FISTBUMPS
FISTBUMPS
Always acceptable.
(Barack Obama)
Picture by: dunno source Caption by: dunno source via Poster Builder
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Dear ticket holders | VE VIL Next »
» 315 comments
-
Recent Comments
Cheezburger Network Blog
Four dudes in this pic and they are all…
… dudes.
Right. Sorry. I ran out of ink.
No worries, I like the opportunity to be helpful like that.
Four dudes in this pic and they are all very busy men.
I hate it when HE puts hands in pockets. Why does HE do that?
Never mind. The secret service dude looks like he’s about to open fire on the fist-bumping cleaner.
FISTBUMPS
Because the President’s Hands are too Clean to Shake yours
Circulation problems? Rather common with tall folk.
…minorities.
There’s too many minorities
in my white house
and even the authorities
are minorities
hate to burst your bubble, but if you look behind the dude in the red tie – there is another suit (or at least a partial suit), therefore there are 5 dudes so your comment is invalid….
But the panda……the PANDA……..
…was eaten by Charro. Sorry.
….and boy, is Shaq unhappy about that.
*burp* Ohai!
Not funny.
Nope. Not at all.
You know, I distinctly remember seeing this one. And I distinctly remember voting it down.
I’ve used that joke before, but you know, it’s a good one.
You can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats people below him (of course, about everyone is below the President).
Well, if he’s going down that flight of stairs…..
Yeah. Funny Obama didn’t bow like he did to the Japanese Emperor.
It’s called “culture” my man. Here we give hand shakes, they give bows.
Or, as we say in my country, “dabs”.
Well in the great words of Harry Reid “he has no Negro dialect”, so really is a Fist Bumb culture to him?
Well Harry Reid is a moron and secondly fist bumps are integral in AMERICAN culture period. Doesn’t matter if a person is “negroid, mangaloid, cacausoid, or hispanoid”.
We all know that a fist bump is an informarl, but acceptable, way of greeting. Just like the head nod, the index finger in air, and the dap.
You forgot the “Sup?”
That too!
One of the greatest moments of my life: working at a gas station around 2000, and NHL hall-of-famer Bernie Federko walks in. I’m practically frozen in my spot, struggling to hold in my inner fanboy, but still manage the head nod. *fanboy sigh* In my high school the head nod was a sign that you were liked by the cool kids, but not enough where they could officially show it. I was kind of an in-betweener popularity-wise. LOL
I shook Kevin Dineen’s hand at a Whalers game once. since it was the Whalers that tells you it was WELL before the Fist Bump.
*wants to play, too*
OOOHHH….OOOOHHHH!!!
I high-fived John LeClair after a game once and he driped sweat on my hand… my husband and his friends were sooooo jealous…
Um, I heard Stephen Hawking “speak” in person…
*hangs head*
Well, I/m jealous! I did meet Sakharov once, but only because I was hanging out with my husband at a physics conference in honor of one of his graduate advisers.
Oopps. Fussing about getting the html thing right: I’m.
See, I don’t even know who Federko, Dineen, or LeClair is. I’m guessing they’re all hockey players, but that’s purely supposition. You’ve got me beat, though. I only heard Hawking speak. I didn’t actually meet with him. I did have a nice long conversation with David Finkelstein about general relativity, however. Since he was a professor (now emeritus) at my school (Georgia Tech), I wasn’t sure he was worth mentioning.
I don’t know who any of those guys are either. I only got to ‘meet’ Sakharov because I was standing next to my husband when Marshall Rosenbleuth (the conference was his birthday party) introduced them. Finkelstein is cool, too.
You go it Nebton. All hockey players. All pretty good ones too. I met a couple less notable players before. My wife has much better hockey player stories. When she was about 13 she practically stalked Adam Oates when he was a Blues player. There are funny stories about that.
Now, Blues is music, right?
No, Blue is Joe’s dog. Used to be Steve’s dog, but he “went to college”….I’ve always suspected Joe did him in, though.
*headdesk*
What, should it be Blues are music? That one’s always confused me…
Blues a professional Hockey team in St. Louis, Missouri.
….and I managed to avoid the is/are question by leaving out the verb altogether. *sigh*
Uh…..Brett “the Hitman” Hart’s brother taught at my school…..Yeah, I got nothing.
I met Kyle Petty once. He introduced himself to me, I responded likewise….then he looked crestfallen and said “You don’t know who I am, do you?” I thought about it for a sec and said, “Um….you…umm…race….cars?” This turned out to be correct. He seemed like a nice enough guy, if a little disappointed I wasn’t a NASCAR fan.
I have a friend who is a huge NASCAR fan, she goes on about them all the time……I just smile and nod.
For me, it would’ve been a tossup between race cars and country music. (Isn’t there someone with a similar name in country music?)
I don’t know! The only reason I got it at all is because I made a guess based on knowing who Richard Petty was…(I think that was his father, but I’m not entirely positive; same family, anyway.)
I looked it up. I was thinking of Tom Petty. Meh, same thing.
Yeah, I would have guess musician because of Tom Petty…
Well, I would’ve RATHER met Tom Petty.
He must have been trying to hit on you then!!
*high fives the amazing diss*
I don’t know….maybe? Well, probably not. I think I was about 7 months pregnant at the time.
7 months pregnant did amazing things for Ms Bristol, according to male comments on this site, so I would say, probably!
I think my response would be worse, “Aren’t you Richard Petty’s son?” I mean, defining you in terms of “you’re someone’s child” rather than as a competitor in your own right…
My husband went to community college with The Undertaker.
My daughter nannied for The Undertaker!
I met the entire 2005 Blackhawks team…they were naked.
Pictures, or it didn’t happen!
Ok, they weren’t “really” naked but I did picture them naked when I met all of them. Does that count?
It only counts if you can draw me pictures.
As a lifelong Blues fan, that unwanted mental image is enough to make me attempt to stab out my eyes. Excuse me for a minute…
On another note, Blues fans were a little creeped out last year when the team hired former uber-hated Blackhawks goalie Ed Belfour as a coach or consultant or something. It’s great because he was an amazing goalie, but it’s like if Obama named one of the Taliban’s head guys to his cabinet.
I’m sure some suspect Obama already has…
@Nucky – I’ll work on a team painting for you!
I once met Richard Lederer. He shook my hand. He didn’t sweat on me though, nor was he naked (thankfully). Though he did personally invite me to join MENSA. I thought that was pretty awesome, but I’m a dork like that.
I saw Muhammad Ali at Barnes and Noble.
I grew up with Gail Z. Martin. OK, I think it’s really cool that my friend is fan-boy-ed!
I’ve met and hung out with countless bands. But they’re not super famous here in the States.
Except once, I smoked pot with Korn, Filter and White Zombie. They’re pretty famous. I also touched Keanu Reeves once.
Uh, other than that, growing up in Tucson was lame and no one came there.
Where did you touch him? Did you touch his Matrix? Or did you Speed through it and cause his chute to deploy early?
Well, I’ll tell the story.
His band (Dogstar – terrible FYI) was playing at Alice Cooper’s club in Scottsdale. So my roommate and I drove up, picked up my friend Cherie and went there.
They played, it was terrible. Somewhere between Rolling Rocks 7 & 24, I decided I would try to grab his ass after the show. The plan was, grab the ass, get punched in the face and when asked who beat me up I could say “Keanu Reeves”.
So after the show, we hung around out back. Finally, he showed up. I and my friends were standing behind him, Cherie behind Sarah, I off to Sarah’s right and behind Mr. Reeves. Sarah had a stuffed echidna that she was trying to prop up on his shoulder, I was going for the ass grab. He took a step back, knocked into Sarah, I got a handful of elbow and Sarah got knocked into Cherie who was lighting her cigarette. So, Sarah’s hair caught on fire. Instead of going for the grab again, I had to slap Sarah in the head to help put out the fire. Once the flames were out, he was gone and I missed my chance. *le sigh*
But I touched him!
Woohoo! Elbow gropes!
The amazing thing about that story is that Keanu apparently wandered off oblivious to her hair being on fire!
It is Keanu Reeves, after all. I’m not sure he’s noticed that the sky is generally blue.
“Whoa….dude. Has it always been that color?”
For kitties it’s the head bump.
Oops! I mean kittehs!!
Good point! (just got kitteh-greeted)
You mean, he didn’t bow to someone who’s a member of a culture where people don’t bow!! Oh the humanity!
It would be equally valid to say that he didn’t fist bump Emperor Akihito.
Well, he also shook the hand of the policeman outside No. 10 Downing St. Which was fine. I just thought the fist bump looked a bit patronising.
Funny how no other World Leader bowed… besides I don’t believe Obama bowed I think he dropped a nickle and in this economy every cent counts.
Dagnabit moderation. 2nd try:
It’s a liberal tradition, started by that great liberal Richard Milhous Nixon:
{http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=5c8f4325f5d81345&q=hirohito%20source:life&prev=/images?q=hirohito+source:life&ndsp=12&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&start=12&um=1}
What Obama did wrong is that he bowed too deeply. In the grand scheme of things, it’s hardly worth getting in a tizzy over. (I’m not saying that you got in a tizzy over it, but there is a certain news network that did.)
“And apparently the DOW dropped eleventy thousand points today because President Humiliation bowed to the Emperor. In other news, Obama’s bow has apparently caused a swarm of locusts to appear in Kansas, and Iran has dropped a nuclear bomb on Austin, TX. Way to go, Barry.”
Nah, that’s not their style. It’s more like:
Did the DOW drop eleventy thousand points today because “President” Obama bowed to the Emperor?
Is that bow related to a swarm of locusts appearing over Kansas or Iran dropping a nuclear bomb on Austin, Texas?
We’re not saying that’s necessarily the reason, but let’s hear from several prominent pundits who will say it for us.
I believe the style is mmore like, “Obama bowed so low that he could tell if the Emperor’s fly was unzipped, therefore showing his ability to submit to other world powers which in turn can cause people in the world to thin we’re no as bad ass as we used to be.” Though it is somewhat far-fetched there is at least a logic tree to it. Just like the good ole liberal pundits who said that the Republican party is dead, and Democrats will rule for the next 30 years. We’ll see how that turns out in November.
(1) I don’t believe Fox News and logic are that familiar with each other. I’ve actually seen a news anchor do a double take after reading something that was patently false. (My in-laws watch Fox News, so I use it as an opportunity for observation.)
(2) Which pundits are saying the Republican party is dead, and have any of them said that on any of the soi distant liberal cable news shows? The way they’re going, I’d like for them to die (and be replaced by the somewhat saner Libertarian Party), but I certainly wouldn’t predict it! Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure you can find some blogger somewhere who’s said it, but I’m not familiar with any even somewhat famous pundit claiming anything like imminent death for the Republican party. That said, we started in the realm of exaggeration, but I’m not even sure what you’re exaggerating!
I’m sorry that was Time MAgazine that pronounced the Republican Party dead. The Republican PArty isn’t dead, that was the exaggeration, and if someone truely believes that, then they should also believe in Obama Death Squads.
Ah, well, that’s Time Magazine, then. This is the same magazine that was warning us bout Global Cooling back in the ’70s when all of the scientists were actually warning us about Global Warming.
Still, point made.
(I avoid them even more than I avoid Fox News.)
I wish. Now, they have a decent shot at regaining some power this year due to some bone-headed moves the Democrats and Obama, but even if they do it’s hardly the end of the road for the Dems. If anything it should be a wake-up call to rally and overwhelm the Reps in 2012. Losing power so quickly would send the message that the American people actually liked things better under Bush, and that would be just sick.
moves BY the Democrats and Obama. I just woke up from a nap so I’m not really that with it.
Don’t get too confident. Remember 1994? Although Clinton won re-election in ‘96, the loss in ‘94 continued for most Dems in ‘96. (Well, by “most” I mean that the Republicans continued to pick up seats. Incumbents always have a big advantage.)
The bright side is that the ‘10 Senate races have the incumbents from ‘04, back when Bush got re-elected.
I agree with Nebbie here. The Republicrats need to die and be replaced by Right Libertarain & Left Libertarian parties.
Yay Libertarians!
*high fives The Steve*
I’m fine with libertarians in office. So long as they are the real thing, and not those idiots with the posters of Obama with a Hitler-esque mustache. Grrr.
Also, whenever I see the fist bump now, I’m reminded of how a certain anchor on Fox News (E. D. Hill) referred to the fist bump as a “terrorist fist jab”!
I do believe that was a reference too this. It got spun into “the righties all think Obama’s a terrorist. Which is what the cover was implying in the first place. It was an accusation flung at the right, that backfired and got blamed on the right anyways.
Other way around, actually — the cover was a satire of “all the righties think Obama’s a terrorist.” And, I thought, pretty well done and funny. If I was Obama, I’d have it signed and framed.
Ninja’d!
The ladies are the ninja queens (empresses?) today!
While I didn’t use the word satire, I figured that was a given. It did get portrayed the first day or 2 as the views of the right. Then people found out it was the New Yorker, and excuses were made for it. It was then that we heard it was a satire of ED Hill, and therefore was ok. And people were still ticked. One remark by an idiot was turned into the views of everyone that didn’t like Obama.
It should seemed like you were saying that E. D. Hill’s “terrorist fist jab” was a reference to the New Yorker cover (i.e., your “this”), but in re-reading what you wrote, I suppose you might have just been using a vague qualifier with your “that”. By “that” (in your first sentence) were you referring to the LOL? If so, I’m not sure what the relevance was to my comment (which contributed all the more to the assumption by everyone else that you were referring to the E. D. Hill incident in my comment).
Actually, you got it backwards. The New Yorker cover (July 21, 2008) was a reference to E. D. Hill’s comment (June 6, 2008), and not vice-versa.
Neb, did you know that a QK looks like a little ninja if you look at it sideways? I think we should use this symbol from now on
And a female ninja: Q8<
Hmm. Nah. The QK looks betterer.
Danbala, that looks like sideways Pamela Anderson with a ponytail.
Oooh, it does!
I approve of where this discussion has gone…
What about how he treats the people below him in bed…… Oh wait that’s Clinton… sorry confused liberals who don’t want to protect the country….. (Oh yeah I went there… )
Oh, buy doesn’t want to protect the country you mean he pulled out of Afghanistan? No? He sent more?
Maybe it’s because he stopped chasing Al-Qaeda members in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region? What? He’s killed more top Al-Qaeda in less than a year tha Bush did in the prior three?
Perhaps you mean all those times we’ve been attacked since he’s been in office? You know, like the one time that was more of a work-place shooting than a terrorist action (Another non-Al-Qaida affiliated guy killed more people in a shooting the same day, btw)?
No one has yet to actually provide proof to me that Obama is any weaker on terror and security than prior presidents. So far it just seems like people assume it’s true because he’s a Democrat.
You don’t have to make grandios speeches decrying other nations as evil and bombing unrelated countries to be ’strong on security.’
Here’s your proof: Fox News said so!
Yeah Nebs b/c I watch Foxnews all the time, oh wait I don’t…. OOPS!!!
My comment was more of a generic comment and not directed specifically at you. Of course, you do still leave Aremis’ question unanswered…
(That said, you don’t have to watch Fox News to be influenced by them. If you visit conservative-leaning sites or hang out with conservative friends, chances are good that many of the opinions you’re hearing are reflections of something Fox News said, either directly or indirectly.)
Scratch that bit about leaving the question unanswered. I see that you answer the question below.
Do us all a favor. Don’t pretend the left leaning networks aren’t just as biased as Fox News.
Because when you do, it proves the old adage, “it’s better to be thought a fool in silence than to open your mouth and prove them right.
I won’t pretend any such thing. Air America is just as biased as Fox News. Now, don’t you pretend that CNN, MSNBC, et al. are left-leaning networks, because when you do…
(Do you not remember them playing the war drums leading up to the Iraq war? Do you not remember the scathing attacks on cigar-gate? Was not the relative silence on the violation of habeas corpus fairly deafening?)
Personally, I think supporting habeus corpus and the Constitution as a whole can be a conservative value. (Not commenting on the network-bias thing, I’m just saying….constitutional violations are not MY kind of conservatism.)
Agreed, in theory. In practice, however, it seems that politics makes strange bedfellows. You’d also think that conservation would be a conservative value, no?
I’d really rather not go to bed with a politician. Just saying.
Nitpick: it’s habeas, not habeus. I made that spelling mistake for a long time (and my spell check doesn’t recognize either spelling).
Should be a conservative value, I agree. Funny how Second Amendment nuts get all silent when discussing Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Amendment, and get absolutely apopleptic when the ACLU goes to bat for the First Amendment.
I luuuurrrrrv my entire Constitution, thankyouverymuch!
But, yes, I know what you mean. Picking and choosing seems to come at both ends of the political spectrum….Can we start calling people that do that “Cafeteria Constitutionalists”?
I like that term, “Cafeteria Constitutionalists”, but if you think about it too much you might find that you fall into the camp yourself. (That’s not meant as a dig to you personally.) I often find myself waffling on certain things. E.g., doesn’t it seem that during the fight for civil rights in the ’60s the interstate commerce clause was roundly abused? I think their motives were good, but constitutionally…
I think an awful lot of things with noble intentions are hinked in there under the Commerce Clause as if it were some type of all-purpose justification. Apparently if you think about it long enough you can relate anything to interstate commerce.
This gives me the idea for the real religious fundies: Cafeteria Bible Thumpers. Since they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they’re using as the ‘verbatim word of god’ depending on which subject they are discussing.
Mabs: I’m pretty sure that’s where diss is stealing, er borrowing, the term from in the first place.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity}
Shoot. Here I thought I was being clever.
Repurposing!
And, yes, it was a take on the snarky term Cafeteria Christian/Cafeteria Catholic.
Speaking of the ICC, I believe the most recent health care bill is also abusing it.
I kinda hate to admit it, but I think these guys have a point:
{http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000011728.cfm}
You compare Air America to Fox News? You just proved the adage.
Most of even the hardest core lefties have been here bragging on how left MSNBC is. And there’s plenty of examples of the other networks leanings through the years. I guess you don’t remember them. To inconvenient for you.
I spoken up for quite some time about all the networks. All of them. I would love for there to be a truly independent news source. It doesn’t exist in America. Probably none outside of America either. But when you read the news about America from outside, you begin to see how much bias there is in American news.
OK, so I don’t watch cable news (I’ve never had cable and I haven’t had a TV in quite some time), so I’ll admit that I’m not up-to-date on what goes on there. The only cable news show I’ve watched regularly is Fox News, because it’s what’s on when I visit the in-laws.
That said, what I see on these posts is that every time there’s a new reference to an obvious incidence of bias at Fox News (not that the terrorist fist jab is new), it seems that the “liberal news” types bring up Matthews’ “shiver”.
Most of what I know about cable news comes through the lens of Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, and several times a week there are new incidents of egregious Fox News bias. If you haven’t watched much Jon Stewart, try watching a few episodes to see what I mean. If you haven’t watched Fox News, try watching a few hours of it to see what I mean. Can you give me a comparable list of biases in the soi distant liberal cable news shows?
I don’t watch any of the opinion/talking head type shows on any network (with the occasional exception of Face the Nation on Sunday mornings if I’m being really, really lazy), but I do tend to flip through all the news networks both in a “pause while channelsurfing to catch a news story” way and “flip back and forth between networks to get multiple coverage” when there’s a big story (like for example the Ft. Hood shootings). On a “just plain news reporting” basis I really don’t see a lot of difference between the networks at ALL. There may be some spin in the way a story’s presented, but I think the majority of the “lean-y” part of it is on the opinion-type shows (Olbermann, O’Reilly, that kinda thing).
Aaaand, the networks all make errors, particularly with breaking news because they get in too big of a rush to get it on the air. Wouldn’t want the competition to get out there 30 seconds ahead! No time to proofread! *headdesk*
Oh and the 5 words that send me lunging for the remote? “Coming up next, Nancy Grace!” Haaaaaaate.
I strongly suggest you research that on your own. *sigh*
You actually admitted that you haven’t watched the other networks, yet was defending them. I can’t believe that. I get tired of the Fox News (which is not the Fox network) bashing, and speak up about the dishonesty of it, but I’ve never claimed they weren’t as biased as the others.
Diss: You’re right that they all tend to make errors. Most of the ones I’ve heard reported tend to favor the Republicans, however. (Remember how many stations were calling Foley a Democrat?) For breaking news stories, I’d say you’re right, though. Most news stations (including Fox News) cover it with a reasonable lack of bias. It’s only when they’ve had time to think about it that Fox News tends to get creative. Also, I’ll agree that there is some difference between the news and opinion pieces on Fox News, but an excellent clip not too long ago from Jon Stewart does an excellent job in demonstrating that the difference is all that great:
{http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/30/jon-stewart-tears-down-that-fox-news-wall-with-some-jabs-at-the-white-house/}
JAC: The reason I say that is because of responses like yours. If there really was as much overwhelming evidence as you claim, you’d point me towards some (perhaps saying there’s much more) rather than suggesting I research it on my own. This is akin to bringing up Matthews’ statement. (The exception proving the rule.) It provides evidence to the contrary of what you think it does. The evidence I’ve seen is that they’re biased, but in favor of big business, not in favor of the Democrats or liberals. You’re right about Air America, though. That wasn’t fair … to Air America. (They’re biased, but at least they don’t tend to just make stuff up.)
Yeah you know and closing Gitmo, bringing terrorists to American soil to trial them in Civilian Courts, bringing to light CIA interigation techniques, cutting funding to the CIA, cutting funding to the defense in 2011.
Please name all the head of Al Queda he killed? And He didn’t kill them our Military did.
Many would say those actions have made us safer.
Really? Bringing the Terrorists to the soil they want to attack. Doing a mock trial that’ll just publiscize the actions, and make said people Martyrs of their cause, vice forgotten in a hole somewhere.
How does cutting intelligence and defense spending help keep us safe?
Let’s not foget there’s more also, Obama’s blatant ignoring of N. Korea’s weapons testing. Iran had no concerns telling the world about a second Nuclear facility. There is no fear of Obama. He will NOT act until it is too late. He has shown a weakness to the world that’ll cause great pains to us eventually. It’s the same weakness that Clinton personified as well (1st Trade Center, Embassies in North AFrica, USS Cole, Somalia)
What you call “bringing the terrorists to the soil they want to attack”, I call “restoring American integrity”. Yes, this makes us safer, largely because it makes us more respected and less hated. It’s a weird logic that thinks that making people afraid of us will make us safer. I’d say it leads to things like the Bush Doctrine. (Pre-emptive strikes).
Remind me how Reagan is often credited with bringing down the Soviet Union, and you’ll get an answer to that question.
As for N. Korea and Iran, he’s got a tough line to hoe there, as our resources are already stretched very thin. To me, the difference between Obama and Bush is the difference between action and bluster. Obama’s the kind of C-in-C that lets his men do what they need to do (think taking out the Somalia pirates) without a lot of bluster. Bush is the kind of C-in-C that says “bring it on!”
Simple he outspent them. With the Star Wars program the soviets couldn’t keep up. Their economy crashed harder than thought, and the people finally had enough.
I’m sorry but a shame of a trial will not “restore American integrity” and if you believe that I have ocean front property in AZ for you. There is NO WAY that the prosectution can win a trial in our court system with the way these “detainees” were processed at Gitmo and in the field. They weren’t Merandized at time of incarceration; BOOM you’re free to go. I don’t feel safer, I feel as if it’ll generate more hatred.
I think it’s different. I think Obama is too scared to react. I think Obama is more worried about his own image, and his own hide than to do what needs to be done. If he truely was a “let his men do what they need to do”, he’d take the muzzle off of Israel, tell Iraq to turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying overhead… next thing you know, NO MORE nuclear facilities in Iran. As for N. Korea, if I was Japan or S. Korea I’d be scares crapless right now. Your largest defense ally is kind of leaving you dangling in the wind against 1 million crazies with lots of big bombs, and no food.
I don’t think you understand how this trial will work, if you really think it’ll make a difference if their rights were read. Miranda rights cover what you say after you’re arrested, not the evidence that is gathered against you before you’re arrested. (Disclaimer: IANAL.) I’m cynical enough that I know that what you describe won’t happen (which admittedly bolsters your argument a bit about it not restoring American integrity, although I still think it helps).
I have no idea what you base your opinion that “Obama is too scared to react”. Obama has been very cool and collected. I’ve seen on evidence of this alleged fear.
You gonna answer about how cutting funding to our intelligence and defense will help make us safer. (And to Know: if oyu look at his proposed defense spending for 2011, which is the date I stated, it’ll go down by about 20%) Can anyone tell me how defense spending is cut when you’re in two wars by 20%? Anyone? Anyone? How is that responsible?
Well, for one, as Kn0wledge1ne correctly pointed out, there’s been no cutting to our defense budget (we’re currently in FY ‘10, not ‘11). For two, did you really not get my reference to Reagan? Granted, it was thin, but throwing money at a problem doesn’t always solve the problem, and can actually make things worse.
The first two come from Defense.gov (I’ll post links upon request, but they’re pretty easy to find by Google search, and I’m trying to avoid “moderation”):
Defense budget ‘09 (Bush’s request): $515.4 billion in discretionary authority (other money unspecified)
Defense budge ‘10 (Obama’s request): $533.8 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $130 billion to support overseas contingency operations
From {http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/12/defense_budget_121109/}
The Obama administration will add $100 billion to the Pentagon’s 2011-’15 base budget plan to cover the rising cost of personnel and pressing modernization needs, officials said.
Where are you getting your figures from?
PS on the Fear. How about that it took him until after his vacation to address the Underwear Bomber. (Maybe we should call him the pany bomber!!!) Or to wait 6 months to finally commit to a plan in Afghanastan (you know the worse 6 months since the initial invasion for American deaths)
About half as long as it took Bush to respond to the Shoe Bomber…
And heaven forfend he spend any time making a coherent plan!
The trial is a problem because the “greatness of the American legal system” and the application of Constitutional rights on non-citizens is being lauded as a huge change in the way we do things, and will make things more fair in the future. The problem with this is you have suspects being brought to trial based on statements made under duress that will be thrown out, you have Holder saying “Well if we can’t get them for this, we’ll get them for that! Don’t worry, they’ll be convicted of SOMETHING!”, and you’ve got lawyers defending these guys who don’t have the IQ of a shoe and don’t intend to throw the case just for the looks of it. This is a kangaroo court with the ending already spoken by Attorney General Holder, and is going to end up making America look worse for civil rights than North Korea and its little potbellied dictator.
Well, we DID have the option of treating them as prisoners of war and prosecuting their acts as war crimes in a military tribunal, but we chose not to take that route and instead treat them as criminals; we can’t really expect to have it both ways.
Also, non-citizens who commit crimes in our country are NORMALLY afforded these rights, it’s not unprecedented by any means.
But non-citizens don’t always equal enemy combatants. That’s a big difference to me. Enemy combatants should be prosecuted in military tribunals.
Then we should have treated them as standard enemy combatants from the beginning. The problem is that we tried to treat them differently because they aren’t from a recognized military organization. Now we’re screwed on that front because you have to either go down one road or go down the other, not pick and choose.
Note that I’m not saying they shouldn’t be tried in military tribunals; I think that would be entirely appropriate, BUT, since we made the decision not to treat them as military prisoners…..well. We’re stuck with just treating them as criminals, I guess. Hopefully they won’t teach all our carjackers and bank robbers terrorist techniques while they’re in Federal prison. That would be ….not good. Although those guys tend to be pretty slow learners (hence the incarceration.)
So somehow Ronnie Raygun becomes individually and personally responsible for 35 years of economic development by half the Western Worlld; even for an American Conservatroll that’s a push!
Paws: First off not a Conservatroll, secondly there are many a historians that agree with me there. Not just conservatvies. Reagan’s spending basically bankrupted the Soviet Block.
The irony of it all. When Democrats spend spend spend, it’s going to destroy the country. When Republicans spend spend spend it’s a noble effort to destroy evil. So spending like a redneck who won the lottery is just fine as long as you’re spending it on new and better ways to kill people, right? The Republicans hate spending that will help the American people (social programs), but get all hot and bothered by spending billions upon billions on war.
Bringing KSM here is a mixed bag. I understand your concern, but I personally want to see him face his judgement at the spot where he took lives. And what’s the difference between him being here or in a hole? He’ll STILL be a martyr to their cause. Remember he’s the supposed mastermind behind 9/11 who was tortured in Gitmo. He’s ALREADY a martyr because of that.
Obama didn’t ignore N. Korea’s missle testing. He sanctioned them like 10,000 times. Why do you think they had all those Anti American rallies saying they’ll “treat us to a nuclear fire shower if we continue to interfere”? Notice, they’re not missle testing anymore.
As far a defense spending, I say he RAISED it. Sending 30,000 more troops to a foolish desert war at 1 billion per soilder isn’t cutting anything.
If there was fear of Obama, that would make him a tyrant. In the words of Thomas Jefferson (I think, if not please correct me); When a people fear their government there is tyranny, when a government fears it’s people there is liberty. If you think it’s crazy for Obama to speak with Iran instead of attacking, remember that O’So Great Reagan also spoke with Gorbichov.
That being said, I agree that he hasn’t made us any more safe than Bush/Cheny. Stupid foriegn policy is what makes a country less safe. Take a look at our policy for the past 20 years or so.
Nuff said.
We want the ENEMY to fear him, not us. That’s the difference…
And -you- know the “enemy”? We can’t do that anymore. The “enemy” can’t be pointed out; this is not the Cold War.
And who exactly is the “enemy”?
I totally ninja’d you!!!
To both of you, the enemy is Al Quada, and others like them that want to blow innocent civilians up, on purpose, because they think they are commanded too by God. That’s the current enemy, but evil in general I guess you could also say. Yes, we are the GOOD guys.
Being the good guys doesn’t always mean you made the right decision.
Also, I highly doubt Al-Queda doesn’t fear us after all those drone attacks.
I don’t think they fear us. I think we keep giving them more and more reasons to keep attacking; they hate (not fear) the U.S. more and more each time we attack.
Out intention is to do the right thing. Yes, we do make mistakes that doesn’t make us bad. When you capture innocent human beings and chop their heads off on video to show the world while chanting to our god, or blow up school kids in a bus on purpose, you are the bad guy.
Actually, n10bettes, I’d go so far as to say that if you’re chopping innocent people’s heads off on video it doesn’t really matter at that point what you’re chanting while you do it….You’ve effectively entered “bad guy” territory.
….although if you do it while singing “Another One Bites the Dust” you DO get points for style.
Very true! You got me there.
We are not the good guys, sorry. I respectfully disagree with you about that and about being able to identify our current “enemies”. Because if we go by your definition there are “Christian” groups in the U.S. that are the “enemy”.
We’re trying to be the good guys. As Kn0wledge1ne pointed out above, that doesn’t mean we always do the right thing. Overall, though, I think as a nation we have good and lofty ideals, we need to hold ourselves to those when things get ugly, when we get attacked, and we have sometimes failed spectacularly at that (Japanese Internment during WWII, anyone?) but overall, I think we’re the good guys.
If there are Christian groups, or any other group in this country blowing up innocent people on a regular basis, then yes, they would also be the enemy and our government would and should deal with them harshly. That is why we are the good guys.
Sorry, still disagree with you, n10bettes. When our government breaks treaties and does things, such as torture, that are against the principles and ideals of this country, we are NOT the good guys.
Hel, can we still be the Somewhat Better Guys?
@Diss – I’m not arguing with n1 just to argue. Really. I love this country. I want it to really be the good guys. But we aren’t there at this point. We can argue forever that there are much worse “not good guys”. That’s irrelevant. We need to be GOOD GUYS, without needing to be “Better Than Those Other Guys”. I don’t know it that makes sense.
Well if we aren’t, then who ARE the good guys?
There aren’t always good guys…
I now have this stuck in my head and I blame you guys:
There ain’t no good guys,
There ain’t no bad guys,
There’s only you and me,
And we just disagree….
*headdesk*
Bad things don’t have to be explained by evil. I disagree with a lot of people and think their plans for the world would lead to bad things, but I do not think they are evil, unless their last name is Primavera.
If bad is the opposite of good, then does good also necessitate evil.
Well you can’t really have one without the other apparently.
Of course you can. Did anybody step up to stop the genocide in Rwanda? Certainly not the U.S. Where were the good guys in that situation?
You’re going to blame the US for what was going on in Rwanda? What about blaming the people who were doing the massacring? It was the responsibility of the UN and they did nothing. Of course they never get any blame, it’s always the US that gets the blame, if we do something, we are bad, if we do nothing we are bad… I just happen to think we are good. You can disagree, we can all think and say what we want when ever we want, another reason why our country is the greatest country in the world.
I don’t think the point here is to try to say the US are The Bad Guys, I think the point it is often impossible and often unproductive to try to divide stuff into good and evil. The world really isn’t that simple, no matter how neat and pleasant that would feel.
@n10 – You seriously think I was blaming the U.S. for the Rwandan genocide??!!! That’s what you got out of my comment? Your world view is too simplistic and naive. You’re too eager to classify the U.S. as always being the good guys. We’re not. There aren’t always good guys – my Rwanda was an example of that. In that situation the U.S. had a chance to be the “good guys” but didn’t take that opportunity. We were neither the bad nor the good guys in Rwanda; we weren’t there and nobody else was either, thus, no “good guys”. Example of when the U.S. has been the bad guys? Torturing prisoners in Gitmo and using extraordinary rendition to torture people in secret foreign prisons. The U.S. thought we were still the “good guys”. Inexcusable. Disgusting. And what the U.S. would call “EVIL” were it another country involved in the same acts.
There’s a difference between thinking that you’re the good guys and actually being viewed as the good guys by the rest of the world. A lot of bad things have been done by people who thought they were the good guys.
Arguably, nobody thinks they’re the bad guys. At risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, the Nazis probably didn’t think they were the bad guys. Additionally, the “rest of the world” is never going to totally agree on whether one country is a “good” or “bad” guy — you’re always going to have both allies and enemies.
But as I said, we do have good ideals, as a country, and at least make some effort to live up to them.
Exactly. Both you and Diss stated exactly what I was thinking. I would really LOVE it if the U.S. reached and achieved the ideals of this country and, in the process, proved worthy of being viewed as the good guys by the rest of the world. But we’ve fallen horribly short too often.
@diss: Agreed. As the saying goes, you can’t make everyone happy all the time. I meant to keep my comment broad and simple in disagreement with noobettes statement.
Interestingly enough, I think one would find many of the “enemy” thinking that they are, in fact, the good guys.
Hey, we saw the Taliban as the “good guys” and armed them against the USSR, which saw them as the “enemy”. Look at how that’s changed.
You have to keep up. Team Good Guys traded the Taliban for a left-fielder and two freedom fighters to be named at a later date.
Ah, but GG needs to hold on to the #1 & #2 draft picks for now.
North Korea fired missiles in July. That’s a few months ago, but time will tell if they do it again. Right now they are talking about signing a peace treaty. Again……
I see the same rhetoric and patterns as before. Stall for time. Reload. Fire missiles. Fire mouth.
Nitpick: They haven’t closed Gitmo.
Nitpick: He is closing Gitmo as we speak. There are processes in place to close Gitmo. Detainees have already been delivered to American Federal Prisons. So yes Closing Gitmo is going on, so no nit pick required.
To further nitpick: They haven’t closed Gitmo.
The suffix -ed at the end of the word signifies past tense, whereas the suffix -ing signifies present tense.
(he said within a year and he’s got about 2 weeks left)
She did say she was nit-picking, she was also technically correct, which according to beaurocrats, is the best kind of correct.
That said, I agree. At least it’s getting done, if slowly.
I said “closing Gitmo” didn’t I? Therefore she is wrong per your definition of tenses. Correct?
Sorry, the way you put it it sounded as if you thought it was a done deal.
It’s ok….. I coulda said “his plan to” That better… **pats Diss on butt**
Was I supposed to actually read your post before going off on a grammar tirade?
That takes all the fun out of it.
I don’t know how long the great Gitmo Going Out of Business Sale will continue, but since the main logic for having the detainees there was that theoretically they had no US constitutional rights there, and the SC shot that theory down in 2008, doesn’t seem much point in maintaining the facility there when we’ve got federal prison space available. There’s still 198 of ‘em there and the government recently acknowledged that there’s no way they’re going to make their own deadline for closing it down.
Amusingly enough, counsel for some of the detainees is now talking about trying to block the move to transfer detainees to Thompson Correctional Center in Illinois, because apparently…..Gitmo’s nicer.
Funny how the SC got that one wrong. Military Installations have own laws. I love when the SC can’t get their $hit right, don’t you?
And just to wave our flag a little bit, here — it’s stuff like having the right of habeus corpus that makes this a great and free country. Here’s a little quote from Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist:
In other words, we don’t put people in prison, or kill them, or take all their property, without affording them the right to be publicly charged and tried for the crimes of which they are accused. We. Just. Don’t. Do. That. I think that it demeans our nation when we attempt to remove that right even from our enemies, when they are under our control.
i think you found the nutshell
this is one of the key things that were an improvement over pre-revolution english laws, and can not be corrupted or weakened if we as a nation are to be respected – it’s part of what separates us from the dross and must be applied across the board throughout our entire legal system regardless if the person on trial is a citizen or a foreign national.
To be perfectly fair, we got it from British common law.
But it’s a very essential right.
true, but only because they weren’t using it
Can we be the good guys now?
I seem to remember a certain well-favored republican president saying it was imperative for us to close Gitmo. Many of our generals felt and fell the same way. If there’s anything that makes these guys marters really fast it’s denied accusations of torture, special rendition, and holding indefinately without trial at Gitmo.
Oh, that’s right, if the military does it while a republican is in office, it’s because of a strong defence policy, but if a democrat does it, he’s got nothing to do with it. The increase in drone attacks, the main source for those killed, happened nearly immediately under Obama and went with his approval. I hope you aren’t suggesting he needs to put on fatigues and pick up a rifle over in eastern Afghanistan to get any credit for it. The military did it, and did a good job, but the marching orders come from one guy, and they always have, since Washington.
As for trying terrorists in civilian courts, I find it particularly funny that we think our courts are so weak and so incapable of delivering justice that we consider this major threat to our security. Nevermind that we’ve tried dozens of terrorists in this country in civilian courts with a good deal of success. Nevermind that the wonderful Gitmo process managed to release every single Yemeni-born detainee so they could and mastermind and participate in the latest round of bombing attempts. Truth is, the military tribunals have had a strong record of 1. Imprisoning innocent people 2. Releasing actual threats 3. Bypassing theories of universal justice that have been in place for hundred of years. The civilian courts have a much better record, by far, than military tribunals for dishing out justice appropriately.
As for bringing them to Amrican soil, do you imagine them to be some kind of supermen? How are our prisons any less capable of detaining a prisoner? Are Ramzi Yousef (touted by Mr. Giuliani at the time as evidence of the efficacy of our courts) or Richard Reid out on the streets?
And the CIA interrogation techniques were coming to light anyway. But with the administration denying the practices we were seen as not only potentially violating human rights, but being dishonest about it. Trust me, the international community (and much of the US citizenry) is much more concerned about questionable treatment of prisoners than it ever was about depths of bow to the Japanese emperor. We helped write the Geneva Conventions at a time when there were a lot more direct and obvious threats to American security than there are now. If we thought they’d be effective in an era of Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito, they should still be effective in the bin-Laden era.
As for defense cuts, he’s actually asking for a 4% defense budget increase in 2010 over 2009. He did make some cuts to the overall program base, however. That includes the F-22, which has been demonstrated as ineffective for the current combat situations, and has already delivered 4 more than initially requested anyway. And it’s a ludicrous argument anyway. We spend 4.5% of GDP and 19% of our total budget on defense. The GDP number was 3% in 1999, and the total amount spent is just shy of the amount spent by every other nation on Earth combined. I really don’t imagine throwing more money at the problem is the right solution.
Come to think of it, we tried Timothy McVeigh in the Federal Courts — let’s ask him how that went.
Oh, wait. We can’t. He’s dead. (I think our Federal Court system is quite adequate for trying criminals, I think that terrorists ARE criminals, and I don’t really see the problem.)
But that was different..because he was an American…and other stuff I’m sure! *froth froth*
BTW, don’t forget the guys who attacked the WTC the first time — also tried and convicted in American courts.
mabs: No it was different b/c he was arrested with the intent to try him in Federal Court, however the terrorists in Gitmo were not detained in that manner. It shouldn’t be too hard to get them off on “rights” violations that people hold so dear.
First WTC gents, that did a stupendous job of deterring more attacks on the WTC, now didn’t it? Shouldn’t we learn from history?
Surely you aren’t suggesting that our mistake was trying him in a federal court, are you? There were a lot of conclusions from the 9/11 report on things we did wrong, but I’m quite certain that was not one of them!
The point is that it was successful, not how he was arrested.
There are two aspects to trying someone: punishing a wrong doer and creating a deterrent to future wrong doers. There is no evidence that locking people up in Gitmo indefinitely acts as a deterrent either. Any evidence that exists points to the opposite effect, but it’s pretty difficult to quantify.
Any American who does not hold human rights ‘dear’ is an embarrassment to the people who founded this country.
Aremis: This’ll be fun.
Since you really had nothing to retor you wen right to the “But a Republican….” When I never toughted that Bush did a great job in my post. OOPS Fail!
Do you even understand how our justice system works? At all? All those people you mentioned that were tried in federal court were arrested on American soil, mirandized, not subjected to interigation without council, subjected to a fair and speedy trial, etc etc etc… ANY fvcking moron can see that a half wit defense attorny could get anyone of the Gitmo detainess off with “rights violations” due to Obama’s changing of the rules mid-stream. So whenever we “capture” a terrorist overseas, we need to treat them as a common criminal. Got it. So only MPs can capture them, they need to be mirandized, have access to a lawyer (we gonna start a Terrorist Defense Lawyer Brigade now too?) , need to be captured with a warrant (unless caught in “suspious” activities)? Seriously you want to hand cuff our troops to that, I’m sure that’ll be efficient.
Yes let us let people know our CIA techniques, oh and where the CIA bases are (that worked out REAL well for the 8 CIA operatives blown to hell in Afghanastan) Good job Obama!!!
And someone didn’t read my post correctly, I said cutting defense in 2011. Well cutting funding for the DoD when we’re fighting two wars to me is the basiton of responsibility. NOT!!
And that fvcking moron will prove exactly what kind of a moron he is, after those Gitmo detainees are successfully convicted in federal courts. Of course, I suppose you could argue that their lawyers were sub-halfwits…
Nebs HOW can we convict the Gitmo detainees when
a) Not mirandized
b) Held for over 3 years (some 5 years) without any type of trial
c) Subjected to interigation without representation
d) Arrested without a warrant/ no warrant issued sub-detention
e) Brutality for waterboarding
f) Clearly evidence has erroded over time and any confession should be inadmissable as it was probably under deress.
Or we could ignore all that, admit the trials are a sham and be worse than before. If a Republican was asking for these trials, the liberal would be screaming at the top of their lungs, “This is a sham. A mockery of our justice system.”
(a) Miranda rights govern self-incrimination. Not reading someone their Miranda rights affects the evidence that is gathered from them personally, not all evidence.
(b) I’m not sure how that affects their guilt/innocence. We were wrong to do so, but it won’t invalidate the trial. What makes you think otherwise? (IANAL, so perhaps there’s some precedence I’m unaware of. If so, please elucidate.)
(c) See (a).
(d) Not sure about this.
(e) See (b).
(f) If we don’t have valid evidence that they’re guilty, then what makes you think they are?
But yes, I’ll admit there’s a tinge of sham-ness involved. What I won’t admit is that there’s much of a chance that many of them will be released. (Maybe a few, but those that do get released will have very little evidence against them. Again, should we hold everybody who might be guilty, even without evidence?)
Nebton, the only way the Miranda issue could come into play would be potentially to bar the admissibility of statements/confessions made by the defendants. Given some of the questions regarding our interrogation techniques I suspect that’s a moot point as most of it’s either going to be out or given little weight anyway.
So….you’re arguing what exactly? That we failed to treat them either as POWs or as criminals? What exactly do you think we should DO with them if not try them?
Well, clearly, giving them a fair trial is just wrong. We should move straight to giving them the chair. Clearly the legal system that’s fine for our criminals (ask the ones who have been put to death how lenient we are) is far too weak the REAL bad guys. Hell, from now on, why should we even bother trying any of them? If they’re bad guys, just execute them.
I did a little Google search on defense budges in ‘11, and I can’t find the budget you’re referring to. Armytimes.com seems to suggest an increase in ‘11, not a decrease, but at this point it seems like theory, since I don’t think the ‘11 budget has even been released yet… (It’s not on defense.gov as far as I can tell.)
Yes, I understand how it works. And I have a lot of faith in it. And I really don’t think miranda rights will prevent any of the guilty from being prosecuted. If there was any actual risk that this would be a revolving-door justice situation I doubt anyone at all in this country would find it appropriate.
They actually have lawyers, too. I’m not sure if you’ve read up on your news in the alst few years, but every single one of them ahs a lawyer. Now whether they’ve been given access to their clients is a different matter. And regardless of which venue they are tried in, access to proper defense should be part of it. We gave access to lawyers to every single Nazi tried at Neuremberg, and it’s still lauded today as a shining example of judicial process in times of war. We treated every single one of them like ‘common criminals.’ And the pathetic attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda et al pale in comparison to Nazi Germany by a long shot.
My references to Bush are supposed to demonstrate, at the very least, that Obama hasn’t taken any steps back in security, in that most of what he is being critized of failing at were also true of the prior administration.
As for my references to the republican bit, they were straw man, I admit. But your posts thus far could easily have been pulled straight out of an O’Reilley or Hannity rant, so forgive me for making the assumption. In any case I find that accusation particularly funny given I wrote a huge list of gripes with your statements and only the very first line had anything at all to do with republicans.The straw man was, at most, a side show to my actual statements.
As for revealing our CIA techniques, they were already revealed. All Obama did was admit to them and remove some of the more egregious ones. It’s better than trying to deny it in front of a world and an American populace who have already passed judgement. And given the number of Al-Qaeda folks that have been captured and released, do you really think they don’t know already? Before the revelations a few years back over waterbording and such, frankly, the only people who didn’t know were the US populace.
And I actually would like to see evidence of Obama (serious request, not criticism) revealing the locations of bases. I certainly don’t see any reference to it. The base in question certainly doesn’t have any location details in any article I’ve read on it. The bomber who attacked was supposedly a triple agent for the Taleban. He was in US custody and invited onto the base by the CIA for questioning pursuant to capturing Zawahiri. It’s really hard to imagine how the alleged revelation of the base’s location had anything to do with a suicide bomber who was invited onto the base.
You got me on the budget bit, I misread it. Regardless, I really am not sure how you could make that kind of an estimate given that, as stated above, that budget isn’t drafted yet.
Fair enough. I’m wordy, I admit. Guilty as charged.
Here’s an overview, thought there’s more subtlety above:
I have faith in our justice system and don’t think it will set terrorists free ont he streets.
We gave the Nazis rights, why not terrorists. Nazis were far worse.
Comparisons to Bush were to demonstrate that Obama hasn’t reduced our security, not to use a straw man argument.
I made one straw man argument re:republicans and a whole page of valid statements and was disregarded out of hand.
CIA techniques were already released so Obama just admitted to something everyone already knew.
Recent CIA site bomber was invited and was a trusted regular informant on the Taliban. We didn’t need to tell him where the base was, we invited him.
Me culpa on the budget, but 2011 hasn’t been written, so it’s a bit of a hollow victory.
I’m just mucking around, please do not take me seriously. No one else does.
Unless it is August, and we need to cool off in your igloo!
Igloo is SRS BIZNSS!
No, I didn’t. I figured you were joking. But I also realized I’m ridiculously long-winded and should probably do a simplified breakdown.
i also have a long-standing habit of explaining myself even when it was just a joke.
No, no, it’s best to treat the people who think they are in some holy war as if they are some special class of enemy. /sarcasm
Well, we did recently have a guy with explosives in his underwear board a plane and try to explode it on Christmas day. It’s funny to me that after Obama’s grand global appeasement tour apologizing to the world for us protecting ourselves, doing away with the term “war on terror”, etc., they STILL want to kill us. Maybe a little toughness is what is needed, not so many fist bumps.
I still think convincing that fool to get on a plane with his underpants wired to explode is proof the terrorists are engaging in hazing of the new recruits….Either that, or proof that all the remotely competent terrorists have already blown themselves up. (Yay?)
I’ve read that after it failed to go off (and he received groinal third-degree burns), he kind of went limp and complied readily with authorities. I wonder if he realized what a tool he had been to get sucked in.
There will always be people who want to kill us. However, I think that with Obama we’re getting more international support in helping to combat that than we got with Bush. That said, Bush didn’t start the hatred of the US in certain corners of the world (although he might have in other corners), and it won’t end because of Obama. Speak softly and carry a big stick. We still have the big stick, and we’re finally remembering how to speak softly.
Problem is we didn’t “protect” ourselves. We invaded a country that didn’t attack or provoke us, and overthrew their democratically elected president. That isnt defense. That’s imperalism.
America =/= Empire.
The term “war on terror” makes NO sense. How the hell can you have a war on a guerilla tactic?
Know: You’re speaking of Iraq and not Afghanastan I hope.
There are a few flaws in your logic though. #1. Iraq had failed to live up to the sanctions and conditions levied due to it’s invasion of Kuwait (and subsequent removal by US led Coalition). That seems to be one of the biggest forgotten points by most Anti-Iraq war folks. Iraq had fired upon jets who were enforcing the No Fly Zone. Sadam had been “allowing” inspectors in, but not allowing access to everything.
Sadam took power in a Militray Coupe in 1968 (As 2nd in Control and natural progression took him to President). In the subsequent elections persons who did not vote for Sadam (if there was someone else brave enough to be on the ballot) found their lives quite complicated. To call him a deomcratically elected leader is to call Obama a dictator.
…someday Dave Chappelle will conceive and record the notion to don a pimpsuit, pretend to be a President of the United States, and say “Militray Coupe” to a group of white-skinned people from which he has selected a young, thin, blond, ‘forbidden fruit’…funny stuff…
…and, of course, it will be racist of me to pay for basic cable and see this…
…ha ha…
Why is everyone picking on ILPB’s keyboard slips? (As I’ve said before, we all make them.) Whoever started that needs to be spanked!
Lllll is not to be paid attention to. Not once has said person ever made even a lick of sense. As for the rest of us, we’re used to ILPB’s typing skills.
Lllll needs his/her liiiiithium, me-thinks.
…You’ve no proof we’re a person, Eric…
I think it’s finally learning to communicate with people other than itself. Though the comment below this one shows it’s definitely in need of practice.
…your time is up…hand over your citizenship…
…we’ve found somebody more suitable to the task…
…(*facing camera*) ‘Breaking-up is hard to do…’…
Oh look! It’s learned how to change it’s name too! They grow up so fast.
…because in the contest that finished Knowledge 1/ Jamal nil we thought it…was…what’s that scent you’re wearing, dear?…
If only the great Ronald Reagan hadn’t given him weapons of mass destruction…
I’m speaking about Iraq.
All good points. Problem is these aren’t the reasons we were told for our invasion. The reason we were told was in response to 9/11, then we were told for reasons of weapons of mass destruction(of course because we sold him that sh*t), then we were told because we had a moral obligation, then we were told that he didn’t have weapons but had the capibality.
What was the reason?! I don’t mind when our country defends ourselves. That’s our job. I DO mind being lied to and intervening in other countries affairs. Interventionist foreign policy has damaged America more than helped. Al-Queda even admitted that their main motivation for 9/11 and their jihad is U.S intervention in the Middle East.
It’s like Ron Paul said; “They’re terrorists because were occupirers”.
If Saddam fired at our jets, we could’ve easily bombed the fvck out of few sites, sanctioned the hell out him, and left it at that. Also, isn’t it the responsibility of UN or NATO forces to protect No Fly Zones and uphold sanctions? When did the U.S become the world police?
I didn’t mind that we responded to 9/11, as I believe we should only go to war when there is an immediate danger to American lives. I was upset that we invaded the wrong nation, lied to constantly, occupied them, created more terrorists, then was called an unpatriotic hippie because I protested a stupid war.
You actually think Iraq had a “democratically elected president”???
Are you fvcking RETARDED or what?
Holy fving $hit!
Thanks for your insightful and intelligent input.
…HE’S GOING TA’ HARVARD!!!…
But Richard Reid and Anthrax in the mail doesn’t count against Bush’s spotless post-911 defense record?
And again…he was sentanced using a grand jury, as a criminal, within our justice system, and was given to several life terms. I don’t see why we need to imprison people without a trial, it seems..well…that’s just now how we roll. I say try ‘em all in Texas!
I agree, the “spotless” record seems spotty.
Not to mention all of the “militias” that were busted during that time. (Remember, white == militia, brown == terrorists.)
‘he killed’… heh.
Wow, guess he really is all powerful.
Though, this isn’t really what I pictured when I heard about the second coming.
I thought there’d be more walking on water and such.
Apparently he’s moonlighting as a ninja.
THIS PICKTURE PROOVZ IT OBAMAS A COMUNIST
Whatever, Michael, we know it’s you!
It’s a bit sad when you find the absurdity of the resulting discussion far more amusing than the lol itself… Partisanship bleh. The democrats and the republicans are both thoroughly obnoxious. Now the Dungeons Death and Taxes party, they’ve got something going for them.
Flies all green and buzzin’
In this dungeon of dispair
Prisoners grumble and piss their clothes
And scratch their matted hair.
A tiny light in a window hole
A hundred yards away
Is all they ever get to know
About regular lives in the day
And it smells so bad the stones be chokin’
And weeping greenish drops
In the room where the giant fire puffer works
The torture never stops.
What are you doing in my office?
Heeeyy Diss, what’s happening?
Yeah…I’m gonna need you to just go ahead and put on these leg irons and climb up there on the rack and that’d be terrific. Yeeah.
That….would not surprise me today.
Sounds like you had a day like mine. *grumps in sympathy*
Oh look, the “president” relates to filthy illegal immigrants, he has a lot in common with them. I wonder how many times he voted for him?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that in order to be on the fvcking janitorial staff for the White House, you have to not only be able to legally work in the US but probably pass a background check.
Seriously, dude, you think the government hires undocumented aliens to do anything? Get a grip.
Doncha’ love how he puts president in quotes, though. It really completes the picture of ignorance.
Oh…I thought they were going to hire them to build the big wall on the border to keep the illiegals out.
I sincerely hoep you are joking, but I fear you aren’t. You have called immigrants filthy, assumed he’s illegal, which you don’t have any basis for assuming, and made a wise-crack about voter fraud, which no one, even in the opposition, really has put out there as a valida rgument against Obama. It’s not amusing, it’s actually pretty nauseating.
Arguably, once you crawl under a fence, wade across a river, and hike for hours through the desert, you’re not going to be what we’d call “clean”.
But I imagine they clean up ok.
Hmmm…Are legal immigrants “filthy” as well? We’ve taken a lot of these “American” jobs away from you people. Do we qualify for Weapontroll’s hatred too? Cause that would be GREAT!!!
Maybe not in general, but from what I’ve read here, you sure are filthy…
Hey, you know a dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste!
Nebbie, and you LOVE it!
Of course I do!
I guess we’ll probably never know, as he seems to be the Post and Run variety of troll. Struck me as somebody who hates everyone, though, and probably thinks that working as a janitor would be “beneath him” because he’s got an associate’s degree from an online school in Business Management, therefore the guy working that job must be “filthy”…and an immigrant.
That depends. What kind of job do you have and do I want it or not?
Travel around the world on an expense account, telling people how to do what they do better, faster, simpler and cheaper. Write reports about your trips, what you found and how you fixed it. How does that sound?
Damn. Can I have you deported and take your job?
Too late, darlin. I’m already a citizen!! Muuahahahahahaa!!!
That does sound like a pretty awesome job, though!
Absolutely awesome. Well, it was until they put us on a travel freeze. Middle-of-Nowhere, Iowa just doesn’t stack up against Paris, France.
Probably has better chili-cheese fries, though. Look on the bright side.
And cleaner air.
That depends on how close you are to the farmyards (in Iowa) or the [I-really-don't-wanna-know-what] (in Paris).
Probably fewer men urinating on the sidewalk, if Paris is anything like it was when I visited in ‘85. (I remember my dad telling me not to step in the puddles.
)
However, I do remember pointing out a couple of, as I called them, scantily clad men lying on the quay next to the river. My dad promptly leaned over, looked down and said, reverting to his Montana accent — and laughing, “They’re nekkid.” Mom and I inspected them closely and confirmed this observation. They were lying face down, though.
Don’t imagine you see THAT in Iowa.
And don’t forget the massive amounts of dog droppings on Paris streets because the French don’t believe in cleaning up after their pets.
*sigh* I love that filthy town!
Results 1 – 10 of about 1,420,000 for obama, voter fraud
Seriously, dude?
Oh, wait, your name is DUH…..
Versus about 673,000 for McCain voter fraud and 1,160,000 for Bush voter fraud. There’s also about 300,000 each for Kerry or Gore voter fraud. Gee, this is fun!
Wow. You mean a high number of hits on a search on a combo of words makes it more true? This is awesome!
(First check: “duh should die” has 2,700,000 hits. Who woulda thunk.)
Does that make Duh more fraudulent than Obama?
The new and up and coming field of mathematics: google probability.
And I have proof of its existence: 7,170,000. Twice as likely as Obama voter fraud. (Does that mean I win?)
Sounds intriguing. And considering the deteriorating quality of math education (at least here), possibly the only kind people of the future will be able to wrap their ickle heads around?
It’s not just here? *sad*
I’ve heard teachers here complaining about it for as long as I can remember.
What’s worse though, is I keep reading the title of this thread as BISTFUMPS. Something in my head doesn’t like FISTBUMPS. I worry me. :p
I don’t see how we can expect math and science to be well learned here when so many people here think dinosaurs are a hoax, the earth is 6000 years old and/or astrology is a science (‘But it ENDS in -ology.’).
I very dyslexic, so you could probably write BISTFUMPS and I would automatically switch it back.
FYI, words in all capitals are harder to read for most people.
I do wonder, now, what “bists” are and why you are “fumping” them….
I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure you shouldn’t be fumping your bists in public.
Whaddya mean deteriorating. My teachers taught me math very well in the fourth grade
*Holds up 3 fingers*
How many times did the president vote for the “filthy immigrant worker”? The birth certificate is FAKE!!!@#@##!
You need a little more froth there, bitter, to make this believeable. But good try!
Is there a word for the political equivalent of a “Poe”?
Actually, the Urban Dictionary says it can be used for religious or political debates. (I hope you realize that Bitter Wino was joking; I doubt the first poster was.)
PS: there is nothing “amusing” about this pic, it’s actually pretty nauseating.
Just like your comments.
A bit like the tone of your “thoughts” here then?
OH NOES!!1~! The president is polite and gives out fist bumps to the janitorial staff! Were all doomd!!
Doomed and nauseated!!11!!
Ginger ale?
with vodka?
And some grenadine. It’s like a shirely temple, but it gets you drunk.
Call it and Aged Shirley Temple
Actually I’ve been training some of the local bartenders to call it a Dirty Shirley. Aged makes it sound like an old lady.
Obama LOLs instantly net hundreds of comments that have nothing to do with the picture.
I like that he fist-bumps. Informality can be refreshing.
Amen!