That's not crack.
GWB also had a cocaine problem, and you elected him president. 🤦‍♂️
It's also not Joe. Your ethics are so non existent now that attacking his family is now not only acceptable, it's the best you've got. Remember that when commercials about what disgusting wastes of skin Ivanka, Melania, Jarred, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb, and even Barron are come out, no whining.

God knows how much Obama raised the standard against GWB. Who would've thought the next Republican guy in line after GWB can go this low...

Right, so you're basically advocating shutting down the federal government to get your way. Sorry, elections have consequences. The GOP lost control of both houses in Obama's first two years. They could have had positive influence on Obamacare, but they decided to claim instead it was a socialist takeover of health care, intended to kill grandma. That's the Republicans' fault for getting their butts handed to them in the election. That wasn't because they backed down.

Obamacare wasn't shoved down your throat. You had a vote like everyone else. Boo hoo, your side lost. Do you see me saying everything the Republicans and GWB did was shoved down my throat, even though I didn't like a lot of it? Nope.

Your sister has Crohn's. I never said she didn't. My wife had diabetes for most of her life and recently went through years of dialysis before having a simultaneously kidney and pancreas transplant, which she's still dealing with the anti-rejection meds.

Your sister's medical condition doesn't make your BS story true about what Obamacare did to her premiums. I laid out EXACTLY how Obamacare would work in her situation, and you introduced nothing that proves what I said wrong. Instead, you thought you'd claim the righteous indignation ground and assumed that my immediate family didn't have very serious medical conditions to deal with as well, and then resorted to name calling.

Just remember, your friendly neighborhood HeroPsycho told you Clinton will crush Trump in the electoral college. You can try and ignore reality all you want, but the inevitable is coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Sadly, it really doesn't matter what they call them, because the term terrorist has become meaningless. I've said this all the way back when GWB "declared war on vague abstract concept"

The definition stated earlier is not wrong, but you can use that term for just about anything. Americans were terrorists against the British when we revolted. We also had the audacity to not march shoulder to shoulder against the Brits as was the standard for every "civilized" army back then.

The only difference is who wins and who loses. if you win, you're a revolutionary. if you lose, you're a terrorist. and if you're white, you're a militia group.

This was a calculated move by the terrorists though. I think they deliberately picked some piece of shit building of no value that no one cared about and was unused, made sure they didn't kill anyone but yet still forcibly occupied it with weapons. It's a dare...it's an attempt to goad. They want the feds or police to go in guns blazing. They want suicide by cop because it will ultimately benefit them and gain sympathy for them. They took something that is completely inconsequential other than it was owned by "the gub'mint"

The Fox pundit thinks they're peaceful? armed occupation is peaceful now? Just because they haven't physically hurt anyone doesn't make them peaceful. They stopped being peaceful the instant they picked up their weapons.

Love all the usual buzzwords and sound bites from the fox pundit without any actual specifics. Once again, who specifically is this "left wing media?" They never actually say who. more accusations of "big gov't" without any specifics. They keep talking about these intrusions into our lives, but yet, can't seem to name them.

All fear, no concrete issues. Standard geriatric (that means old, bob) Fox audience.

@Asmo

On your comment:

The CIA's role in the 1953 Iran ouster is generally exaggerated. Several things - (1) by 1953, the Islamic clergy supported Mossadeq's ouster, something they have been suppressing ever since in inflating their anti-US stance (2) by the time of his ouster he also lacked the support of either his parliament or the people, (3) prior to it that year, he deposed his disapproving parliament with a clearly fraudulent 99% of the vote in a national referendum, (4) strictly speaking Iran was still a monarchy and the shah deposed his PM legally under the constitution, something that Mossadeq refused to abide by.

Did the UK put economic pressure on Iran when it threatened to nationalize its oil and usurp its remnants of imperialism? Sure. Did the UK then convince Eisenhower to mount a political and propaganda campaign against Mossadeq? Sure. Was that instrumental in fomenting a popular uprising of the parliament, the clergy and large portions of the 20m general population against him? Probably not.

Also I listened to it. Really, it's a meandering, probably scripted (the parts where he feigns surprise at the questioning is particularly humorous) that tries to generalize US actions, some of which were obviously harmful and support his argument. Putting Stalin in a positive light relative to the willingness of the US to use the bomb is, amusing? I'm not sure what to call it.

That the US needs a common threat to unite against holds some grains of truth in the present day but is really part of a wider narrative by Putin to construct the US as imperalist and domineering when by all accounts since the end of the Cold War, excluding GWB's term, it has been pulling back. It hardly needed to invent Iran's covert nuclear ambitions in the early 2000s, NK's saber rattling or China's stakes on the South China Sea islands.

Modern US foreign policy largely relies on reciprocation. The US provides a military alliance and counterweight to China's military for small SE Asian nations at a hefty cost to itself, and presumably gets various trade concession and voting support in various international agencies. The key word being reciprocation, something that Russia could learn a fair bit from in its own foreign policy.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Mordhaus.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

*puts on GWB accent*

"Now, watch me carpet bomb some hajis."

Kinda looks like GWB

>> ^Fairbs:

Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.

The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden. Today, the national debt is so large and short term that interest rates can't go up without causing unpayable interest. Without healthy interest rates, there are no savings. Without savings, there is no real investment to upgrade those shovels to bulldozers. And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.

That being said, Romney isn't the solution. This guy is just like GWB, will say anything to get into office. The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored. Raising taxes on anyone doesn't come close to stopping the coming currency collapse. You guys are doing the economic equivalent of playing with your dicks. And it's going to become painfully obvious in the next 10 years regardless of which one of these clowns you elect.

Honestly, this WAS pretty funny.

Obviously, props to the speechwriters. But I'll give GWB a little credit for the delivery too.

Wrongheaded imo. This is GWB style 'with us or against us' rhetoric. Would you accept this argument if black people were the zombies? Or women? Or liberals? You don't even have to answer, because I know you'd say no. We have to share this world with people of faith. Some are cool. Some are assholes. I think judging them on the cool/asshole scale is a lot more productive than judging them on the faith/non-faith scale. Lumping them all together is assholish. I also find the guy on the left to be a ridiculous strawman. I don't know any atheists who think that way.

Beyond that, in horror culture, zombies are to be killed on site without question or remorse. I'm uncomfortable with the violent implications, fictional or no.

I know 4 extremely cool Christians in meatspace - thoughtful, loving, selfless, liberal Christians who are always looking out for others, rarely judgmental and never preachy. These are people I respect and admire at the highest level. They aren't Pat Robertson or Kirk Cameron or the stupid banana guy (can't remember his name). They aren't zombies. They are people that I love.

I went through a combative 'spite' period in regards to religion, and though I'm not ashamed of that period of my life, I am glad to be done with it.

>> ^rex84:

What I can't understand is how anyone fails to see that religious fundamentalism OF ANY FORM OR FLAVOR does not belong in government or as the basis of law. We so easily look at Iran and see how their theocratic regime is evil, but fail to recognize it on our own shores.


I like to think that most of us actually -do- recognize and abhor fundamentalism here.

OTOH, I also liked to think that there was no possible way that GWB could get enough people to support him to win a second election...and you see where that got me.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
(1) In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
(2) Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
(3) So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


(1) True, but nevertheless it is only ~11% of the world's proven oil reserves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

(2) Going from point 1, Iran hardly holds a control on the monopoly of oil. Furthermore all developed countries have an interest in ensuring steady supply to oil. If for example Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would attract opprobrium from far more than just Israel and the US.

Oil trade in US dollars is surely a big part of the contributor to the strong US dollar, but the currency is used as a global trade and reserve currencies for its pre-eminence as a global economy not as a result of oil.

Also, even if the US dollar value were to collapse (which is hardly something likely in the next decade), I would bet that aid to Israel would be one of the last things to go because of the religious ties, the power of AIPAC in the US as a lobbying group and the history between the two countries.

(3) I think there's little denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I agree that geopolitics and influence in the region is surely a reason they are seeking it. But considered simply from the standpoint of Iran's autocratic leaders that it's simply a deterrence to outside intervention from the US.

Right now it seems implausible especially under Obama that the US itself would launch an attack on Iran, but when GWB invaded Iraq and the US economy was in much better shape that was hardly a fantasy. Iran's leaders have a genuine reason to fear this and while in the short term they risk a pre-emptive attack from Israel, in the long term they benefit immeasurably from the kind of deterrence that NK now has. Keep in mind that Iran's nuclear program is hardly the machinations of right wing ideologues like Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, the de facto leader of the green movement supports nuclear development and was instrumental in the inception of the program as previous prime minister.

So I really think it's that and not a long term play for energy independence. Oil is going to be with us for many decades to come and if this wiki is correct, Iran has a 100 years of supply available. With the economy the way it is and our current dependence on dirty fuels, we're hardly going to jump on the green train any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

That's a pretty shitty chart. If they're going to mess with the axes, why put actual numbers on them instead of relative numbers? And why give the dates for the Bush presidency along the bottom of a chart comparing 4 different administrations?

Finally, what a misleading and arbitrary decision to start the "fiscal watch" on October of the year the President took office. Clearly it's done to make Obama look better. It also gives people the impression that presidential policy can move employment numbers in the short term, when every economist will tell you just the opposite.

What does it say about us that major news organizations cover and promote this guy's opinions?

>> ^kymbos:

Sorry to interrupt. If anyone wants some comparative data on who created more jobs in their first three years, click the link
http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/post/17153603840/so
upsoup-private-sector-jobs-created-by-barack
Turns out Clinton was the star. GWB - not so much.
As you were.