-
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 Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Steve Youngblood
Member
Oh man. I'd HATE to be a Democrat after that burn.jiggle said:
I jest, mostly. The notion of concealed guns and open shotguns and assault rifles being toted around in a park where I'm taking my daughters does not exactly make it sound like the sort of place I'd want my children. Literally no good will come from the law.Lost Fragment said:
I say we start blaming the Democrats. They're all endangering the troops, we should never have known about waterboarding and it should have been taken care of in secret.Oblivion said:
What the hell are you talking about? You were always allowed to bring firearms into national parks just unloaded or disassembled, if someone really wanted to kill your family do you think it'd be a lot of effort to put the weapon back together or just load the magazine?GhaleonEB said:
Allowing firearms in any capacity or none at all are the only two options that make sense, the middle ground was what was stupid because in that case only people planning to use their firearm would have theirs ready while anyone acting according to law would be rummaging for their magazine.
The Librarian
Banned
That bit with Ed and Ron Paul was short but oh-so sweet.:lol
Also, Ed challenged Rush to not insult or mention the president for a month.
Also, Ed challenged Rush to not insult or mention the president for a month.
speculawyer
Member
What drivel . . .
Dude . . . due to your large audience of dittoheads, you are a newsworthy part of American politics. If MSNBC were not to mention you in the news or commentary, they would not be doing their job. Even this stupid challenge of yours will get reported . . . and mocked. (as it should be.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090520/pl_ynews/ynews_pl355
Dude . . . due to your large audience of dittoheads, you are a newsworthy part of American politics. If MSNBC were not to mention you in the news or commentary, they would not be doing their job. Even this stupid challenge of yours will get reported . . . and mocked. (as it should be.)
I agree there. I just don't like the idea of allowing everyone to bring weapons into national parks. I don't understand the reason for changing the current law, and generally I think it's safe to say that more guns will result in at least some of them being shot at the wrong people. Mass carnage? No. Some incidents? Yes. Avoidable ones. It still amazes me how sensitive people are about gun laws. They're coming to take them away! To arms!mAcOdIn said:
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I caught a glimpse of MSNBC and it was breaking news, something about Republicans passed a resolution that labels Democrats as Socialists. First of all, as laughable as it is, has there ever been a Republican administration that was caught during a recession, and the admin. let the market correct itself? I know Bush and Reagan bailed out institutes.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Aaron Strife
Banned
At least with Obama I imagine he's just taking the high road, but there truly is a notable lack of testicles in the Democratic party.ronito said:
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Boehner admits CIA has lied to Congress
BLITZER: Last year, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, he said this in response to a case that he was watching very closely an American citizen who was killed in a plane crash a coverup, he alleged, involving the CIA.
He said these words: We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.
Thats what Pete Hoekstra said in 2008.
BOEHNER: Pete Hoekstra did say that, and the inspector general at the CIA did an investigation, and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up.
BLITZER: You agree that the CIA then lied to Congress?
BOEHNER: I know as much about this case as Pete Hoekstra does, and the inspector general did in fact do an investigation, produced a report, and frankly supported, I think, Petes claims.
He said these words: We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.
Thats what Pete Hoekstra said in 2008.
BOEHNER: Pete Hoekstra did say that, and the inspector general at the CIA did an investigation, and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up.
BLITZER: You agree that the CIA then lied to Congress?
BOEHNER: I know as much about this case as Pete Hoekstra does, and the inspector general did in fact do an investigation, produced a report, and frankly supported, I think, Petes claims.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
lol. O Reilly said nobody in America would want the GITMO detainees. Not even Europe. I guess he missed Montana willing to take them, which would help them create jobs.
Sir Hamish
Member
Has this been posted yet? (I hope not :lol )
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gj2oO72tz7sEIr76Tr_UrJNTtGSgD98AA39O0
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gj2oO72tz7sEIr76Tr_UrJNTtGSgD98AA39O0
polyh3dron
Banned
I'm sick of this whole "find a middle ground" schtick of Obama's right now. Basically it seems like he's looking at both sides of an argument with a disregard for the difference in validity on either side and then he compromises and goes straight down the middle.
The problem with this is that one side (the GOP) will take a doubly crazy hard line stance on everything so that the middle ground ends up being exactly what they wanted in the first place.
You can't fucking build consensus on any of these issues and I don't know why Obama is pussyfooting around trying to please these fucktard Republicans. Watch the Supreme Court Justice he ends up nominating be a center-right kind of judge which makes the Supreme Court basically conservative. And even with a moderate to center-right nominee the Republicans will STILL come out saying he/she is an ultra-liberal activist judge.
They are going to scream bloody murder no matter WHAT Obama does, he may as well go and do the RIGHT THING.
The problem with this is that one side (the GOP) will take a doubly crazy hard line stance on everything so that the middle ground ends up being exactly what they wanted in the first place.
You can't fucking build consensus on any of these issues and I don't know why Obama is pussyfooting around trying to please these fucktard Republicans. Watch the Supreme Court Justice he ends up nominating be a center-right kind of judge which makes the Supreme Court basically conservative. And even with a moderate to center-right nominee the Republicans will STILL come out saying he/she is an ultra-liberal activist judge.
They are going to scream bloody murder no matter WHAT Obama does, he may as well go and do the RIGHT THING.
octopusman
Member
Serously has anyone ever accepted any of his "challenges"? The guy think's he's Steven Colbert.speculawyer said:
BobTheFork
Member
What a terrible challenge too. It's like asking Cops, "don't show any videos or stories about drunken fat asses with their shirt off screaming about how their women cheated on them, and just SEE what happens to your ratings"octopusman said:
Right, but everybody always could bring firearms into a national park, all you had to do was store the ammo for it and the gun separately if I'm not mistaken. The amount of people who have concealed carry permits is a much smaller percentage of the larger group of people allowed to bring guns into parks(which was everyone except felons).GhaleonEB said:
So I fail to see what exactly this law changes that makes you so worried? If drunkard Bob was going to into the park to shoot at shit he would have before this law, he just would have entered the park with his weapon unloaded and loaded it once inside. He could do that before this law and after.
The only change to this is if drunkard Bob has a CCL he can now carry his weapon on him instead of having it unloaded for transportation, so he no longer has to load his weapon. Not a big change.
So in reality, the only gripes that I would really accept as fair arguments is either:
Drunkard Bob should not have a CCL.
or
Drunkard Bob should not have a gun.
or
Guns should not be allowed in national parks in ANY manner. Not open, not concealed, not broken down, not assembled but unloaded, not in any way.
So this change wouldn't mean more guns would be in parks. No one honestly believed that someone with a CCL was incapable of transporting their firearm in any way but concealed on their person right? The CCL is extra, saying they now have the permission from the state to carry what was already legal for them to transport by car on their person ready and concealed. It did not mean that if CCL's were not permitted that they couldn't bring the gun into the national park, just that they had to follow the guidelines for transportation.
I'm too lazy to look up what the requirements were prior to bringing a gun into a national park, probably something like the gun having to be unloaded and stored in one part of the car with the ammo in a different part of the car.
Honestly this bill is a non issue.
speculawyer
Member
Because he is one of Michael Steele's operatives . . . he is shaking out the weak players from the party . . . people like you.Diablos said:
Squirrel Killer
Member
It polls poorly.AniHawk said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
AniHawk said:
Because politicians are very good at demonizing words and people are very gullible even though the actual definition people may either agree with or not even know what the word means.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
AniHawk said:
"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"
"People's Republic of China"
"Socialist Republic of Vietnam"
It's really just word association with the communist bogeymen of the past. The actual meaning of the word isn't important when we're dealing with the typical up-is-downist Republicans. They're just playing their part in 1984 and attempting to brand good things as bad.
Goldberg calls Glen Beck "lying sack of dog mess" on the view.
:lol He gets nailed so hard.
:lol He gets nailed so hard.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Smart thoughts from TPM reader:
I guess it all comes down to the entire point of keeping them at GITMO is for the express purpose of keeping them outside the reach of the US Legal System, which is a shame.
In regards to the "controversy" of where to incarcerate Gitmo detainees, I can't help but think that we and our representation are missing out on the bigger picture. Congress and pundits are up in arms about the relocation of Gitmo detainees using the "not in my backyard" argument. Of course the public safety concerns of this argument are ridiculous. SuperMax in Colorado is as secure as any prison in the country.
Do people really think that detainees are going to plot the greatest prison escape in American history and then rampage through sparsely populated Colorado with their prison-made shivs? Unlikely. But, I think there is a bigger point to all of this. I think as a country, we've been desensitized by the keyword "9-11". The Bush administration used this keyword for justification to every argument they made. Because of that, I think that the actual event of 9-11 has lost some significance.
I can't believe that our representatives are fighting to keep detainees out of their state instead of fighting to have detainees relocated TO their state. If all goes to plan, we will release unjustly detained Gitmo detainees (a separate can of worms) and try detainees with legitimate US legal cases against them. In this case, we are seeking to domestically incarcerate Gitmo detainees with just legal cases against them. These charges accuse them of direct involvement in the planning or execution of 9-11 or deadly acts against our soldiers abroad.
I fail to see how a representative would refuse this responsibility for their state. In the weeks and months after 9-11, would any representative have refused to incarcerate someone linked to the perpetration of 9-11? I, as a Coloradan would be proud for my state to undertake such a responsibility. Additionally, beyond the patriotic obligation, our representatives should be clamoring for the political capital gained from volunteering their state to house Gitmo detainees.
On one hand, a representative could claim that they are promoting their state's commitment to the defense of the nation. On the other hand, a representative could claim that they are compromising to bring an end to Gitmo detention and mainstream the process for trying alleged terrorists. Appearing strong on defense while revitalizing the American commitment to the rule of law seems like a win-win situation for so many representatives facing re-election in a newly skewed political landscape.
Do people really think that detainees are going to plot the greatest prison escape in American history and then rampage through sparsely populated Colorado with their prison-made shivs? Unlikely. But, I think there is a bigger point to all of this. I think as a country, we've been desensitized by the keyword "9-11". The Bush administration used this keyword for justification to every argument they made. Because of that, I think that the actual event of 9-11 has lost some significance.
I can't believe that our representatives are fighting to keep detainees out of their state instead of fighting to have detainees relocated TO their state. If all goes to plan, we will release unjustly detained Gitmo detainees (a separate can of worms) and try detainees with legitimate US legal cases against them. In this case, we are seeking to domestically incarcerate Gitmo detainees with just legal cases against them. These charges accuse them of direct involvement in the planning or execution of 9-11 or deadly acts against our soldiers abroad.
I fail to see how a representative would refuse this responsibility for their state. In the weeks and months after 9-11, would any representative have refused to incarcerate someone linked to the perpetration of 9-11? I, as a Coloradan would be proud for my state to undertake such a responsibility. Additionally, beyond the patriotic obligation, our representatives should be clamoring for the political capital gained from volunteering their state to house Gitmo detainees.
On one hand, a representative could claim that they are promoting their state's commitment to the defense of the nation. On the other hand, a representative could claim that they are compromising to bring an end to Gitmo detention and mainstream the process for trying alleged terrorists. Appearing strong on defense while revitalizing the American commitment to the rule of law seems like a win-win situation for so many representatives facing re-election in a newly skewed political landscape.
I guess it all comes down to the entire point of keeping them at GITMO is for the express purpose of keeping them outside the reach of the US Legal System, which is a shame.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Shiggie said:
Holy shit that was soooo awkward
speculawyer
Member
speculawyer said:
And indeed, Olbermann went off on Limbaugh. Of course it was done in his obnoxious bombastic manner, but he went off on him big time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann
SouthernDragon
Member
Diablos said:
I hope he appears on every cable news channel every day for a substantial amount of time for a long time to come.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Anybody catch the Isikoff interview on Maddow tonight regarding the secret meeting at the White House between the President, his staff, and Human Rights groups?
Fascinating, scary, and fucking upsetting. If I find video of it I'll put it up.
Fascinating, scary, and fucking upsetting. If I find video of it I'll put it up.
speculawyer
Member
Shiggie said:
Wow . . . I think The View and Oprah had more of an effect in the last election than all the cable news channels combined.
speculawyer
Member
Maddow (and most of MSNBC) is available on podcast for free . . . both video & audio. Check it out.PantherLotus said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8132577/
Why watch TV?
Karma Kramer
Banned
speculawyer said:
Damn... that felt good
ChoklitReign
Member
MSNBC secretly adores Rush. Sadly, I have to agree with him on this point - if they can't ignore him for less than a day than it shows that they have no self-control and just love to use him as a Republican punching bag for their liberal commentators' kicks.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Hai guys. I don't want terrorists released in my state. For all I know, my hard earned tax money may go towards their welfare checks, or I may find one of them mowing my lawn one day, delivering mail, or babysitting my neighbor's kids.
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PantherLotus said:
So why is Joe Scarbs still acting like it's just a liberal thing to say the CIA lies?
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Because if they do it, it's alright. If the Dems do it, it's not alright.
polyh3dron
Banned
:lolChris Matthews said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Obama's is about to give his speech on National Security "RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE CONSITUTION"!!!!
This shit will be great.
This shit will be great.
polyh3dron
Banned
hurry up bams i gotta get to work
- Status