[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sure. Do you like water sports?

Only if it is me peeing on somebody. I enjoy peeing on people.


I forgot to add that I worked in the caribbean in the summer, which was an awful time to be there. The caribbean in August is the last place that anybody should want to be, IMHO.

I also worked the caribbean in January though, it was much nicer. I can swing that. Southern Canada (where most of the population is) is lovely in the summer too though.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Southern Canada (where most of the population is) is lovely in the summer too though.

And is just swell in January.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

And is just swell in January.

I honestly would take it over Indiana winter in January, which is just a train wreck of horrendous.

Proper winter is just lovely, relaxing, and even somewhat spiritual if you are in the right environment and you are into this sort of thing. Nothing nicer than a walk on freshly fallen snow that creaks while you step on it.

Winter getting a bad rap is dumb. Just put on more clothes and stop being a pussy. At least one can accommodate the cold with clothing, in the summer sweating like a pig and dealing with heat stroke concerns is far worse, IMHO.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've been to both. Canada has more mosquitos and less tropical fish.

Sounds like you went to Manitoba... The country is so vast saying one small part of it represents the entire country is foolish. Its like saying The California Deserts represent Albany NY or the Cascade Forests

Again I must point out its not a frozen waste land everywhere......

7mm wet suite and you are good to go with most water activities all year round in lower BC

http://www.best-scuba-diving-vacatio...-columbia.html

[subego]

Ontario.

Are you seriously challenging my claim?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Southern Canada (where most of the population is) is lovely in the summer too though.

If you meant humid as hell, yeah it's nice.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

Ontario.

Are you seriously challenging my claim?

Nope, parts of Ontario have a lot of mosquitoes too. I just said Manitoba because by far it has the worst mosquitoes problems. Alberta and BC has little issues with them.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

If you meant humid as hell, yeah it's nice.

You GTA people never stop complaining. Its either to hot in the summer or to cold in the Winter.... If its soo horrible why stay there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Nope, parts of Ontario have a lot of mosquitoes too. I just said Manitoba because by far it has the worst mosquitoes problems. Alberta and BC has little issues with them.

I somehow doubt you have less issue there versus on a big pile of coral.

[The Final Dakar]

One of the mods looks to have some free time lately.

I approve.

[hyteckit]

Santorum now claims UC (University of California) does not teach American History.

[OAW]

So Rick Santorum is giving a speech in Pennsylvania now and just said this:

Originally Posted by Rick Santorum

Ladies and gentlemen if we're going to win this race, we can't have little differences between our nominee and President Obama. We have to have clear, contrasting colors.

Not "differences". Not "positions". But "colors". Now I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't engaging in a little dog whistle politics with that line. But seriously, given his comments in Iowa his speechwriters had to know that it might raise some eyebrows. We'll see if the cable news shows go after him on that one.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

I see The Daily Show did not mention the nig-blah comment last night. I guess I was wrong in my prediction. I think if it doesn't come up tonight, the issue will be officially dead.

[OAW]

^^^^

More than likely. For me personally, outside of his comments in Iowa I don't really get that vibe from Rick Santorum. Now Newt Gingrich on the other hand ...

OAW

[subego]

For whatever reason, Newt has stuck me as a sort of ivory (heh) tower ignorant rather than racist.

[Nergol]

More important to me is Santorum's absolutely accurate point that Obama has broken virtually every promise he ever made to anybody while he was a candidate - the ones he made to his own Democratic/liberal base more than any others. Remember how we were going to get a government option in health care? How all those Bush-era assaults on privacy and civil liberties were going to be repealed? How Gitmo was going to be closed? How he was going to end our wars in the middle east, and not start any more of them? How he was going to bring law and order to Wall Street? How'd all that go? Yes, I know that there was some fine print on all of this if you dug deep, but he at very least heavily implied that all of that stuff was included in "hope and change".

And please, please don't blame the Republicans for Obama not getting stuff done. Why, because they opposed him? Guess what - that's what the opposition party is supposed to do. If you're the President and you have a majority in both houses of Congress (which Obama did for the first couple years of his Presidency), you get things passed anyway. Going down to Capitol Hill and twisting arms to get your agenda through - especially with members of your own party - is part of the job. Don't get mad at the Republicans because they're doing their job and Obama isn't.

Honestly, I really don't know which would be worse - four more years with the current assclown, or four new years with a different assclown from the other party. Obama, Santorum, Romney - I wouldn't trust the lot of them to run my corner 7-11, much less the US government. Frankly, there hasn't been a President who I thought was half-able to handle the job since Bush Senior - who, for whatever other flaws he may have had, was at least a grownup. What we have in our country now is no more than the logical outcome of twenty years of governments led by utter jabronis.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nergol 

More important to me is Santorum's absolutely accurate point that Obama has broken virtually every promise he ever made to anybody while he was a candidate - the ones he made to his own Democratic/liberal base more than any others. Remember how we were going to get a government option in health care? How all those Bush-era assaults on privacy and civil liberties were going to be repealed? How Gitmo was going to be closed? How he was going to end our wars in the middle east, and not start any more of them? How he was going to bring law and order to Wall Street? How'd all that go? Yes, I know that there was some fine print on all of this if you dug deep, but he at very least heavily implied that all of that stuff was included in "hope and change".

And please, please don't blame the Republicans for Obama not getting stuff done. Why, because they opposed him? Guess what - that's what the opposition party is supposed to do. If you're the President and you have a majority in both houses of Congress (which Obama did for the first couple years of his Presidency), you get things passed anyway. Going down to Capitol Hill and twisting arms to get your agenda through - especially with members of your own party - is part of the job. Don't get mad at the Republicans because they're doing their job and Obama isn't.

Honestly, I really don't know which would be worse - four more years with the current assclown, or four new years with a different assclown from the other party. Obama, Santorum, Romney - I wouldn't trust the lot of them to run my corner 7-11, much less the US government. Frankly, there hasn't been a President who I thought was half-able to handle the job since Bush Senior - who, for whatever other flaws he may have had, was at least a grownup. What we have in our country now is no more than the logical outcome of twenty years of governments led by utter jabronis.

Welcome Nergol! Good stuff. Let's not forget the whole "penguin research" example he gave for taking a scalpel to the budget. He spent all the political capital of a Democrat-controlled Congress in back-room deals as a Constitutional scholar pushing his signature, unconstitutional piece of legislation.

While I agree Romney is not my favorite candidate, the Presidency comes with a wealth of cabinet appointments, Supreme Court appointees, and the like that still make the prospect of a Romney Presidency far more desirable than the status quo IMO.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Nergol 

More important to me is Santorum's absolutely accurate point that Obama has broken virtually every promise he ever made to anybody while he was a candidate ... Honestly, I really don't know which would be worse - four more years with the current assclown, or four new years with a different assclown from the other party. Obama, Santorum, Romney - I wouldn't trust the lot of them to run my corner 7-11, much less the US government.

Excellent point. Though, I absolutely hate it when one politician says "vote for me, 'cause the other guy doesn't keep his promises". We all know that *none* of them will keep campaign promises they make.

... I wonder if we could get them to sign a binding contract to do everything they promise to do?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Excellent point. Though, I absolutely hate it when one politician says "vote for me, 'cause the other guy doesn't keep his promises". We all know that *none* of them will keep campaign promises they make.

It gets even worse. Don't vote for OBama, because he'll break the promises he made to you... but don't vote for Romney because he might keep the promises he makes to you.

[lpkmckenna]

Welcome Nergol!! Bad stuff, though. Real bad.

Originally Posted by Nergol 

More important to me is Santorum's absolutely accurate point that Obama has broken virtually every promise he ever made to anybody while he was a candidate - the ones he made to his own Democratic/liberal base more than any others.

Since Santorum is probably the worst liar I have seen in years, his opinion on Obama doesn't carry any weight.

I mean, this is a guy who says Obama wants everyone to go to college (he doesn't), that no one teaches history in California (they do), that Obama thinks born alive babies can be killed (he doesn't), that Obama wants to force the Catholic Church to hire women as priests (he doesn't), and on and on and on. Santorum even lied that Obama ordered military chaplains to perform marriages for gay soldiers

In other words, Santorum is a terrible Christian who will tell any blatant lie to gain power. If Santorum was killed by a bus tomorrow, I would cheer.

Remember how we were going to get a government option in health care?

You seem to think the President is an emperor.

Obama did work for a public option. But there are the oddities of American politics - that minority filibusters are stronger than a congressional majority, and you need a 60% supermajority to break them. Plus, the Democratic party isn't uniform: there are conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Just because you have a majority of Democrats in Congress doesn't mean you have a majority that supports a public option.

There's a HUGE difference between a politician who advocates for a policy but doesn't succeed, and a politician who tells deliberate lies to get elected.

How all those Bush-era assaults on privacy and civil liberties were going to be repealed?

Obama never promised to end the Patriot Act, he never promised to sue the telcos over the wiretapping fiasco. While Obama hasn't done everything I would hope he would, he didn't say he would do those things anyway.

But, Obama is the strongest civil rights President in many, many decades. He did promise and sign the Matthew Sheppard anti-hate law, to end the Bush torture policy, to end DADT, to lift the abortion gag rule, to extend marriage benefits to same-sex marriages, and on and on and on.

How Gitmo was going to be closed?

He did order Gitmo closed. But he has to put those prisoners somewhere, and no state has allowed those prisoners to come there. Remember, he's not an emperor, he doesn't have authority over state-level issues.

How he was going to end our wars in the middle east, and not start any more of them?

He never said this. EVER. EVER. He said he would end the war in Iraq, and re-double military efforts in Afghanistan.

How he was going to bring law and order to Wall Street?

Obama has made more small progress on this issue. The hammer will fall next term. He threw down the gauntlet at the last SotU address: For 10 Minutes Of Obama's Speech, He Spoke Directly To Wall Street - Business Insider

So that was a wonderful litany of half-truths and distortions from you. You'll fit in here just fine.

[Shaddim]

More flatulence sounds from the Canadian.

I'm still not hearing the "n" word in that clip, sunshine.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

More flatulence sounds from the Canadian.

More inability to address the points directly, so you resort to dismissing them via nationality?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

More inability to address the points directly, so you resort to dismissing them via nationality?

When they aren't even the nationality of the candidates and voters? Sure.

I don't like Santorum any more than you. I'm not a fan of evangelical crackpots and I'd easily choose Obama over that boob. However, the guy didn't say "n*****", no matter how the clip has been edited or doctored. He's put his foot in his mouth for real enough times, there's no reason to go fabricating anything.

[subego]

Oh, so it was doctored?

I'll take the argument it wasn't what he was trying to say, but doctored?

Evidence?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

More inability to address the points directly, so you resort to dismissing them via nationality?

Shaddim never contributes here. He trolls, nothing else.

[andi*pandi]

I've never been to Jamaica. Is it nicer or more fun than the Caymans?

[subego]

More pot, less tropical fish.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Oh, so it was doctored?

I'll take the argument it wasn't what he was trying to say, but doctored?

Evidence?

When they kept repeating it over, and over, and over again in that clip it made it sound more damning than it actually was.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Shaddim never contributes here. He trolls, nothing else.

You'd know how to spot one, Bo Peep.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

When they kept repeating it over, and over, and over again in that clip it made it sound more damning than it actually was.

I got ya.

I thought you were talking about the original.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I got ya.

I thought you were talking about the original.

Nah. The original wasn't him being a racist, just a retard.

[Athens]

Like Shaddim, I just cant hear the N word in that. I just hear a stumble, brain pause and correction nothing more.

[Nergol]

You know what a bad argument parade should start with? A really classic logical fallacy. Let's see if we can find one:

Since Santorum is probably the worst liar I have seen in years, his opinion on Obama doesn't carry any weight.

I mean, this is a guy who says Obama wants everyone to go to college (he doesn't), that no one teaches history in California (they do), that Obama thinks born alive babies can be killed (he doesn't), that Obama wants to force the Catholic Church to hire women as priests (he doesn't), and on and on and on. Santorum even lied that Obama ordered military chaplains to perform marriages for gay soldiers

In other words, Santorum is a terrible Christian who will tell any blatant lie to gain power. If Santorum was killed by a bus tomorrow, I would cheer.

Ah, here we go, good old fashioned ad hominem. You don't get more classic than that. Basically, this is two arguments, both of which are variants of ad hominem, and neither of which are valid. The first is: "Santorum is an asshole, therefore his point is wrong", and the second is: "Santorum has been wrong about other things, which proves that he's wrong about this".

Sorry, neither is valid. Also, wishing for someone to die just because you disagree with there politics makes you a way worse asshole. Just sayin'.

You seem to think the President is an emperor.

No, I think you don't need to be an emperor to get policies passed when you have a majority in both houses of Congress, which Obama did for the early part of his term.

But there are the oddities of American politics - that minority filibusters are stronger than a congressional majority, and you need a 60% supermajority to break them.

If this was that much of an obstacle, nothing would ever get passed with less than a 60% vote.

Plus, the Democratic party isn't uniform: there are conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Just because you have a majority of Democrats in Congress doesn't mean you have a majority that supports a public option.

There's a HUGE difference between a politician who advocates for a policy but doesn't succeed, and a politician who tells deliberate lies to get elected.

Being the de facto leader of your party and finding ways to keep your party in line is one of the basic parts of the President's job. Not getting that done suggests either stupendous incompetence or just not being that into it. Which, I wonder, is worse?

Either way, we could have ended up with better than a ramshackle law of questionable Constitutionality that is basically a blowjob to the insurance industry (I bet every industry would love a law forcing people to buy their products). Can you explain to me how forcing people, under penalty of law, to buy products from huge multinational for-profit corporations is a "liberal" idea, exactly?

Obama never promised to end the Patriot Act, he never promised to sue the telcos over the wiretapping fiasco. While Obama hasn't done everything I would hope he would, he didn't say he would do those things anyway.

He never said this. EVER. EVER. He said he would end the war in Iraq, and re-double military efforts in Afghanistan.

I've put these two together because my response is the same. This is exactly what I meant by "fine print". Yes, I know that if you looked closely, Obama didn't quite exactly say these things. But neither did he say: "I'm going to do all the same shit as Bush, but even more so". He certainly left the heavily-implied impression that he was a peace candidate, and a civil liberties candidate.

Also, even granting you that he never explicitly said these things - does that make them OK? If he didn't, he damn well should have. I mean, by that logic, the Holocaust was OK because Hitler never explicitly said he wouldn't kill the Jews.

Also, Obama took three full years of his Presidency to end Iraq (January 2009 to December 2011). Nixon and Kissinger took four full years to end Vietnam, a war their predecessors started, and they're still reviled as war criminals in many liberal circles for taking so long to do so. Obama took 75% as long to end his war, and we're all supposed to admire him for it? Don't think so.

But, Obama is the strongest civil rights President in many, many decades. He did promise and sign the Matthew Sheppard anti-hate law, to end the Bush torture policy, to end DADT, to lift the abortion gag rule, to extend marriage benefits to same-sex marriages, and on and on and on.

Even if you believe that hate crimes laws, gay marriage, and legal abortion are valid or good ideas, which many don't, all this means is that Obama paid off interest groups that are important to the Democratic Party (gay rights groups and feminists) while basically leaving the rest of us hung out to dry. Color me unimpressed.

He did order Gitmo closed. But he has to put those prisoners somewhere, and no state has allowed those prisoners to come there. Remember, he's not an emperor, he doesn't have authority over state-level issues.

Of all your bad points, this is the worst. Obama doesn't need anyone's permission to close Gitmo. It's a military facility, and he is Commander In Chief of the armed forces. All he has to do to close Gitmo is to call the head of the Joint Chiefs and say: "Admiral, I order you to close Gitmo". Done.

As for putting the prisoners somewhere else, he doesn't need permission for that, either. He can find room for them in a federal prison, or, barring that, move them to a prison in a military base on US soil - something that he can also do as Commander In Chief without asking anyone. As simply being on US soil would change the prisoners' legal status significantly, it's something that one might think a civil liberties-minded President would want to do.

Obama has made more small progress on this issue.

Small progress indeed. After the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80s, under stodgy, business-friendly Bush Senior, hundreds of bankers went to jail for their part in it. Under supposedly-liberal Obama, after a scandal that was exponentially worse, exactly one banker has.

The hammer will fall next term.

Remind me why the President has to wait until after his re-election to order his Justice Department to arrest criminals?

He threw down the gauntlet at the last SotU address: For 10 Minutes Of Obama's Speech, He Spoke Directly To Wall Street - Business Insider

Yup, he sure made a dandy speech. He talks a whole lot. He's real good at talking about getting stuff accomplished, I'll give him that.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Nergol 

Ah, here we go, good old fashioned ad hominem. You don't get more classic than that. Basically, this is two arguments, both of which are variants of ad hominem, and neither of which are valid. The first is: "Santorum is an asshole, therefore his point is wrong", and the second is: "Santorum has been wrong about other things, which proves that he's wrong about this".

Congrats on stepping on your d!ck right out of the gate. I didn't say Santorum was an asshole, I said he was a liar, hence unfit to judge the honesty of others. That's not an ad hominem. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you're stuffing words in my mouth.

And then I demonstrated that, unlike Santorum, Obama wasn't a liar, and I proved it.

Sorry, neither is valid. Also, wishing for someone to die just because you disagree with there politics makes you a way worse asshole. Just saying'.

That's the second time you've stuffed words in my mouth. I didn't say I would cheer Santorum's death because I disagree with his politics, I said I would cheer because he's a power-hungry liar. I stand by my words.

No, I think you don't need to be an emperor to get policies passed when you have a majority in both houses of Congress, which Obama did for the early part of his term.

He did get policies enacted; a lot of them.

If this was that much of an obstacle, nothing would ever get passed with less than a 60% vote.

Obama's presidency has been affected by a rampage of filibusters the likes of which were never seen in American history. Part of that is because filibusters used to require the constant presence of a single talker who couldn't even go to the bathroom. Since filibuster rules were eased years ago, things slowly got worse. And now that the Republicans have completely lost their marbles since Obama was elected, they abuse the filibuster almost non-stop. Look at this chart and see the truth:

Either way, we could have ended up with better than a ramshackle law of questionable Constitutionality that is basically a blowjob to the insurance industry (I bet every industry would love a law forcing people to buy their products). Can you explain to me how forcing people, under penalty of law, to buy products from huge multinational for-profit corporations is a "liberal" idea, exactly?

It's not, it's a conservative plan, invented by Romney, Gingrich, the Heritage Foundation, and other Republicans during the Clinton Administration. So why are Republicans so opposed to a plan today they themselves developed 15 years ago?

But this plan was proposed by Obama because the ideal liberal plan, a single payer system, is politically impossible at this point. Obama had a choice: a plan that could be enacted, or just let the middle class continue to lose their homes and just let the poor die in the streets.

I've put these two together because my response is the same. This is exactly what I meant by "fine print". Yes, I know that if you looked closely, Obama didn't quite exactly say these things. But neither did he say: "I'm going to do all the same shit as Bush, but even more so". He certainly left the heavily-implied impression that he was a peace candidate, and a civil liberties candidate.

Facts are facts. These aren't "fine details," they are the plain facts to anyone who is honest. Just because you're confused by "impressions" doesn't mean all of us are.

Also, even granting you that he never explicitly said these things - does that make them OK? If he didn't, he damn well should have. I mean, by that logic, the Holocaust was OK because Hitler never explicitly said he wouldn't kill the Jews.

The issue you raised wasn't whether these policies are ok, the issue was whether he lied about them. He didn't, you just said he did, and you were wrong.

Also, Obama took three full years of his Presidency to end Iraq (January 2009 to December 2011). Nixon and Kissinger took four full years to end Vietnam, a war their predecessors started, and they're still reviled as war criminals in many liberal circles for taking so long to do so. Obama took 75% as long to end his war, and we're all supposed to admire him for it? Don't think so.

That's friggin' stupid. They aren't labelled war criminals because they were too slow to end the war, they were called war criminals for the way they conducted the war. What a stupid comparison.

Even if you believe that hate crimes laws, gay marriage, and legal abortion are valid or good ideas, which many don't, all this means is that Obama paid off interest groups that are important to the Democratic Party (gay rights groups and feminists) while basically leaving the rest of us hung out to dry. Color me unimpressed.

Doesn't change the fact that you are wrong that he didn't do what he said he would. He did.

Of all your bad points, this is the worst. Obama doesn't need anyone's permission to close Gitmo. It's a military facility, and he is Commander In Chief of the armed forces. All he has to do to close Gitmo is to call the head of the Joint Chiefs and say: "Admiral, I order you to close Gitmo". Done.

He did order the closing of Gitmo. The ink is on the executive order.

As for putting the prisoners somewhere else, he doesn't need permission for that, either. He can find room for them in a federal prison, or, barring that, move them to a prison in a military base on US soil - something that he can also do as Commander In Chief without asking anyone. As simply being on US soil would change the prisoners' legal status significantly, it's something that one might think a civil liberties-minded President would want to do.

You're simply wrong. The President simply can't move the prisoners without cooperation from the receiving states and Congress. Your claim that "something that he can also do as Commander In Chief without asking anyone" is hilariously, ridiculously false.

Small progress indeed. After the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80s, under stodgy, business-friendly Bush Senior, hundreds of bankers went to jail for their part in it. Under supposedly-liberal Obama, after a scandal that was exponentially worse, exactly one banker has.

False equivalence. The S&L scandal involved deliberate fraud, the recent crisis was simply financial recklessness. As Obama said himself, the behaviour was "immoral, but not illegal."

Remind me why the President has to wait until after his re-election to order his Justice Department to arrest criminals?

He isn't planning to arrest anyone, and hasn't claimed he will. He plans to modernize the regulation of Wall Street, that's all.

[lpkmckenna]

Why would someone deface my wonderful thread title?

[Nergol]

Congrats on stepping on your d!ck right out of the gate. I didn't say Santorum was an asshole, I said he was a liar, hence unfit to judge the honesty of others. That's not an ad hominem. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you're stuffing words in my mouth.

Please get around to reading my whole statement. Again, "Santorum has been wrong about other things, which proves that he's wrong about this". Not a valid argument.

And yes, you did give me all the reasons why you think he's an asshole. For what purpose, other than to try to discredit him? I only show words in your mouth that were already there.

That's the second time you've stuffed words in my mouth. I didn't say I would cheer Santorum's death because I disagree with his politics, I said I would cheer because he's a power-hungry liar. I stand by my words.

As opposed to all those other politicians - including ones you agree with - that aren't power-hungry liars? Give me a break. You wished a man dead because you don't like his politics. That makes you an asshole.

He did get policies enacted; a lot of them.

Just none of them that ended the wars speedily, brought back the civil rights of people that weren't big contributors to the Democratic Party, or held Wall Street crooks accountable.

Look at this chart and see the truth:

Again, that's what the opposition party is supposed to do - oppose stuff. A President with a majority in both houses is supposed to find ways to overcome that. To not do so is a sign of incompetence, laziness, corruption, or lack of dedication. Which is it in this case?

It's not, it's a conservative plan, invented by Romney, Gingrich, the Heritage Foundation, and other Republicans during the Clinton Administration. So why are Republicans so opposed to a plan today they themselves developed 15 years ago?

I think you just answered your own question.

A better question would be: Why did Obama propose, and why did a Democratic majority, pass a law that was "invented by Romney, Gingrich, the Heritage Foundation, and other Republicans during the Clinton Administration"?

Again, that doesn't sound too "liberal" to me.

But this plan was proposed by Obama because the ideal liberal plan, a single payer system, is politically impossible at this point. Obama had a choice: a plan that could be enacted, or just let the middle class continue to lose their homes and just let the poor die in the streets.

Explain to me how a health care law - any health care law - prevents the middle class from "losing their homes".

Facts are facts. These aren't "fine details," they are the plain facts to anyone who is honest.

Again, Obama sold himself as an anti-war, pro-civil liberties candidate. He at no point said: "I'm just going to follow the Bush plan". People wouldn't have elected him if he had made that prominent, and not just buried it in the fine print.

He didn't, you just said he did, and you were wrong.

I said he buried them in the fine print, which he did.

That's friggin' stupid. They aren't labelled war criminals because they were too slow to end the war, they were called war criminals for the way they conducted the war. What a stupid comparison.

My ass. They were labeled war criminals because they took too long to end the war, and because that slowness cost many American and Southeast Asian lives. Obama took too long to end Iraq, and that cost many American and Iraqi lives. At best the difference is a matter of degree, but that doesn't make Obama greatly morally superior.

Doesn't change the fact that you are wrong that he didn't do what he said he would. He did.

See the above. And again, if he didn't say he'd do these things, he sure as shit should have.

You're simply wrong. The President simply can't move the prisoners without cooperation from the receiving states and Congress. Your claim that "something that he can also do as Commander In Chief without asking anyone" is hilariously, ridiculously false.

Pardon me, but the Commander In Chief certainly can order the military to do something as simple as move some prisoners from one military base to another.

False equivalence. The S&L scandal involved deliberate fraud, the recent crisis was simply financial recklessness. As Obama said himself, the behaviour was "immoral, but not illegal."

Bullshit. Much of what Wall Street - and especially Goldman Sachs - did in the housing bubble was outright fraud. Do some research into robosigning, or NINJA loans. You can't tell me that only one person in the entire banking industry knew that they were selling people a bunch of bad paper but went ahead and did so anyway.

He isn't planning to arrest anyone, and hasn't claimed he will. He plans to modernize the regulation of Wall Street, that's all.

Didn't you just say that "the hammer is going to fall next term"? On whom, exactly? Does that really mean that no one is going to do jail time over this?

And even if I accept your premise, why does the President need to wait until after his re-election to pass laws that make plain fraud illegal? He had a Congressional majority during the first part of his term - why didn't he do it then?

[lpkmckenna]

Wow, arguing with you is a complete waste of time. You deliberately stuff words in my mouth over and over again, I have to argue against you and a false representation of myself.

Originally Posted by Nergol 

Please get around to reading my whole statement. Again, "Santorum has been wrong about other things, which proves that he's wrong about this". Not a valid argument.

And here's a perfect example of that. I did not say "Santorum has been wrong about other things, which proves that he's wrong about this". I did not say that. I did not say he was wrong, I said he lied. Stop being such a deliberate liar like your hero Dick Santorum and stop twisting my words.

And yes, you did give me all the reasons why you think he's an asshole. For what purpose, other than to try to discredit him? I only show words in your mouth that were already there.

I said he was a liar, which discredits him. I did not say he was an asshole, I don't think that's remotely relevant, and there's no point in you continuing to bring it up.

As opposed to all those other politicians - including ones you agree with - that aren't power-hungry liars? Give me a break. You wished a man dead because you don't like his politics. That makes you an asshole.

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't hit the REPORT button.

And again, I didn't say it was because of his politics, it's because he's a power-mad liar. Don't you get tired of shoving words into people's mouths, and then arguing against the words that you put there yourself? Doesn't that feel like a complete waste of time to you?

Just none of them that ended the wars speedily, brought back the civil rights of people that weren't big contributors to the Democratic Party, or held Wall Street crooks accountable.

Civil rights are not for Democrats or Republicans, they are for everyone. I shouldn't have to tell a member of the free world that, but I guess you skipped civics class.

Again, that's what the opposition party is supposed to do - oppose stuff. A President with a majority in both houses is supposed to find ways to overcome that. To not do so is a sign of incompetence, laziness, corruption, or lack of dedication. Which is it in this case?

The rules governing Congress are broken. The filibuster rules should be restored to a sensible policy like it was in the past. Many people on both sides of the aisle have said this.

A better question would be: Why did Obama propose, and why did a Democratic majority, pass a law that was "invented by Romney, Gingrich, the Heritage Foundation, and other Republicans during the Clinton Administration"?

Again, that doesn't sound too "liberal" to me.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that single payer is currently impossible?

Explain to me how a health care law - any health care law - prevents the middle class from "losing their homes".

Are you so clueless as to not know that medical bankruptcy is at epidemic levels in the United States? No one loses their home in Canada over that.

Again, Obama sold himself as an anti-war, pro-civil liberties candidate. He at no point said: "I'm just going to follow the Bush plan".

Because he isn't.

My ass. They were labeled war criminals because they took too long to end the war, and because that slowness cost many American and Southeast Asian lives.

What a complete fncking joke of a statement that is. You are intellectually unworthy of discussion. You are either completely clueless of American history, or you are deliberately trolling. Either way, I've had enough of you.

Kissenger (and thus his president also) is accused of complicity in a series of alleged war crimes in Indochina, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor.

Pardon me, but the Commander In Chief certainly can order the military to do something as simple as move some prisoners from one military base to another.

False. Pretend all you want, but that's false.

Bullshit. Much of what Wall Street - and especially Goldman Sachs - did in the housing bubble was outright fraud. Do some research into robosigning, or NINJA loans. You can't tell me that only one person in the entire banking industry knew that they were selling people a bunch of bad paper but went ahead and did so anyway.

You're right, I can't prove that. Being Canadian, I didn't pay much attention to the specifics of how and why that crisis happened.

But I told you what Obama said he would do, what he did do, and what he plans to do. Every word of that is fact. He says is was immoral, not illegal. Maybe he's wrong and you're right. But my point stands: Obama never campaigned that he was gonna throw Wall Street in prison. Never happened. You seem to think he did, and you're simply wrong.

For all your complaining about Obama on this issue: who do you think is gonna fix it? Give me a name. Santorum? Romney? Paul? Who is your shining knight who will be so much greater than Obama on this issue. Just tell me that.

Didn't you just say that "the hammer is going to fall next term"? On whom, exactly? Does that really mean that no one is going to do jail time over this?

I meant exactly what I said: regulation is coming. I never said, and Obama never said, that criminal trials were coming.

And even if I accept your premise, why does the President need to wait until after his re-election to pass laws that make plain fraud illegal? He had a Congressional majority during the first part of his term - why didn't he do it then?

He was busy. Maybe you haven't noticed, but more has happened during the last three years than in the previous 8 years.

Anyways, if you can manage a single post without deliberately distorting my words and calling me names, maybe we'll talk more. If you can't manage that simple thing, feel free to go piss up a tree.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Not "differences". Not "positions". But "colors". Now I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't engaging in a little dog whistle politics with that line. But seriously, given his comments in Iowa his speechwriters had to know that it might raise some eyebrows. We'll see if the cable news shows go after him on that one.

There's a certain point where we need to ask when "fool me once" becomes "shame on me." How many minor flubs will it take before people will admit there's a pattern?

Someone early in the thread asked whether "government n!gger" is something people actually say. A member of the Straight Dope forums explored the internet's seedy underbelly of racist forums and found lots of examples of people using it.

Straight Dope Message Board - View Single Post - Stupid Republican idea of the day

"Government n****r" was the term used for "welfare queen" before the word "n****r" became unacceptable in polite company.

Citation: I'm old enough to remember it.

We don't have to take your word for it, either. There are plenty of instances of the use of the slur before the current Presidential campaign, in both the "welfare queen" sense and the "house ******" sense: i.e., meaning either a shiftless recipient of government benefits or a servile lackey of government bureaucracy.

"[...] I've seen just one government ****** breeding grounds complex [...]";

"I never been or plan on being on an airplane...due to the fact i'd probably rage hard and call anyone in TSA a useless government ******";

"how about you either ride you bike off road like a civilized ****** instead of makin yourself think your cool or just spend your government ****** checks more wisely and pay a light or water bill hell maybe even the rent who knows";

"YES, white liberals and the strong majority of niggers would walk off a ****ing bridge if they were told to by a government ******....."

I know this stuff is bothersome to read, but I think we all need to admit that government n!gger is real racist slang in use.

But did Santorum actually let this slip out?

I just watched Santorum's speech from start to finish. He's an even better speaker than I previously thought: a very long talk with flow and connectivity, and deliberate structure. By that I mean, I was watching it and I started wondering "Is he just gonna tell folksy tales about Reagan and Churchill, or is he actually gonna make real policy statements?" Turns out, he saved all that for near the end. The overall structure is really good:

1) Folksy talk about how nice Wisconsin is
2) Folksy talk about Reagan, freedom, conservatism, etc
3) A fierce attack on Obama, who doesn't believe in American values
4) A backtrack to folksy immigrant talk, those who came to America for freedom
5) Obamacare and Romneycare
6) More specific policy differences between him and Romney
7) An emotional plea for supporters to go to their communities

And he does it all while while looking completely spontaneous, and it really seems to come from the heart.

So it's very strange that his "government n!gger" flub is the only verbal train-wreck in the entire thing. Towards the end he make another minor flub and says something about "the generation that struck a blow for freedom," but he trips on "struck" and needs to say it twice.

But his train wreck sentence is completely unlike anything else in his speech.

"We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like – the anti-war government nig-, ugh, (pause) … America was a source for division around the world, that what we were doing was wrong."

It really stands out in such an otherwise good speech by a good speaker. Why doesn't he complete his thought? Why does he move on to a completely different phrase? Did he intend to say something like:

"We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like – the anti-war, big-government liberal, who believed that America was a source for division around the world, that what we were doing was wrong."

I could buy that, if he corrected himself, that he intended "big-government" but instead said "government-nig." But he's so flustered, with that "oh sh!t" look on his face, that it doesn't seem like it.

I don't think this error was a deliberate dog-whistle, that he spoke with the intention of speaking to racists directly with plausible deniability for everyone else. It looks a lot more like a racist sentiment accidentally slipping out in the middle of a harangue about Obama.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Obama's presidency has been affected by a rampage of filibusters the likes of which were never seen in American history. Part of that is because filibusters used to require the constant presence of a single talker who couldn't even go to the bathroom. Since filibuster rules were eased years ago, things slowly got worse. And now that the Republicans have completely lost their marbles since Obama was elected, they abuse the filibuster almost non-stop. Look at this chart and see the truth:

You realize that cloture doesn't = filibuster right? You can use cloture for a head count my friend, no actual filibuster anywhere. It's also disingenuous to claim that Republicans "lost their marbles over Obama" as the Obama Administration immediately began working through Obamacare legislation upon taking office and this contentious and broad a measure certainly provoked the opposition party. Speaking of dog whistle; of course one cannot oppose a highly contentious piece of legislation without abject hatred of some sort for the person behind it.

It's not, it's a conservative plan, invented by Romney, Gingrich, the Heritage Foundation, and other Republicans during the Clinton Administration. So why are Republicans so opposed to a plan today they themselves developed 15 years ago?

Not entirely true. Contrary to Gingrich's claim that his support for the individual mandate was in response to the prospect of Hillarycare, the Heritage Foundation picked the idea from a 1989 book; A National Health System for America. Another difference is that this idea was conceived to address catastrophic medical loss exclusively with a catastrophic coverage plan and was not a mandate to purchase comprehensive care. The individual mandate in Obamacare is a proposal authored by a Stanford economist. Granted, they're both equally problematic IMO in that it is a Federal mandate for the purchase of insurance. While connecting Obamacare to the Heritage Foundation and Republicans has become a popular tactic (as if the Heritage Foundation is all of a sudden an authority for leftist policy), this did not enjoy the collective support of conservatives or the Republican establishment at the time and it was, but one of many ideals for dealing with the problem of catastrophic medical loss. I suspect there have been a vast and varied array of ideals over the past 20+ years that have since lost their clout.

But this plan was proposed by Obama because the ideal liberal plan, a single payer system, is politically impossible at this point. Obama had a choice: a plan that could be enacted, or just let the middle class continue to lose their homes and just let the poor die in the streets.

First off, most US states have a Homestead exemption and your house cannot be assumed for outstanding debt under a bankruptcy claim. The second problem with your argument is holding everyone responsible for the choices of others. Too many of our "middle class" in the US are saddling themselves with a mortgage for rich people (and cars, gadgets, eating out...) and don't have enough left over to save. I'm sorry if this sounds cold to you, but at some point we absolutely, positively have to become better stewards of our own resources. Personally, I'd rather we not morph our middle class into a greater dependency class than they already are. The third issue is that the average bankruptcy filing for medical loss in the US is $11k. It may take legwork in phone calls, but most debtors/providers would rather get something from you than get nothing under a bankruptcy claim. Otherwise, government-provided health care is means-tested. If you don't have health care in the US, you're not trying and there's nothing Obamacare can do about it. It's as simple as that. No one, I repeat; no one in the US is dying in the streets.

The problem with health care is the cost of health care. This entire scheme was an attempt to merely extend health care coverage to the 34 million uninsured in the US and per CBO estimates, some 24 million will remain uninsured through Obamacare. It's an expensive failure from beginning to end while doing absolutely nothing for the root cause of the problem. Zero.

He did order the closing of Gitmo. The ink is on the executive order.

Did you stop paying attention in 2009? You might know he signed quite another executive order in March, 2011.

• the order resumes military trials for Gitmo detainees.
• a "periodic review" process for long-term detainees who have not been charged, convicted or designated for transfer, "but must continue to be detained because they 'in effect, remain at war with the United States".

Since this issue no longer feeds what had become the obligatory Bush-sucks narrative it's not getting near as much media attention, but trust me; after having just completed a $750k soccer field project for Camp 6 that began construction in 2011, Gitmo's not going anywhere. In short, the new executive order is considered by experts from the left and right as the continuation of indefinite detention and an official, about-face on his campaign promise. Perhaps it's not an outright lie to his most ardent supporters, but exactly what one would expect from a woefully naive, ignorant, and inept Commander in Chief.

You're simply wrong. The President simply can't move the prisoners without cooperation from the receiving states and Congress. Your claim that "something that he can also do as Commander In Chief without asking anyone" is hilariously, ridiculously false.

What they can do is not detain unlawful enemy combatants in Gitmo, instead holding them on US Naval Ships and then trying them in Federal court as is the case with Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame. Or they can be held in other countries as well. This is actually two broken promises in one because it includes failure to follow through on his promise to create an alternative to Bush's Military Commissions Act. Holder's attempt to overturn 60 years of precedent regarding UECs was one of the few Obama Administration policy initiatives that actually united the two parties resulting in Congressional legislation that no Gitmo detainee be tried on US soil. Damn Republican obstructionists right?

Some other issues came up around warrantless wiretapping and Middle East wars.
- Iraq, Afghanistan, and... Libya?!? He opposed a surge in Iraq as a candidate before authorizing one as President. He promised to withdraw two brigades per month with all combat troops out by 2009. Nope. Now planned for completion by 2014? I always love an OJT CIC. And I mean, who would've thought we'd see additional military action in Libya coming under this Administration?
- Warrantless wiretapping; Obama promised that because Bush's policy on wiretapping "crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens"; he would "update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law." Well, he didn't. The provisions above are included in the Patriot Act which came up for reauthorization in 2009 and 2011 and in both cases the President signed with no changes regarding oversight and accountability for the prevention of threats to the rule of law and no changes to the Intelligence Surveillance Act. As a result, the status quo of the Act remains through 2015. In an attempt to make good on Obama's promise in spite of himself, a bill was sponsored by an (R) and (D) Senator that would increase this oversight to protect civil liberties and it was never brought to a full vote.

Obama lies? Okay maybe not, but examples of a woefully naive, ignorant, and inept CIC who squandered all of his political capital on a piece of signature legislation that will be deemed unconstitutional and dismantled from the roots.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

There's a certain point where we need to ask when "fool me once" becomes "shame on me." How many minor flubs will it take before people will admit there's a pattern?

Someone early in the thread asked whether "government n!gger" is something people actually say. A member of the Straight Dope forums explored the internet's seedy underbelly of racist forums and found lots of examples of people using it.

Straight Dope Message Board - View Single Post - Stupid Republican idea of the day




I know this stuff is bothersome to read, but I think we all need to admit that government n!gger is real racist slang in use.

But did Santorum actually let this slip out?

I just watched Santorum's speech from start to finish. He's an even better speaker than I previously thought: a very long talk with flow and connectivity, and deliberate structure. By that I mean, I was watching it and I started wondering "Is he just gonna tell folksy tales about Reagan and Churchill, or is he actually gonna make real policy statements?" Turns out, he saved all that for near the end. The overall structure is really good:

1) Folksy talk about how nice Wisconsin is
2) Folksy talk about Reagan, freedom, conservatism, etc
3) A fierce attack on Obama, who doesn't believe in American values
4) A backtrack to folksy immigrant talk, those who came to America for freedom
5) Obamacare and Romneycare
6) More specific policy differences between him and Romney
7) An emotional plea for supporters to go to their communities

And he does it all while while looking completely spontaneous, and it really seems to come from the heart.

So it's very strange that his "government n!gger" flub is the only verbal train-wreck in the entire thing. Towards the end he make another minor flub and says something about "the generation that struck a blow for freedom," but he trips on "struck" and needs to say it twice.

But his train wreck sentence is completely unlike anything else in his speech.

"We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like – the anti-war government nig-, ugh, (pause) … America was a source for division around the world, that what we were doing was wrong."

It really stands out in such an otherwise good speech by a good speaker. Why doesn't he complete his thought? Why does he move on to a completely different phrase? Did he intend to say something like:

"We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like – the anti-war, big-government liberal, who believed that America was a source for division around the world, that what we were doing was wrong."

I could buy that, if he corrected himself, that he intended "big-government" but instead said "government-nig." But he's so flustered, with that "oh sh!t" look on his face, that it doesn't seem like it.

I don't think this error was a deliberate dog-whistle, that he spoke with the intention of speaking to racists directly with plausible deniability for everyone else. It looks a lot more like a racist sentiment accidentally slipping out in the middle of a harangue about Obama.

All of this effort wasted for a distant number two who holds no office presently and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination.

[hyteckit]

God forgot to tell Santorum it's over for his presidential bid.

You don't even need to be God to see it a mile away.

[OAW]

Well it would appear that Santorum has finally heard from God. Or he didn't relish the thought of getting spanked in his home state. Or perhaps the second health scare with his daughter has made him realize he has more important considerations to worry about. Regardless, something has finally knocked some sense into his head and he's come to accept the fact that he will not be the GOP Presidential nominee under any circumstances.

Santorum to suspend campaign - CNN.com

I always figured Romney would be the eventual nominee. I never figured Santorum of all the GOP candidates would go as far as he did. A most interesting contest indeed.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

[besson3c]

Unfortunately, I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear from him.

[lpkmckenna]

I expected Santorum to stay in the race til the end, since the #2 from the Republican primaries has been the nominee in the next primary (Reagan, Bush, McCain, and Romney were all #2), and Santorum is young enough to run again in the next Presidential election. But by ending his campaign, he gives up his #2 spot.

I hope all is well with his daughter.

Does Gingrich now have a chance for a surge of support from hard conservatives? Will Santorum back Gingrich?

[Chongo]

So much for the alleged "N word " video bringing him down.

[The Final Dakar]

BTW, is it even possible for a candidate to drop-out anymore? They all "suspend" their campaigns.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

BTW, is it even possible for a candidate to drop-out anymore? They all "suspend" their campaigns.

IIRC they "suspend" a campaign so that they can continue to accept campaign contributions to pay off any debt the campaign has accumulated.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So much for the alleged "N word " video bringing him down.

Since the blah comment got so much press, I expected this to get some coverage. I will be more cautious in my predictions from now on.

[hyteckit]

Santorum bowels out, leaving his campaign trail behind.