The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

detectiveconan16 said:
AHCA apposed by freedom caucus because bill doesn't go far enough. Maternity leave and essential benefits must be eliminated. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/essential-health-benefits-obamacare-freedom-caucus/
Click to expand...
I really don't get their stance. For an administration touting "law and order" they are staggeringly ignorant of the effects of mental health, which includes the growing opioid abuse epidemic among other things, on the day-to-day duties performed by our police. It doesn't do any good to define "essential" for these people. Just look at the hatchet job Mick Mulvaney is doing to the Federal budget.

Don't worry though. Ivanka has the situation under control. Why should Daddy Trump care about maternity leave? As if he ever changed a diaper in his entire life. For that matter, I doubt she has either. Her raison d'etre is child care for working moms. I don't dispute her experience, since she probably had a team of nannies raising her brood, but all I can see is tax credits for the rich, just like the rich are going to use our tax dollars to send their kids to Christian schools under the Betsy DeVos regime.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
detectiveconan16 said:
How much does drug testing cost? How much does giving money to Americans to spend affect the economy?

https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/843574479926247424
Click to expand...
In the various red states that have already enacted such legislation, it is an unmitigated disaster. Statistics from a 2015 study show that the national drug usage rate is about 9.4 percent. In the states with this form of drug testing for government assistance recipients, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. In order words, they're throwing your tax dollars at a problem that doesn't really exist.

Drug testing programs like this have an undercurrent of racism, with the hidden intent to subjugate communities of color and create a subclass of citizens, but some of these lawmakers are finding out fast that the vast majority of people in their districts on assistance and failing these drug tests are white people. (Sorry, Steve King, I used "subclass" as a way to define marginalized segments of our population, not in the dog whistle way you use the word in your tweets about what race or culture has contributed the most to Western civilization.)

 
detectiveconan16 said:
Yeah, I noticed both sides see him as a hero and villain like the flip of a coin. People have to accept that Comey is indeed jerk, and if you're gonna big dog the top cop of the United States, at least be more morally upright than he is.
Click to expand...
At least he's more morally upright that Devin Nunes, who goes running to Trump to tell him that his people (and maybe Trump himself) were caught talking to foreign officials during the campaign for President. That would be the same Devin Nunes who is heading the congressional committee looking into Trump-Russia connections. The routine surveillance was of the foreign officials (they haven't equivocally stated they were Russian yet), NOT on Trump or his people. The Trump team (which Nunes was a part of during the transition) just got caught in the web. Of course, Trump sees this as an affirmation of his previous lies on Twitter about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower because he can twist it to conform to his conspiracy-loving worldview.

It would be the same as if a morally self-righteous but secretly profligate minister got caught in a prostitution sting and then lied by saying he was simply there to proselytize them. " Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot! Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty...you must give us all a good spanking! ...and after the spanking, the oral sex."

 
hey, member that time that a single party had control of both the legislative and executive branches and still couldnt repeal something they had bitched about for 8 years and had all that time to come up with a replacement they could all agree on and didnt even do that? I member

 
Oddly, I was remembering the time when one party controlled everyhing, forced a piece of shit bill through, but it was only a piece of shit because the first party is full of free, independent thinkers who had to come together to agree to make a piece of shit bill, while the other party was in full lockstep with one another and cannot think for themselves.

If I wasn't limited on time right now and on mobile,it'd be an interesting time to pull some of those old quotes out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UncleBob said:
Oddly, I was remembering the time when one party controlled everyhing, forced a piece of shit bill through, but it was only a piece of shit because the first party is full of free, independent thinkers who had to come together to agree to make a piece of shit bill, while the other party was in full lockstep with one another and cannot think for themselves.
Click to expand...
Amusingly, everything the GOP whined about then, they were committing on steroids the last few weeks.

"They rammed this bill down our throats!" --> GOP creates bill in weeks; says there will be no reconciliation meetings, it must pass as is; Trump threatens that if they don't pass bill then he'll move on

"Was made in the dead of night!" --> GOP refuses to let CBO score the bill before the vote; makes last minute changes in adjustments in closed door meetings; hilariously at one point has a single copy in a guarded room that people are not allowed to copy.

"Cornhusker Kickback!" --> Up to the time of vote, Trump was attempting to pay off reluctant Congressmen by agreeing to support pet projects if they voted for the bill.

"They're using budget reconciliation to avoid a filibuster!" -- > Rand Paul says that, as President of the Senate, Mike Pence should simply overturn any rulings the Senate Parliamentarian makes about whether the revised bill can be passed under reconciliation.

"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it!" - Speaker Pelosi (D) -- > "We have to pass the bill to be able to explain it" - Rep. Collins ( R) (Note both remarks aren't verbatim and it's actually reasonable to state that explaining complex legislation in the heat of the fight is hard but boy did conservatives crow about that nonsense for years)

"The public doesn't want this bill!" --> 17% support for AHCA.

"No Republican support!" -- > Heh.

But I guess the one thing they couldn't out-do the Democrats on was actually, you know, getting the votes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
Amusingly, everything the GOP whined about then, they were committing on steroids the last few weeks.
Click to expand...
I think the thing to remember, is the old "Give 'em an inch and they take a mile.".

One party does some slightly shady shit while in power. It's somewhat popular and is just hidden enough they don't get called out that badly for it. Then, the other party uses the same tactic, but dials it up a notch. Then, back and forth every few years until they finally get called out - at which point, they get to point at the last time the other party did it.

It's like executive orders. Presidents have been issuing them for years, but it wasn't until Dubya that they really got somewhat controversial. When Obama started pulling some stuff, everyone then pointed backwards. Now, Trump is being Trump and it's hard to challenge it because both parties let it slide for the last 16 years under their own leadership.

It's like "Hey, you're a really good Chief of Police. I'm going to make a law that makes it legal for the Chief of Police to shoot anyone on sight with no questions or consequence so long as the Chief deems them to be a threat to public safety. You're a great guy, I am sure you'll never abuse this."

50 years and 10 Police Chiefs later, we're all wondering why this mother fucker gets to sit atop the court house shooting people whenever he wants.
 
Science Magazine is not objective. Yes. The Republicans in order to hammer down that Climate Change is a goddamned myth is saying on the record, a committee on science and technology, is saying one of the most respected publications on science is not objective.  What is a world when reality becomes an political agenda in which you have to fight against?

https://twitter.com/Exxon_Knew/status/847138083862593536

 
as interesting as that would be, I doubt he has anything that they dont already know, the fbi already declined his offer. He is probably just trying to get immunity since it was announced that they had taps, they already probably have everything they would learn from him, he's trying to get out of the trouble he's already in and save his own ass in a last ditch effort

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sasquatc4 said:
as interesting as that would be, I doubt he has anything that they dont already know, the fbi already declined his offer. He is probably just trying to get immunity since it was announced that they had taps, they already probably have everything they would learn from him, he's trying to get out of the trouble he's already in and save his own ass in a last ditch effort
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not but if he's seeking immunity then at the very least he's guilty of something. So maybe the administration is completely clean, comes out and says "well that's why we forced him to resign." Great, so you knew your National Security Advisor was guilty of crimes and you did nothing, it's not like prosecuting crimes is one of the core functions of your branch of the government or anything...

So maybe they come out and say the had no idea this was happening. In which case, they put up a person for one of the most sensitive positions in the executive branch who was hiding something this big. Now, they're just grossly incompetent.

This all takes into account the best case scenario for the administration which is the assumption that there aren't more and guiltier people involved in all this crap. But let's be real, when there's this much smoke you don't start thinking there ain't a fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's crazy is, in general, the airstrike itself was handled pretty well. It was carefully planned out and targeted. There were limited casualties. And it directly attacked the resources that Assad used in poisoning his own people. And yet...Trump still manages to make it feel dastardly and gross just because of how he is.

What I don't want to see though is liberals just being so anti-Trump that they can't make reasonable and fair judgments. Continuous butthurt and outrage isn't going to win Congress back. Bill Maher has been on point with this a lot lately. Democrats need to grow some balls. Call Republicans out on their endless bullshit, of course. But also stop being afraid to recognize true injustices going on around the world just for the sake of political correctness.

Extremist Muslim beliefs of hate and demeaning women are fucked up. And it shouldn't be wrong to say that. To care about people, sometimes you have to actually do something. And whether we want to give Trump credit or not, this airstrike was doing something.

 
In 2012, The US Government initiated a targeted drone strike on a wedding party. The target of this attack was a suspected terrorist leader believed to have been in attendance. To this day, there is no clear evidence this individual was there. 12 civilians are believed to have been killed, including at least one child. Many more injured.

The media and the general population was mostly silent.

Yesterday, the US Government initiated a targeted missile attack on an airfield being used as a military base. This base was used to launch a chemical attack on the citizens within their own country. Advanced warning was given. The missiles were targeted at weaponry and infrastructure. There were six casualties (a term that includes both wounded and dead).

It's been non-stop news and we have protesters in the street.
 
That's what I mean. This attack could have been handled properly...and Trump can still be a scumbag. These things are not mutually exclusive. I can't stand the willingness to criticize anything and everything just because it fits your agenda. Same with Trump and the far right ridiculing Obama for golfing and vacations, and then seeing Agent Orange crank that shit up to 11. If we ever actually want to fix anything, we need to stop being fake as hell. But if people are going to keep their blinders on and just stand in the street yelling, things will only get worse.

 
UncleBob said:
In 2012, The US Government initiated a targeted drone strike on a wedding party. The target of this attack was a suspected terrorist leader believed to have been in attendance. To this day, there is no clear evidence this individual was there. 12 civilians are believed to have been killed, including at least one child. Many more injured.

The media and the general population was mostly silent.

Yesterday, the US Government initiated a targeted missile attack on an airfield being used as a military base. This base was used to launch a chemical attack on the citizens within their own country. Advanced warning was given. The missiles were targeted at weaponry and infrastructure. There were six casualties (a term that includes both wounded and dead).

It's been non-stop news and we have protesters in the street.
Click to expand...
I don't remember Brian Williams literally orgasming in his seat over any marketplaces getting droned, either.

 
If you didn't see any stories about the wedding, you must have turned off your computer and sat in a hole with a blanket over your head for three weeks.  It was reported all over the place.  As have been multiple other similar events in both Yemen and Afghanistan.

Comparing the two events is silly anyway.  People are protesting the idea of getting involved in yet another war by attacking a sovereign nation versus a flawed drone attack on a terror group.  If we had launched the missiles against ISIS camps in Syria as opposed to against a (Russian allied) Syrian air base, you wouldn't have seen the same reaction.

I'm personally not upset by it so much as I shake my head at the toothless, impotent gesture of attacking an airbase with several hours advance warning so the important jets can be long gone and doing so in a way that doesn't even disable the runway so it has attack sorties leaving from it a day later.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
If you didn't see any stories about the wedding, you must have turned off your computer and sat in a hole with a blanket over your head for three weeks.
Click to expand...
"Mostly". They weren't talking about it near 24/7 and we're not making as big of a deal out of those actions as they are this.

As for getting into 'another war', remind me how many additional conflicts Obama started up? I can't remember, since they rarely get discussed...
 
UncleBob said:
"Mostly". They weren't talking about it near 24/7 and we're not making as big of a deal out of those actions as they are this.
Click to expand...
If you can't figure out on your own why the media may dedicate more time to the US striking a Syrian airfield than to the 12,000th anti-terrorist drone attack, I don't know what to tell you. But "Mostly" is a lame cop-out -- you heard about it, I heard about it, lots of people heard about it. Whining that people are talking about this more than you remember an event in 2012 is -- uh... just dumb, really.

As for getting into 'another war', remind me how many additional conflicts Obama started up? I can't remember, since they rarely get discussed...
Click to expand...
Obviously the problem here is that you don't know how to work your internet machine. Or your television. Or radio. Or newspaper. Or local town crier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, it is.  When something is well reported and someone else sits and cries about how no one is reporting it... well, maybe that person just isn't trying very hard to stay educated about the world.  No one is going to knock on your door and yell the news at you -- you need to take a little effort.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Well reported".

Grab a video camera, go out and ask five random people on the street:

1.) Name two countries William J. Clinton initiated military action in.

2.) Name two countries George W. Bush initiated military action in.

3.) Name two countries Barack H. Obama initiated military action in.

4.) Name the country Donald J. Trump initiated military action in.

Then come back and tell me there isn't a huge difference in how the media and the population reacts between D and R military actions.
 
Nah.  I'm not the one whining about how unfair it is just because I can't be bothered to open a newspaper.  But feel free to videotape me:

(1) Somalia & Bosnia

(2) Iraq & Afghanistan

(3) Libya & Yemen

(4) Syria

By this, I assume you mean "initiate military action" to mean any use of US military force within that nation (NATO, UN Missions, etc included).  Do we count things like Obama sending a couple hundred troops to Cameroon to help local forces search for Boko Haram?  Does Obama using airstrikes in Syria but against ISIS forces versus Syrian held installations count?  I mention Obama and Yemen since Obama stepped up the number of drone strikes there dramatically but Bush used strikes in Yemen as well -- did Obama "initiate" those actions?

Do I care what some random imaginary person remembers from 1993?  Not really.  You can't seriously believe that Somalia and Bosnia were unreported.  Or that no one heard about Libya.

 
You keep throwing out strawman arguments. I never said anything was unreported, ever. I never said I didn't read or see an article about anything. If you want to keep making up your own imaginary arguments and knocking them down, go right ahead. I'm not going to play that game. You'll have to dig up one of the other old timers, that was their favorite.

If you want to pretend we live in a world where Somalia, Bosnia, Libya, and Yemen received anywhere near as much mass media hype as Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Syria... well... have at it.
 
"You had someone as despicable as Hitler, who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons" -- Sean Spicer.

Mr. Spicer has to be forgiven.  World War II was fought while a Democrat was president so the mass media didn't really cover it with any hype.

 
You know, I tried to do that Google thing you suggested.

Found this huge Wikipedia entry on Media coverage of Iraq.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War

Nothing seems to come up in a similar search for Libya. Weird. Maybe you should take your vast knowledge of the media coverage given and put together a similar Wikipedia article for future generations.

Also found several articles contrasting the coverage of the two wars... but since you're an expert on Google, I'll let you pull them up if you really want.
 
Wow, Wikipedia is the media now. Who knew? And who would guess that an 8yr, 8mth war would generate more articles than an eight month conflict? Liberal Media Conspiracy!

I've better things to do than look up Heritage Foundation and MRC articles just to make you feel better. Thanks for the offer, though.

I never mentioned Google either. Hang on while I sob big crocodile tears over "strawman arguments".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you're a bit confused. The wiki link isn't about the war. It's a huge document about the media coverage of the war. Enough to fill an article.

You are correct, you didn't mention Google - you said "Internet Machine". Is there a search engine you'd prefer I use?
 
Did you know you can access new sites, etc directly through your web browser?  In fact, many people who are educated keep a series of sites on hand rather than typing "What is the news?" into a search engine.  Those people were informed about the wedding drone attack shortly after it occurred while you were somewhere fuming that no one was talking about it because something something Democrats.

I'm not at all confused -- you're somehow upset that a war that lasted for nearly nine years has a Wiki article about its media coverage and a war that lasted for eight months doesn't.  Nothing very confusing about that.  Hell, I'm not even confused about why you're so desperate to compare the two.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In news not related to anyone huffing about whatever CNN was up to in 1993, the Washington Post reports that a FISA court issued a warrant for surveillance on a Trump adviser last summer, having decided that there was sufficient reason to believe he was working with the Russian government to agree with the FBI's request.

Ok, back to making weird Wikipedia comparisons now...

 
The UN doesn't have its own military force. What you meant to say was "This is what members of various militaries really do."

In fact, as the articles point out, the UN is hamstrung when these events occur since it has no authority to discipline soldiers from the member nations.  If you're upset that Sri Lankan soldiers acting as UN Peacekeepers committed sexual assault, your complaint should be with the Sri Lankan military.  Putting on a blue helmet didn't magically change them into rapists.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gee... if only there was a nation that has extraordinary power who can actually fulfill its extraordinary responsibilities. A nation that constantly touts itself as the greatest in the world, an example that all other countries can see as a shining example of democracy.

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