The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='RedvsBlue']If a job is server based and depends on tips the employer can (and will) pay less than the $7.50 minimum wage.. I know your workplace experience is limited to Wal-Mart but there are ways around paying minimum wage...[/QUOTE]

Oh, how did I miss this reply
Short of training wages, your employees cannot make less than minimum wage. Look up "wage equalization"

My "work experience" is more than Walmart. Perhaps YOU need to expand your work experience...
 
So since Obama and Reid don't have a budget (a load of mess that we've debunked before) shouldn't the (R) majority congress passing appropriations bills to keep govt spending going be blamed for spending and not the president whose budgets have been rejected?

I ask half jokingly, but maybe I'm unclear on how the process works...
 
[quote name='nasum']So since Obama and Reid don't have a budget (a load of mess that we've debunked before) shouldn't the (R) majority congress passing appropriations bills to keep govt spending going be blamed for spending and not the president whose budgets have been rejected?

I ask half jokingly, but maybe I'm unclear on how the process works...[/QUOTE]

Partially, yes. The Republican-controlled House has caved on every debt ceiling and all the spending since Obama took office.

And guys like Santorum, DeMint, and Paul Ryan led the Congressional charge to spend wildly during the Bush years. Santorum was the WHIP in the Senate, meaning that in addition to actually voting for all those trillions in deficits, he corralled the GOP votes for them as well. And Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, SCHIP, No Child Left Behind, Head Start, appropriations bills, all war supplemental spending, multiple stimulus packages, TARP, the auto bailout (DeMint voted for most of this, too, aside from the last few items)... Ayn Rand disciple my ass. If Paul Ryan were a character in one of Rand's books, he'd be a villain. For christ's sake, Rand opposed WW2, Vietnam, the drug war, the Great Society... all things that Ryan voted to massively increase.

Anyone forwarding the "Paul Ryan = Ayn Rand" claptrap is stupid, ignorant, or incredibly dishonest.
 
[quote name='Clak']http://news.yahoo.com/special-ops-group-attacks-obama-over-bin-laden-011757844.html

Where were they when Saddam was killed?[/QUOTE]

This is just the unfortunate state of today's politics concerning this President. Do something wrong? Your fault. Do something right? Well it was not really YOU that did it. Even better? I will do everything in my power to prevent you from doing anything (even if it was your idea to begin with) to make you seem ineffective and/or dangerous to the country. It sickens me and then they have the gall to act hurt when Obama turns negative. I bet you cannot count 5 cases where Republicans have said anything positive about his Presidency.
 
This is just the unfortunate state of today's politics concerning this President. Do something wrong? Your fault. Do something right? Well it was not really YOU that did it. Even better? I will do everything in my power to prevent you from doing anything (even if it was your idea to begin with) to make you seem ineffective and/or dangerous to the country. It sickens me and then they have the gall to act hurt when Obama turns negative. I bet you cannot count 5 cases where Republicans have said anything positive about his Presidency.
Click to expand...
What sickens me is that Osama was murdered instead of captured.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']What sickens me is that Osama was murdered instead of captured.[/QUOTE]

sickens? por que?

As for that article:

Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay, they must be nonpartisan, then. Sure thing. Yep.
 
[quote name='Clak']http://news.yahoo.com/special-ops-group-attacks-obama-over-bin-laden-011757844.html

Where were they when Saddam was killed?[/QUOTE]

The OPSEC group says it is not political and aims to save American lives. Its first public salvo is a 22-minute film that includes criticism of Obama and his administration. The film, to be released on Wednesday, was seen in advance by Reuters.
Click to expand...

Funny, if they're not political then why did they form immediately before the election?

Also, love this message:

"Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not," Ben Smith, identified as a Navy SEAL, says in the film.

"As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy," Smith continues. "It will get Americans killed."
Click to expand...

So, our country executed a foreign citizen without a trial but leaks from the president to the enemy will get Americans killed?

215px-Team_america_poster_300px.jpg
 
sickens? por que?
Click to expand...
I just don't think anyone has the right to take another's life regardless of circumstance. Sure Osama caused the death of thousands, but that doesn't mean we should take his life from him. I'd rather see him suffer for the rest of his life than take the easy way out (death).
 
Can't say I agree with you, but I can see where you're coming from.

I'm against the death penalty in the US, though - for a variety of reasons I'll spare you for now. I'd be okay if there was a higher burden of proof for the prosecution than currently in other criminal cases - that is, if we must take someone's life, we must go much further than "reasonable doubt" and attempt to approach certainty.

Also: Cameron Todd Willingham.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I just don't think anyone has the right to take another's life regardless of circumstance. Sure Osama caused the death of thousands, but that doesn't mean we should take his life from him. I'd rather see him suffer for the rest of his life than take the easy way out (death).[/QUOTE]

Never figured you for a Pollyanna.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I just don't think anyone has the right to take another's life regardless of circumstance. Sure Osama caused the death of thousands, but that doesn't mean we should take his life from him. I'd rather see him suffer for the rest of his life than take the easy way out (death).[/QUOTE]

I struggled with this. The man was a mass murder who no doubt was planning more mass murder. I believe he was executed in that compound. But a trial would have been this spring board to even further radicalize his followers. But not having one fundamentally changes us not in a good way. Maybe it would have been a military trial which would have functioned different than the circuses we see normally. I can't comment because I know nothing about military trials. I do however believe the penalty of death is proper in only the most extreme cases, so we differ there.
 
Can't say I agree with you, but I can see where you're coming from.I'm against the death penalty in the US, though - for a variety of reasons I'll spare you for now. I'd be okay if there was a higher burden of proof for the prosecution than currently in other criminal cases - that is, if we must take someone's life, we must go much further than "reasonable doubt" and attempt to approach certainty.Also: Cameron Todd Willingham.
Click to expand...
Awful thing to happen to someone, I've read multiple articles about it.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Awful thing to happen to someone, I've read multiple articles about it.[/QUOTE]
You should watch the Frontline episode about it. There's this one lady that creeped the fuck out of me everytime she was on from her expression combined with the things she was saying. It was like ignorance and malice had a lovechild.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']This is just the unfortunate state of today's politics concerning this President. Do something wrong? Your fault. Do something right? Well it was not really YOU that did it. Even better? I will do everything in my power to prevent you from doing anything (even if it was your idea to begin with) to make you seem ineffective and/or dangerous to the country. It sickens me and then they have the gall to act hurt when Obama turns negative. I bet you cannot count 5 cases where Republicans have said anything positive about his Presidency.[/QUOTE]

Almost threw up when I saw this. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4674057/does-bush-deserve-any-credit-for-bin-ladens-death/ :hot:
 
Here's the thing, according to that group, we as a whole killed Bin Laden, we as a country. However, if you dare suggest that somebody didn't build a business 100% by themselves, most are reading to jump all over your shit for it. So what I get out of that is this, we kill people as a country, and build businesses as individuals.
 
To me this is ridiculous. The President made a tough call. As Commander-In-Cheif it was his call to make and he made an excellent call. I did't hear the President not acknowledging the thousands of people that serve in all branches of government and the armed forces in both administrations. We understand he didn't parachute into Pakistan like Black Rambo and take out OBL himself (still wouldn't got credit). The President many times has thanked all involved and acknowledge the fine work that all did to get this result. In the end he derserves all the credit he receives. BTW if this had a happened with Republican president republicans would want to add his face to Mt. Rushmore sadly Dems would be minimizing the accomplishment so goes the state of our affairs in this country.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']To me this is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

It's (modern?) politics, and this is a campaign year. Be proud that you're among the few to recognize something that is ridiculous as ridiculous. Because in our system, we are largely unable to admit that members of the party we dislike are capable of doing good, sensitive things.

The media is so cowardly of being labeled as liberal anymore that they hide in fear of calling crazy shit from the mouths of Republicans as crazy shit. So it's pretty easy for the GOP to up the ante and get crazier and crazier. They're playing a game of chicken with the media, and seeing when they'll actually get called out on the inane things they say.

Did any left-wing groups ever deny that Bush was responsible for catching/trying/killing Saddam Hussein? I'm looking for some equivalence, and I'm not sure I expect to find any.
 
lol revisionist history.

US/Bush didn't kill Saddam. He was sentenced by a special tribunal set up by the CPA - which, of course, had US Government/Military involvement. He was put to death by the Iraqi government with no US officials present and against the direction of the US government who was pushing for a delay.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol revisionist history.

US/Bush didn't kill Saddam. He was sentenced by a special tribunal set up by the CPA - which, of course, had US Government/Military involvement. He was put to death by the Iraqi government with no US officials present and against the direction of the US government who was pushing for a delay.[/QUOTE]

True but it was US forces that found and captured him and he was held in US custody (physical) for 3 years before his trial and death. I do not recall anyone questioning who should take credit for his capture. That is the point though. The political climate is so toxic today we cannot even say good job to one side or the other without being labeled a RINO or DINO. Compromise is now a death sentence to a politician.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol revisionist history.

US/Bush didn't kill Saddam. He was sentenced by a special tribunal set up by the CPA - which, of course, had US Government/Military involvement. He was put to death by the Iraqi government with no US officials present and against the direction of the US government who was pushing for a delay.[/QUOTE]
No shit, Sherlock.
 
I read this recently:

http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden---Abbottabad/dp/0307955575/

It's a great book written by Peter Bergen, who has been personally following the Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda saga in almost its entirety; he was able to get access to a lot of the people involved on both sides of the conflict (not the SEAL team, though, nobody gets to see them), a number of whom had to remain confidential.

Anyway, the point is that a lot of people were involved, and credit should be given where credit is due. Obama made the tough decision to send in the SEALs rather than simply bomb the compound or wait to confirm Osama's presence. Some of his closest advisors in this case had strong doubts. Reports were shaky about whether OBL was even there, so under another President, it very well might not have happened. Take it for what you will.

It's an amazing story either way.
 
That's the thing, if it had been a disaster he (Obama) would have been blamed, but when it works, oh no, he gets no credit at all. We live in a country full of hypocrites, the same people who were applauding Bush when Saddam was captured now refuse to acknowledge that Obama had any hand in Bin Laden being killed.
 
[quote name='dohdough']:rofl:Black Rambo...I like that so much that I'm going to start using it! Absolutely brilliant!:rofl:[/QUOTE]

images


When the going gets tough... HE GETS FUNKEHHH! BLAMBO, coming to a theater near you :booty:
 
[quote name='Clak']That's the thing, if it had been a disaster he (Obama) would have been blamed, but when it works, oh no, he gets no credit at all. We live in a country full of hypocrites, the same people who were applauding Bush when Saddam was captured now refuse to acknowledge that Obama had any hand in Bin Laden being killed.[/QUOTE]

Yup. Success has a hundred fathers but failure is an orphan.

Obama would be taking credit either way - it's bullshit that Republicans try and take this win away from him. Republicans are a bunch of petty assholes.
 
They just don't have that much to attack Obama on. They were going for the economy, but those attacks got deflected well by the Obama campaign focusing on Romney being out of touch, closing factories, shipping jobs overseas etc. The Obamacare attacks can continue, but by choosing Ryan the discussion is shifted to saying Romney/Ryan will end medicare as we know it.

Thus this leak stuff about he Bin Laden raid is just another attempt to distract from those things. The economy sucks, even an average republican candidate should have been able to win this year. But they had an awful field of candidates, nominated the least shitty of them and still have one of the worst presidential candidates of all time who can't even successfully attack a sitting president during one of the worst recessions in the country's history.

Thus we're going to suffer through lots of this kind of non-sense until November as they constantly try to deflect discussion from major issues where the Obama campaign team (one of the best in history) is killing them and driving the discussion and attacks.
 
[quote name='Clak']No shit, Sherlock.[/QUOTE]

Just pointing out that the two things folks here and otherwise keep trying to equate aren't the same, no matter how many times certain folks try to make it seem like they are.

In one case, we captured a war criminal, allowed the ruling authority to put him on trial, then turned him over to the local authorities for the punishment dictated by the outcome of the trial. Can't say I particularly agree with the way the events happened here, but that's that.

In the other case, we killed a war criminal and dumped his body in the ocean, crowning ourselves supreme judge, jury and executioner for Planet America.

If that's something that you really want to pin on Obama's jacket, please do. It just shows the continuing hypocrisy of those on the left who cry about the cost of the war machine and world police force that is Team America, while voting for this guy because, hey, free health care while doing it makes everything better.
 
Well it's perhaps the one thing that Obama has done that would appeal to conservatives, he got quite possibly the most hated man outside of this country. The republican party can't have that, they have to maintain that he's a socialist monster. The sheep don't know any better, if they refuse to acknowledge it, it's because they're told to by their party.

It's disgusting to think how easily people can be manipulated, and once you realize it, you learn to notice it. I feel sick to my stomach sometimes when in person, someone starts rattling off the regular talking points as if they were Bill O'Reilly himself.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well it's perhaps the one thing that Obama has done that would appeal to conservatives, he got quite possibly the most hated man outside of this country. The republican party can't have that, they have to maintain that he's a socialist monster. The sheep don't know any better, if they refuse to acknowledge it, it's because they're told to by their party.

It's disgusting to think how easily people can be manipulated, and once you realize it, you learn to notice it. I feel sick to my stomach sometimes when in person, someone starts rattling off the regular talking points as if they were Bill O'Reilly himself.[/QUOTE]


Yep. More generally republicans were able to attack Obama as weak in foreign policy experience back in 2008 as he had none. Now they can't as he's viewed by the public as very strong in foreign policy after getting Bin Laden, getting out of Iraq, helping get rid of Qaddafi without the US having to take the lead or putting any troops on the ground etc.

So the leak attacks are the only way they can try to hit him in that area as Romney/Paul don't have relevant foreign policy experience as a former governor and a young, long time House member respectively.
 
Yep. More generally republicans were able to attack Obama as weak in foreign policy experience back in 2008 as he had none. Now they can't as he's viewed by the public as very strong in foreign policy after getting Bin Laden, getting out of Iraq, helping get rid of Qaddafi without the US having to take the lead or putting any troops on the ground etc.
Click to expand...
When did the first bold happen, and what did the second bold help (other than spending more cash).
 
Anyone ever wonder about who other foreign leaders would like to see win? One of the funnier thoughts I've had in the last few years was of Palin or Bachman being elected, and having to talk with the likes of Putin, someone who looks and acts like he'd rip out your throat if he could. I mean just imagine that, he'd be laughing his ass off most likely.
 
[quote name='Clak']Anyone ever wonder about who other foreign leaders would like to see win? [/QUOTE]

Probably depends on whether or not their country got hired by Romney.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']When did the first bold happen, and what did the second bold help (other than spending more cash).[/QUOTE]

Last US troops left Iraq in December 2011, with a steady withdrawal before that.

The latter helped show that other countries can take the lead in such matters and the US doesn't have to act unilaterally.

I'm not one of the 100% anti "world police" liberals. I think first would countries have an obligation to protect human rights everywhere by getting rid of people like Qaddaffi or Assad who are slaughtering civilians. I care about people in other countries just as much as fellow citizen's here. Hell, maybe more so since so many Americans are worthless human beings. :p

But it needs to be a shared responsibility with more countries involved and taking the lead, a stronger UN and/or NATO etc.
 
right-o.

I'm glad we got bin laden, but not necessarily proud of how it went down (nor ashamed).

It's just unfortunate that the people we debate with here have zero concept of nuance.

Anyway, the point is that Obama has had some pretty significant military accomplishments occur under his watch. If Qaddafi and bin Laden happened under Bush, in the same way they happened under Obama, the right wing would be marching all over the country, waving their flags in the air. Talking heads would proudly display their raging erections (with an American flag tied to the end of it in salute of our great nation) on Fox News - Ann Coulter would be at the forefront. Bush would be christened a war hero, Marc Levin would write some hunk of shit 120-page book blown up in a font to fit 300 pages, published by some white-power house like Regnery Publishing, and it would be a best seller. Generalissimo W. Bush would be championed as an ideal candidate for rescinding term limit laws on sitting Presidents.

Instead, we have the horseshit we're putting up with instead - from the same people who are reacting the way they are because they don't like (D)s. We hear about how Obama wants to gut the military, how he's not responsible for this, etc.

Bullshit. And if you think it's status as bullshit is debatable, you're a fucking moron of such epic proportions. And/or named "UncleBob."
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Edit, thought the first bold was about afghanistan my bad.[/QUOTE]

Naw, you were right the first time. Obama got us out of Iraq on Bush's schedule after failing in any negotiations to keep us there like he wanted. Hardly a shining example of Obama's foreign policy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So the leak attacks are the only way they can try to hit him in that area as Romney/Paul don't have relevant foreign policy experience as a former governor and a young, long time House member respectively.[/QUOTE]
Is that a slip there? I'm sure lot's of CAG's would be ecstatic if it was one of the Pauls, especially the good doctor.:lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Anyway, the point is that Obama has had some pretty significant military accomplishments occur under his watch. If Qaddafi and bin Laden happened under Bush, in the same way they happened under Obama, the right wing would be marching all over the country, waving their flags in the air. Talking heads would proudly display their raging erections (with an American flag tied to the end of it in salute of our great nation) on Fox News - Ann Coulter would be at the forefront. Bush would be christened a war hero, Marc Levin would write some hunk of shit 120-page book blown up in a font to fit 300 pages, published by some white-power house like Regnery Publishing, and it would be a best seller. Generalissimo W. Bush would be championed as an ideal candidate for rescinding term limit laws on sitting Presidents.
[/QUOTE]

The funny thing is, Myke, I actually agree with this. Every bit of this would go down. Of course, you fail to mention how the Democrats in this alternate universe would react... Regardless, yes, you're right - whichever side is in power is going to take the credit while the side that's not is going to try to diminish the power of that credit.

Which is why I call out both sides as being **** instead of pretending the **** don't stink on one side.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Is that a slip there? I'm sure lot's of CAG's would be ecstatic if it was one of the Pauls, especially the good doctor.:lol:[/QUOTE]

Inadvertently, you made me wonder, if only for a second... Would I vote for a Romney/Ron Paul Ticket?

No.

I'd rather see a Romney/Paul ticket over Romney/Ryan, but I don't think I could make that choice.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Inadvertently, you made me wonder, if only for a second... Would I vote for a Romney/Ron Paul Ticket?

No.

I'd rather see a Romney/Paul ticket over Romney/Ryan, but I don't think I could make that choice.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's nice. Now tell us why so that what you're saying actually means something.
 
Hey, myke - go and find the vs. posts from that time period and see what I was saying on the subject at the time. I'll wait.

DD - Because Romney is a slimy waste of human flesh and I can't see voting for him, period?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Hey, myke - go and find the vs. posts from that time period and see what I was saying on the subject at the time. I'll wait.[/QUOTE]

wooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
 
Why does bob feel like it's our job to prove he isn't a boob? When someone accuses you of something, it's your job to defend yourself.
 
[quote name='Clak']Why does bob feel like it's our job to prove he isn't a boob? When someone accuses you of something, it's your job to defend yourself.[/QUOTE]

Nope. When someone accuses me of something - paying no taxes for example - I demand that they give me their sources, instead of easily refuting the accusation with readily available documentation. For bonus points, I often "refute" the allegation with a single line of vague information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top