The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='thrustbucket']It's no more hypocritical than revoting for an anti-war president that ends up more a war monger than his predecessor that you all hated.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to need some justification for that war monger bit. And keep in mind that our involvement in Libya doesn't equal war on our part.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm going to need some justification for that war monger bit. And keep in mind that our involvement in Libya doesn't equal war on our part.[/QUOTE]

I don't have time to scour the internet with stats and figures you may or may not find acceptable.

But just watch this for a start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4&feature=player_embedded


Although, I fear you may have the same reaction the girl does at the end.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't have time to scour the internet with stats and figures you may or may not find acceptable.

But just watch this for a start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4&feature=player_embedded


Although, I fear you may have the same reaction the girl does at the end.[/QUOTE]

Did that guy out debate them? Yes. Does that mean he is correct? No.

I agree that Obama has been a war monger and I agree he has done a lot of questionable things. Not nearly as many though as Bush and most other Republicans have done. So saying simply we need to kick him out does not address the issue. Nor does that guy address other issues such as how deregulation still does not result in people being held accountable for their actions when they take actions that hurt society.

That guy is basically the exact same as the protestors. A snarky little jerk who thinks any time he can out talk someone it proves him right. And you are basically doing the same thing you have accused people like Mike of in the past. You are picking a political side and you are backing it no matter what. You post little videos or snarky responses that back the ultra libertarian view of things but by and large you disappear or make excuses for things that dont fit your political view when people rip something you say to shreds.

There is no such thing as perfect policy. There is no such thing as a perfect system of governance. These things can not exist regardless of if it is liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism or some other ism they all can only be perfect as ideals. The second they are implemented you can see the flaws and as a result we will always have people like that guy or many of those protestors or the people of this board who are not interested in real debate....just make a snarky comment that makes them and their ideals better then others in their own little head.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't have time to scour the internet with stats and figures you may or may not find acceptable.

But just watch this for a start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4&feature=player_embedded


Although, I fear you may have the same reaction the girl does at the end.[/QUOTE]
The US government has been the tool of the power elite since its inception, but has evolved over time to act as a hedge against that power. For the last 30+ years, we've seen the power elite take back a lot of that power, hence the situations we're in today. You simply cannot divorce the fact of government, as an institution, from being a tool of the power elite; they are not the same thing despite some overlap.

You also can't expect everone at a protest to be able to set up a long debate about strength of their convictions to be at the same level as someone that has prepared their own questions and answers in advance. I'm familiar with that youtube personality and he threw out a lot of dogwhistle bullshit like impeachment and "violence" as if he were some ideological saint, while using coercive rhetoric of his own.

As the most expensive war-wongering president, we still have a ways to go before we hit the cost of WW2 after inflation and the fact that Obama does not act in a vacuum. In case you haven't noticed, there are also other war-mongers in the administration. If you want to put the onus on the Obama, you had better be prepared to point out the other powerful people that are pushing us in that direction also.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']There is no such thing as perfect policy. There is no such thing as a perfect system of governance. These things can not exist regardless of if it is liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism or some other ism they all can only be perfect as ideals. The second they are implemented you can see the flaws and as a result we will always have people like that guy or many of those protestors or the people of this board who are not interested in real debate....just make a snarky comment that makes them and their ideals better then others in their own little head.[/QUOTE]
I somewhat agree with the first half of this paragraph.

Yes, perfection is not realistic, but it's very problematic when you group them together in that way as it implies a sort of equality of quality, which is a completely false dichotomy.

And as for "real" debate: you can't have a debate if you need to constantly fill someone with actual facts before you can discuss any higher-level issues. Knowing that 3x5=15 is meaningless if you don't know what 3,x,5,=, and 15 mean or how 3x5 is a shortened version of 5+5+5 or 3+3+3+3+3.
 
*is just sick of everyone taking the same side on every issue, but more importantly speaking as though one form of goverment would solve everyone problem*

This guy in the video takes libertarian views which could make a lot of sense on things like personal freedoms and how the government is trampling on them....but then goes off the deep end talking about regulation and how libertarianism means a high moral standard that would force everyone, including corporations and the rich to do the right thing. Its just not realistic.

You can just tell that much like thrust no matter what the issue he will take an ultra far right libertarian point of view. If you do something like this, then your just as guilty as the existing two parties.
 
I wish Americans would realize what is good for themselves and their 8 friends (thats not a knock...I read somewhere that the average person has roughly 8 good real life friends) is not representative of the entire American population. The government deserves a lot of criticism but theirs action do have to account for every American citizen, not just the 7 people in your circle.

I think they would change their views just a little if they did.

Like Magus just said, people need to learn that one form of government will not solve anything everything. So unless you have a plan to dwindle down Americas population to about 40 like minded people you will always have to deal with comprises. The lack of being able to deal with comprises is what has killed the country. There are so many people who seemingly would rather see the country burn than to ever give up on their sacred cow.
 
power to the states allows whats "good for themselves and their 8 friends" to be narrowed down, letting the states give more power to local communities, which allows for more decisions that are less likely to be frowned upon in large numbers because members of the community actually have a voice in what is going on.

just sayin'
 
Oh, I agree, I was not arguing for or against any one thing in my post. I was simply saying that before people fly off the handle and do their my way is right or the world burns thing just to remember...you are not the only person on the planet.

For example. Here in Detroit. Synder gets elected and does away with the film incentives...this kinda crushes the community. Now since I work in film I am deeply sadden but it was proven a couple times that the incentives actually hurt Michigan more than it helped.

Now at this point Synder could invent a cure for AIDS and people woulds still call for his impeachment because they only know what themselves and their film buddies know. I didnt even vote for the guy but I am not going to call for his head because he made a decision he felt help the entire state rather than just on group of people.

I guess what I am saying is I am sick of the reaction to what people feel is bad government being impeached everyone and everything and install someone that caters just to me.....which of course will cause the other half to do the same thing.

Before I can even get into government I can never get past basic Americans and their logic of fuck everyone except myself and my personal friends. I think Americans have to fix themselves before we can except the government to run right.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't have time to scour the internet with stats and figures you may or may not find acceptable.

But just watch this for a start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4&feature=player_embedded


Although, I fear you may have the same reaction the girl does at the end.[/QUOTE]
I asked for calcification on what you mean, not some generic action movie bad guy in a hoodie. I do ask you this though, how many wars has Obama started?
 
[quote name='Clak']I asked for calcification on what you mean, not some generic action movie bad guy in a hoodie. I do ask you this though, how many wars has Obama started?[/QUOTE]

Escalated Afghanistan, , 50k troops are still in Iraq (and private contractors replaced the soldiers taken from Iraq), escalated drone strikes and/or CIA elements in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and played regime change in Libya.

He only started the Libyan war, but that doesn't paint the whole turd-splattered Obama foreign policy picture.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I wish Americans would realize what is good for themselves and their 8 friends (thats not a knock...I read somewhere that the average person has roughly 8 good real life friends) is not representative of the entire American population. The government deserves a lot of criticism but theirs action do have to account for every American citizen, not just the 7 people in your circle.

I think they would change their views just a little if they did.

Like Magus just said, people need to learn that one form of government will not solve anything everything. So unless you have a plan to dwindle down Americas population to about 40 like minded people you will always have to deal with comprises. The lack of being able to deal with comprises is what has killed the country. There are so many people who seemingly would rather see the country burn than to ever give up on their sacred cow.[/QUOTE]
You're a little vague on the whole "compromise" aspect of your argument.
Let's take the recent healthcare debacle for example. What did you percieve as the proposals from the left/right and how would you weigh them against each other?

[quote name='perdition(troy']power to the states allows whats "good for themselves and their 8 friends" to be narrowed down, letting the states give more power to local communities, which allows for more decisions that are less likely to be frowned upon in large numbers because members of the community actually have a voice in what is going on.

just sayin'[/QUOTE]
No. There's a reason why rights and priviliges on a federal level are considered to be the baseline because states have proven time and time again that they would drive that baseline so far down into the ground that they would not even meet the constitution.

"States rights" is also a neo-liberal corporatocratic speech that makes it easier for large corporations to have their way with smaller communities/states and push them around. Sitting around and talking about putting up a stop sign or opening a new LOCAL business is one thing; Megalomart coming and talking about bringing in lower priced products while promising 1000 new jobs that end up displacing 2000 others using tactics we should all be familiar with is another. State are far easier to influence by big business than the federal government. We should make it more difficult for big business, not easier. Also, the United States is a union; not a loose confederation of affilated laissez faire nation states.

[quote name='Soodmeg']Oh, I agree, I was not arguing for or against any one thing in my post. I was simply saying that before people fly off the handle and do their my way is right or the world burns thing just to remember...you are not the only person on the planet.

For example. Here in Detroit. Synder gets elected and does away with the film incentives...this kinda crushes the community. Now since I work in film I am deeply sadden but it was proven a couple times that the incentives actually hurt Michigan more than it helped.

Now at this point Synder could invent a cure for AIDS and people woulds still call for his impeachment because they only know what themselves and their film buddies know. I didnt even vote for the guy but I am not going to call for his head because he made a decision he felt help the entire state rather than just on group of people.

I guess what I am saying is I am sick of the reaction to what people feel is bad government being impeached everyone and everything and install someone that caters just to me.....which of course will cause the other half to do the same thing.[/QUOTE]
I can't help but interpret this as "there are two sides to every story and that the truth is somewhere in the middle" and that is completely faulty reasoning.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because the story about Snyder curing AIDS sounds more like the kind of conservative circle-jerk that happens when government "kills jobs."

Before I can even get into government I can never get past basic Americans and their logic of fuck everyone except myself and my personal friends. I think Americans have to fix themselves before we can except the government to run right.
US citizens are a product of the social systems and institutions that they exist in. Telling people to use bootstraps isn't a convincing or useful argument that will somehow make those systems for the better because they don't have the power to do so. These are complex relationships that create self-perpetuating systems, so you can't really say that the problem is any one group, but the ones with actual institutional power.
 
Libya may be a sticky area with some grey, but there is hardly any denying that Obama reneged on his promises of ending the war and instead escalated it. That alone makes him a war monger.
 
Dude on talk radio today was like this is a non-issue because:

1) Perry was a "democrat" at the time.
2) Obama had Common visit the White House.

There's nothing like Republicans invoking the name of Common to indicate anti-white, unintelligent, "gangsta" rap to show how fucking clueless they are in terms of culture the moment they're asked to step foot outside of a Brooks Brothers.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']If you see regime change by way of force as something other than war, I don't know what to tell you.[/QUOTE]
But he didn't start shit, you know that.
 
[quote name='Clak']But he didn't start shit, you know that.[/QUOTE]

Well I'll be, crazy ol' Khaddaffy Duck must have up and flown those US jets and shot missiles and dropped bombs on himself.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't have time to scour the internet with stats and figures you may or may not find acceptable.[/QUOTE]

I like it how when you don't even bother to make shit up and you just go straight to your usual BS spiel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fuck is that herp-a-derp doing on a news show to begin with?

What even remotely "liberal" counterpart is there to this tripe? what news channel has some dumb fuck liberal quasi celebrity blustering about like a drunk dipshit the way Bocephus here was?

The controversy is that dumbfucks take the air, and the defense is a strawman of epic proportions - that these are silenced voices, because only liberal celebrities are heard in the mainstream media.
 
Herman Cain is proof that it's better to have bad ideas than no ideas when running for high office.

I'm starting to think he could win the nomination. He wins Iwoa, comes in 3rd in New Hampsire, second in SC, then wins Florida. I can see it happening.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Herman Cain is proof that it's better to have bad ideas than no ideas when running for high office.

I'm starting to think he could win the nomination. He wins Iwoa, comes in 3rd in New Hampsire, second in SC, then wins Florida. I can see it happening.[/QUOTE]

Just remember three simple digits, 9,9,9! Its as simple as ordering a pizza. Satisfaction guaranteed!
 
The Republican base have shown themselves to be extraordinarily fickle, so I can assure you that Cain will drop down at some point. Perry was up until he was down, like Bachmann before him, Romney before her.

I think that's why Christie didn't want to run this year - he saw that the GOP base are essentially high school students - they develop a crush on the next big thing, flocking to it at the mere rumor that they may like them. Remember the first primary debate didn't feature Perry, yet he was polling at or near the top, despite most people never hearing him speak or knowing anything about him. Christie saw his stock: he'd soar to the top, they'd realize he supports gay marriage and/or doesn't hate Islam the same way they do, and then his stock would plummet.
 
I have predicated Romney all along and I imagine that if the Wall Street protest keeps getting bigger and spreading to more cities it raises the odds of Romney further. I imagine the bigger that protest gets the more it spooks conservative voters and makes them feel they need to vote for the "electable" one. Then again /shrug could be that they see "liberals" forming "mobs" quote cantor and then they feel they need someone with fire to fight back.
 
Well, just remember that Republicans were kind of excited about a guy whose catch phrase is "you're fired" while we've been hanging around 8-10% unemployment. Then again, it makes sense in their logic to also have their #1 candidate be the guy that ran the nation's #8 pizza chain...
 
I can't be the only one who giggles when they hear that he is/was CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Only because I didn't think they existed anymore. I thought they died in the early 1980's until I saw one in an airport terminal a few years ago.

So, hell, if we're going to use fledgling airport businesses as a metric for measuring candidate suitability, then Wolfgang Puck is a motherfucking shoe-in for the GOP candidacy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I can't be the only one who giggles when they hear that he is/was CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Only because I didn't think they existed anymore. I thought they died in the early 1980's until I saw one in an airport terminal a few years ago.

So, hell, if we're going to use fledgling airport businesses as a metric for measuring candidate suitability, then Wolfgang Puck is a motherfucking shoe-in for the GOP candidacy.[/QUOTE]

I have a Godfather's in my town. They're the only place in town that really loads the toppings on the pizza and I have to say, I love it. Sadly, they don't deliver. :(

But, to your other point, Cain's time operating Godfather's likely gave him more business experience than Obama and his entire cabinet combined.

Damnit, Cain - why'd you have to go and make those stupid remarks about Muslims? I'd like to support you.... but just can't.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I can't be the only one who giggles when they hear that he is/was CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Only because I didn't think they existed anymore. I thought they died in the early 1980's until I saw one in an airport terminal a few years ago.

So, hell, if we're going to use fledgling airport businesses as a metric for measuring candidate suitability, then Wolfgang Puck is a motherfucking shoe-in for the GOP candidacy.[/QUOTE]

Not trying to denigrate him for the company per se (by most accounts) Cain helped them from closing down completely, but he was basically handed the company and he makes it sound like he built it with his own two hands.

Godfather Pizza was something like the 8th or 9th largest pizza chain in the US, Cain's major move (IIRC saving the company) was to fire a bunch of people and licence the name to out. So when you go to the gas station and see a inexplicably soggy AND burnt, ketchup-cheese food product comestible that only looks good to a starving person, think Herman Cain.

P.s. Myke, Brocephus came down a mountain on his face. That explains his debate style, not sure what the other cons excuses are.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']But, to your other point, Cain's time operating Godfather's likely gave him more business experience than Obama and his entire cabinet combined.[/QUOTE]

Obama's bailouts of the auto companies not only didn't lose money, they have been paid back in full and, in the process, turned a profit. Like how a business would operate. I am very certain and very comfortable in asserting that you were, and remain, staunchly opposed to those loans to the auto companies.

I'm only saying this because you like to use "credit card" metaphors to talk about debts, deficits, and other aspects of fiscal policy, you exalt the idea of business ownership as useful credentials for political office - and yet, when government money is spent in a way that retains jobs, keeps industry in the United States, *and* returns a profit to the federal government, you still loathe it.

I'd like to call that your (D)-fense mechanism. Pardon the weak pun. I'm in that kind of mood.

[quote name='Msut77']P.s. Myke, Brocephus came down a mountain on his face. That explains his debate style, not sure what the other cons excuses are.[/QUOTE]

I thought he was assaulted by bikers. Whatever. Talent skips a generation. The only good Hanks are the odd numbered ones.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Obama's bailouts of the auto companies not only didn't lose money, they have been paid back in full and, in the process, turned a profit. Like how a business would operate. I am very certain and very comfortable in asserting that you were, and remain, staunchly opposed to those loans to the auto companies.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I disagree with the auto bailouts - just as I disagree with the bank bailouts.

Another fun link...

$62,413,000,000 Distributed to auto companies (doesn't include all the financial arms of these companies).
$30,413,000,000 Repaid
$ 2,809,000,000 Profits

Unless there's been some secret pay-back coverup, I'm interested in seeing your math on this one, Myke. 30+2=62...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm merely pointing out the flippancy of your "we need someone with business experience" canard - a veneer of intellectually-driven preference for policy, but one that is honestly little more than a switch you turn on and off at will to support (or fail to express support) for policy-makers and politicians. You don't genuinely care about business experience, you care about someone who will gut government and support your oligarch masters. You'd still bray and cry if government money were spent and actually brought in a return, because such is the limited degree of monetary policy - you and people like you who scream about "$14 trillion!" as if you have any grasp at the amount of debt and its implications. You pretend that we're at some imaginary threshold where one magical dollar overspent will send us hurling into a Fallout-esque apocalyptic world by tomorrow morning. Your stomach churns at the thought of government spending money that you can't even be bothered to look at its influence, impact, or returns.

That's childish, shortsighted, and simply irresponsible.

So, since you need to be pandered to like a dolt who doesn't grasp monetary policy, let's do it: Donald Trump or Herman Cain? Who would make a better president?
 
Is that what you're doing? Because it looked to me like you were using the Whitacre/Marchionne talking points about how great the loans to GM/Chrysler were - even when those talking points have no basis in reality - to try and make some kind of point that also has no basis in reality.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Obama's bailouts of the auto companies not only didn't lose money, they have been paid back in full and, in the process, turned a profit.[/QUOTE]

gm.jpg


[quote name='mykevermin']So, since you need to be pandered to like a dolt who doesn't grasp monetary policy[/QUOTE]
 
Myke,

I am not impressed by "business" credentials. The government is not a business and either way Romney has a ton of "experience" (and money) but created sweet fuck all of jobs or basically anything positive.

[quote name='mykevermin']I thought he was assaulted by bikers.[/QUOTE]

You might be thinking of Mel Gibson.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Or, having someone run for president that's at least HAD a real job, let alone run a real business, is an improvement from what we've got.[/QUOTE]

Is it? Didn't Bush have a 'real' job? Is that an indicator for how someone will do when they are President?
 
I'm no Bush historian, but didn't he go from school to military to politician? Did he have a job that didn't require a paycheck from the taxpayers?
 
Depends on how you want to play the semantics.

After a contentious term in the Texas Air National Guard, GWB went to work in the oil industry. His company failed and got bought out then he went to work on his dad's Presidential Campaign for a little while (read: months). Once that was done he went to work for the Texas Rangers. He became governor in 1995 and from then on went full timer.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
That's childish, shortsighted, and simply irresponsible.

[/QUOTE]

What is childish, shortsighted, and simply irresponsible is that you went on a rant of which you knew nothing about. You were clearly proven wrong, and then you continiued to go on about how UB was wrong.

But it is the way of the left on this site. I predict now you will go on some rant of how I shouldn't talk rather than actually debating the merits of the auto bailouts, using the now clear to you actual facts.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Depends on how you want to play the semantics.

After a contentious term in the Texas Air National Guard, GWB went to work in the oil industry. His company failed and got bought out then he went to work on his dad's Presidential Campaign for a little while (read: months). Once that was done he went to work for the Texas Rangers. He became governor in 1995 and from then on went full timer.[/QUOTE]

Duh, you're right. I should have remembered Bush's time in the oil industry - as his (failed) business had some ties with Bin Laden's family.
 
I am not shocked knoell ignores all the dependent jobs the auto industry creates (they have massive supply chains etc. QED).

Something I have asked before is why the 'bagger contingent will get their panties knotted over a cash infusion to a troubled company that allows them to keep the lights on. While at the same time they will defend "industries" that add no value and we subsidize their profits year in and year out.

I don't expect an answer now.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am not shocked knoell ignores all the dependent jobs the auto industry creates (they have massive supply chains etc. QED).

Something I have asked before is why the 'bagger contingent will get their panties knotted over a cash infusion to a troubled company that allows them to keep the lights on. While at the same time they will defend "industries" that add no value and we subsidize their profits year in and year out.

I don't expect an answer now.[/QUOTE]

Wall Street bankers are all about models and bottles. Bailing them out was great news for the booze and hooker industries.
 
bread's done
Back
Top