Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Obama Drops NDAA Veto.Follow

#52 Dec 16 2011 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ITT: Ugly doesn't want a bunch of Mexicans moving in next door.

They're free to be our neighbours, I just want a large yard between us.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#53 Dec 16 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,346 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
the one's least likely to try to disarm me.

The one most likely to disarm me is my wife. I'd consider getting a firearm except she'd probably divorce me.
How does she feel about crossbows?
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#54 Dec 16 2011 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,894 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
What, the part where I said that everyone involved with its passage should have been shot for treason or at least flogged? that includes the ones who wrote it. Its in the other thread.

Yeah, isn't there something you can do about that?
____________________________
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.
#55 Dec 16 2011 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,862 posts
we actually don't have a "merge thread" button. we should totally get one of those.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#56 Dec 16 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
I approve of the chaos that would cause. Smiley: grin
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#57 Dec 16 2011 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
***
3,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
the one's least likely to try to disarm me.

The one most likely to disarm me is my wife. I'd consider getting a firearm except she'd probably divorce me.

This is why I enjoy the fact my wife owns a gun, she's also got the only gun in the house that the government knows about. My precious .243 remains unknown.
____________________________

(V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg?
#58 Dec 16 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
eh my 2 cents for what it is worth.

Obama dropped the ball, but that doesn't really matter, the government of the united states (the whole government) has a single priotrity above all else, and that is to up hold the contents of the Constitution of United States. This bill screams doing the opposite. Everyone in a government position should be ashamed that this was even penned in the first place.

(I also hold the same feelings in regards to the PATRIOT act, amongst others.)

This is clearly striping citizens of their right to fair trials and due process. Which is completely against the Constitution. Everyone of the persons names on this bill should be removed and tried in court for attempting to usurp the rights of the people.

**** you went to war with England for less, now you let your own government turn your country into a police state.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#59 Dec 16 2011 at 2:49 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Then again this is what the majority of americans wanted so I think Obama politically made the right choice. It will be a good line in a debate.

"Look I gave the majority of Americans what they wanted in terms of detaining known and suspected terrorists. You have continued to time and time again hold up a budget plan that contains Tax changes that the Majority of Americans wanted. Mr. Romney, I think it is you who is out of touch with what Americans want from their government."

Win.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#60 Dec 16 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Well we don't want the terrorists to win do we? Smiley: rolleyes

Besides it's Obama. He's pretty much been willing to compromise on security concerns and environmental stuff.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#61 Dec 16 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
ITT: Ugly doesn't want a bunch of Mexicans moving in next door.

They're free to be our neighbours, I just want a large yard between us.


...for them to landscape.


Wait...what are we doing?

Edited, Dec 16th 2011 4:29pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#62 Dec 16 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
ArexLovesPie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
the one's least likely to try to disarm me.

The one most likely to disarm me is my wife. I'd consider getting a firearm except she'd probably divorce me.

This is why I enjoy the fact my wife owns a gun, she's also got the only gun in the house that the government knows about. My precious .243 remains unknown.


I only hope that what happened in New Orleans was the exception and not the rule..
Going door to door to the homes of registered owners and snatching their **** in the time when you they would most NEED them is QUITE ludicrous IMO. It would be like your local restaurant robbing your house of all your food just because they can cook better..

Then again I live in one of the two most UNfriendly gun states in the Union.. They'll probably declare martial law once Obama is out of office..
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#63 Dec 16 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Given that the blame was placed on Bush AND the GOP congress that wrote his rubber stamp legislation... Yeah, take a civics class.


Strange, given how often you make a big deal about how GOP opposition to something doesn't count if they didn't take direct and complete action to prevent it from happening. Like your pat answer whenever I point out that the GOP at least tried to investigate the housing bubble back in 2003 and 2005, but were blocked by the Dems. When that's the issue, you insist that we can't judge based on position since the GOP didn't actually succeed in getting those investigations going. So GOP and Dems are equally responsible in that case, but Obama gets a bye here?


I'd say you're being inconsistent, but it's really just a matter of realizing what criteria you are consistently using.


And frankly, in this case (and most of the evil Bush stuff you go on about), the issue wasn't particularly partisan. It's not like the Dems were all lined up on one side and the GOP lined up on the other, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Dec 16 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Strange, given how often you make a big deal about how GOP opposition to something doesn't count if they didn't take direct and complete action to prevent it from happening. Like your pat answer whenever I point out that the GOP at least tried to investigate the housing bubble back in 2003 and 2005, but were blocked by the Dems.

You mean the years when the GOP held majorities in both chambers of Congress? Which would, incidentally, include chairing every Congressional committee including investigation powers?

Yeah. Nice try though.

Quote:
I'd say you're being inconsistent, but...

...that would require you to know something about politics and history, I know.

Edited, Dec 16th 2011 8:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Dec 16 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
While I agree that there are some legitimate reasons to oppose this bill, it would help if people would not repeat claims that *aren't* part of those legitimate reasons (or even true!).

rdmcandie wrote:
This is clearly striping citizens of their right to fair trials and due process.


No, it's not (clearly or otherwise). The bill does not affect citizens within the US at all. And it does not change the possibility of a citizen who is captured abroad engaging in terrorist activities at all either. What it does do is clarify the US law with regards to foreign nationals who engage in terrorist acts against the US. And frankly, all this really does is codify what numerous court rulings have already determined in that regard.

Now, if you're one of those who thinks that detainment in Gitmo is illegal, then you'll be upset. But this doesn't change anything. We've been acting on these legal principles for a decade now. It's only a change from what many people wanted Obama to do (close Gitmo, end military detainment, eliminate the "unlawful combatant" status). So I suppose it makes sense for those who bought the Obama "hope and change" line 4 years ago to be upset about this. For those who are looking at the actual law, and the actual legal ramifications of this, it's not nearly so big a deal.

Quote:
Which is completely against the Constitution. Everyone of the persons names on this bill should be removed and tried in court for attempting to usurp the rights of the people.

(sh*t you went to war with England for less, now you let your own government turn your country into a police state.)


Sigh. Conclusions from false premise are false. Again, this law in no way changes the legal rights of citizens of the US.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Dec 16 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Strange, given how often you make a big deal about how GOP opposition to something doesn't count if they didn't take direct and complete action to prevent it from happening. Like your pat answer whenever I point out that the GOP at least tried to investigate the housing bubble back in 2003 and 2005, but were blocked by the Dems.

You mean the years when the GOP held majorities in both chambers of Congress?


Very slim majorities. Yes. What's your point?

Quote:
Which would, incidentally, include chairing every Congressional committee including investigation powers?


Sure. Again, what's your point? Remember when the Dems held majorities in both chambers of Congress but not the presidency? Didn't get what they wanted, did they? It was only when they held both by a large margin *and* held the White House that they got to pass what they wanted without having to give concessions.

And we can see how well that worked out, can't we?


I just always find it amusing how you attack the GOP for being partisan when they oppose what the Dems are trying to do, but when they do compromise with the Dems and exactly what they said was bad about what the Dems wanted happens, you effectively blame them for *not* being partisan and sticking to their guns. Apparently saying "We think this is a bad idea, but you wont allow this legislation to go forward without us letting you have it" isn't sufficient for the GOP to say "I told you so" when that compromise turns out to be a mistake?


Even more broadly, given the sheer number of things the GOP has compromised to the Dems which turned out to be huge mistakes should convince anyone that A) the Dems are either idiots or are deliberately trying to **** over the country, and B) that the GOP is justified to block most Dem ideas on partisan lines.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Dec 16 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Very slim majorities. Yes. What's your point?

Holy shit... I had no idea that they changed the rules during 2003 and 2005 so that "very slim" majorities were no longer ruling majorities. Here I was thinking that 50%+1 was still a controlling role back then.

Quote:
Sure. Again, what's your point? Remember when the Dems held majorities in both chambers of Congress but not the presidency? Didn't get what they wanted, did they?

And... you... thought... a... Democrat was in the White House in 2003 and 2005? Smiley: confused

Man, this "not getting your news from anywhere" thing is really hurting your arguments.

Quote:
I just always find it amusing how...

That's ok. I find it amusing that you have no concept of how our government works and will cry about Barney Frank because apparently a "very slim majority" was a whole different animal in 2003 and 2005 and you seem to think we had a Democrat in the Executive office Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Dec 16 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Very slim majorities. Yes. What's your point?

Holy shit... I had no idea that they changed the rules during 2003 and 2005 so that "very slim" majorities were no longer ruling majorities. Here I was thinking that 50%+1 was still a controlling role back then.


It's like you've never heard of a filibuster. But I know you have. Which leads me to assume you're just full of shit.

Um... And that's beyond the political aspect of things. A slim majority means that you can't afford to do anything that may cost you even a seat or two in the next election. Surely you understand that susceptibility to loss of those chair positions might just influence which things a party makes a priority and which issues they'll let drop if there's opposition.


It's like you have no understanding of how a minority party can hold up the majority party's agenda. But again, I know you know this because you've been complaining about it for the last 5 years. So I guess we're back to you being full of shit.

Quote:
Quote:
Sure. Again, what's your point? Remember when the Dems held majorities in both chambers of Congress but not the presidency? Didn't get what they wanted, did they?

And... you... thought... a... Democrat was in the White House in 2003 and 2005? Smiley: confused


No. Why do you think that? I'm sure there's some contorted logic you're applying here, but I don't see it. Perhaps if the contorted process brings you to a confusing and nonsensical result, you should see if there's another much more straightforward explanation which makes complete sense? Like maybe that I'm making a point about how political parties don't always get to do everything they want to do just because they hold a majority in Congress. Sometime the reason is because they don't hold a sufficient majority to overcome opposition and have to compromise. Other times it's because they don't hold the white house and can't overcome opposition from a veto (even threatened).

You choose the oddest moments to get tunnel vision on a topic Joph.

Quote:
Quote:
I just always find it amusing how...

That's ok. I find it amusing that you have no concept of how our government works and will cry about Barney Frank because apparently a "very slim majority" was a whole different animal in 2003 and 2005 and you seem to think we had a Democrat in the Executive office Smiley: laugh


Huh? The GOP had a slim majority in congress in 2005 Joph (if we're talking specifically about the Barney Frank incident, but they weren't much better off in 2003 either). You do recall that they lost control of both houses in 2006, right? You don't think that perhaps in 2005 they knew that they were on the edge of losing control and therefore weren't willing to push against any strong opposition?

Why do you suppose that so much of the legislation passed between 2001 and 2006 was bi-partisan? It was because the GOP never had the numbers to push anything truly partisan through. You love to insist therefore that they are equally responsible for the things they compromised on, as the party that insisted on those things as part of a compromise. But that makes no **** sense at all. If that was true, and you can make out the housing investigation failure as some kind of exception, then we should expect to see a whole bunch of legislation which passed on partisan lines over that time period. But we don't.


So where does that leave us? IMO, we should judge based on what a party wants, and recognize that it isn't always going to be able to get what it wants. But placing equal blame on the party that wants the thing that you don't like and the party that failed to fight hard enough to prevent it from happening is just plain silly. It's silly regardless of the specific issue. What's funny though is that you find it silly *only* when someone's trying to place equal blame on your party in those situations. You freely participate in the same silliness when it's the other party though.


So like I said. You appear to be inconsistent with your position on this sort of thing. But it's not really inconsistency. You are consistently pro-liberal and pro-Democrat no matter how irrational. That's perfectly ok, of course, except that you then pretend that this isn't the case and project it onto everyone else. To show you the contrast, I *don't* blame Obama for signing this bill. Now partially, it's because I don't think the bill is that big of a deal. But, if 5 years from now, it turns out that some provision that Obama (and the Dems) opposed but allowed to remain as part of a compromise ends out biting us in the ass, you will *never* hear me insist that Obama is equally responsible. I don't think it'll happen, but if it is, I will apply the same consistent reasoning I've applied all along.

You, on the other hand...


Edited, Dec 16th 2011 7:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Dec 16 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... And that's beyond the political aspect of things. A slim majority means that you can't afford to do anything that may cost you even a seat or two in the next election. Surely you understand that susceptibility to loss of those chair positions might just influence which things a party makes a priority and which issues they'll let drop if there's opposition.

So the GOP let politics get in the way of good governance? That's a much better way to look at the situation.
#70 Dec 16 2011 at 10:56 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,894 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... And that's beyond the political aspect of things. A slim majority means that you can't afford to do anything that may cost you even a seat or two in the next election. Surely you understand that susceptibility to loss of those chair positions might just influence which things a party makes a priority and which issues they'll let drop if there's opposition.

So the GOP let politics get in the way of good governance? That's a much better way to look at the situation.

Of course. That's the status quo. Desperately cling to whatever shreds of power you may have left.
____________________________
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.
#71 Dec 16 2011 at 11:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's like you've never heard of a filibuster. But I know you have. Which leads me to assume you're just full of shit.

Oh, OF COURSE! The magical House filibuster that prevents any sort of House investigation even when every committee is run by the Republicans! I forgot ALL about that! And it's written right next to the rule about the Special House Filibuster that stops any legislation from passing in the House. Apparently the dreaded and mysterious Barney Frank, a creature that exists in the House of Representatives, is able to enact this filibuster that has never before been seen in that chamber.

This is all very fascinating. Please continue to teach us more about Congress...

Quote:
Um... And that's beyond the political aspect of things. A slim majority means that you can't afford to do anything that may cost you even a seat or two in the next election.

Ah, so your argument is that the GOP refused to investigate or do anything about this out of fear of losing seats. Well, at least blaming the GOP for their pants-wetting cowardice is a step better than making up imaginary techniques.

Quote:
No. Why do you think that?

I'm sorry. I thought you had a reason for comparing why a GOP controlled House, Senate & Executive compared to a Democratic controlled House & Senate while the GOP controls the Executive. I mean, a reason besides desperation.

I guess you didn't. Ok, desperation it was, then.

Quote:
IMO, we should judge based on what a party wants

So, according to you, the GOP wants to retain their hold on power at any cost to America, even when they just know that things are going to go terribly, and they stand for caving in terror to anything that might threaten their precious seats in Congress. Ok. Makes me wonder why you support these guys so stridently, but I think we're on the same page here.

Well, your spin about why the GOP was at the mercy of this mighty and mythical Barney Frank is very enlightening. And your understanding of our government was funny as hell. So I thank you for posting it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Dec 17 2011 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot


I dunno, Joph, he does look pretty sinister.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#73 Dec 17 2011 at 7:17 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,688 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Screenshot


I dunno, Joph, he does look pretty sinister.


Very sinister indeed.

Edited, Dec 17th 2011 8:17am by Deadgye
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CDT
Omegavegeta, Wizorb, Anonymous Guests (37)