Support NeoGAF

[tanooki141]

Apparently Republicans are bigger Nintendo fanboys than Democrats:
http://capitolwords.org/term/Nintendo/?search=1
I might have to switch parties...

I wore a Radio Free Nintendo shirt to a townhall with my rep, Justin Amash and he commented on it, saying he was a Nintendo fan as well. Probably one of the stranger interactions I've ever had.

 

[Mike M]

An interesting write up about a viewing of Santorum's movie "We hate gays and religion is being attacked on a daily basis" also known as "One Generation Away: The Erosion of Religious Liberty"



I always find it funny how the Christian right goes on and on and on about religious liberty and freedom being attacked, when they themselves are attacking any religion that isn't Christianity. Some even attack Catholicism, not noticing that their religion might not exist as it does today had the Catholic Church not done as much expanding as it did.

I find it all incredibly frustrating. I don't even know how to meaningfully communicate with someone who's ontology is centered around the belief that they're somehow being persecuted for their religion when their religion is shared by the overwhelming majority of the population and is disproportionately over-represented in all levels and all branches of government.

But at the same time, I think ideologically isolating myself is a bad thing, and I have no idea how to reconcile both things.

 

[B-Dubs]

I find it all incredibly frustrating. I don't even know how to meaningfully communicate with someone who's ontology is centered around the belief that they're somehow being persecuted for their religion when their religion is shared by the overwhelming majority of the population and is disproportionately over-represented in all levels and all branches of government.

But at the same time, I think ideologically isolating myself is a bad thing, and I have no idea how to reconcile both things.

There's exposing yourself to different ideologies and then there's exposing yourself to stupidity. If someone legitimately thinks Christians are being persecuted in America then they're just an idiot, I'm sure there's plenty of religious people with conservative ideologies that aren't idiots.

Look at it this way: you can't have a meaningful conversation with idiots, so just don't bother.

 

[benjipwns]

You can't fault Democrats and liberal leaning opinion shows for trumpeting it up; that's politics. I don't know why it bothers you so much since you don't expect politics to be serious. I don't know why it bothers you so much since you don't expect politics to be serious.

Where are you guys getting this impression that something "bothers [me] so much" or that I need to "get over" something? Are we not allowed to muse on something odd and silly unless it's life or death? Are we required to care endlessly and not just express a temporary thought that's on topic?

I also don't understand why it's somehow "wrong" or "faulting" to mention how transparent MSNBC and the Democrats are being with their coordinated messaging in the course of discussing how these self-inflicted faux-stories are a bipartisan (and associated media outlets) win-win. I singled them out because they're the current fad dominating SpeechSport and the spam is funny.

 

[Jack Remington]

Any word on when the full DC Court might take up Halbig and put an end to Metaphoreus's charade of bullshit?

 

[lednerg]

Where are you guys getting this impression that something "bothers [me] so much" or that I need to "get over" something? Are we not allowed to muse on something odd and silly unless it's life or death? Are we required to care endlessly and not just express a temporary thought that's on topic?

I also don't understand why it's somehow "wrong" or "faulting" to mention how transparent MSNBC and the Democrats are being with their coordinated messaging in the course of discussing how these self-inflicted faux-stories are a bipartisan (and associated media outlets) win-win. I singled them out because they're the current fad dominating SpeechSport and the spam is funny.

MSNBC doesn't have anything close to the sway over Democrats that Fox has over Republicans. Equating the two is misleading.

from this report (pg 36)

 

[speculawyer]

Get over what?

I don't expect politics to be serious. It's just fascinating when "serious thinkers" show how frivolous it is by spending all their time talking about, speculating about, and hectoring about a "story" they created out of their own low self worth and projection. And then they try to justify their own derelict obsession by just repeating how serious it is without ever actually explaining why.

Naw . . . you just fail to understand the story and/or are doing the standard 'blame the lamestream media' that the right is so fond of because you don't want to hear it. The story is not 'impeachment is likely', the story is 'The right is filled with wingnuts that want to impeach.' That is relevant political information that informs voters whether you like it or not.


And speaking of wingnuts . . . Mr. serious budget guy has signed up with the climate change denial force (albeit with a slightly more nuanced version).

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Wednesday that “climate change occurs no matter what,” but that the EPA’s recent efforts to reduce emissions from existing power plants are “outside of the confines of the law,” and “an excuse to grow government, raise taxes and slow down economic growth.”

Speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor in Washington, Rep. Ryan said that he would argue that the “federal government, with all its tax and regulatory schemes” can’t do anything about climate change. He said that what climate regulations “end up doing is making the U.S. economy less competitive.”

Wrong. Tax and regulatory schemes can and ARE DOING things to affect climate change. It is not some liberal hoax.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/31/3466136/paul-ryan-climate-change-epa-outside-the-law/

 

[Wilsongt]

MSNBC doesn't have anything close to the sway over Democrats that Fox has over Republicans. Equating the two is misleading.

from this report (pg 36)

The fact that the "all americans" column has Fox News first as most trusted and accurate is sad.

 

[lednerg]

The fact that the "all americans" column has Fox News first as most trusted and accurate is sad.

Yeah, I think it would be a good idea to combine CNN with "Broadcast News" on that column, if only to keep depression at bay.

 

[benjipwns]

MSNBC doesn't have anything close to the sway over Democrats that Fox has over Republicans. Equating the two is misleading.

from this report (pg 36)

I never said that MSNBC has sway over Democrats. Nor did I indicate that Fox doesn't coordinate messaging with the GOP.

Naw . . . you just fail to understand the story and/or are doing the standard 'blame the lamestream media' that the right is so fond of because you don't want to hear it. The story is not 'impeachment is likely', the story is 'The right is filled with wingnuts that want to impeach.' That is relevant political information that informs voters whether you like it or not.

To think that "members of the party not in the White House have mentioned impeachment" is some kind of major story is baffling. It's only been the go to red meat for the party out of the White House since The Second Impeachment. To suddenly "discover it" in the last two months is a convenient fiction. Even just to "discover" now that people want to impeach Obama is.

It's probably not informing very many voters in a way that actually gives them more useful information in selecting appropriate representation. It's certainly confirming the biases of lockstep Democratic voters in the MSNBC audience, which serves to help confirm the biases of lockstep Republican voters in the Fox audience, which does the same for MSNBC's viewers. Fox beat the drum about Democrats wanting to impeach Bush all the time too. The ever simmering rumors of impeachment along with a lot of other "serious issues (aka culture war)" are just small donor and audience hooks. It's why they never go away and nothing serious is ever really done regarding them.

In any case, why would I not want to hear that people want to impeach the President? I'm all for it. If we had impeached and convicted Bush when he admitted to violating his oath we might have been better off.

The fact that the "all americans" column has Fox News first as most trusted and accurate is sad.

It's just a factor of the massive lead with Republicans/conservatives vs smaller leads for the others.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The fact that the "all americans" column has Fox News first as most trusted and accurate is sad.

Not really, all it displays is that conservatives are bunched into one news agency, and liberals and others more spread out. fox is only trusted the most by a quarter of the people, that's about how many true believer and sympathizers republicans there are.

 

[Wilsongt]

Oh, damn. Obama calling Republicans out for their lawsuit.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Lololol the house is pulling their own border bill. Even if they win the senate I doubt there will be much legislation because the house will still be idiotic

 

[PhoenixDark]

@costareports · 4m

BREAKING: Cruz wins, House pulls border bill, GOP heading into recess without voting on plan

@costareports · 2m

a STUNNING DEFEAT for Boehner-McCarthy-Scalise on their first big vote

@costareports · 56s

House GOP lowered bill to $659m from $1.5b, gave tea party DACA vote, and yet Boehner struggles to close deal

@costareports · 17s

TED CRUZ, post shutdown, continues to *the* key player in House GOP politics, with grip over swing tea bloc

Boehner lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is damn hilarious

Calling on the president to unilaterally act... A day after the lawsuit

 

[Fox318]

Heh, just by coincidence from:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-impeachment-msnbc-fox-news/

Its not surprising.

Democrats are giving a platform for the Cruzs and Palins to speak with the belief that people will think they are nuts.

 

[Wilsongt]

This is damn hilarious

Calling on the president to unilaterally act... A day after the lawsuit

Holy shit, lolol

"We can't control the idiots in the House. Please help Obama Bin Laden."

 

[Averon]

So, they won't give Obama any money to fix the border issue, and they can't pass their own border bill.

What do they expect Obama to do other that executive actions?

 

[Fox318]

This is damn hilarious

Calling on the president to unilaterally act... A day after the lawsuit

This is so confusing.

Does house leadership have any power at all?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is so confusing.

Does house leadership have any power at all?

Which house leader Boehner or Cruz?

 

[Black Mamba]

 

[mightynine]

I thought Steve Scalise as whip was going to help them reach the far right-wingers. Whoops.

 

[Fox318]

Which house leader Boehner or Cruz?

Boehner.

This was a drop in the hat for the house to get done.

 

[teiresias]

This is damn hilarious

Calling on the president to unilaterally act... A day after the lawsuit

Wait . . . so since the House can't pass crap concerning border security, now they're ASKING the president to take unilateral, executive order action, after suing over the same?

Clown shoes . . . the whole lot of them, incredible!

That graphic should also be entered as evidence at the executive order lawsuit too.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Bad news for you-know-who

Kay Hagan 44
Thom Tillis 41

Also an embarrassment for the House GOP. What a bunch of clowns.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Wait . . . so since the House can't pass crap concerning border security, now they're ASKING the president to take unilateral, executive order action, after suing over the same?

Clown shoes . . . the whole lot of them, incredible!

That graphic should also be entered as evidence at the executive order lawsuit too.

to be fair their suing over obamacare not immigration, that was too toxic to sue.

Boehner knows these guys are idiots but also know the latino problems with the GOP so he's not gonna inflame that. The price of that is inaction

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I thought Steve Scalise as whip was going to help them reach the far right-wingers. Whoops.

They're fighting against Cruz. I guarantee Boehner hates Cruz more than any liberal in this City.

 

[Aaron Strife]

to be fair their suing over obamacare not immigration, that was too toxic to sue.

Boehner knows these guys are idiots but also know the latino problems with the GOP so he's not gonna inflame that. The price of that is inaction

And yet he's practically inviting Obama to issue an executive order pertaining to the illegal immigrant population here now. Which would only rouse the impeachment crowd even more

 

[PhoenixDark]

And yet he's practically inviting Obama to issue an executive order pertaining to the illegal immigrant population here now. Which would only rouse the impeachment crowd even more

The president has broad power* with regard to borders and immigration. Less so with respect to legislation, at least from certain perspectives.

*let's see how the GOP's tone shifts if Obama issues that immigration exec order..

 

[Owzers]

And yet he's practically inviting Obama to issue an executive order pertaining to the illegal immigrant population here now. Which would only rouse the impeachment crowd even more

So things are working out according to plan.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And yet he's practically inviting Obama to issue an executive order pertaining to the illegal immigrant population here now. Which would only rouse the impeachment crowd even more

This is a green light for that, not only the statement by Boenher but the fact NOTHING WILL EVER PASS.

Obama can truthful say that he has to act or nothing will happen.

This is the best thing for immigration activists and Dems in the long term. Boehner is utterly incapable for Sister Soulja-ing the racists in his party.

 

[AntoneM]

Where are you guys getting this impression that something "bothers [me] so much" or that I need to "get over" something? Are we not allowed to muse on something odd and silly unless it's life or death? Are we required to care endlessly and not just express a temporary thought that's on topic?

I also don't understand why it's somehow "wrong" or "faulting" to mention how transparent MSNBC and the Democrats are being with their coordinated messaging in the course of discussing how these self-inflicted faux-stories are a bipartisan (and associated media outlets) win-win. I singled them out because they're the current fad dominating SpeechSport and the spam is funny.

I never said it was wrong to mention that MSNBC holds water for the Democrats. I don't know where you got that from. I just said you can't blame them for wanting to trump up this issue.

You're the one implying that they are somehow morally deficient by saying they have low self worth and mockingly calling them serious thinkers. It's the disdain in the way you describe people reporting on this that makes any rationale person think you care about it.

If I talk about how dumb a co-workers is and how I wish they would just get fired so I don't have to deal with them; any rationale person is going to infer that I care about this person getting fired and them not getting fired bothers me.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Calling on the president to unilaterally act... A day after the lawsuit

What do they expect Obama to do other that executive actions?

Wait . . . so since the House can't pass crap concerning border security, now they're ASKING the president to take unilateral, executive order action, after suing over the same?

And yet he's practically inviting Obama to issue an executive order pertaining to the illegal immigrant population here now. Which would only rouse the impeachment crowd even more

Underlined blue text means there's a link, right? Here are the steps Boehner says could be taken by the president "right now":

Send the strong, public message that those who enter illegally will be returned. President Obama needs to use his bully-pulpit to send the clear message that those who are seeking to enter the U.S. illegally will be returned to their home countries and that subjecting children to the perilous trek northward to our southern border will no longer be tolerated. Unfortunately, most of the money requested in the President’s emergency supplemental seems geared toward processing Central Americans rather than stopping the surge itself. With Obama’s current policies, this just means that more illegal border crossers will be eligible to stay in the U.S.

Stop abusing his prosecutorial discretion authority. Over the past five years, President Obama and administration officials have abused “prosecutorial discretion,” a tool meant to give the Executive Branch flexibility in individual cases. Instead he has stretched this authority beyond all recognition in order to shield entire categories of deportable aliens from facing the law. This sends the message to the world that if you get into the U.S. illegally, you will not be deported.

Stop releasing convicted criminal aliens from detention. In Fiscal Year 2013, ICE released over 36,000 criminal aliens from detention who were in removal proceedings or had been ordered removed, in the large majority of cases purely as an act of discretion not compelled by any federal court or immigration judge. These 36,000 criminal aliens had nearly 88,000 convictions, including 193 homicide convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, 9,187 dangerous drug convictions, and 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions. This sends the message that not even aliens with criminal convictions will be detained.

Crack down on fraudulent asylum claims. The House Judiciary Committee obtained an internal DHS report which shows that at least 70% of asylum cases contain proven or possible fraud. The Administration has refused to take steps to stop asylum fraud, which has encouraged more aliens to come to the U.S. and make false claims. Yet the Obama Administration continues to set records for approving claims. In fact, in 2013 under the Obama Administration immigration judges granted 74% of all affirmative asylum claims.

Implement tougher standards for “credible fear” claims. In order to thwart “expedited removal” proceedings, family units caught along the border or at ports of entry often claim a “credible fear” of persecution in their home countries and seek a hearing before an immigration judge (usually years later). While awaiting the hearing, they are released into the U.S. and receive work authorization while their case is pending. The Obama Administration is granting approximately 92% of all “credible fear” cases decided on the merits in Fiscal Year 2013. In fact, credible fear claims have increased 586% from 2007 to 2013 as word has spread about the rubberstamping of applications. The Obama Administration has not effectively curbed “credible fear” abuse, which has dramatically encouraged more illegal border crossings.

Detain asylum seekers until their claims are proved valid. One way to deter fraudulent asylum claims is to detain asylum seekers apprehended at the border while the government determines whether their case is legitimate, rather than releasing them into the U.S. Most non-detained asylum seekers who lose their cases and are ordered back to their home country simply disappear into our communities. This must stop.

Restore agreements with local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws. About 5,000 ICE agents have the duty of enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. These agents have to deal with at least 11 million unlawful immigrants in the United States and many thousands of aliens who have committed deportable crimes. We need help. Currently, there are over 730,000 state and local law enforcement officers in the United States. Under current law, DHS is allowed to enter into agreements with states and localities – commonly referred to as the 287(g) program – under which state and local law enforcement officers who have been trained by DHS can assist in the investigation, apprehension and detention of removable aliens. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration effectively killed this commonsense program. The Administration should reverse this foolish decision and allow state and local law enforcement officers to help with enforcing our immigration laws. This would send the message that the United States is serious about enforcing our immigration laws.

Employ diplomatic resources to stop the border crisis. President Obama should exhaust all diplomatic resources to end this crisis. He needs to work with the Mexican government to help secure its southern border with Guatemala and he also needs to work with the governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to help them dissuade their citizens from making the dangerous journey to the U.S.

Give Border Patrol agents access to federal lands. Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley sector cite restrictions that bar access to federal lands as a significant stumbling block to securing the border. The Departments of Interior and Agriculture currently have rules that prevent Border Patrol agents from accessing federal lands near the border under the guise of environmental preservation. As a result, federal lands along the border provide drug traffickers, human smugglers, and unlawful immigrants effective routes and hiding places where Border Patrol agents cannot reach them. President Obama should reverse this foolish policy.

It should go without saying that supporting the president's authority to take some actions without further Congressional action is not the same as supporting the president's authority to take all actions without further Congressional action.

 

[Wilsongt]

This is a green light for that, not only the statement by Boenher but the fact NOTHING WILL EVER PASS.

Obama can truthful say that he has to act or nothing will happen.

This is the best thing for immigration activists and Dems in the long term. Boehner is utterly incapable for Sister Soulja-ing the racists in his party.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

Underlined blue text means there's a link, right? Here are the steps Boehner says could be taken by the president "right now":



It should go without saying that supporting the president's authority to take some actions without further Congressional action is not the same as supporting the president's authority to take all actions without further Congressional action.

It's interesting that so many of those steps directly tie into the lack of resources, specifically immigration judges, that led Obama to ask for legislation. He can unilaterally do many of those things but how does it solve anything if there continues to be a lack of tools to process folks and send them back.

 

[Wilsongt]

It's interesting that so many of those steps directly tie into the lack of resources, specifically immigration judges, that led Obama to ask for legislation. He can unilaterally do many of those things but how does it solve anything if there continues to be a lack of tools to process folks and send them back.

Sssssh. No arguing. The thread was actually readable for a bit.

 

[RustyNails]

Lol, Ted Cruz and his band of misfits defeated boehner on the border bill.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Underlined blue text means there's a link, right? Here are the steps Boehner says could be taken by the president "right now":



It should go without saying that supporting the president's authority to take some actions without further Congressional action is not the same as supporting the president's authority to take all actions without further Congressional action.

This is an pedantic post. We're not idiots.

Of course Boehner doesn't want the same thing as Obama. But he's asking him to take action and change his interpretation of legislative which is what Obama did with other issues. Boehner doesn't actually oppose executive action, he opposes it being used for liberal ends.

 

[AntoneM]

Underlined blue text means there's a link, right? Here are the steps Boehner says could be taken by the president "right now":



It should go without saying that supporting the president's authority to take some actions without further Congressional action is not the same as supporting the president's authority to take all actions without further Congressional action.

The problem is, if they want the president to only take some actions they can pass a bill which says what they think the president (executive branch) can and can't do. It likely wouldn't become a law but they can't even pass a bill with a majority in the House.

 

[thepotatoman]

Ted Cruz, of course, blames democrats.

“It should embarrass all of us, and it’s the result of a deliberate partisan decision,” Cruz lectured. “Let’s take, for example, the crisis on the border. The crisis on the border, unfortunately President Obama and Harry Reid have demonstrated no interest in solving it.

Sigh.

 

[cooljeanius]

Having taken a class with this title, I found the following comparison interesting:
http://capitolwords.org/?terma=freedom&termb=equality

 

[GaimeGuy]

Underlined blue text means there's a link, right? Here are the steps Boehner says could be taken by the president "right now":



It should go without saying that supporting the president's authority to take some actions without further Congressional action is not the same as supporting the president's authority to take all actions without further Congressional action.

Then they can pass a bill outlining which actions he can take and which he can't.

Oh wait, no, they can't do that because THEY CAN'T/WON'T/DON'T GOVERN.

Fucking worthless. More got done in the first 2 years of obama's presidency than in years 3, 4, 5, and 6. And probably in years 7 and 8 as well (unless the dems win the house).

 

[Fox318]

Ted Cruz, of course, blames democrats.

Sigh.

That will sell to the right crowds and Fox will read the line all day long.

 

[cooljeanius]

The use of the term "bipartisan" is not actually that bipartisan:
http://capitolwords.org/term/bipartisan/?search=1

 

[Metaphoreus]

This is an pedantic post. We're not idiots.

Of course Boehner doesn't want the same thing as Obama. But he's asking him to take action and change his interpretation of legislative which is what Obama did with other issues. Boehner doesn't actually oppose executive action, he opposes it being used for liberal ends.

I don't take Boehner's complaints about Obama's conduct to be about ends, but means. In other words, the problem the House GOP hopes to address with its lawsuit is not that the employer mandate was delayed--as has been pointed out, the GOP wants it to be delayed (and repealed). Instead, their complaint is how the employer mandate was delayed--that is, without amendment to the statute requiring its implementation as of a certain date. To show that Boehner is being inconsistent, therefore, you'd have to show that he's now supporting action by the president that is contrary to the text of a statute, not merely that he's supporting unilateral action by the president at all.

The problem is, if they want the president to only take some actions they can pass a bill which says what they think the president (executive branch) can and can't do. It likely wouldn't become a law but they can't even pass a bill with a majority in the House.

But why would they do that, especially if they believe--as they do--that the actions they want the president to take are already authorized by law?

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't take Boehner's complaints about Obama's conduct to be about ends, but means. In other words, the problem the House GOP hopes to address with its lawsuit is not that the employer mandate was delayed--as has been pointed out, the GOP wants it to be delayed (and repealed). Instead, their complaint is how the employer mandate was delayed--that is, without amendment to the statute requiring its implementation as of a certain date. To show that Boehner is being inconsistent, therefore, you'd have to show that he's now supporting action by the president that is contrary to the text of a statute, not merely that he's supporting unilateral action by the president at all.



But why would they do that, especially if they believe--as they do--that the actions they want the president to take are already authorized by law?

So basically:

"That was different because they're for that and against this"

 

[Metaphoreus]

So basically:

"That was different because they're for that and against this"

No. Read it again, and then again and again, if necessary, until you understand what I wrote.

EDIT: Maybe that was a bit harsh. If, in your sentence, "that" means "executive action authorized or permitted by statute" and "this" means "executive action that is not authorized by, and is in fact contrary to, statute," then your sentence summarizes what I wrote in response to APK. But I don't think that's what you meant.

 

[Wilsongt]

Ted Cruz, of course, blames democrats.

Sigh.

That chucklehead is good at stirring the shit pot.

 

[thezerofire]

The use of the term "bipartisan" is not actually that bipartisan:
http://capitolwords.org/term/bipartisan/?search=1

from that page:

I see what you're trying to do here

 

[PhoenixDark]

No. Read it again, and then again and again, if necessary, until you understand what I wrote.

IE Boehner agrees with the general idea of delaying or getting rid of the mandate, his problem is how it was delayed; he's arguing the "how" was unconstitutional.

The lawsuit won't go anywhere obviously, and given the broad power presidents have to interpret and administer legislation I find the whole thing ridiculous. Worse yet Boehner had nothing to say when the Bush administration made various delays during the implementation of Medicare Part D.