[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm afraid Romney is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Except there was never any hope of victory. Romney was the simply to only racer to cross the finish line at the Special Olympics that was the 2012 Republican Primary. There was not a single, serious candidate in that entire race. This brutal failure was always a certainty.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I see a distinct difference between calling the person who came up with "freedom fries" unpatriotic vs. calling the person accused of Marxism "an enemy sympathizer".

I don't understand your point here. Obama called the Bush Administration unpatriotic for the amount of debt it had accumulated over 8 years.

You're talking about the guy who made it illegal to protest at a military funeral. Now that's a rejection of American values.

There's a buffer requirement, he didn't make it illegal.

[Chongo]

No time for Netanyahu but....

Obama Observes International Talk Like a Pirate Day

President Barack Obama may not announce an official proclamation for International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but he was sure not to let the important day go unnoticed.
The campaign celebrated by posting this picture on Twitter with the caption, "Arrr you in?"

[Chongo]

Romney needs to run with this.

Top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack"

Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved.

That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act.

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday.

From the most reliable source on the inter-webs, The HuffPo


Libya Attack Said To Be 2-Part Militant Assault

BENGHAZI, Libya — The attack that killed four Americans in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador, was an organized two-part operation by heavily armed militants that included a precisely timed raid on a supposedly secret safe house just as Libyan and U.S. security forces were arriving to rescue evacuated consulate staff, a senior Libyan security official said on Thursday.

Wanis el-Sharef, eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, said the attacks Tuesday night were suspected to have been timed to mark the 9/11 anniversary and that the militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover for their action. Infiltrators within the security forces may have tipped off militants to the safe house location, he said.

[Spheric Harlot]

Hasn't all of that basically been known for a week already?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't understand your point here. Obama called the Bush Administration unpatriotic for the amount of debt it had accumulated over 8 years.

My point is the two aren't equivalent.

Patriotism is a continuum. It's subjective and context dependent. Likewise, there's a distinct difference between a patriotic (or unpatriotic) act, and whether one is a patriot or not.

Sympathizing with attackers is like ****ing a goat. There is no continuum. It is not subjective. You have either ****ed a goat, or not ****ed a goat. There is no independence of the act and the label. If you **** a goat, that makes you a goat ****er.

The context of Obama's statement was an accusation about a specific action towards Mr. Extreme Patriot™. No one would reasonably expect the former to unwind 8 years of the latter, so I'm skeptical of the idea Obama was arguing it should.

I am not aware of a contextual defense for ****ing a goat.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's a buffer requirement, he didn't make it illegal.

Does calling it a buffer instead of a ban somehow change that it's legislation aimed directly at that group?

Your claim was the Administration doesn't even speak of the WBC. How does that square with a debate over what we should call the anti-WBC law they signed?

A law, which I repeat, is a goat ****er rejection of American values.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

My point is the two aren't equivalent.
Patriotism is a continuum. It's subjective and context dependent. Likewise, there's a distinct difference between a patriotic (or unpatriotic) act, and whether one is a patriot or not.
Sympathizing with attackers is like ****ing a goat. There is no continuum. It is not subjective. You have either ****ed a goat, or not ****ed a goat. There is no independence of the act and the label. If you **** a goat, that makes you a goat ****er.
The context of Obama's statement was an accusation about a specific action towards Mr. Extreme Patriot™. No one would reasonably expect the former to unwind 8 years of the latter, so I'm skeptical of the idea Obama was arguing it should.
I am not aware of a contextual defense for ****ing a goat.

This reads like a whole bunch of moral equivalency here. Lest we get too far off what actually occurred; he accused the Obama Administration for sympathizing with the attackers of the embassy, not attackers in general. I see the difference between goat ****ing and unpatriotic, but I don't really see a difference between unpatriotic and embassy attacker sympathizer. Besides, as others have noted -- not everyone feels the same way about the "attack" or the "attackers".

Does calling it a buffer instead of a ban somehow change that it's legislation aimed directly at that group?
Your claim was the Administration doesn't even speak of the WBC. How does that square with a debate over what we should call the anti-WBC law they signed?
A law, which I repeat, is a goat ****er rejection of American values.

Don't blame me man, I didn't vote for him. Still, if we had enforced a 300' buffer at the Consulate like they suggest for a US funeral, we wouldn't be missing an ambassador. If calling that a ban makes you feel more oppressed, so be it. Otherwise, perhaps Romney should've called Obama a foreign attacker sympathizer, or American oppressor?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Except there was never any hope of victory. Romney was the simply to only racer to cross the finish line at the Special Olympics that was the 2012 Republican Primary. There was not a single, serious candidate in that entire race. This brutal failure was always a certainty.

Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. is shaking his fist at you from his secret base on the Dark Side of the Moon.

(It's the only place big enough to hold his ego.)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sympathizing with attackers is like ****ing a goat. There is no continuum. It is not subjective. You have either ****ed a goat, or not ****ed a goat. There is no independence of the act and the label. If you **** a goat, that makes you a goat ****er.

The context of Obama's statement was an accusation about a specific action towards Mr. Extreme Patriot™. No one would reasonably expect the former to unwind 8 years of the latter, so I'm skeptical of the idea Obama was arguing it should.

I am not aware of a contextual defense for ****ing a goat.

Posterity

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Hasn't all of that basically been known for a week already?

Known, yes. Admitted to, no. Susan Rice was on the Sunday news shows saying it was a "spontaneous uprising" Now they have to explain why there were no extra preacautions taking after they were given several days notice that there would be an attack.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This reads like a whole bunch of moral equivalency here. Lest we get too far off what actually occurred; he accused the Obama Administration for sympathizing with the attackers of the embassy, not attackers in general.

You mean the "I only ****ed this goat, not those other goats" defense?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I see the difference between goat ****ing and unpatriotic, but I don't really see a difference between unpatriotic and embassy attacker sympathizer.

The things which differentiate "****ed a goat" and "unpatriotic" apply equally to "sympathizing with the attackers". Replace "****ed a goat" with "sympathized with the attackers" in my original statement. The statement doesn't need further alteration to remain true.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't blame me man, I didn't vote for him. Still, if we had enforced a 300' buffer at the Consulate like they suggest for a US funeral, we wouldn't be missing an ambassador. If calling that a ban makes you feel more oppressed, so be it. Otherwise, perhaps Romney should've called Obama a foreign attacker sympathizer, or American oppressor?

I only blame you for not addressing my argument.

Your claim was the Administration doesn't even mention the WBC. How does that square with our discussion of legislation targeted directly at them?

[olePigeon]

I walked in on this thread talking about goat ****ing. I just finished watching Team America World Police, so it was exceptionally funny. Carry on.

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No time for Netanyahu but....
Obama Observes International Talk Like a Pirate Day
President Barack Obama may not announce an official proclamation for International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but he was sure not to let the important day go unnoticed.
The campaign celebrated by posting this picture on Twitter with the caption, "Arrr you in?"

This picture was taken 3 years ago, in 2009.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/fox-and-friends-obama-pirate_n_1900945.html

[Shaddim]

You can tell because he still had black hair in the photo.

[Chongo]

Still, he has time for Letterman, but not the PM of a country that's going to bomb the stuff out of Iran

[Chongo]

Now we know why..


Obama thinks Netanyahu is betting on Romney.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Still, he has time for Letterman, but not the PM of a country that's going to bomb the stuff out of Iran

If Obama doesn't back them up, they're not. They can't.

Obama thinks Netanyahu is betting on Romney.

Would that make Netanyahu a poor gambler, then? If he actually is "betting on Romney" I'd certainly say that he's not as smart as I would have hoped.

Hell, even Big Mac (may he rest in peace) probably wouldn't make any guarantees at this point......probably.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

If Obama doesn't back them up, they're not. They can't.
Would that make Netanyahu a poor gambler, then? If he actually is "betting on Romney" I'd certainly say that he's not as smart as I would have hoped.
Hell, even Big Mac (may he rest in peace) probably wouldn't make any guarantees at this point......probably.

What?!? What did I miss? Big Mac has passed away???

[Wiskedjak]

No time for Netanyahu but....

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What?!? What did I miss? Big Mac has passed away???

This! Please tell me that was a joke.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I think he's just using a standard exaggeration as Big Mac has been largely absent since the Republican primaries were drawing to a close in the spring. In MacNN terms, his account activity is "dead".

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think he's just using a standard exaggeration as Big Mac has been largely absent since the Republican primaries were drawing to a close in the spring. In MacNN terms, his account activity is "dead".

Gotcha. Now that you mention it ... he has been kind of scarce lately.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You mean the "I only ****ed this goat, not those other goats" defense?

You find it worse than the unpatriotic on that one thing defense? I mean, aside from the fact that goat****ing is so much more reprehensible.

The things which differentiate "****ed a goat" and "unpatriotic" apply equally to "sympathizing with the attackers". Replace "****ed a goat" with "sympathized with the attackers" in my original statement. The statement doesn't need further alteration to remain true.

Something can be both true and entirely irrelevant. The truth is they're all insults that exploited the hardship of others (including our barnyard friends) for political expediency. No moral equivalency, no mincing of words, no stretch... truth.

I only blame you for not addressing my argument.

I think it has more to do with your distaste for the answer, but I'll keep trying.

Your claim was the Administration doesn't even mention the WBC. How does that square with our discussion of legislation targeted directly at them?

What I mean is that we generally don't go to this degree of citing a particular offense. The fact is, this stuff is everywhere and it's not a worthy excuse to storm an embassy. Is WBC mentioned in the legislation? Did the President discuss them?

[ebuddy]

Is it like Big Mac to bail in an election season or something?

There should be a new forum rule; those who've been posting here more than three years need to tell the forum when they're leaving and why. Maybe include at least two years of tax returns or something too because, we have a right to know.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You find it worse than the unpatriotic on that one thing defense? I mean, aside from the fact that goat****ing is so much more reprehensible.

Yes I do, and it's baffling you don't.

"That's racist" can apply to a careless thought you never utter all the way to using whatever power at your disposal to engage in systematic oppression. Being guilty of the former does not make you racist. Being guilty of the latter most certainly does.

To put it another way, the goat ****er analogy doesn't work here. ****ing the "careless thought" goat is not enough to make you a goat ****er. That's not how goat ****ing works. There are not goats you can **** and somehow not be a goat ****er.

"That's unpatriotic" can cover everything from not wearing a flag pin to renouncing your citizenship in disgust. Being guilty of the former does not mean you aren't a patriot, while the latter most certainly does.

To put it another way, the goat ****er analogy doesn't work here. ****ing the "flag pin" goat is not enough to make you a goat ****er. That's not how goat ****ing works. There are not goats you can **** and somehow not be a goat ****er.

"That's sympathizing with the attackers" can apply to a careless thought never uttered to an official statement from an embassy and beyond. Unlike my other examples, being guilty of the former does make you someone who sympathized with the attackers because that's precisely what the accusation is.

To put it another way, goat ****er analogies were made for this type of statement.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it has more to do with your distaste for the answer, but I'll keep trying.

I assure you, it's poor communication on your part

I still don't understand your point. Are you saying the WBC law is an exception? Are you saying it doesn't count because it doesn't explicitly mention them?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney

I've got a very effective campaign. It's doing a very good job.

[besson3c]

Mitt should somehow make this awesome GIF his mascot:

[subego]

This is just sad.

I've said it before, and it bears repeating.

A poor Republican nominee does neither the country or myself any good.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is just sad.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating.
A poor Republican nominee does neither the country or myself any good.

This.

It's Tweedle-Dipshit and Tweedle-Dumbass, and I'm sick of looking at either of them.

[subego]

It's not like I'm looking forward to my civil liberties taking a pounding for four more years by someone with nothing to lose, but I just can't handle the President being a real-life Larry David comedy.

You can call me weak in that regard. I'm not going to deny it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is it like Big Mac to bail in an election season or something?

Who knows. Real life could have intervened. I was royally amused that even that far back he tried to start a narrative of Obama stealing the election, though.

Originally Posted by subego 

It's not like I'm looking forward to my civil liberties taking a pounding for four more years by someone with nothing to lose, but I just can't handle the President being a real-life Larry David comedy.
You can call me weak in that regard. I'm not going to deny it.

So the needle has swung all the way back for you? Impressive, Romney.

[subego]

Huh?

[The Final Dakar]

I feel like a month ago you were in "Not obama" mode.

[subego]

In a sense that hasn't changed. I don't have much positive to say about him and he will never again get my vote.

I am also genuinely afraid of what he'll do too. I know a lot of people tend to use hyperbole when talking about their fear of Obama and where he's taking this country. I wish I was being hyperbolic about this when it comes to his treatment of civil liberties.

The NDAA
No changes to the Patriot act
SOPA and PIPA
Anti-WBC law (thanks to ebuddy for reminding me)
Guantanamo
Torture
Busting marijuana clinics

You tell me. Is this hyperbole? If I care a lot about civil liberties (which I obviously do), can I support or vote for this guy? Is it unreasonable to say "it's highly likely things are only going to get a lot worse under Obama"?

All that said, I was being honest about my weakness. I can't handle Larry David type humor. I used to have to hide behind my ex when we would watch it.

So I admit it. I'm hiding behind Obama to spare me the pain. Mea culpa.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

In a sense that hasn't changed.

In an election season it's changed in the only sense that gets measured. Seems notable, probably because Obama has nothing to do with it.

Edit: The problem is I look at your list and see nothing that would improve under a Republican president.

[subego]

You're absolutely right. It's much harder to keep a hate-on for Obama when all he's doing is sitting there while the other guy keeps tripping over his Bruno Maglis.

As for whether things would fare worse under a Republican president, I honestly don't know. I thought these things would be fine under a Democratic president. Boy, was I wrong on that one. Also, it's not like I wasn't watching Bush very closely at the time. He was bad, but not this bad, and gets cut a little slack I think for 9/11. There is also a theoretical overlap between small government and civil liberties, but it's not like I haven't noticed that tends to disappear in practice.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No time for Netanyahu but....

Looks like he's canceled that light saber fight with Lord Morsi

President Barack Obama has quietly cancelled a politically risky plan to meet this week with Egypt’s new Islamist president.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/24/obama-cancels-election-season-meeting-with-egyptian-islamist-morsi/#ixzz27PJrv2w0

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

As for whether things would fare worse under a Republican president, I honestly don't know. I thought these things would be fine under a Democratic president. Boy, was I wrong on that one.

I don't think anyone could have predicted this.

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, it's not like I wasn't watching Bush very closely at the time. He was bad, but not this bad, and gets cut a little slack I think for 9/11. There is also a theoretical overlap between small government and civil liberties, but it's not like I haven't noticed that tends to disappear in practice.

It does have one curious positive for Obama on a lot that – he removes quite a few Republican talking points, and completely eviscerates any potential "weak on security" arguments. Sadly, that's a sucky position for Americans (let alone supporters) to be in while he' scoring political points.


The one I find most galling is that no one is calling him over the NDAA. In that, the Republican silence speaks volumes (and the Democrats is cowardly falling in-line).

[lpkmckenna]

Romney thinks airplane passengers should be able to roll down their windows. Seriously.

I think we now know why Romney seems like such a robot: he really is a robot. Liberals from the future have sent Romneybot back in time to destroy the Republican Party, one gaffe at a time. He's the Mormonater!

[subego]

I was thinking, "no way... this is a sensationalized headline".

Here's the quote:

"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was thinking, "no way... this is a sensationalized headline".
Here's the quote:
"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem."

The hilarious thing is, opening the window trying to get more oxygen would have the exact opposite effect. How can a Harvard grad not know that?

[The Final Dakar]

I never imagined this guy would unravel like this.

[subego]

It causes me literal, physical pain.

[The Final Dakar]

It's not over til the votes are in, so it's just unsettled apprehension for me.

[subego]

That's part of it.

Win or lose, there's a whole month left.

[The Final Dakar]

We're almost heading into Palin territory here. I feel like the bar for a Romney debate "win" is being lowered dramatically by the day.

That said he still has to contend with his issue stance duology.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The hilarious thing is, opening the window trying to get more oxygen would have the exact opposite effect. How can a Harvard grad not know that?

You only think it's hilarious because you don't have magic underwear.

[Chongo]

Obama said he want Puerto Rico to be the 58th state.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Obama said he want Puerto Rico to be the 58th state.

My favorite part about this is Obama said that in 2008.

[besson3c]

Chongo: endless spaghetti machine, destination: wall.