• 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.
C

ClassyPenguin

Banned
Samk said:
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)
Click to expand...
We pay USD for their products, makes sense that they would hold bonds and whatnot as a kind of savings account.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Gotchaye said:
There's more: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/...s-shoot-posting-wasnt-a-threat-against-obama/

He said his comments would have been no different had the president been Mitt Romney. “I would say, ‘Shoot the n*****, because white people are n******, too.” He said where he comes from (Massachusetts) black people call white people by the same slur.​
Click to expand...

I hate white people who remind me of black people just as much as I hate black people, so that means I'm not racist.

Also that black person who reminds me of white people is ok too. See I'm extra tolerant!
 
J

Jimothy

Member
Does it make anyone else cringe when people refer to the Democratic Party as the "democrat party"? Everyone who does so comes off like an uneducated mouthbreather.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Oblivion said:
Former deadbeat dad/Rep. Joe Walsh too, has a dream:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ying-ex-Rep-Joe-Walsh-has-a-dream?detail=hide
Click to expand...

I have a dream that young unmarried black women will say "no" to young black men who want to have sex.
Click to expand...

Just to check, as a white man I'm still entitled to as much sex as I want, right? I mean I want to tap into that feeling of superiority over black people, but I don't want to actually sacrifice anything in my lifestyle (as hypothetical as that sex filled lifestyle may be).
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Jimothy said:
Does it make anyone else cringe when people refer to the Democratic Party as the "democrat party"? Everyone who does so comes off like an uneducated mouthbreather.
Click to expand...

Why do they say that, anyway? Is it cause "Democrat" sounds less legitimate than "Democratic"?
 
Rhomega Beta

Rhomega Beta

Member
thepotatoman said:
Just to check, as a white man I'm still entitled to as much sex as I want, right? I mean I want to tap into that feeling of superiority over black people, but I don't want to actually sacrifice anything in my lifestyle (as hypothetical as that sex filled lifestyle may be).
Click to expand...

No, pre-marital sex is still a grievous sin and you're going to hell for not waiting until your wedding night.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Not a single Republican elected official stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday with activists, actors, lawmakers and former presidents invited to mark the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington — a notable absence for a party seeking to attract the support of minority voters.

Event organizers said Wednesday that they invited top Republicans, all of whom declined to attend because of scheduling conflicts or ill health.

...

Michael Steele, the first black Republican lieutenant governor of Maryland and a former Republican National Committee chairman, said event organizers told him that they were having difficulty attracting Republican speakers. He faulted GOP leaders for not making time to attend.

“It’s part of a continuing narrative that the party finds itself in with these big deals for minority communities around the country and how they perceive our response to them,” he said.

...


House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio), the highest-ranking Republican in Washington, was invited to attend Wednesday’s gathering but declined because of a scheduling conflict, aides said.

Boehner was in Jackson Hole, Wyo., and had no public schedule Wednesday but has been headlining dozens of GOP fundraisers nationwide this month. Aides noted that he led an official congressional commemoration of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech on July 31 at the U.S. Capitol that other top congressional leaders attended.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...07ac-1010-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story_1.html

Dat outreach.

First comment:

Man! Was Lincoln the ONLY Republican that showed up? Pretty sad!
Click to expand...

And we're done here.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Samarecarm said:
I can't believe there's a Wikipedia article on this, although I think this quote gets to the heart of the matter:
Click to expand...
Haha, so true.

Though I have always advocated the strategy that democrats simply start calling them the "Republic Party"

Or the could just change the name to the democrat party and make the term useless :p
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said in an interview with “NewsHour” on PBS. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad’s forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.

The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House’s full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies’ concerns would affect their plans.

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad’s supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad’s military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.
Click to expand...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-intelligence-slam-dunk.php?ref=fpa

sound familiar?
 
O

Owzers

Member
Wilsongt said:
This really needs to be plastered everywhere. Dat outreach indeed.
Click to expand...

not needed, O'reilly said last night that no conservatives were invited, that former president Bush was not invited. He didn't really know if Bush was invited, but decided to say he wasn't anyways. Facts live in the gut and it FEELS like Bush wasn't invited.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
On the note about the 50 year anniversary, let's share the other side of the coin's thought pattern:

A few headlines on Drudge reveal the opposite of everything MLK wanted for his people. Any gains that were made in lifting up the black middle class have been ruined by a poisonous entitlement mentality controlled by white liberal power brokers with one thing only in mind: votes.

It doesn't matter that a black person was elected POTUS. It was a hollow victory for civil rights because he was elected solely on skin color, not the content of his character. I'd bet my last dollar MLK wouldn't have voted for Obama or anyone like him.

So sad to see how far from Dr. King's dream we've come. Today's exploitation in Washington of his historic speech makes me ill.

Obama compares MLK to Jesus...

SPEAKER COMPARES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO KKK...

MLK stood for -- gay marriage?

Trayvon Martin hailed as 'martyr'...

http://www.drudgereport.com/
Click to expand...

Jesus is too white

With the 'color' strife that abounds today, I can only think of God's words when he said man judges on outside appearance, whereas he judges on the inside.

Too bad so many don't read God's word and laugh when some supposed 'leader' mocks it out of content.

I notice people on the outside, I think it is what makes us individuals, but to have disdain for someone because of a certain ethnicity is so prejudiced and contrary to God's word.

But these are signs God told us to look for prior to his return- nation against nation, (ethnicity against ethnicity) kingdom against kingdom
Click to expand...

Today's event was just another democrat rally. It is sad they seem to hijack everything, the Wellstone funeral, Newtown shooting etc.
The only black Senator was not invited, talk about being prejudiced.
Click to expand...

According to a black Fox News guest, not one conservative or Republican official -- black or white -- was invited. Yet I've already seen liberals turning it around and saying "see, they ignored the event" implying racist reasons.
Click to expand...

Oi...

tumblr_migxwamllh1s4d794o1_400.gif
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Wilsongt said:
On the note about the 50 year anniversary, let's share the other side of the coin's thought pattern:









Oi...

tumblr_migxwamllh1s4d794o1_400.gif
Click to expand...

to be fair this
SPEAKER COMPARES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO KKK...
Click to expand...

Actually happened and I posted about it. Also I didn't like the general negative tone of many of the early speakers. Especially in relation to the VRA. I was glad to hear Clinton shoot down the hyperbole by pointing out that black turnout broke records last year despite voter ID laws. The goal should be overcoming these laws, which isn't hard to do for many people, and electing local officials who pledge to change those laws.

This isn't to say I think voter ID laws are a good idea - they're clearly biased, as currently constructed. IF everyone got a free ID fine, I'd support it. But that's not the case, and they're restricting school IDs and other forms of ID that young and black people tend to have.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Reposting this from the OT:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

WASHINGTON -- The United States government took an historic step back from its long-running drug war on Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would allow the states to create a regime that would regulate and implement the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana for adults.

A Justice Department official said that Holder told the governors in a joint phone call early Thursday afternoon that the department would take a "trust but verify approach" to the state laws. DOJ is reserving its right to file a preemption lawsuit at a later date, since the states' regulation of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole also issued a three-and-a-half page memo to U.S. attorneys across the country on Thursday outlining eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. According to the guidance, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent:

the distribution of marijuana to minors;
revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

The eight high-priority areas leave prosecutors bent on targeting marijuana businesses with a fair amount of leeway, especially the exception for "adverse public health consequences." And prosecutors have shown a willingness to aggressively interpret DOJ guidance in the past, as the many medical marijuana dispensary owners now behind bars can attest.

U.S. Attorneys will individually be responsible for interpreting the guidelines and how they apply to a case they intend to prosecute. A Justice Department official said, for example, that a U.S Attorney could go after marijuana distributors who used cartoon characters in their marketing because that could be interpreted as attempting to distribute marijuana to minors.

But the official stressed that the guidance was not optional, and that prosecutors would no longer be allowed to use the sheer volume of sales or the for-profit status of an operation as triggers for prosecution, though these factors could still affect their prosecutorial decisions.

The Obama administration has struggled with the legalization of medical marijuana in several states. Justice Department Officials had instructed federal prosecutors across the country not to focus federal resources on individuals who were complying with state laws regarding the use of medical marijuana. But the U.S. attorneys in several states that had legalized medical marijuana rebelled, and what was known as the Ogden memo faced stiff resistance from career prosecutors.

"That's just not what they do,” one former Justice official told HuffPost. “They prosecute people."

As a result of the internal pushback at DOJ, a new memo was issued by Deputy Attorney General James Cole in 2011 that gave U.S. attorneys more cover to go after medical marijuana distributors. Federal prosecutors began threatening local government officials with prosecution if they went forward with legislation regulating medical cannabis.

After recreational marijuana initiatives passed in Washington and Colorado in November, President Barack Obama said the federal government had “bigger fish to fry” and would not make going after marijuana users a priority.

Holder said back in December that the federal response to the passage of the state ballot measures would be coming “relatively soon.”

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told HuffPost his office was preparing for the “worst-case scenario” of a federal lawsuit against the law.
Click to expand...

Wow.

penny-dance-party.gif
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Wilsongt said:
Nice step forward, but I expect major criticism because of this from the right, of course.
Click to expand...

I would hope not, considering states rights and all that shit. If anything, I expect them to take the tact of "Well, so now you're alright with states doing what they want? NULLIFY!"
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
A new Public Policy Polling survey in Virginia finds Terry McAuliffe (D) leading Ken Cuccinelli (R) in the race for governor by seven points, 44% to 37%.
Click to expand...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164011854/VA-Gov-PPP-for-LCV-Aug-2013

haha, he's even losing men now

74% white survey too. I thought Cuuch losing would be early proof that GOP insanity doesn't work state wide in non-red states, but the far right is spinning this as a case of establishment republicans hamstringing Cuuch (which is partially true given VA businesses are supporting McAuliffe).
 
B

besada

Banned
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...

That's like asking why it's okay to shell with artillery and not with nuclear bombs. Both can kill masses of people, but we, as a civilization, have determined that nuclear bombs scare the fuck out of us and shouldn't be used in warfare. We've done the same thing with chemical weapons. Artillery and bomb strikes -- at least in the past* -- are relatively clean kills with little lasting environmental effect. Both nuclear and chemical munitions have lasting harmful ecological effects, from the poisoning of groundwater to the more obvious radiation.

The fundamental answer is that we, as human beings, are more horrified at the idea of radiation sickness and coughing up our lungs than we are of a four inch piece of shrapnel passing through our brains. It's why the Geneva Conventions don't outlaw artillery and conventional weapons.

Beyond just our basic revulsion, there's the issue of the violation of international laws on the subject. Sure, it's also a violation to bomb your own citizens, but that's made worse when you double-down on thumbing your nose at the UN by doing it with weapons that are proscribed.

*Depleted uranium core, of course, alters this somewhat.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
PhoenixPause said:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164011854/VA-Gov-PPP-for-LCV-Aug-2013

haha, he's even losing men now

74% white survey too. I thought Cuuch losing would be early proof that GOP insanity doesn't work state wide in non-red states, but the far right is spinning this as a case of establishment republicans hamstringing Cuuch (which is partially true given VA businesses are supporting McAuliffe).
Click to expand...

And he's losing to Terry McAuliffe. That's a pretty bad sign, I think
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
besada said:
That's like asking why it's okay to shell with artillery and not with nuclear bombs.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that comparison pretty strongly. I wouldn't put nuclear fallout and destruction anywhere on the level we're talking about.

I get the philosophical difference here, and the potential for mass casualties and suffering with chemical weapons. It's real, and I understand why they are banned. But from a pragmatic standpoint, in this specific situation, there's been a massive loss of life already. And I think it borders on nonsensical to draw a line for intervention on these kinds of terms. It's akin to saying we won't do anything if everyone is being shot with rifles. But if someone busts out a machinegun, we'll step in, because machinegun can kill many more people, much faster. So machineguns get used and we step in - after 100,000 people were shot with rifles.

Note I'm not saying there should be no response to the use of chemical weapons. Just that I'd rather see the converstaion be more about saving lives, rather than from deterring only one means of destroying them.
 
B

besada

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
I disagree with that comparison pretty strongly. I wouldn't put nuclear fallout and destruction anywhere on the level we're talking about.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree, vis a vis the lingering dangers of radiation versus chemicals. Chemical warfare leaves poison in both the ground and ground water after heavy chemical bombing. Like radiation, its effects can be seen for generations. (Note: This is obviously dependent on what kind of chemical is being used. As some chemical warfare agents break down in water.)

It's initial effects don't approach the violence of a nuclear bomb, obviously, but they're of a class when it comes to lingering effects, I think. Poisoning the ground water with anything has wide-reaching effects, including in locales well outside of the bombing range.

That said, I'd also rather see the conversation be about lost lives, rather than the weapons we use to take them, but as a civilization we've decided that it's okay to kill people, so long as we follow a certain set of rules while doing it. Changing that will be difficult.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Mandark's take, from the other place

Mandark said:
1) No, it's not like Iraq. One was a relatively stable, if brutally autocratic regime that the US administration decided it wanted to oust, and believed it could replace with a friendly government (at minimal cost, no less). The other is a state involved in a very active, bloody civil war. If y'all didn't want a government that might intervene to stop ongoing mass slaughter, you should have made a stink when Samantha fucking Powers became a close advisor to the presumptive president of the United States.

2) The British and French governments have been the hawks on Syria, generally being restrained by the US.

3) If you read the TPM story, the main caveat isn't whether the Syrian government has chemical weapons or whether they were used, or which side used them, but whether Assad personally ordered their deployment. Fine. So? If Assad didn't order the attacks, but allowed them to happen and is protecting the officers who gave the orders, he's given his sanction. If a US president tried that, we'd recognize it right away as a bullshit attempt to avoid responsibility.

4) The use of chemical weapons, even with the public "red line" rhetoric from the White House, is not the sole factor in US policymaking, and probably not even the most important one. To reiterate, there's a civil war happening in a state that borders three or four US allies (depending on how you want to count Iraq), with more allies (Saudi Arabia and some EU countries) demanding action and already getting involved themselves. Hopefully nobody gets any crazy ideas about a ground invasion and occupation, but this was never something that the US could avoid any involvement whatsoever.


Worth reading this NYer piece from May on Syria. Take it with a grain of salt because Filkins strikes me as tilted towards the rebel cause, but it's an interesting snapshot of the pressures inside and outside the US government on Obama to act.
Click to expand...
 
S

Snake

Member
So gay rights, marijuana progress, gun control, AND an upgrade in the economic outlook? Now could you imagine if Obama followed current trends and backed away from intervention in Syria and/or chose not to appoint Summers to the Fed? It would be the best week in long time.

And yet I bet POTUS' approval would still go down, with people saying "teh same as Bush" on the uptick.
 
S

smokeandmirrors

Banned
Snake said:
So gay rights, marijuana progress, gun control, AND an upgrade in the economic outlook? Now could you imagine if Obama followed current trends and backed away from intervention in Syria and/or chose not to appoint Summers to the Fed? It would be the best week in long time.

And yet I bet POTUS' approval would still go down, with people saying "teh same as Bush" on the uptick.
Click to expand...

When did this happen? I'm kind of out of the loop at the moment.
 
A

AnotherNils

Member
GhaleonEB said:
I disagree with that comparison pretty strongly. I wouldn't put nuclear fallout and destruction anywhere on the level we're talking about.

I get the philosophical difference here, and the potential for mass casualties and suffering with chemical weapons. It's real, and I understand why they are banned. But from a pragmatic standpoint, in this specific situation, there's been a massive loss of life already. And I think it borders on nonsensical to draw a line for intervention on these kinds of terms. It's akin to saying we won't do anything if everyone is being shot with rifles. But if someone busts out a machinegun, we'll step in, because machinegun can kill many more people, much faster. So machineguns get used and we step in - after 100,000 people were shot with rifles.

Note I'm not saying there should be no response to the use of chemical weapons. Just that I'd rather see the converstaion be more about saving lives, rather than from deterring only one means of destroying them.
Click to expand...
I apologize for jumping in, so I'll keep it short. I think the general idea is some methods of killing are more inhumane or indiscriminate. The Geneva Conventions covers some of this, I think. Do you consider the conventions that deal with restrictions on use of weaponry philosophically nonsensical?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Notrollious said:
When did this happen? I'm kind of out of the loop at the moment.
Click to expand...

GDP grew 2.5% instead of the expected 1.7% (pdf warning). Better than expected but still slightly weak by historical standards.

PzeEKeC.png
Click to expand...

People are praising austerity for the surprise, but the numbers were expected to be low in the first place mostly because of austerity and the very direct negative effect it has on GDP.

No surprises on the employment front, which is a shame since that is the crisis that really matters the most right now, but good GDP numbers are always good, and may eventually help with employment in some way.
 
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