BojanglesPaladin

...I am simply a right wing shill.

/snip

allegedman: obama wants in the white house to have sexual relations with white women interns

Hell, that's about the *only* reason I'd take the damn job, though I wouldn't limit it to just *white* interns, I like my women like I like my drinks - multiple flavors and multiple rounds...

Bada da dum!

/seriously would have more respect for Bill Clinton if his answer had been "You're damn right I had relations with that woman, have you seen or heard my wife?!"

Pair-o-Dice: DROxINxTHExWIND:
/back to my basement to long for a life as a white boy on a computer in Tennessee.

Hey! easy. I resemble that remark.

And this whole time I thought you were black.

buzzvert: McCain is a 50-foot 200-ton baby-raping cannibal pedophile schizophrenic psychopath.

yes, but is he electable?

Honestly, between his looney assertion that Barack Obama is the guy we should singularly blame for high gas prices (pointing to the position he and Obama shared until this campaign, then to a hypothetical bill that he never actually introduced because he was too busy campaigning) and his assertion today that Barack Obama wants to lose the war in Iraq... I mean... I lost alot of respect for him after Bush attacked his family and he just gave him a big hug anyways.... but now... McCain's credibility is just pathetic... So ya... let's keep on having stories about "rising sun" or uhh... "fake" interviews as though journalists within our military are somehow lesser than their civi counterparts.

McFlipFlop on taxes, on drilling, on states' rights, even on balancing the budget. He can't figure out where other countries are, let alone who lives in them, but still wants to claim foreign policy is his strong suit... I mean... how does any conservative, libertarian, or anyone actually take him seriously?

Fark-the-Fnord

For every Bevets or Jerry Fallwell, there are thousands of Mother Theresas who get no airtime or coverage.

Just because Al Sharpton is a tool doesn't give merit to the idea that blacks or Democrats are all asshats who should be gotten rid of.

Just because Cindy Sheehan is an oppurtunistic coont does not invalidate the anti-war movement.

I find it extremely weak reasoning to say that because there are asshats in any particular organization, that critics of that organization are therefore justified.

I get your point, but I think this is an important clarification to make. Put another way - In my experience, there are FAR, FAR more people biatching about obnoxious Christians than there are actual obnoxious Christians.

Obdicut: "Will yours?"

I think it's more constructive than sheepishly participating in what has clearly devolved into a sham and a farce. I tell anyone who will listen that the two party system is a scam and it should be shunned at all costs. The only thing that will revitalize true participatory democracy in the U.S. is to so damage the entrenched party machines that they whither away and die. That cannot happen as long as millions of people dutifully line up like dull, obedient Soviet slugs and continue to rubber-stamp - and thereby legitimize - a political order that no longer represents their interests.

So, I urge you to never again vote for a Republican or a Democrat in any election, local state, or national. Starve the two-aprty system to death, Obdicut. It's the only way forward.

UnkleKrakker: A write in is still a vote. Can't defend the abstain though.

A write-in for someone who is not running for President is not a vote for President any more than writing yourself in the Final Four bracket is a bet on the Final Four.

Doesn't matter anyway, nobody values their time so little that they would wait in line to write down their own name.

canyoneer: The "democratic process?" What "democratic process?" Do you actually imagine American elections to be a "democratic process?"

I imagine voting in the US Presidential election to be the bare minimum requirement in order to claim participation in the democratic process.

Friction8r: It is quite evident from your substandard linguistic skills, your use of profane language and your overall demeanor that you are not from the Caucuses.

You're thinking Smoky Mountains, those are the ones in Tennessee. And it's spelled "Caucasus". Also the use of the term has been deprecated, like "Mongoloid". I'm not going to even touch on the obvious racism, it's the awesome factual fumbles I like the most.

obdicut

Read firefly212's post above. THAT is what a partisan looks like. Notice the subtle differences?

Fark-the-Fnord: Oh, OK. So he is the exact reason why Christians today are viewed as the plague of society. He is the type of person that will stand on the side of the street and yell at all of the people that they are going to Hell if they do not follow his exact religion. This is the very reason why I have posted in several other threads that the worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity was religion. Now most people read that and mock me for saying that Christianity is a religion and yes it is, but the statement was meant to imply that the different "sects" of religion, Catholicism, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, they are all part of Christianity but they are tearing the whole "church" apart from the inside. People like Bevets show Christians as a hateful elitist group hiding the love of God and only showing the anger and punishment. Who would want to join that group when everybody is angry and I am here to say that is not what Christians are all about, God is good and you really can't hide that.

/Sorry to ramble on there
//I usually do not enter the religious threads


/ Begin Minor Thread Jack

I usually do enter the religious threads even though I'm not a devout Christian, I just respect thier beliefs and find that in those threads, regardless of Bevets or any other, there's a ton of scorn heaped upon people of faith. However, I have been waiting to use this for the longest and you just gave me an opening.

The Opening Song to Civilization IV Computer Game.

Baba Yetu
Baba Yetu uliye mbinguni,
jina lako litukuzwe;
ufalme wako ufike,
utakalo lifanyike
duniani kama mbinguni.
Utupe leo mkate wetu wa kila siku,
utusamehe makosa yetu,
kama nasi tunavyowasamehe waliotukosea.
Usitutie katika kishawishi,
lakini utuopoe maovuni.
Amina
______________________________________________

If you've never heard it, you are missing something; almost anyone who has played the game will honestly tell you they sit at the menu screen for minutes at a time just listening to it. The funny thing is, when translated the song is thus...

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day, our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Amen.
______________________________________________________

Subliminal Conversion FTW!!!!!!

/End Threadjack

hey whatever happened to kucinich's articles of impeachment?

BojanglesPaladin: God this is boring. You either don;t know what 'partisan' means or you strongly believe that it's applicability is selective. I said you were Partisan, because you insisted you were PROUD to be partisan. So wither when you say you are partisan, you don't mean any particular affiliation with a political party (as demonstrated by your insistance you would like to see a republican president), or you DO mean that, in which case you should not be labeling me as being partisan.

Partisan can mean loyalty to a specific party, or to an ideology. I clearly stated that I meant it in regards to ideology, not a party. I'm sorry if you didn't get that.

BojanglesPaladin: ) A military must be maintained at considerable expense only when an enemy to be defended against can be identified.

Yes, I do believe this, absolutely. WWII should have taught us this.

BojanglesPaladin: b) Despite being part of the Federal Governments expenditures and revenues, and being sometimes merged into the general accounting fund, Social Security should not be calculated into Total Federal Finances when calculating the percentage of Total Federal Finances that is allocated to military spending.

Because social security is money paid back to citizens, and not spent on projects, it should be calculated outside of the main budget. In theory, SS should be revenue neutral-- it should just function as a large, weird savings account. This is entirely different from every other government expenditure, and if you don't treat it differently, you're nuts.

Any comments regarding my original questions relating directly to the supposed 'scandal' of 'closed door' interviews that excluded the press.


C) I have absolutely no problem with what you said about the actual interviews. You stated things very well.

Other than that I see no reason to engage you further.

You are always free not to engage me. I am in no way coercing you to respond to me. You choose to do so.

Also: Your original comment to me was about my comment on social security, so I'm not sure why you're so concerned about being off-topic, given that you began our conversation following the thread of social security-- which is definitely not on-topic.

CanisNoir: Well it's not a total scandal, it's just a point of hypocracy in the Obama campaign. They stressed 'Transparency' and yet thier candidate is being handled to a degree that many have never seen before. Though I can understand why. Between Obama claiming "Isreal is a good friend to Isreal and will remain a good friend to Isreal for many years to come." and one of his top advisors slipping up and calling him The President of the United States, I can understand the need to shelter him from the media.

It does tend to lead one to believe that this trip is more about photo ops and free publicity than it is about finding facts.

Oh and not only will Obama heal the oceans, but his wife is claiming electing him will save the children. The Rhetoric this year has really ratcheted up.

Hypocrisy is claiming to support the troops, the biatching that military journalists aren't real journalists in a pathetic hissyfit about how a candidate actually went to do some work instead of just a cheap photo op. They wanted:



They would have had such a great visual, it would have been compared to Dukakis in the tank... right-wingers would biatch about how Obama was just putting on a show, and using way too many military resources to do it... But all they got was text, video of Obama chatting with people, and hard news like Maliki advocating a 2010 timetable, Bush saying he wants a "time horizon", and Obama on the same page. To cap it all off, after all the warnings of gaffes by Obama, the only gaffe of the week... notable only here on fark... was McCain talking about the need to send troops to imaginationland (Iraq-Pakistan border).

Fark-the-Fnord:


Your name pleases me.

farkingatwork: hey whatever happened to kucinich's articles of impeachment?

They're going to meaningless hearings to be buried.

canyoneer: So, I urge you to never again vote for a Republican or a Democrat in any election, local state, or national. Starve the two-aprty system to death, Obdicut. It's the only way forward.

Does the fact that two-party systems always eventually fail anyway give you any consolation? I mean, within your lifetime, the Republicans and the Democrats completely disassembled and reformed themselves in major ways.

Are you also now backing away from your previous claims that humanity is inevitably on a course towards mass death, starvation, and the end of industrial society?

If you're so dead-set on destroying the two party system, why do you never talk about 3rd party candidates, at any level, for any office, ever? Why don't you ever talk about a candidate who you support, from any party, or any independent, at all?

mccallcl: UnkleKrakker: A write in is still a vote. Can't defend the abstain though.

A write-in for someone who is not running for President is not a vote for President any more than writing yourself in the Final Four bracket is a bet on the Final Four.

A votes validity is not based on whose team you vote for. The act, in and of itself, is of participation and involvement in the process. It is quite arrogant to believe that only those votes you agree with matter for anything.
That's one of the biggest problems with what the process has become. It's not about the country anymore, it's about your team.

BojanglesPaladin: A military must be maintained at considerable expense only when an enemy to be defended against can be identified.

By the time you can identify the enemy, it's too late to start training your army. Aside from that, building structures, vehicles and things like that takes time, it's cheaper to maintain them (albeit at a high price) then to just pretend we can buy thousands of new tanks, trucks, and other vehicles on the fly.

Ace Frehley's Ghost: I hope that he withdraws our armed forces from Iraq and makes Amy Winehouse an honorary DEA agent.

Okay, but first she has to learn karate.

canyoneer: I think it's more constructive than sheepishly participating in what has clearly devolved into a sham and a farce.

I never ceased to be amazed at the intricate intellectual constructs people build in order to justify doing absolutely nothing. I like to imagine those delicate structures the Doozers made on Fraggle Rock.



As an aside, do you think they tasted sweet to the Fraggles or salty? I figure sweet, like rock candy.

firefly212: By the time you can identify the enemy, it's too late to start training your army. Aside from that, building structures, vehicles and things like that takes time, it's cheaper to maintain them (albeit at a high price) then to just pretend we can buy thousands of new tanks, trucks, and other vehicles on the fly.

WWII.

obdicut

If Social Security funds are 'different' because they are paid back to citizens, then so are welfare, unemployment, FICA, and most social welfare programs. If your argument is that they are 'special' because it's ostensably a sort of government savings fund, that argument is invalidated when it was merged into the general accountng fund. You kleep saying it should be a net zero account, but it most definately is not, and Social Security has to be butressed with general Accounti8ng funds and has an administrative overhead that absorbes some of these funds, which must also be accounted for. Either way, none of these arguments, even if they were true change the fact that in any discussion of TOTAL Federal Finances, Social Security should be included.

I took issue with your seemingly nonsensical idea that the poster was somehow wrng for including SS in a calculation of Military Spending V. Total Federal Spending. I am NOT arguing that his graph was correct, especially since it dis not account for non-budgetary military expenditures, which would also nee to be included to make his argument factualy correct (as well as quite a few other things I am sure).

Only that when looking at TOTAL Federal Finances, Social Security is certainly part of that picture. I cannot see how anyone could honestly not see that, and therefore pointed it out to you when you asserted that it should not be included.

firefly212
By the time you can identify the enemy, it's too late to start training your army.

Exactly my point.

obdicut

We ramped up our military for WWII. We did not create one ion 1940. And it is largely due to THAT experience that we maintain a fully functional standing army in peace time today.

CanisNoir: / Begin Minor Thread Jack

What do these guys have to do with anything?

Obdicut: firefly212: By the time you can identify the enemy, it's too late to start training your army. Aside from that, building structures, vehicles and things like that takes time, it's cheaper to maintain them (albeit at a high price) then to just pretend we can buy thousands of new tanks, trucks, and other vehicles on the fly.

WWII.

Considering we ramped up production of air, ground, and sea military assets (some for us, some for the Brits) well before war was declared, then are you saying we can have clear enemies despite the absence of such declaration?

mccallcl I'm not going to even touch on the obvious racism

I see. Basement dwelling white boy in Tennessee is acceptable, but not from the Caucasus is racist. Whatever. Verily I say to thee that PC ain't the place to be, homey (or is it homie?) Regardless, Dro wants his reparations while he shouts his condemnations and offers no placation for his angry consternation or a fair solution to his unjust evolution. G.

BojanglesPaladin: firefly212
By the time you can identify the enemy, it's too late to start training your army.

Exactly my point.

obdicut

We ramped up our military for WWII. We did not create one ion 1940. And it is largely due to THAT experience that we maintain a fully functional standing army in peace time today.

Before we got into WW2, we were training with broom handles instead of guns.
Task Force Smith at the start of the Korean war helped convince us to keep a large force handy & trained in peacetime. Not that we got around to that until the late 70s though...

UnkleKrakker: A votes validity is not based on whose team you vote for. The act, in and of itself, is of participation and involvement in the process. It is quite arrogant to believe that only those votes you agree with matter for anything.

I never said that. It counts as a vote if you write in someone who is running for President, since you're voting for President. Writing in someone not running for President is protest, not voting. Mickey Mouse, Babba Booey or canyoneer are not on my team, they are not on anyone's team. They are not in the game at all, and writing their names down is not voting. It's something, but it's not voting.

If you want to participate without casting a vote for a Democrat or a Republican, there are plenty of candidates to choose from. Of course, that means doing lots of annoying research on little-known politicians and what if the guy you support does something you don't agree with? Someone might call you on it later. Better to just claim disinterested observer status so you get to harangue everyone simultaneously for being conformist nerds from the safety of your Craftmatic.

BojanglesPaladin: If Social Security funds are 'different' because they are paid back to citizens, then so are welfare, unemployment, FICA, and most social welfare programs.

Unemployment should be the same as SS, but actually the government makes money off of it. Unfortunately.

Welfare is not paid into by the same people recieving it, by and large, so, no, it's not the same. Nor are most social welfare programs. The difference is that social security is paying out to the same people who contributed to it-- though I'll freely admit that the disability portion of it doesn't really jibe with the rest.

FICA is Social Security, so I don't know what you mean there.



If your argument is that they are 'special' because it's ostensibly a sort of government savings fund, that argument is invalidated when it was merged into the general accounting fund

It wasn't. It is stolen from, but they are still "loans". It has not merged.

mercator_psi: CanisNoir: / Begin Minor Thread Jack

What do these guys have to do with anything?

Meh, very little, which is why it was a threadjack. It occurred to me yesterday as I was listening that I was hearing The Lords Prayer sung and how many other people (considering the popularity of the game and the song) had also heard it over and over again. Considering how flamable Fark religious threads were I wanted to toss it in one, and Fnord gave me a small opening by discussing Christiantiy. So yea, it was a stretch but I'm happy.

/Off to conquer the world as The Celts :P
//Or Jewish Germans just cuz I find it funny

BojanglesPaladin: We ramped up our military for WWII. We did not create one ion 1940. And it is largely due to THAT experience that we maintain a fully functional standing army in peace time today.

No, it's not. It's because we were in the Cold War. It has nothing to do with fighting Germany and Japan.

We keep a large military so we can intervene militarily across the globe. Not for self-defense.

firefly212: Considering we ramped up production of air, ground, and sea military assets (some for us, some for the Brits) well before war was declared, then are you saying we can have clear enemies despite the absence of such declaration?

Yes, definitely.

Do we have such enemies, and, if so, who are they?

Tom_Slick:
I've always thought he was a slimy politician, he is a Chicago lawyer turned professor then politician. I flat out don't trust him, McCain may be a gun ho greasy son of a biatch beholden to the beer industry (not that that is a bad thing) but I trust him, besides McCain is more like Bill Clinton than G.W. Bush. The dems cut thier own throats with this guy.

Seriously, how have you managed to live this long? Who turns your computer on for you? Your ability to function despite having no brain matter whatsoever is remarkable. Good job!

iaazathot: Perhaps Obama should just avoid Fox altogether. I mean, isn't that what Bush and Chenney do, avoid any outlet that would dare to actually ask an unscripted question?

I think the Democratic party should just basically boycott Fox Noise.

You mean they aren't? Last I heard the party refused to have any Primary debates on that network - so guess they are as bad as Bush.

mccallcl: It's something, but it's not voting

It absolutely is voting. Why do you think that little write in space is there?

Friction8r: I see. Basement dwelling white boy in Tennessee is acceptable, but not from the Caucasus is racist.

I said I wasn't going to touch on the racism aspect, which would be way better for you anyway. Just take the free knowledge of geography and ethnic terminology and back away slowly.

Friction8r: Regardless, Dro wants his reparations while he shouts his condemnations and offers no placation for his angry consternation or a fair solution to his unjust evolution.

You seem to know a lot of words: what's the opposite of "astonished"? Because that's how I feel at finding out you can't rap.

UnkleKrakker

I think we all agree (and the actual history verifies) that prior to WWII, we had an active military. But that military was woefully inadequate for the needs of WWII, and we had to undergo a massive move to get it built up in the years leading up to war.

Even after WWII, we let our standing military shrink, only to discover in the emerging cold war era that this too was poor policy and we began the current plan of maintaing a full standing peacetime army manned by volonteers.

Regardless of whether or not, as obdicut suggested, we have an enemy 'to defend against'.

BojanglesPaladin: Even after WWII, we let our standing military shrink, only to discover in the emerging cold war era that this too was poor policy and we began the current plan of maintaining a full standing peacetime army manned by volunteers.

Regardless of whether it was good policy during the Cold War:

Are we currently in the Cold War?

UnkleKrakker: Why do you think that little write in space is there?

So you can write in the name of a Presidential candidate? Is writing "fark you" voting for the phrase "fark you" to get to be President? Or is "fark" President and "You" Vice President? By now you have to be getting my point.

RetiredTroll: Any questions?

Why do you think people won't immediately put you on their ignore list, as I'm doing?

obdicut
We keep a large military so we can intervene militarily across the globe. Not for self-defense.

Well, actually, for both.

But why were you asking the silly question about "Who are we defending against"? One does not need to have an enemy to 'defend against' in order to maintain a standing military.

In fact it is most often the case that nations maintain a military without an identified enemy to 'defend against'. Switzerland, Denmark, Peru, Australia, even Canada and nearly every country you can think of maintains a military, though most of them do not have any identified 'enemies to defend against'. And in many cases, these militaries do not 'intervene militarily around the globe' either.

You seem to be arguing a fictitious rational for maintaing a military that simply does not exist and is in open defiance to the reality of national militaries.

RetiredTroll: Option 1:
Option 2:

Any questions?

Any questions?

Yes, were you born ignorant or did you have to work on it?

obdicut
Are we currently in the Cold War?

I guess that depends on how you view China in 15 years...

But answer this question: Are we currently in a world theater where the United States is frequently called on to intervene militarily? In fact, forget the last 8 years for the sake of argument. Prior to 2000, was America in need of a strong and robust military?

mccallcl: UnkleKrakker: Why do you think that little write in space is there?

So you can write in the name of a Presidential candidate? Is writing "fark you" voting for the phrase "fark you" to get to be President? Or is "fark" President and "You" Vice President? By now you have to be getting my point.

Is writing in your own name or the name of another person a vote? Which part of my point are you missing? Neither I, nor Canyoneer, said that a cartoon character was a valid choice. You threw that in there. Strawman? I think so.
A write in vote is no less valid than making your mark next to the candidate of your choice. That was my original statement.

mccallcl Because that's how I feel at finding out you can't rap.

Don't you give any grief on my ability to rap, there's just a moment and a place where you should utilize that crap. You see the song is in the singing and the playing of a tune, and when you exude that rhetoric you sound like a baboon.

/Obama and Osama dey ain't like da Dalai Lama.

BojanglesPaladin: In fact it is most often the case that nations maintain a military without an identified enemy to 'defend against'. Switzerland, Denmark, Peru, Australia, even Canada and nearly every country you can think of maintains a military, though most of them do not have any identified 'enemies to defend against'. And in many cases, these militaries do not 'intervene militarily around the globe' either.

Okay, are you just being silly? I'm clearly arguing for a smaller, not a non-existent, military.

You're really usually a lot better at not attacking a strawman.

We don't need a military that has an expenditure higher than every other military on earth combined.