The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='camoor']Wow. Are you just figuring this out?



Or maybe it has to do with a very special three letter word.



Gee, thanks for a bunch of shitty facts everyone knows. We're a few steps ahead son, try to keep up.



They are alot different, and it all has to do with that special three-letter word. Homework time kiddo.[/QUOTE]

Wait wait that three letter word wouldn't happen to be... OIL would it! YAYYY!...

So you admit that we interfere internationally under the guise of actually helping ourselves... and then make fun of me when I point out the fallacy in you supporting intervention in Somalia? :booty:Because I'm "oversimplyfying" the issue?

You advocate interfering in Somalia, later admit you don't know much on the subject (unless we're counting the Wikipedia article you cited :roll:), and make fun of people like Abscess who can atleast give reasons for their beliefs? Sounds like you should do YOUR homework, kiddo. On a personal note, get fucked.
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Wait wait that three letter word wouldn't happen to be... OIL would it! YAYYY!...

So you admit that we interfere internationally under the guise of actually helping ourselves... and then make fun of me when I point out the fallacy in you supporting intervention in Somalia? :booty:Because I'm "oversimplyfying" the issue?

You advocate interfering in Somalia, later admit you don't know much on the subject (unless we're counting the Wikipedia article you cited :roll:), and make fun of people like Abscess who can atleast give reasons for their beliefs? Sounds like you should do YOUR homework, kiddo. On a personal note, get fucked.[/QUOTE]

By the gods you are a fucktard. America doesn't intervene "internationally under the guise of actually helping ourselves". America intervenes under the guise of helping others and promoting democracy. In reality when it comes to third-world nations America does not have allies, it has interests.

On a side note, go back to Gamefaqs
 
[quote name='camoor']By the gods you are a fucktard. America doesn't intervene "internationally under the guise of actually helping ourselves". America intervenes under the guise of helping others and promoting democracy. In reality when it comes to third-world nations America does not have allies, it has interests.

On a side note, go back to Gamefaqs[/QUOTE]

Right, because it definitely wasn't a mistake and that's exactly what I'd meant, right? OK. Anyways, back to thread...
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Right, because it definitely wasn't a mistake and that's exactly what I'd meant, right? OK. Anyways, back to thread...[/QUOTE]

Oh there's too much to refute. I never advocated intervening in Somalia. You don't understand the importance of oil as it relates to international politics. You don't know what guise means.

This isn't history 101 kid. You can either get your GED or crack open some nonfiction on your own, I really don't give a fuck. But don't expect to be treated seriously until you have some knowledge to backup that mouth of yours.
 
[quote name='camoor']Oh there's too much to refute. I never advocated intervening in Somalia. You don't understand the importance of oil as it relates to international politics. You don't know what guise means.

This isn't history 101 kid. You can either get your GED or crack open some nonfiction on your own, I really don't give a fuck. But don't expect to be treated seriously until you have some knowledge to backup that mouth of yours.[/QUOTE]

If I'd replaced 'ourselves' with 'others' you wouldn't have an argument to stand on, besides name-calling. But it's ok, you can pick up on an inadvertant mistake...

Of course I understand how Oil runs politics, I didn't bring it up because fucking EVERYONE knows about that and that it was our true motive for intervention in the Middle East. (Iraq and Afghanistan for sure atleast) For someone that gives grief for pointing out 'shitty facts everyone knows', you sure aren't exactly Mark fucking Twain.

You're using UB double-speak bro, you're better than that... Uhh-hmm, you don't advocate interfering in Somalia, you just happened to be an ass and refute everybody who said we shouldn't get involved.... right...
 
[quote name='RealDeals']If I'd replaced 'ourselves' with 'others' you wouldn't have an argument to stand on, besides name-calling. But it's ok, you can pick up on an inadvertant mistake...

Of course I understand how Oil runs politics, I didn't bring it up because fucking EVERYONE knows about that and that it was our true motive for intervention in the Middle East. (Iraq and Afghanistan for sure atleast) For someone that gives grief for pointing out 'shitty facts everyone knows', you sure aren't exactly Mark fucking Twain.

You're using UB double-speak bro, you're better than that... Uhh-hmm, you don't advocate interfering in Somalia, you just happened to be an ass and refute everybody who said we shouldn't get involved.... right...[/QUOTE]

No.

I said that Somalia is an Ayn Rand paradise. Our resident Ayn Rand acolyte tried to heap Somalia's problems squarely on the US and denied that it was the absence of government that was the real issue. I called him out on this bullshit and then you got on a tear about how the US has ruined every third world country we interact with. So now I'm calling you out as full of shit too.

US intervention has not been great for third-world countries, but for the most part these countries would have had troubles whether or not US intervened and in certain cases it probably did some good.
 
A listing of American military interventions the last hundred years is a tale of destruction and failure for millions of lives in dozens of countries. The insane amount of money we spend for military offense is insane.
To quote Grossman on the common themes of these failures:

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable."

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive."

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.
 
I hear alot of folks dicussing intervention for humanitarian reasons. Some pro some con. The issue is not as complicated as it seems. Interventions cost money and manpower. You have to send somebodies 19 year old over to Somalia for example.Good luck getting any popular suppport for that. To both Dem/Repubs Somalia it is a worse hole of a country than Afghanistan. And for what reason are we sending you child there? Because they are killing each other? Most people saw Black Hawk Down and frankly to them they can keep killing each other. Iraq, Afghanistan are both countries where Americans see nothing for the lives lost and money spent. Why would they care about Somalia? Let the African Union or European Union figure it out and spend their man power and money in the region.They see people that hate us until they need something. Perception is reality.
 
If Obama were to suddenly become this dictator with the power to "make the United States Congress and... the Constitution irrelevant", what reason would he have to "give the sovereignty of the United States away to the United Nations"? He's just going to take over the government for the purpose of handing it over to someone else? And, what in the world is he going to need UN troops for when he'd still have the most powerful military in the world at his command?

I mean, come on, I appreciate a good meth-induced conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but is a little plausibility too much to ask?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I had a drunken conversation last night with friends that amounted to "well, what country would you move to if the United States broke out into civil war?"

I think we settled on Panama. I'm partial to Ireland, but their economy is in the shitter due to austerity.[/QUOTE]

who gives a damn about the economy when you're surrounded by hot ginger chicks that sound funny?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I had a drunken conversation last night with friends that amounted to "well, what country would you move to if the United States broke out into civil war?"

I think we settled on Panama. I'm partial to Ireland, but their economy is in the shitter due to austerity.[/QUOTE]

I'd definitely opt for somewhere in Europe. Probably the Netherlands since I could probably get a job in a research center there since I have a connection.

I'd like to live abroad at some point anyway, even if just a summer visiting scholar fellowship or something of that ilk down the road.
 
For me it would probably be Prague. Never been there, but I know folks who have and they tell me it's an awesome city. Maybe Norway too, I like the cold and the people seem really nice. I remember Lillehammer from the Olympics years ago, looked beautiful.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Here's the deal, if Texas secedes... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't get fooled again"

If you secede again Texas, we're not fighting to get you back. You're on your own; we're not getting fooled again.[/QUOTE]
Probably wouldn't be long before they were at war with Mexico again. They'd piss off the right people and it would be on.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's true, RvB - and I share your sentiment, dmaul.

Yet I'm most tempted (and least surprised) by nasum's logic.[/QUOTE]

is good to be dependable no?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Here's the deal, if Texas secedes... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't get fooled again"

If you secede again Texas, we're not fighting to get you back. You're on your own; we're not getting fooled again.[/QUOTE]

:(

Fine, I didn't want to share Austin with you jerks anyway.
 
It better not secede with Texas. I've got more hot dogs to eat at Frank, latino drag queens to see at...well, I don't quite recall the name of that club, but it was near 7th and Congress and was quite late in the evening, and cheap beers to kill at the Lustre Pearl.

And I never did turn in my wooden nickel from the Jackalope, so don't take that town from me yet.
 
Someone once told me that living in Austin was like having a nice house in a really shitty neighborhood. That true, Sir Strellington?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/party-of-strivers.html?_r=1&hp

David Brook's column today is a decent read on one of the biggest problems with the Republican economic platform today (though unfortunately he offers nothing really in terms of solutions to change this).

Anyway, the most relevant snippet for the tldr; crowd:

But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in Tampa. It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism. There was certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in which individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits and governing institutions.

Today’s Republicans strongly believe that individuals determine their own fates. In a Pew Research Center poll, for example, 57 percent of Republicans believe people are poor because they don’t work hard. Only 28 percent believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. These Republicans believe that if only government gets out of the way, then people’s innate qualities will enable them to flourish.

But there’s a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the engineering major from Purdue or the business major from Arizona State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to run their race. I don’t see what the party is offering the waitress with two kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.

The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much more than the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable people to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
david brooks...good column? I think he's two for two this week. wow.

he's absolutely right, you know. harping on Obama's "you didn't build that" comment and turning it into the screeching hyperindividualism, I did everything by myself mantra is such an astonishingly stupid thing to proclaim - yet there it is, front and center of the convention.
 
Yeah, I tend to like his columns. I don't often agree with him obviously, but he's one of the few conservative intellectuals out there.

So even when I disagree with him, I at least respect that he usually has well thought out positions, often cites studies/stats rather than just shouting rhetoric etc.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'd bet money Romney was assuming the old, white, ex military guy was on his side at first.[/QUOTE]


That's exactly what I was thinking.
 
I heard some pretty stupid shit earlier today while shopping. This Old guy was talking to someone on the phone, complaining about Muslims and a mosque that has been in the local news a lot lately. He was saying that they'll turn kids into Muslims, and complained about how the government punishes good Christians such as himself. There was more, but it was just the indignant ramblings of an old man.
 
This is not, I repeat, IS NOT a photoshopped onion parody.

enhanced-buzz-22774-1347218736-5.jpg
 
Someone gave the President a big bear hug and picked him up off the ground and the Secret Service didn't jump in?

Is it cynical of me to think this was all prearranged?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Someone gave the President a big bear hug and picked him up off the ground and the Secret Service didn't jump in?[/QUOTE]

I'm sure they frisked everyone for weapons and were ready to jump in at the first sign of real violence. Those guys may like hookers but they are pretty good at what they do.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']But it is ok to boycott other companies when you disagree with their policies (ex. Walmart, Koch brother companies, etc).[/QUOTE]

You don't see the difference?
 
[quote name='nasum']anyone else see that Rheince Priebus guy's name and automatically turn it into Rancid Penis?[/QUOTE]

I think it was John Stewart who pointed out that, if you omit all the vowels in his name, you get RNC PR BS.

childish, but clever.
 
You don't see the difference?
Click to expand...
People don't like the Koch brothers support of Obama, boycott their companies. If I lived near this guy, I don't like his support of Obama, so I would boycott his pizza place. The only difference is their scale of support.
 
Except the guy is a Republican. So it's Republicans saying he's not Republican enough, and then going out and trying to destroy his small business, which Republicans claim to be a proponent of. Further, a hug isn't the same as companies actively funneling money into lobbyists to try and change policies so that those gross homos can't kiss in public.

So yes camoor, he doesn't see a difference, because both sides do it, and everything is equal, and peanut butter is the square root of ham.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']H became a vowel?[/QUOTE]

Reince Priebus
My bad on the initial spelling. I like hydrogen apparently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top