If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "American media terrorizes people far more than the actual so-called terrorists" Says Glenn Greenwald. But be sure to check out his other article "Obama is a murderous sociopath" who will kill you in your sleep   (salon.com) divider line 359
    More: Ironic, Americans  
•       •       •

2269 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Mar 2012 at 6:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-22 11:38:00 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: You're right, he didn't make war like Bush. Bush got authority to make war from Congress.


I'm just having difficulty parsing this from a purely logical perspective.

Person A does some bad things. Person B only does some of the bad things that Person A did. Beyond that, there's not a single criticism of Person A that wouldn't also apply to Person B (sure, Person B didn't prosecute Person A - but neither did Person A). It just isn't possible for Person B to be the worse of the two, unless one is operating under a highly nonlinear understanding of what "better" and "worse" mean.
 
2012-03-22 11:39:36 PM

Sabyen91: Karma Curmudgeon: You're right, he didn't make war like Bush. Bush got authority to make war from Congress.

Weak.


In your opinion. But not incorrect on the facts.
 
2012-03-22 11:39:45 PM

Sabyen91: I am saying you would rather have a Republican president so you could vent your spleen.


When did I ever say that? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the opposite and you're actually just full of shiat:

James F. Campbell: Quiet, farktard. Some of us understand nuance. There are legitimate criticisms against Obama insofar, and Greenwald correctly raises and explains a number of them. Just because, however, I agree with these criticisms, doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.


Like I said: full of shiat.
 
2012-03-22 11:39:51 PM

Biological Ali: Karma Curmudgeon: You're right, he didn't make war like Bush. Bush got authority to make war from Congress.

I'm just having difficulty parsing this from a purely logical perspective.

Person A does some bad things. Person B only does some of the bad things that Person A did. Beyond that, there's not a single criticism of Person A that wouldn't also apply to Person B (sure, Person B didn't prosecute Person A - but neither did Person A). It just isn't possible for Person B to be the worse of the two, unless one is operating under a highly nonlinear understanding of what "better" and "worse" mean.


The point is Kucinich would be better. Therefore we will allow Teabaggers to be elected because more Dems are not as good as Kucinich.
 
2012-03-22 11:40:00 PM

Fart_Machine: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Fart_Machine: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: The CIA and Mossad have concluded Iran is not building nuclear weapons.

Citation?

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Saying "all options are on the table" when you know there is no nuclear weapons program shows you're still willing to use military force when it's unnecessary.

I don't know of any President in the past who has stated they were going to limit their options. That's a bit different than actively saber-rattling that we are going to bomb Iran to prove our love for Israel which is what Santorum has stated to AIPAC.


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-h a s-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300 (new window)

Who cares if no President in the past has said they'd limit their options? You say what's correct and not politically expedient.

Your report says we don't have enough intel to make a judgement whether they are or not.

As to who cares, you wanted the distinction between Obama and Santorum. Not limiting your options isn't the same as we're gonna farking bomb you.


Of course not, but the threat is still transparent. Clinton was a better imperialist than Bush because he could put on the same kind of "I'm much more rational than those retards" aura that Obama does.
 
2012-03-22 11:40:30 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: Sabyen91: Karma Curmudgeon: You're right, he didn't make war like Bush. Bush got authority to make war from Congress.

Weak.

In your opinion. But not incorrect on the facts.


Actually, weak on facts, too.
 
2012-03-22 11:40:34 PM
broken clock
 
2012-03-22 11:41:06 PM

James F. Campbell: Sabyen91: I am saying you would rather have a Republican president so you could vent your spleen.

When did I ever say that? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the opposite and you're actually just full of shiat:

James F. Campbell: Quiet, farktard. Some of us understand nuance. There are legitimate criticisms against Obama insofar, and Greenwald correctly raises and explains a number of them. Just because, however, I agree with these criticisms, doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

Like I said: full of shiat.


Are you voting Dem? No? I think you proved my point.
 
2012-03-22 11:41:41 PM

James F. Campbell: Sabyen91: I am saying you would rather have a Republican president so you could vent your spleen.

When did I ever say that? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the opposite and you're actually just full of shiat:

James F. Campbell: Quiet, farktard. Some of us understand nuance. There are legitimate criticisms against Obama insofar, and Greenwald correctly raises and explains a number of them. Just because, however, I agree with these criticisms, doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

Like I said: full of shiat.


Testified!
 
2012-03-22 11:42:08 PM
well, i'm done.

gonna hang out now.
 
2012-03-22 11:42:43 PM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: James F. Campbell: Sabyen91: I am saying you would rather have a Republican president so you could vent your spleen.

When did I ever say that? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the opposite and you're actually just full of shiat:

James F. Campbell: Quiet, farktard. Some of us understand nuance. There are legitimate criticisms against Obama insofar, and Greenwald correctly raises and explains a number of them. Just because, however, I agree with these criticisms, doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

Like I said: full of shiat.

Testified!


You two are the reason Republicans get elected. Congratulations?
 
2012-03-22 11:42:57 PM

Sabyen91: James F. Campbell: Sabyen91: I am saying you would rather have a Republican president so you could vent your spleen.

When did I ever say that? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the opposite and you're actually just full of shiat:

James F. Campbell: Quiet, farktard. Some of us understand nuance. There are legitimate criticisms against Obama insofar, and Greenwald correctly raises and explains a number of them. Just because, however, I agree with these criticisms, doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

Like I said: full of shiat.

Are you voting Dem? No? I think you proved my point.


Ok, so not voting Dem is the same as voting Republican. Gotcha. All the Libertarian Party voters are obviously for the war as are the Greens.
 
2012-03-22 11:43:25 PM

Sabyen91: Are you voting Dem? No?


... Yeah, actually, I am. I did. I will again in November. Why would you assume otherwise? Oh, right, because you're a farking moron, and in your futile, laughably pathetic struggle to make a point, you have to paint me as the enemy.
 
2012-03-22 11:44:07 PM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Sabyen91: James F. Campbell: Sabyen91: I am saying you would rather have a Republican president so you could vent your spleen.

When did I ever say that? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the opposite and you're actually just full of shiat:

James F. Campbell: Quiet, farktard. Some of us understand nuance. There are legitimate criticisms against Obama insofar, and Greenwald correctly raises and explains a number of them. Just because, however, I agree with these criticisms, doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

Like I said: full of shiat.

Are you voting Dem? No? I think you proved my point.

Ok, so not voting Dem is the same as voting Republican. Gotcha. All the Libertarian Party voters are obviously for the war as are the Greens.


Yes, it is. In a two party system it really does mean that. There is a reason high turnout is good for Dems.
 
2012-03-22 11:44:18 PM
What popular news source is needlessly scaring the crap out of everyone?
Tune in at 10 to find out.
 
2012-03-22 11:44:25 PM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Of course not, but the threat is still transparent. Clinton was a better imperialist than Bush because he could put on the same kind of "I'm much more rational than those retards" aura that Obama does.


Clinton didn't try for two-front war with a five-year occupation either. But we were talking about Santorum vs Obama.
 
2012-03-22 11:44:58 PM

James F. Campbell: Sabyen91: Are you voting Dem? No?

... Yeah, actually, I am. I did. I will again in November. Why would you assume otherwise? Oh, right, because you're a farking moron, and in your futile, laughably pathetic struggle to make a point, you have to paint me as the enemy.


Are you farking kidding? I assume it because the retard left on Fark is insisting they aren't voting Dem.
 
2012-03-22 11:45:20 PM

Party Boy: heap: general gist

[i.imgur.com image 504x619]


i44.tinypic.com
 
2012-03-22 11:46:34 PM

James F. Campbell: Sabyen91: Are you voting Dem? No?

... Yeah, actually, I am. I did. I will again in November. Why would you assume otherwise? Oh, right, because you're a farking moron, and in your futile, laughably pathetic struggle to make a point, you have to paint me as the enemy.


You might want to go back and look at the whole conversation and then ask yourself why you supported Tripp.
 
2012-03-22 11:49:48 PM
By the way, I agree with holding our Dems accountable but damn, electing Republicans isn't a good answer.
 
2012-03-22 11:50:55 PM

Sabyen91: You might want to go back and look at the whole conversation and then ask yourself why you supported Tripp.


o_o Holy shiat, you really are illiterate. All right, quote the post where I supported Tripp. I'll go do something productive while you're foundering.
 
2012-03-22 11:52:30 PM

Biological Ali: Karma Curmudgeon: You're right, he didn't make war like Bush. Bush got authority to make war from Congress.

I'm just having difficulty parsing this from a purely logical perspective.

Person A does some bad things. Person B only does some of the bad things that Person A did. Beyond that, there's not a single criticism of Person A that wouldn't also apply to Person B (sure, Person B didn't prosecute Person A - but neither did Person A). It just isn't possible for Person B to be the worse of the two, unless one is operating under a highly nonlinear understanding of what "better" and "worse" mean.


1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. [n2] In these circumstances, [p636] and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, [p637] as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law. [n3]

3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [p638] the Congress from acting upon the subject. [n4] Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.


These authorities already resided in the maximum presidential authority by the ratifications of Congress controlled by each party. Obama could have disavowed the powers that Bush claimed, but instead he reaffirmed them and pushed them out of the realm of politically contentious. While Bush claimed them, Obama entrenched them at time when they have effectively surpassed judicial review.
 
2012-03-22 11:53:02 PM

James F. Campbell: Sabyen91: You might want to go back and look at the whole conversation and then ask yourself why you supported Tripp.

o_o Holy shiat, you really are illiterate. All right, quote the post where I supported Tripp. I'll go do something productive while you're foundering.


You know what? I owe you a giant apology.

James F. Campbell: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: SHUT UP! SCAAARY TEABAGGERS! SCAAARY REPUBLICANS! DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT KEEPING CORPORATISTS OUT OF POWER? THEN YOU BETTER VOTE OBAMA, YOU CRAZY COMMUNIST!

Quiet, farktard. Some of us understand nuance. There are legitimate criticisms against Obama insofar, and Greenwald correctly raises and explains a number of them. Just because, however, I agree with these criticisms, doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

Just because morons like you say "both sides are bad so vote Republican" doesn't mean it's actually true:
[home.comcast.net image 454x340]

Yes, it's a problem that there are some "liberals" who seem more interested in blindly supporting Obama than acknowledging his mistakes, but more than that, I'm tired of your proudly ignorant, psychopathic ilk dominating American the political atmosphere, shifting the spectrum further to the right and sending this country hurtling into poverty and despair.

fark off.


You have my deepest, most heartfelt apology.
 
2012-03-22 11:53:51 PM

Sabyen91: Actually, weak on facts, too.


Short on parsing. Not weak on the facts. But feel free to back up your claim.
 
2012-03-22 11:55:12 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: Sabyen91: Actually, weak on facts, too.

Short on parsing. Not weak on the facts. But feel free to back up your claim.


Considering Bush got zero declarations of war I am not sure what you are saying.
 
2012-03-22 11:55:54 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: At this point, I'm just sticking around for the photoshops.


a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

Hopefully, this covers everything.
 
2012-03-22 11:58:35 PM
Nighty-night, all.
 
2012-03-22 11:59:09 PM

thamike: Nighty-night, all.


Me too. Good night.
 
2012-03-23 12:00:20 AM

Sabyen91: Karma Curmudgeon: Sabyen91: Actually, weak on facts, too.

Short on parsing. Not weak on the facts. But feel free to back up your claim.

Considering Bush got zero declarations of war I am not sure what you are saying.


Bush got a Democratic Congress to give him the authority to make war on Iraq 6 months before he actually did. Typically, Democrats chose political expedience over handing the president a blank check to start a war.
 
2012-03-23 12:08:29 AM

mr lawson: Heron: Yeah, defending people alleged of committing a crime out of social conscience. How gauche.

Wait....you are actually white knighting Glenn Greenwald? Bahahahaha. I know nobody on either the left or right (thought it is expected on the right) who likes this guy. You are a first!


Apparently the people you know aren't very knowledgeable.
 
2012-03-23 12:09:36 AM

mr lawson: swahnhennessy: What?

hush...i'm having a little fun here


Doh!
 
2012-03-23 12:14:51 AM
What a weird, schizophrenic thread.
 
2012-03-23 12:18:54 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: These authorities already resided in the maximum presidential authority by the ratifications of Congress controlled by each party. Obama could have disavowed the powers that Bush claimed, but instead he reaffirmed them and pushed them out of the realm of politically contentious. While Bush claimed them, Obama entrenched them at time when they have effectively surpassed judicial review.


I still find it quite strange to argue that not disavowing a principle, while not acting on it, can somehow be worse than creating or introducing the principle in question and acting on it too. At the most, you could say it's as bad (but even that would be a massive stretch), but to say that it's worse just doesn't make sense.
 
2012-03-23 12:30:03 AM

Biological Ali: I still find it quite strange to argue that not disavowing a principle, while not acting on it, can somehow be worse than creating or introducing the principle in question and acting on it too. At the most, you could say it's as bad (but even that would be a massive stretch), but to say that it's worse just doesn't make sense.


Because it embeds the principles into the authorities of the office. What was at first an aberration and could have been minimized as such, is now a bi-partisan consensus.
 
2012-03-23 12:31:35 AM
I met Glenn at a bookstore off of Dupot Circle in DC a few years ago. Just a chance thing, we were in town and he was out promoting his new book. I had all of his previous books, and really enjoyed "How would a Patriot Act?". We discussed politics and (ironically) how the right-wing manipulates the media to scare the masses into voting for them. I reminded him that the Democrats were actually the ones who pioneered that technique with the infamous "Daisy" commercial, the Republicans just perfected it to the extreme. He ceded me the point with a grin and handshake.

Very well spoken and intelligent guy. I wish he would run for office.
 
2012-03-23 12:35:16 AM

foo monkey: The death panels convene when we're asleep?


yeah they've been shipped overseas to india
 
2012-03-23 12:35:56 AM
Libya is now effectively ruled by the militias that ousted Gadhafi, and some militias run parts of the country as their own fiefdoms independent of any national authority. The most powerful militias in the western cities of Zintan and Misrata have refused the government's calls to disarm. These militias believe that remaining armed allows them to retain political influence in the new order that they fought to create.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye
Cyrenaica in eastern Libya has declared its independence, likely leading to tribal warfare for a long time to come.

Concern noted.
 
2012-03-23 01:24:31 AM

ox45tallboy: And Tom Arnold stuck lil' Tommy in that.


Well, if your eyes are held shut, all that matters is the humping and gyrations, I be she bounced him around like a puppy on trampoline.
 
2012-03-23 01:29:14 AM
For fakrs sake! Stop it! Stop acting like retards! All of you! I've had 14 beers tonight but it has only served in helping me see that fark.com is nothing like the book I ordered 6 years ago! That book was FUNNY. You fickducks are SCARY, scary peolpe
 
2012-03-23 01:39:42 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Because it embeds the principles into the authorities of the office. What was at first an aberration and could have been minimized as such, is now a bi-partisan consensus.


Sure whatever, but the act of introducing those principles would still be worse than merely not disavowing them, by just about every meaningful metric. Then of course, there's the small matter of acting on the principles versus not acting on them.

You know, you can make plenty of critiques without going for the "Worse than Bush" angle. I suspect that even you realize it's really just meaningless hyperbole.
 
2012-03-23 01:41:31 AM
If you're a noob then yes.
 
2012-03-23 01:46:56 AM

thamike: Party Boy: ox45tallboy: heap: it is absolutely, positively, without reservation or qualification ever going to be irrelevant that one is, in fact and with overwhelming evidence....Rosanne Barr.

I really don't want to know Roseanne's position on hoo-ha's. It would remind me that she has one. And Tom Arnold stuck lil' Tommy in that.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 425x300]

[i.imgur.com image 301x302]

[a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 300x410]


When did I miss Kuato Bachmann??? Fuuuuuuuuuuu........
 
2012-03-23 02:29:10 AM
Wow, a raging Fark war, without a troll in sight..
 
2012-03-23 03:28:20 AM

Alphax: Wow, a raging Fark war, without a troll in sight..


A most amazing thread.

I have so many painted green here, there's hardly any white left.
 
2012-03-23 03:42:55 AM

ivan: A most amazing thread.

I have so many painted green here, there's hardly any white left.


Racist!
 
2012-03-23 05:03:13 AM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Hezbollah formed to drive Israel out of Lebanon when they illegally invaded, killed civilians, and destroyed Lebanese infrastructure. You've already demonstrated your stupidity on the subject; care to go further?


Except, no.

Hizbullah is an organization that was formed as an Iranian project (when they were trying to start some of these groups in other nations such as Iraq in order to spread the revolution) where they took care of the financial and ideological aspect, and Hizbullah members were trained and organized following the model of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

In fact, much like the PLO was created prior to the 1967 war (even though it ended up using it as revisionist cover for their true aspiration), the IRG was in Lebanon already in 1980-1981 in order to prepare the terrain and train Hizbullah, when Lebanon was the 'terror central' of all the Middle-East. The world's, in fact, as wannabe revolutionaries (and some not-so-wannabe) were travelling to PLO camps and others in order to receive training.

Hizbullah tries to pretend to be a grassroot movement that arose spontaneously couldn't be further from the truth. They weren't created to repeal an already ongoing Israeli invasion, the ground and preparations had been laid long before such a thing happened.

Well, that was to be expected after your gross distortion (and lies) about the 1982 Lebanon War.
 
2012-03-23 05:08:46 AM

ox45tallboy: All the way through recorded history. In the Bible/Talmud, that land was "given by God" to his "chosen people" - the Jews. In the Koran, it was given back to his newer "chosen people" - the Muslims.


Uh no, in the Koran as well it says that this land is the land of the Jews.


ox45tallboy: Maybe CNN is a little unsure about exactly what nation Hezbollah is supposed to be liberating. But they're pretty sure about the whole hating the jews thing, so...


Hizbullah has also mentioned that its other purpose was struggle until the destruction of Israel (oh and genocide of all Jews in the world) and has cells all over the world.

There absolutely are cells in America, in Mexico and most of South America (not sure about Central).

Many were arrested recently in a money laundering and funneling the profits to Hizbullah recently, as well as drugs and stolen goods, and so on.

And they are also all over Europe, the middle-East and even some Asian countries.

... do you people know anything about Hizbullah? Did you guys even hear the name prior to 2006?
 
2012-03-23 05:14:01 AM

ox45tallboy: I'm not going to go so far as to say I support Hezbollah, when what they've done (things like firing rockets into residential areas) are pretty bad, too, but I think I find it easier for me to identify with their point of view.


So you find it easier to identify with their point of view, rather than ours?

The point of view of an organization that is responsible for the death of hundreds of Americans, that has killed or injured hundreds or thousands of civilians , killed or injured possibly up to hundreds of thousands of civilians during civil conflicts or using them as human shield or terror attacks against the government and other organizations, that has been using murder to keep Lebanon in the grip of Syria (and Iran by proxy), that started a war in 2006 that led to devastation in the country and caused Nasrallah to publicly apologized and that, in light of what he knows today, he would not have started that conflict? The organization that has vowed to kill all of the Jews on earth, proclaimed it was going to help destroy Israel? Who has committed terror acts on all continents?

That is something that you can identify with?

That is scary.
 
2012-03-23 05:23:31 AM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: I agree Hezbollah too has committed atrocities, but I think it's wrong to just claim both sides are bad. Israel was and is the aggressor.


So in 2006, after Hizbullah entered Israeli territory, killed multiple soldiers and kidnapped two, and drove back inside Lebanese territory while firing hundreds of rockets on the first day as cover....

Israel was the aggressor?

Really? You people really believe that nonsense?

ox45tallboy: The Jews took over Canaan (or re-took, depending on who you ask) because they escaped slavery and needed land to build their own nation. The Muslims took it back because they were led by a general who needed a place to establish his own nation.


What? It was never Arab land, so there was nothing to 'take back'.

Do you guys get your education from Al-Manar?! Seriously, what is going on.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: The CIA and Mossad have concluded Iran is not building nuclear weapons


No, that's not a fact, that's one NYT report from 'anonymous sources'.

How is that fact, when we have so many on public record, from many nations, saying the opposite? Even the IAEA says that there is shady stuff going on.
 
2012-03-23 05:26:10 AM

ox45tallboy: TDS did a nice segment on this a week or so ago. Turns out both Israel and Iran are in the middle of an election! (Yes, Iran has elections). Most all of this crap is whaaaaargarbl sabre-rattling on all three sides.


So is that why you two are so misinformed about all of this? Believing every single 'anonymous source' and shady reports, or thinking that TDS gives you an informed viewpoint?
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report