tortured before, we've killed millions, we've interned the Japanese, we nuked people. But it is "above the law" because it's needed for it to work. A lot of the work the intelligence community and military does is flat out illegal if you or I were to do it. And if someone did it to our nation we'd kill them if we had the chance, and that's why the side that loses in a war gets tried and the side that wins doesn't.

    The judgement should come through elections. I'll leave 2000 out because nobody knew what they were buying into, but we as a nation sent Bush back into office in 2004 knowing full well what the fuck was going on. That's our chance to fix things and make things right. To an extent we did that with Obama, because he was always an establishment on economics and a fiscal conservative, but he was against the war and thus he won. We could have sent a stronger message in 2004 but we didn't. As an electorate we have to decide what is wrong and what is right, because the powers we grant our leaders are vast and lethal so they can deal with the threats we face.

    I don't blame Obama or the Democrats for not putting the prior administration on trial, that was the correct decision. I blame the country for electing Bush to a second term, that was the wrong decision.

    The hell it is.

    We as a country do not need to commit atrocities in order to ensure our own survival.

    We got everything we have through atrocities and we prevent people from committing atrocities by committing atrocities. The people who refuse to get run over by someone who doesn't have those sort of internal guards. If we're going to punish people for doing them every president alive is on a one way ticket to death row. That's the nature of the world.

    l7qudl3uxpxz.jpg

  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    A god damned separate thread about atrocities?

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Agreed

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Surprise! Benghazi was totally bullshit all along, concludes House Intelligence Committee.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Ardol
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    Surprise! That won't stop anyone.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
    SpoitNo-Quarterjmcdonald
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    but we as a nation sent Bush back into office in 2004 knowing full well what the fuck was going on.

    It's not quite so black and white though. Depending on one's opinion on Kerry as a candidate, he was either so weak that his own purple heart/war service was turned against him, or Bush's campaign people were just that fucking good. In the end it's probably a bit of both, but ultimately I think a lot of independents were forced into a hobson's choice.

    On the war crimes front, Obama had a press conference friday where he admitted that 1. The US tortured people after 9-11 (no bullshit rhetoric like "enhanced interrogation techniques") and 2. admitted it was wrong to do so. I was rather surprised, and while obviously it's of little relief to the poor bastards submitted to the torture, it's still an interesting change in this administration's stance on the topic.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    but we as a nation sent Bush back into office in 2004 knowing full well what the fuck was going on.

    It's not quite so black and white though. Depending on one's opinion on Kerry as a candidate, he was either so weak that his own purple heart/war service was turned against him, or Bush's campaign people were just that fucking good. In the end it's probably a bit of both, but ultimately I think a lot of independents were forced into a hobson's choice.

    On the war crimes front, Obama had a press conference friday where he admitted that 1. The US tortured people after 9-11 (no bullshit rhetoric like "enhanced interrogation techniques") and 2. admitted it was wrong to do so. I was rather surprised, and while obviously it's of little relief to the poor bastards submitted to the torture, it's still an interesting change in this administration's stance on the topic.

    That's what started this tangent. Go back a little bit and you'll find he said some incredibly stupid bullshit about it, too.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Kerry got fucked over hard by the swiftboaters who seized control of the talking points almost the entirety of Kerry's campaign iirc.

    Bush got re-elected by pushing heavy on the fear with his manipulation of the stupid terror alert level and other things.
    Surprise! Benghazi was totally bullshit all along, concludes House Intelligence Committee.

    I predict Republicans rejecting/challenging this at the first chance they get .

    Buttcleft on
    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
    Geth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Kerry got fucked over hard by the swiftboaters who seized control of the talking points almost the entirety of Kerry's campaign iirc.

    Bush got re-elected by pushing heavy on the fear with his manipulation of the stupid terror alert level and other things.

    Kerry's nominating convention was 10 years ago this week. The only good speech was given by a Senate hopeful with a funny name...

    (cough)

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    No-QuarterRchanenJazz
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    bush also hugely increased corn subsidies to win Iowa

  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    About the whole "Dems just stand at the side and let Republicans do terrible, illegal things." bit... Unless what I heard once on NPR was wrong (and they had a sound bite of the thing, so I suspect they didn't) Democrats did file articles of impeachment against Bush Jr. while he was in office.

    The reason none of us remember that was because a.) Democrats didn't have a supermajority in both houses, so it never got anywhere and was largely for show, and b.) News media was still dominated by Fox News and the like, who wouldn't give any credence to even a symbolic attempt to impeach a GOP President by actually reporting on it in a million years.

    steam_sig.png
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    I kinda have a hard time equating the crime of state sponsored tortue and lying under oath about getting your dick sucked.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    chrishallett83CantidoMrVyngaardjoshofalltradesAngelHedgieMan in the MistsSquigieStollsJazz
  • chrishallett83chrishallett83 Hi! Registered User regular
    I kinda have a hard time equating the crime of state sponsored tortue and lying under oath about getting your dick sucked.

    Yeah. Just a slight bit of difference there, methinks.

    Squigie
This discussion has been closed.