The "Stay Classy, Obama" Thread

So what you're saying is that your comment had nothing to do with Obama being in South Africa or how since Obama is classless, he belongs in South Africa because it's classless as well? Oh I know! You actually meant that South Africa is super duper classy and will teach Obama some class! Yeah! That has to be it otherwise you'd be a racist piece of shit for the implication as well as a coward for not standing by your comments. But you're no racist and not a coward, right? Cause what you just posted has almost nothing to do with your previous statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
oooooo a tough guy on the internet!!!!!!       Calling a country classless isn't remotely racist.  If it were, calling one classy would be as well. Who raised you boy? 

 
dope said:
oooooo a tough guy on the internet!!!!!! Calling a country classless isn't remotely racist. If it were, calling one classy would be as well. Who raised you boy?
Click to expand...
You're the one that made the comments. I guess you don't have the balls to back it up. Good showing, chap. Way to stand up for your convictions.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/5/state-dept-john-kerry-not-yacht-egypt-crumbled/

"The State Department said Secretary of State John Kerry briefly boarded his private yacht at the same time of the Egypt’s military ouster of President Mohammed Morsi — a drastic switch from denials earlier this week that Mr. Kerry was ever aboard the boat."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-kerry-chills-exclusive-nantucket-retreat-article-1.1391014

A CBS News producer tweeted Wednesday that Kerry was seen on his yacht, but the State Department slammed the suggestion saying, "Any report or tweet that he was on a boat is completely inaccurate."

 
Add another lie to the pile. How do these morons think they can get away with it in these days of cellphone cameras?

 
 
tv-station-makes-excruciating-error-reads-4-wrong-names-of-asiana-crash-pilots-including-sum-ting-wong-and-ho-lee-fuk.jpg


NTSB statement on erroneous confirmation of crew names

July 12
The National Transportation Safety Board apologizes for inaccurate and offensive names that were mistakenly confirmed as those of the pilots of Asiana flight 214, which crashed at San Francisco International Airport on July 6.

Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft.

The NTSB does not release or confirm the names of crewmembers or people involved in transportation accidents to the media. We work hard to ensure that only appropriate factual information regarding an investigation is released and deeply regret today's incident.

Appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that such a serious error is not repeated.
Click to expand...
 
Employees get their health insurance subsidized by their employer.  News at 11.

The only thing scandalous is that they should have to participate in the individual marketplace in the first place.  They already had insurance from their employer.  The only reason it happened was because of a Republican poison pill amendment that managed to get in to ACA.  However, since it was a troll amendment, provisions werent made to carry their employee subsidies over.  Now thats being fixed.  Oh no!

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
I also have a personal problem with US giving money to foreign nations while being broke and borrowing money from China.
Click to expand...
Does your personal problem(s) extend to reading comprehension and/or macroeconomics?

the Congressional Budget Justification and Executive Budget Summary for FY 2014 explains why we give money

A person can get down in the weeds on budget items and miss that we spent 3-4x what we've borrowed from China to fund a war in Iraq.

 
vherub said:
Does your personal problem(s) extend to reading comprehension and/or macroeconomics?

the Congressional Budget Justification and Executive Budget Summary for FY 2014 explains why we give money

A person can get down in the weeds on budget items and miss that we spent 3-4x what we've borrowed from China to fund a war in Iraq.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what to say honestly. I am glad though, that you had a deep understanding of macroeconomics to understand why we give away the money.

Oh here is also the link in which CIA brings bags of money to President Karzai- http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/04/world/asia/afghanistan-cia-money

I guess you're ok with that since it is 'probably' in your report.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
vherub said:
Does your personal problem(s) extend to reading comprehension and/or macroeconomics?

the Congressional Budget Justification and Executive Budget Summary for FY 2014 explains why we give money

A person can get down in the weeds on budget items and miss that we spent 3-4x what we've borrowed from China to fund a war in Iraq.
Click to expand...
If we are truly living in a system that will collapse if the US does not give away its citizens wealth to foreign parties, then we need to let it collapse and start over. We borrow $4.1 billion A DAY! 40% of what we spend everyday is borrowed! We can't prop everyone up while we have ever weakening legs ourselves.

 
"We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing.  Critics [...] resemble luddites who took axes to machinery early in England’s industrial revolution.”

"Dirty industries should be moved to developing countries."

“I have 13 bankers in my office, and they say if you go forward with [the CFTC regulating the OTC derivative market] you will cause the worst financial crisis since World War II.  Stop, right away. No more.”

This is the guy Obama wants to run the Fed?  The guy that vehemently defended Enron, unregulated derivatives, and as the President of Harvard, belittled the mental capacity of women?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
omg why do people insist of the idea that president actually does anything?

you mad, blame congress. they dont do a damn thing (which their job is to listen to taxthe payers) and get paid with your tax dollars.
 
oh, i am quite aware of the limited powers the president holds. and i am also aware that the cronyism of this administration is just a continuance of the last (the detriment of our current standings being accounted for in the actions of that administration for the most part).

i am also aware of the fact that discussing politics on a gaming website (or anywhere on the internet) is just ridiculously stupid. but everyone needs a reminder sometimes, and this just reminded me I can utilize my degrees and education by having informed discussions with intelligent people.
 
MasaTFC said:
oh, i am quite aware of the limited powers the president holds. and i am also aware that the cronyism of this administration is just a continuance of the last (the detriment of our current standings being accounted for in the actions of that administration for the most part).

i am also aware of the fact that discussing politics on a gaming website (or anywhere on the internet) is just ridiculously stupid. but everyone needs a reminder sometimes, and this just reminded me I can utilize my degrees and education by having informed discussions with intelligent people.
Click to expand...
Then you are welcome to move on from this section of the site.

 
MasaTFC said:
i am also aware of the fact that discussing politics on a gaming website (or anywhere on the internet) is just ridiculously stupid. but everyone needs a reminder sometimes, and this just reminded me I can utilize my degrees and education by having informed discussions with intelligent people.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that make you the academic moron for not only stepping into this politics board but also posting in one of the threads you disagree with?

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Does Obama know he's fighting on Al-Qaida's side?
Click to expand...
*rolls eyes*

That's plumbing the depths to attack the President. Not a fan of his at all, and not 100% convinced on going into Syria, at least with the info we have, but this is like the ultimate in reaching to smear him. The author of that acts like we're gonna be sharing bunk beds with Al Quaeda or something. The simple fact that we both have a similar enemy (at least in this Administration's mind) that doesn't mean that we are somehow alligned with those people.

How many times have we and Japan been eye to eye on? When that happens, do people drag up article saying "this administration is on the same side as the people who bombed us at Pearl Harbor!"?

Maybe I'm not seeing something that you are, but that's a ridiculous article.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GrooThePerverted said:
*rolls eyes*

That's plumbing the depths to attack the President. Not a fan of his at all, and not 100% convinced on going into Syria, at least with the info we have, but this is like the ultimate in reaching to smear him. The author of that acts like we're gonna be sharing bunk beds with Al Quaeda or something. The simple fact that we both have a similar enemy (at least in this Administration's mind) that doesn't mean that we are somehow alligned with those people.

How many times have we and Japan been eye to eye on? When that happens, do people drag up article saying "this administration is on the same side as the people who bombed us at Pearl Harbor!"?

Maybe I'm not seeing something that you are, but that's a ridiculous article.
Click to expand...
I do not think so. I would actually say why aren't more people attacking the president when he is about to do something completely unconstitutional and actually dangerous for the American people. I do not know your definition of similar enemy but I can guarantee you that Syria's government is not. There is no direct threat from them therefore why are we supplying aid to the opposition who have been linked to Al-Qaida?

It is ridiculous that we reached a point in this country where a president has a power to authorize military force in another point of the world without a imminent danger to the American people without congressional approval.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
I do not think so. I would actually say why aren't more people attacking the president when he is about to do something completely unconstitutional and actually dangerous for the American people. I do not know your definition of similar enemy but I can guarantee you that Syria's government is not. There is no direct threat from them therefore why are we supplying aid to the opposition who have been linked to Al-Qaida?

It is ridiculous that we reached a point in this country where a president has a power to authorize military force in another point of the world without a imminent danger to the American people without congressional approval.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that I considered Syria an enemy, I said in this Administration's mind. I also said I wasn't 100% on whether or not we should go in there because there are still questions surrounding this (such as did Assad order this, or did one of his high ranking people do it unilaterally, or did the rebels do it), but I don't agree with the insinuation that by us targeting someplace that is also enemies with Al Quaeda that somehow implies we're fighting with Al Quaeda, which is bullshit hyperbolic rhetoric. It's designed to get people to click the link, and thus give the site another hit.

 
Pretty sure you can aid the freedom fighters otherwise the freedom fighters would be aided by Al Quaida...

So tell me should the good guy help the defenseless or should the defenseless look for help from the bad guys

 
GrooThePerverted said:
I didn't say that I considered Syria an enemy, I said in this Administration's mind. I also said I wasn't 100% on whether or not we should go in there because there are still questions surrounding this (such as did Assad order this, or did one of his high ranking people do it unilaterally, or did the rebels do it), but I don't agree with the insinuation that by us targeting someplace that is also enemies with Al Quaeda that somehow implies we're fighting with Al Quaeda, which is bullshit hyperbolic rhetoric. It's designed to get people to click the link, and thus give the site another hit.
Click to expand...
Even if the civilians were attacked by their own government (Highly doubt it) we still have no business in going into Syria. We are not the world police. If we are then I can pinpoint several counties that need to be invaded and several operations we have performed which made things worse for everyone. Also no one is implying that we are fighting with Al-Qaida, I am saying it outright. We have given aid to them and now we are considering attacking a foreign government on baseless claims. This has not worked under Bush and will not work under Obama.

Finger_Shocker said:
Pretty sure you can aid the freedom fighters otherwise the freedom fighters would be aided by Al Quaida...

So tell me should the good guy help the defenseless or should the defenseless look for help from the bad guys
Click to expand...
The are several factions which are considered to be opposition. The major ones are Al-Qaida and others are religious extremists. If you want to help them then be my guest but do not expect others to jump onto that bandwagon with you. Again we are not the world police. These type of situations only set bad precedents, they are unlawful and immoral. If you want to be a good guy then go help some poor schmucks in your school. Leave the foreign nations alone, their internal conflicts are none of our business.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Even if the civilians were attacked by their own government (Highly doubt it) we still have no business in going into Syria. We are not the world police. If we are then I can pinpoint several counties that need to be invaded and several operations we have performed which made things worse for everyone. Also no one is implying that we are fighting with Al-Qaida, I am saying it outright. We have given aid to them and now we are considering attacking a foreign government on baseless claims. This has not worked under Bush and will not work under Obama.
Click to expand...
1. I never said we had business going into Syria. I explicitly stated that I wasn't 100% sure on that whole thing, ESPECIALLY with the problematic info we have. Shades of Iraq & WMD's all over again.

2. I 100% agree on the "world police" aspect. I think we need to spend the vast majority of our money on our own country. There are an insnae number of homeless people in this country, we have kids that are living by themselves on the streets, we have predators pimping kids out on the streets in this country, we have a system that criminalizes addicts rather than treating them.

We have an education system that could use some work, we have a lot of issues here in this country that I think should deserve precedence over running around and waving our dick in the air exalting how awesome we are. As far as I'm concerned, fuck other countries and their problems. We need to fix our own. Not saying we should just ignore everyone else, because of course we have to build relationships and maintain relationships. That said, we spend way too much time and money being the big brother to everyone else, while being Big Brother to our own people.

3. And yes, we gave funding/armed militarily Al Quaeda back in the 80's, however as embarrassing as that is, and as horrible as that is, it is NOT the same thing you are flat out stating now, that we are fighting alongside Al Quaeda. Do you even care whether or not what you say is accurate, or is it a situation where it's "Well, fuck it, it's kinda like that, so I'm gonna say it's absolutely like that!"?

"Fighting Alongside" means you and them are working together currently to take down a common enemy. Having a common enemy is not the same thing. We are not working with Al Quaeda in this scenario. In the past, yes, we did because we wanted them to do some dirty work for us, but that's not the present situation.

 
GrooThePerverted said:
1. I never said we had business going into Syria. I explicitly stated that I wasn't 100% sure on that whole thing, ESPECIALLY with the problematic info we have. Shades of Iraq & WMD's all over again.

2. I 100% agree on the "world police" aspect. I think we need to spend the vast majority of our money on our own country. There are an insnae number of homeless people in this country, we have kids that are living by themselves on the streets, we have predators pimping kids out on the streets in this country, we have a system that criminalizes addicts rather than treating them.

We have an education system that could use some work, we have a lot of issues here in this country that I think should deserve precedence over running around and waving our dick in the air exalting how awesome we are. As far as I'm concerned, fuck other countries and their problems. We need to fix our own. Not saying we should just ignore everyone else, because of course we have to build relationships and maintain relationships. That said, we spend way too much time and money being the big brother to everyone else, while being Big Brother to our own people.

3. And yes, we gave funding/armed militarily Al Quaeda back in the 80's, however as embarrassing as that is, and as horrible as that is, it is NOT the same thing you are flat out stating now, that we are fighting alongside Al Quaeda. Do you even care whether or not what you say is accurate, or is it a situation where it's "Well, fuck it, it's kinda like that, so I'm gonna say it's absolutely like that!"?

"Fighting Alongside" means you and them are working together currently to take down a common enemy. Having a common enemy is not the same thing. We are not working with Al Quaeda in this scenario. In the past, yes, we did because we wanted them to do some dirty work for us, but that's not the present situation.
Click to expand...
1. I am aware of what you said. Yet the fact that you are still unsure of a military strike on a sovereign nation which posses no threat to us gives me great concern.

2. Good.

3. That was the Mujahideen, not Al Qaeda. How is my information inaccurate? Have we not given millions of dollars in aid to syrian opposition? Has Al-Qaeda not been confirmed as one of the major factions? Have you not seen the video of a Syrian rebels killing civilians and eating hearts of their enemies? Now we have military personnel awaiting approval from the president to strike Assad's government. Seems pretty alongside to me.

 
So... on the off chance Obama isn't able to get the votes he needs for authorization to take military action in Syria, do you think he'd find a way to get around that (or just bypass it altogether, like previous folks have done)?
 
UncleBob said:
So... on the off chance Obama isn't able to get the votes he needs for authorization to take military action in Syria, do you think he'd find a way to get around that (or just bypass it altogether, like previous folks have done)?
Click to expand...
I don't see how he would. Would it break the rules to give logistical support to someone else that does something? That's about the only place I could see this going.

It's certainly a brave new world when merely believing that someone possessed these weapons 10 years ago justified war and invasion, yet a fairly reasonable belief that someone actually used them today gets this much argument about even a drone strike in response. Weird. I guess I'm getting old or something.

Just as an aside, I think Obama's reaction has been the proof that he believes with certainty that Assad/Syrian leadership did it. There's just no galaxy where a Democrat is going to get suckered into this post-Iraq without hardcore proof. And given what the NSA has been up to here, I have absolutely no doubt that we're knee deep in every country in the world.

 
I don't think he will unless there is another chemical attack or maybe he will find "proof" of danger to USA. Due to Iraq war being so unpopular, it will be much harder to trick the American people the second time around. 

 
speedracer said:
It's certainly a brave new world when merely believing that someone possessed these weapons 10 years ago justified war and invasion, yet a fairly reasonable belief that someone actually used them today gets this much argument about even a drone strike in response. Weird. I guess I'm getting old or something.
Click to expand...
Hey, I do have to give props to Big O' for not just cowboying up and charging in.

Although, I do wonder if Iran and Russia hadn't made such a fuss and got everything with Syria in the headlines, if he would have just pulled a Libya and went in without asking Congress.
 
mrsilkunderwear said:
I don't think he will unless there is another chemical attack or maybe he will find "proof" of danger to USA. Due to Iraq war being so unpopular, it will be much harder to trick the American people the second time around.
Click to expand...
What I am worried about is him just going into war and saying fuck the people I am president. It seems like he is too drunk on power to even care. I am also worried about Russia and Iran, basically because I don't want the US to turn into Fallout.

 
Sir_Fragalot said:
What I am worried about is him just going into war and saying fuck the people I am president. It seems like he is too drunk on power to even care. I am also worried about Russia and Iran, basically because I don't want the US to turn into Fallout.
Click to expand...
That's kind of the opposite of what he's doing right now.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top