• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaron

Member
B-Dubs said:
Wouldn't most execs give their left nut for those kinds of numbers?

Guess we can't have anything bad about Saint Reagan.
Click to expand...
Only a third drop is insanely good. Most lose 50% or more. Fox News continues to distort facts and poison people's minds anywhere they can.
 
D

Diablos

Member
PhoenixPause said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ves-obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php?ref=fpa

Good.
Click to expand...
You can do this too Pennsylvania.

God. fucking. dammit. >_<

GhaleonEB said:
Great news. More GOP controlled states accepted the expansion than I expected after the SCOTUS ruling. The budgetary benefits for the state are significant, let alone the moral reasons to extend coverage.

Obama, between Summers (ug) and Syria (ack) is about to make two huge mistakes. Very disappointed.
Click to expand...
Devil's Advocate: But what if the strikes are limited to sites where the chemicals are? Why should we let Syria get away with killing a bunch of kids?
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Summers isn't going to be Fed Chair. It always seems to be one person pushing for him to get the job, not the President. In today's media, all you need is one paper willing to run a story based on "someone affiliated with the Obama administration" and suddenly articles spring up everywhere.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Diablos said:
Devil's Advocate: But what if the strikes are limited to sites where the chemicals are? Why should we let Syria get away with killing a bunch of kids?
Click to expand...
Regardless of what the strikes target, and whether any of us feels its a good idea, had they not been killing kids already?

It's baffling to me that there are different reactions based not on whether they were murderred, but how.
 
I

ISOM

Member
sc0la said:
Regardless of what the strikes target, and whether any of us feels its a good idea, had they not been killing kids already?

It's baffling to me that there are different reactions based not on whether they were murderred, but how.
Click to expand...

A chemical weapon is much more indiscriminate in it's killing power than a rocket or gun fire. Some weapons should not be allowed out of their bottles and chemical weapons are one of them.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
IGSaint said:
A chemical weapon is much more indiscriminate in it's killing power than a rocket or gun fire. Some weapons should not be allowed out of their bottles and chemical weapons are one of them.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how killing hundreds is a red line after 100,000 people were killed. The same people could have been killed via shelling of conventional munitions and we'd do nothing. Yes, chemical weapons are more indiscriminate. But that word also applies to the casualties that came before.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
It's kind of fucked up that killing people with standard munitions is considered okay, but if you do it in a specific way, oh ho ho mister, you DUN GOOFED
 
I

ISOM

Member
GhaleonEB said:
I fail to see how killing hundreds is a red line after 100,000 people were killed. The same people could have been killed via shelling of conventional munitions and we'd do nothing. Yes, chemical weapons are more indiscriminate. But that word also applies to the casualties that came before.
Click to expand...

This is specifically about chemical weapons though not the killing of childrens or citizens.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
So there was a response in the daily university newspaper towards that article I posted yesterday dealing with homosexuality. While a decent stab, it wasn't a very good rebuttle...
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
IGSaint said:
This is specifically about chemical weapons though not the killing of childrens or citizens.
Click to expand...

Right, and my point is, why? If it's not about who were killed by them, how is it logical to initiate military strikes when they are used and not when other weapons are used to kill the same people?

My view is intervention in conflicts like this should be about the lives that are being lost. But that's not the priorities of the administration; they're not making that case. It's just, using weapon X to kill a hundred thousand people means we'll do nothing. Using weapon Y to kill a few hundred means we'll start bombing. It's very strange.
 
D

delirium

Member
I think because the US wants to set precedent against using chemical weapons against a civilian population. It's in the national interest of America to set such a precedent (also they can't seem to be backing down when giving Assad an ultimatum).
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
watching the 50th anniversary march speeches and shaking my head. Jesus christ, some pretty pathetic shit. Someone just said striking down the VRA will ensure a black man is never elected president again, and compared the black robes of SC justices to the white robes of the KKK.
thepotatoman said:
Well Michigan did vote for the Obama of Obamacare fame 54%-45%, so it would look incredibly bad for them to fight against it. I'm still surprised GOP controls anything in Michigan. I don't know how they allowed Republicans to take power of the ability to gerrymander, but I guess 2010 was crazy for everyone.
Click to expand...

Republicans literally took over the entire state (not including Detroit) in 2010. Nearly every town, city, etc is republican dominated now. I've admitted before that I voted for Snyder because I thought he could fix the state, and was tired of the MI democrat party after Jenny From The Block's tenure. But I was dead wrong.

My parents did a lot of the OFA's local meetings. I attended one and heard waaaay more anti-Snyder rhetoric and pure anger than anyone being upset with Romney. It was around August/September when Obama was crushing Romney though.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Oh no.

NvhqEMs.png
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Obama discussing black on black violence, parents not raising their children...guess Fox will ignore that and focus on the MLK-esque income inequality bits.
 
E

Esch

Banned
Tamanon said:
Summers isn't going to be Fed Chair. It always seems to be one person pushing for him to get the job, not the President. In today's media, all you need is one paper willing to run a story based on "someone affiliated with the Obama administration" and suddenly articles spring up everywhere.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Summers won't get it?
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
thepotatoman said:
Well Michigan did vote for the Obama of Obamacare fame 54%-45%, so it would look incredibly bad for them to fight against it. I'm still surprised GOP controls anything in Michigan. I don't know how they allowed Republicans to take power of the ability to gerrymander, but I guess 2010 was crazy for everyone.
Click to expand...

I think people drastically underestimate the amount of Tea Party districts in Michigan. It's insane. Almost the entire northern half of the lower peninsula, along with most of the upper peninsula.
 
V

Videoneon

Member
PhoenixPause said:
Obama discussing black on black violence, parents not raising their children...guess Fox will ignore that and focus on the MLK-esque income inequality bits.
Click to expand...

Hehe, so they're going to ignore the things that most fall in line to the narrative they like to craft, and attack Obama's socialist master plan. For the sake of attacking Bams.

ivysaur12 said:
Oh no.

NvhqEMs.png
Click to expand...

Par for the course unfortunately. Bill O'Reilly whines about stuff like this often.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is making no excuses for unemployed Americans, urging them to get off their butts and start working, and criticizing the unemployed for failing to contribute to the standard of living.

Speaking to a group of conservatives in Charleston, S.C., on Monday evening, the Iowa Congressman said that it wasn&#8217;t the economy that was sluggish, but the 100 million non-working Americans giving up jobs to &#8220;unskilled&#8221; illegal immigrants&#8230;.

&#8220;We borrow money from China to pay people not to work and we say we&#8217;re going to grow our GDP because we have sympathy for people that are in this country illegally,&#8221; he said.
King equated America to a family, comparing the amount of non-working Americans to children refusing to do their chores.

&#8220;Now what kind of a family &#8212; if you had six kids and a third of those kids would say &#8216;I&#8217;m not doing the chores, Mom,&#8217;&#8221; King said. &#8220;&#8230;pretty soon those kids would be on the &#8216;you get to eat after you do the work.&#8217;&#8221;
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/po..._08/conservative_jobs_plan_in_a_nu046630.php?

Welp.
 
K

KingK

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Right, and my point is, why? If it's not about who were killed by them, how is it logical to initiate military strikes when they are used and not when other weapons are used to kill the same people?

My view is intervention in conflicts like this should be about the lives that are being lost. But that's not the priorities of the administration; they're not making that case. It's just, using weapon X to kill a hundred thousand people means we'll do nothing. Using weapon Y to kill a few hundred means we'll start bombing. It's very strange.
Click to expand...

I lean towards not supporting a strike on Syria, but I at least understand where the administration is coming from. Much like with nuclear weapons, it is an international norm to not use any other WMDs (like chemical weapons). The international community has reached the consensus that, while obviously warfare and violence can't ever totally disappear, certain weapons' use should never be tolerated because of the precedence it sets for future conflicts. Allowing Syria to use chemical weapons without consequence would undermine the legitimacy of claims that these weapons are not allowed in any circumstance according to international norms.

However, with Syria right now, that situation is just so fucked up and messy that I'm not convinced our involvement could really accomplish much of anything. So until I see a plan with a specific and limited goal, and a way to reach that goal, I can't support the strikes. I am open to the idea, but I have yet to be convinced by any proposed military action and I'm not sure there even is any action that would accomplish anything because of how messed up the conflict has become.

I would also have been open to the idea of limited intervention to prevent civilian massacres (much like in Libya) regardless of the chemical weapons, but run into the same problem of not having any plans that don't just waste resources without accomplishing anything/potentially making things worse.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Just gonna drop this here:

David Marsters, 68, who is running for selectman, says he told Secret Service agents who questioned him Tuesday that he was not threatening the president when he posted the message at 8:17 p.m. Friday. It appeared above a picture of Obama and a link to a story about how some Republican lawmakers think the president deserves to be impeached. The message said, "Shoot the ..." and included a racial slur. "I think it's a lot of hogwash," Marsters said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "I did not threaten the president. ... I might have used the wrong words. ... I didn't say I was going to do it."
Click to expand...

But don't worry. The dude has an explanation:

He said his post was taken out of context."What I really meant to say is, 'When are we going to get rid of this (expletive),'" he said. "I should have said, 'I hope the bastard dies.'"
Click to expand...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Loose_Talk_From_The_Woods_Of_Maine
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Samk said:
"We borrow money from china"

Lovely. Please someone with knowledge of how economics works tear this guy apart.
Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of my friends who lean right when they talk about China basically owning American because we have so much debt with them.

They hold less than 10% of our debt. They just own the majority of our foreign debt, but that's still not the huge portion the GOP would have it's constituents believe. China is a like a big scary word for these people.

Oblivion said:
Just gonna drop this here:



But don't worry. The dude has an explanation:



http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Loose_Talk_From_The_Woods_Of_Maine
Click to expand...


What's amazing is that he think his explanation somehow makes him look like less of an asshole.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-obama-has-failed-to-justify-intervening

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who helped sell Congress and the American people on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under former President George W. Bush, believes the Obama administration has failed to justify any potential military intervention in Syria.

“One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto scheduled to air later Wednesday, as quoted by The Hill.

White House press secretary Jay Carney pressed the administration's argument earlier this week, telling reporters that failing to respond to a reported chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime in Syria would pose a "significant" threat to U.S. national security.

Rumsfeld made news in June when he told a conservative gathering that he was unsure if President Barack Obama had switched sides in the War on Terror.

"You know, I just don't feel competent to answer," he told a questioner. "I can't tell."
Click to expand...

HA!
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Fenderputty said:
I always get a kick out of my friends who lean right when they talk about China basically owning American because we have so much debt with them.

They hold less than 10% of our debt. They just own the majority of our foreign debt, but that's still not the huge portion the GOP would have it's constituents believe. China is a like a big scary word for these people.
Click to expand...

That, and what we promised to pay them--US dollars--is something we create by entering numbers on a computer. Joke's on them.
 
S

Samk

Member
empty vessel said:
That, and what we promised to pay them--US dollars--is something we create by entering numbers on a computer. Joke's on them.
Click to expand...

I see it as an issue of national security anyway. I'd think it make sense for super powers to hold each others debt: it lessens the incentives for war (proxy or otherwise)
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X (twitter) is now worth 9.4 billion
Business 2
98
4K
SlimySnake replied
Jensen Huang's net worth passes Intel's market cap
Business
34
2K
Hawking Radiation replied
Any deals on LG OLED 77" C1 vs C2?
6
675
The Infectious Paradox replied
LTTP: Dead Space 3 (2013) via PS3 Ultra Slim
17
536
WoJ replied
"Gonna be worth tuning into the Xbox Tokyo game show stream next week" says Tom Warren
Rumor 2 3 4
163
7K
Tiago Rodrigues replied
Top Bottom