TuteTibiImperes: machoprogrammer: TuteTibiImperes: Biden is one of the most intelligent men in Washington. The combination of realizing that VP is the highest office he will ever hold along with being of the 'I don't give a fark what anybody thinks' age leads him to speak his mind and play it off the cuff more often than most politicians.

I have enormous respect for the man.

/grew up in Delaware and had lunch with him on a middle school field trip

You have enormous respect for the man who was behind the whole Napster fiasco in the 90s, who sponsored legislation similar to POPA/SIPA and who has the RIAA/MPAA in his pockets? Is it because he is on your team?

How is this for PIPA/SOPA?

He sure changed his tune since being VP. link

This is a test.

For the next sixty seconds, this station will conduct a test of the Emergency Broadcast Troll System.

This is only a test.

and another link

Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Relatively Obscure:
//Politics tab = argument clinic

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

As a matter of fact,every FARK tab harbors a potential argument clinic.

The Politics tab just happens to be the most strident of the lot.

So you're right.

No I'm not.

We agree to disagree....Therefore,we agree.

We most certainly do not.

Aha,but we do. Denial of agreement is not the same as disagreement.

Yes it is, by the very definition!

Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Relatively Obscure:
//Politics tab = argument clinic

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

As a matter of fact,every FARK tab harbors a potential argument clinic.

The Politics tab just happens to be the most strident of the lot.

So you're right.

No I'm not.

We agree to disagree....Therefore,we agree.

We most certainly do not.

Aha,but we do. Denial of agreement is not the same as disagreement.

Yes it is, by the very definition!

Why cling so strongly to your contrarian outlook when it's plain to see that you want to let go and join us? :)

Because this I came here for an argument!

Enigmamf: AliceBToklasLives: whidbey: That was Bush/Cheney,

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x436]

So you're saying that in his first year as President, Obama managed to cut civilian deaths from drone attacks by 35%, while at the same time nearly tripling military deaths - and improving the number military kills as a percentage of total kills from an abysmal 41% (less than half under bush?!?) to 75%?

And you're saying this is somehow bad???

Well the 113 civilian deaths are, somehow, bad. So are probably quite a few of the military deaths - "foot soldiers" and whatnot.

The point: Obama greatly expanded the drone assassination program after taking office. This means:

A) Afpak public support for the U.S. remains very low; public support for the fricking Taliban, rather high (Afghans and Pakistanis kinda get pissy when we wipe out wedding parties and whatnot with creepy missiles from nowhere). Result: we are the primary jihadist recruitment tool.

B) Incursions into Pakistan are allowed by the government, hated by the people. No one wants an uprising in Pakistan, since no one wants radical Muslims to get a hold of Pakistan's nukes. The solution is not to clumsily pick off terrorists one-by-one - it's to turn the tide of public opinion away from the Taliban and other dangerous groups. Best way to do that = get the fark out.

C) There is something we can do to help clean up Bush's mess: pay massive reparations to Afghanistan. A big infusion of cash will go a lot further towards stabilizing the region than our bullshiat police training and our Jack Bauer missions.

I didn't realize he was still alive. He must be doing something right.

AliceBToklasLives: pay massive reparations to Afghanistan.

Hell no. We can't afford steak right now.

Pants full of macaroni!!: Alunan: What have you asshats done to my glorious article?

/subby

Am I the only one who feels that being insulted on Fark leads to large, supple breasts by an attractive, an yet illegal, minor?

TuteTibiImperes: Hmm, didn't know that. I hope his change of views is genuine. Unfortunately neither of the major political parties seems to have any concern for copyright reform and internet freedom. I hope that changes as the the tech-saavy generation starts to come of politically-respectable age.

/until then Ron Wyden for President 2016
//Zoe Lofgren for VP


Yeah, I think both parties fail majorly at the copyright reform and technology stuff. Doesn't help the RIAA and MPAA have both parties in their pockets, too

barneyfifesbullet: Biden looks at that soaker with the same bewilderment he looks at anything with.

Including people who end their sentences in prepositions.

Sabyen91: barneyfifesbullet: Biden looks at that soaker with the same bewilderment he looks at anything with.

Including people who end their sentences in prepositions.

Sorry, whom.

Branbot: whidbey: Branbot: If you're going to sit here and tell me with a straight face that Obama is not responsible for a single death overseas I think we can end this discussion right here. That's just blind stupidity. This isn't a conspiracy, this is just cold hard facts and you refuse to look at them.

Obama did not initiate two failed unjustified wars that will end up costing this country several trillion dollars, untold casualties and repercussions from anti-American terrorist groups.

That was Bush/Cheney, and I wouldn't be using the word "facts" in a sentence here. They greatly outweigh your laughable contentions.

/lost cause

Code Pink alert, Code Pink alert.

A stranger in the Alps: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x400]

/for no good reason, really.

Any CNN related thread should begin with that pic.

Gyrfalcon: Branbot: I don't understand how anyone can find a man partially responsible for the death of thousands of people to be harmless and adorable. Farking politicians, they're all cold blooded killers.

Well, aren't we just the precious anarchist buzkill troll? Why aren't you out storming the barricades, Trotsky?

He is too busy making his Patti Smith blow-up doll.

chud21: Branbot: Say that to my face, not online.

*snert*

You are intimidated, no?

Pants full of macaroni!!: Alunan: What have you asshats done to my glorious article?

/subby

[www.madmann.com image 413x413]

I always wondered what that girl in the foreground is crying about. She's got a huge rack!

Am I the only one who heard the headline spoken by :

Gyrfalcon: Sabyen91: Gyrfalcon: Branbot: I don't understand how anyone can find a man partially responsible for the death of thousands of people to be harmless and adorable. Farking politicians, they're all cold blooded killers.

Well, aren't we just the precious anarchist buzkill troll? Why aren't you out storming the barricades, Trotsky?

He is too busy making his Patti Smith blow-up doll.

Making her do what? Listen to his boring rants before she deflates from apathy?

Sorry, he was busy scavenging for parts for his Patti Smith blow-up doll like a good anarchist.

/I don't think it will ever work. Twigs and spit doesn't really make a good seal.

AliceBToklasLives: whidbey: That was Bush/Cheney,

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x436]

Hey! The civilian casualty ratio went down at least.

/too tired to give a fark...

Sabyen91: Sabyen91: barneyfifesbullet: Biden looks at that soaker with the same bewilderment he looks at anything with.

Including people who end their sentences in prepositions.

Sorry, whom.

That's tricky. The clause "People who/m end their sentences in prepositions" is an object, but it seems like 'who/m' serves as the subject within the clause, hence who would be correct. But I'm no english major.

AliceBToklasLives: Enigmamf: AliceBToklasLives: whidbey: That was Bush/Cheney,

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x436]

So you're saying that in his first year as President, Obama managed to cut civilian deaths from drone attacks by 35%, while at the same time nearly tripling military deaths - and improving the number military kills as a percentage of total kills from an abysmal 41% (less than half under bush?!?) to 75%?

And you're saying this is somehow bad???

Well the 113 civilian deaths are, somehow, bad. So are probably quite a few of the military deaths - "foot soldiers" and whatnot.

The point: Obama greatly expanded the drone assassination program after taking office. This means:

A) Afpak public support for the U.S. remains very low; public support for the fricking Taliban, rather high (Afghans and Pakistanis kinda get pissy when we wipe out wedding parties and whatnot with creepy missiles from nowhere). Result: we are the primary jihadist recruitment tool.

B) Incursions into Pakistan are allowed by the government, hated by the people. No one wants an uprising in Pakistan, since no one wants radical Muslims to get a hold of Pakistan's nukes. The solution is not to clumsily pick off terrorists one-by-one - it's to turn the tide of public opinion away from the Taliban and other dangerous groups. Best way to do that = get the fark out.

C) There is something we can do to help clean up Bush's mess: pay massive reparations to Afghanistan. A big infusion of cash will go a lot further towards stabilizing the region than our bullshiat police training and our Jack Bauer missions.

Personally I think drone attacks are akin to assassination, hence should be against international treaties. But on the other hand I've never quite understood how it's less justified to kill a named enemy target than for anonymous soldiers who will never know one another's names to kill one another.

Enigmamf: Sabyen91: Sabyen91: barneyfifesbullet: Biden looks at that soaker with the same bewilderment he looks at anything with.

Including people who end their sentences in prepositions.

Sorry, whom.

That's tricky. The clause "People who/m end their sentences in prepositions" is an object, but it seems like 'who/m' serves as the subject within the clause, hence who would be correct. But I'm no english major.

I was thinking that too but I was responding to a sentence where Biden was the subject so my noun would have to be the subject...right? I was debating myself for about 10 minutes after that post.

Enigmamf: Personally I think drone attacks are akin to assassination, hence should be against international treaties. But on the other hand I've never quite understood how it's less justified to kill a named enemy target than for anonymous soldiers who will never know one another's names to kill one another.

Hell of a point. Is it wrong to kill Hitler in a targeted attack but right to carpetbomb Dresden?

Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Apos: LockeOak: Relatively Obscure:
//Politics tab = argument clinic

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

As a matter of fact,every FARK tab harbors a potential argument clinic.

The Politics tab just happens to be the most strident of the lot.

So you're right.

No I'm not.

We agree to disagree....Therefore,we agree.

We most certainly do not.

Aha,but we do. Denial of agreement is not the same as disagreement.

Yes it is, by the very definition!

Why cling so strongly to your contrarian outlook when it's plain to see that you want to let go and join us? :)

Because this I came here for an argument!

Well,I'm glad that I could help.

Being Hit on the Head lessons in here....

/Waaaaah!

The vice president distributed high-powered armor-piercing assault rifle AK-47 water guns to the children
Now it's journalism!

'high-powered water guns'? Really?



These were the water guns I had when I was a kid:

Non-realistic orange tipped guns were for wusses and cops who couldn't take a joke.

Gyrfalcon: I'm STILL trying to figure out why it's so much more objectionable to people to use unmanned drones to drop ordnance than it is to drop the same ordnance from a bomber. Same bombs, same AWACS, same altitude, same order to drop, same "weapons free." What's the freaking difference? It's not like a pilot IN the plane has any more control over where the things land or who they hit than a geek operator 500 yards away.

I'm sure you can find a better argument, but I believe the idea is: being able to kill people without any risk to our own soldiers allows us to be more casual about ordering operations, hence maybe undertaken with less careful consideration for the accuracy and importance relative to the potential for (god I hate the phrase) "collateral damage".