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.

(CNN)   Gitmo getting $40 million in upgrades. Your HOA still won't allow a flag in the front yard   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 163
    More: Stupid, Cuban Government, communications system  
•       •       •

3484 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2012 at 4:53 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-08 06:34:14 PM

intelligent comment below: MrHelpful: You do understand your "defense" of Obama basically makes him look like a pandering idiot, right? Which really isn't far from the truth so kudos to you sir!


A pandering idiot? Because his action to close Gitmo was dishonestly blocked by Republicans in Congress? Sounds like we found the pandering idiot amongst us. Look in the mirror, tool.


Wow...your name calling is amazingly underwhelming. By the way, with regard to Obama not being a king, maybe you should pass a note to him so he knows. Because, from the way he acts, it's King Obama, 24/7, every day of the week, we never close. Especially with that nose permanently stuck in the air.
 
2012-07-08 06:46:50 PM

Mugato: Unless you look at the Congressional record of constant fillibusters by the Republicans whose only stated goal was to make Obama a one termer.


Not sure why I should care about those. Bush managed to get all sorts of nonsense pushed through, even when he had a Democrat congress to deal with. Obama seems damned near incapable of anything past the HRA.

However, since I'm not a Republican nor did I vote for McCain or Obama, I'm not all that concerned. I'd rather see both parties ousted.

intelligent comment below:
Yeah right, anyone who was in the military is well aware of the conservative talking points and most take them as gospel. I can see right through your bullshiat. Every one of your talking points here is completely made up straight from the mouths of the right wing spin machine. Obama failed at this, Obama didn't do this, Obama is Bush 2.0. The stimulus didn't work. He's gonna take your guns! etc etc

It's all complete nonsense. And you're getting boring. Off to the known troll list for you


Dammit, you're an idiot. My military service ended in 1997. Well before Obama was even an entity in politics.

As for trolling, you're spouting support for Obama like he's done no wrong and everything he shiats is gold. Seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Except that I don't support the Republicans. And that you're not particularly smart.
 
2012-07-08 06:48:12 PM

MrHelpful: Wow...your name calling is amazingly underwhelming. By the way, with regard to Obama not being a king, maybe you should pass a note to him so he knows. Because, from the way he acts, it's King Obama, 24/7, every day of the week, we never close. Especially with that nose permanently stuck in the air.


You mean the same Obama who spent his whole term trying in vain to compromise with the republicans in the naive assumption that they weren't willing to destroy this country in order to make him a one termer, that King Obama?
 
2012-07-08 06:49:44 PM

ronaprhys: Not sure why I should care about those. Bush managed to get all sorts of nonsense pushed through, even when he had a Democrat congress to deal with. Obama seems damned near incapable of anything past the HRA.


The Democratic congress didn't have the same simple minded goal of stopping everything the other side tried to do as the republicans STATED OPENLY that they did.
 
2012-07-08 06:51:00 PM

intelligent comment below: clowncar on fire: In times of war, you take prisoners.


There was a declaration of war? When?

clowncar on fire: That being said: wrong place, wrong time. As you mentioned- they were eventually vindicated and sent home. Many of these innocents continue being in the wrong place at the wrong time once released.


But you just said it was better for society to lock them all up indefinitely even though most had no connections at all to AQ or the Taliban? Can you please make up your mind? Are they guilty or not? Your accusation at the end appears to be that they are all guilty of taking up arms against an invading foreign army. Perhaps you have some evidence of continued arrest and links to terror groups... doubtful. Just blowing smoke like all the other idiot shills who have invaded the internet, especially around election season.


Now you're just being silly and adding words again- "indefinitely"?

We caught some really bad people- regardless of their affiliation to the Taliban or AQ. There just so happened to be a few not so bad people found associating with them at the time who were also taken. Since then- some have been cleared and released. WE are still holding some bad people who haven't given us any reason to believe they won't just turn around and continue being naughty if we did let them go. Heck- even some of the ones we cleared keep showing up in the wrong place doing naughty things.

If these were Americans,one would think we could neatly wrap this thing up and be over with it. We still have real 'mericans stuck on death row who have been there for decades. You toss in the fact that these prisoners are foreign combatants subject bot to international as well as local and military law- Gitmo won't be going away any time soon.
 
2012-07-08 06:51:03 PM
Mugato: The Democratic congress didn't have the same simple minded goal of stopping everything the other side tried to do as the republicans STATED OPENLY that they did.

THIS. The moment they stated this, States should have honestly thought about recalling the people with this mindset.
 
2012-07-08 06:53:06 PM

BronyMedic: Mugato: The Democratic congress didn't have the same simple minded goal of stopping everything the other side tried to do as the republicans STATED OPENLY that they did.

THIS. The moment they stated this, States should have honestly thought about recalling the people with this mindset.


"Treason" might be an over statement but not by much.
 
2012-07-08 06:55:00 PM

Mugato: ronaprhys: Not sure why I should care about those. Bush managed to get all sorts of nonsense pushed through, even when he had a Democrat congress to deal with. Obama seems damned near incapable of anything past the HRA.

The Democratic congress didn't have the same simple minded goal of stopping everything the other side tried to do as the republicans STATED OPENLY that they did.


Actually, they did. Pelosi was very clear on her opposition. She just wasn't particularly good at it.

That being said, the partisan politics are one of the many reasons to not support either side.
 
2012-07-08 06:55:59 PM
Mugato: "Treason" might be an over statement but not by much.

Our system of Government only works when people are willing to compromise to get the best solution for both parties involved. When that stops, our Government grinds to a halt.

But, that's what you get for electing hard-line, right winged anti-Government wingnuts into office under their tea party platforms. And you people got what you asked for. No Compromise doesn't work with a representative democracy.
 
2012-07-08 06:57:34 PM

Mugato: RogermcAllen: I don't get all of the HOA hate.

If your HOA really is that shiatty get together with your neighbors and take over the board. Oh wait, that would actually require getting off your ass and doing something instead of just complaining all of the time.

/recently bought into a HOA community
//got elected to the HOA board just by taking an hour out of my year to actually attend the annual meeting (I was the only non-board member there)
/// If you can't get your neighbors to agree to vote the board out, then the HOA is probably doing just in their book and you are most likely the problem

You walk around measuring the height of people's grass because PROPERTY VALUES! Right?


You don't vote because it wouldn't make a difference anyway, right?

/you can't fix the problem unless you are willing to get your hands dirty
 
2012-07-08 07:11:37 PM

RogermcAllen: You don't vote because it wouldn't make a difference anyway, right?

/you can't fix the problem unless you are willing to get your hands dirty


Well you only have one vote. Don't look at me, I'm not dumb enough to buy into a HOA.
 
2012-07-08 07:21:15 PM

BronyMedic: Holy crap, you're a pretentious little wingnut.



Got caught making a ridiculous claim, couldn't back it up, now crying like a little girl. Typical. Go get an education, son. You're a waste of oxygen right now.
 
2012-07-08 07:22:15 PM

What_do_you_want_now: Wow, someone is just squatting and threadshiatting all over the place in here. I mean, the headline was giggle-worthy, and expected a chuckle in here. But this "intelligent comment below" guy just needs someone to scream in his face for about an hour, just scream, and maybe he'll have an idea of what everyone else is reading.

I mean, really, why ARE you mad, bro?



Thanks for that waste of text.

Can't debate what I say
check
Can't backup your own opinions or arguments
check
 
2012-07-08 07:23:34 PM

BronyMedic: intelligent comment below: You specifically made the claim of enemy combatant and yet that phrase is nowhere to be found in the Convention. So tell me again, who's intellectually dishonest? Insert foot into mouth, walk away.

The phrase "Enemy Combatant" was a strawman you decided to argue, and is indeed found nowhere in the Geneva Convention.

What is found, however, among Articles IV and V of the Third Geneva Convention, are VERY SPECIFIC definitions of people who are considered legitimate belligerant parties in times of international conflict, and are entitled to the protections of POWs under the convention, which was what I stated.



The phrase ENEMY COMBATANT was a strawman you decided to CREATE to make your argument appear valid.

You might want to check your history with your claim that America killed all the POW's, or "lined them up against a wall" as you phrased it.

Not only did you fail in creating the strawman and got called out, but you failed at creating history that didn't exist. Go away, you're useless. Did you even pass your high school history class?
 
2012-07-08 07:23:47 PM
intelligent comment below: Got caught making a ridiculous claim, couldn't back it up, now crying like a little girl. Typical. Go get an education, son. You're a waste of oxygen right now.

Except you didn't. I backed up everything I stated with citations from the Geneva Convention. You started insulting people like you usually do when you make a claim that you can't defend, and got called on your strawmanning to try to argue something that wasn't even in the original statement I made.

Good day, intelligent comment below. It's always nice to see when your knee jerk stupidity starts forcing you to backtrack and declare victory. It's pretty sad when you can predict how you behave by going by a cracked.com article.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
 
2012-07-08 07:24:27 PM

MrHelpful: Wow...your name calling is amazingly underwhelming. By the way, with regard to Obama not being a king, maybe you should pass a note to him so he knows. Because, from the way he acts, it's King Obama, 24/7, every day of the week, we never close. Especially with that nose permanently stuck in the air.



yawn. Is this your best response? Go back and try again
 
2012-07-08 07:25:20 PM

ronaprhys: As for trolling, you're spouting support for Obama like he's done no wrong and everything he shiats is gold. Seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.



citation needed


ronaprhys: Except that I don't support the Republicans. And that you're not particularly smart.


I refuted everything you tried throwing at me, so insulting my intelligence does not help you
 
2012-07-08 07:26:14 PM
Inserted into federal spending code for some reason...the President is forbidden by law to to spend money specifically to transfer the Gitmo inmates to the United States.
 
2012-07-08 07:26:18 PM

clowncar on fire: We caught some really bad people- regardless of their affiliation to the Taliban or AQ.



citation needed
 
2012-07-08 07:29:24 PM

BronyMedic: Except you didn't. I backed up everything I stated with citations from the Geneva Convention. You started insulting people like you usually do when you make a claim that you can't defend, and got called on your strawmanning to try to argue something that wasn't even in the original statement I made.



You did what now?

This is your claim

BronyMedic: They're considered illegitimate combatants under the Geneva convention.


FALSE.

They are considered POW's until a tribunal can decide what they are. America gave no such tribunal, rather it held them indefinitely with no trials and no evidence. Obama came into office, and released over 80% of them because there was NO EVIDENCE THEY TOOK UP ARMS OR DID ANYTHING WRONG.

It's a joke you think you actually made a case using the Geneva Convention and Gitmo being valid. You just self owned your own argument and you can't even see it
 
2012-07-08 07:29:33 PM
intelligent comment below: The phrase ENEMY COMBATANT was a strawman you decided to CREATE to make your argument appear valid.

The phrase I used was Illegitimate Combatant, or Francs-tieur. Those are the historical and correct terms. That's the great thing about FARK: You can alter what you quote from me all you want, but my original statement is still there.

The Phrase "Enemy Combatant" is a strawman you decided to make and argue from. Using that phrase as the definition of POW status, everyone who takes up arms against a belligerant state would be entitled to it, which is factually untrue.

intelligent comment below: You might want to check your history with your claim that America killed all the POW's, or "lined them up against a wall" as you phrased it.

Holy crap, really?!

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

It wasn't until the Third and Fourth Geneva conventions that guidelines were established for the treatment of Francs Tieurs who conducted their actions in accordance with the laws of international conflict.

intelligent comment below: Not only did you fail in creating the strawman and got called out, but you failed at creating history that didn't exist. Go away, you're useless. Did you even pass your high school history class?

Ok, admit it. At this point, you're pretty much just trolling me to see if you can get me upset, right?

I know you're more intelligent than this. Really, I know you are.
 
2012-07-08 07:30:23 PM

BronyMedic: Good day, intelligent comment below. It's always nice to see when your knee jerk stupidity starts forcing you to backtrack and declare victory. It's pretty sad when you can predict how you behave by going by a cracked.com article.



Yeah don't you just hate it when I back track and provide you WITH YOUR OWN WORDS YOU USED to justify your argument? Then show why it was wrong? I hate it when that happens, damn words.
 
2012-07-08 07:32:07 PM
intelligent comment below: They are considered POW's until a tribunal can decide what they are. America gave no such tribunal, rather it held them indefinitely with no trials and no evidence. Obama came into office, and released over 80% of them because there was NO EVIDENCE THEY TOOK UP ARMS OR DID ANYTHING WRONG.

Wrong.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf

After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
to hear legal challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism (Rasul v. Bush), the Pentagon established
administrative hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" (CSRTs), to allow the
detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants, and informed them of their right to pursue
relief in federal court by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Lawyers subsequently filed dozens of
petitions on behalf of the detainees in the District Court for the District of Columbia, where
district court judges reached inconsistent conclusions as to whether the detainees have any
enforceable rights to challenge their treatment and detention.

In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced a new definitional standard for the
government's authority to detain terrorist suspects, which does not use the phrase "enemy
combatant" to refer to persons who may be properly detained. The new standard is similar in
scope to the "enemy combatant" standard used by the Bush Administration to detain terrorist
suspects. The standard would permit the detention of members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and
associated forces, along with persons who provide "substantial support" to such groups,
regardless of whether such persons were captured away from the battlefield in Afghanistan.
Courts that have considered the Executive's authority to detain under the AUMF and law of war
have reached differing conclusions as to the scope of this detention authority. In January 2010, a
D.C. Circuit panel held that support for or membership in an AUMF-targeted organization may
constitute a sufficient ground to justify military detention.
 
2012-07-08 07:34:12 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: bearcats1983: Mugato: chiett: Oh, didn't Obama shut that down ?

No he didn't and that sucks.

Wasn't this one of Obama's major talking points during his campaign? Why aren't more Obama supporters angry about this?

Because we know full well that he tried very hard to do so and the Republicans in Congress blocked him?


Those Republicans are true, redwhiteandblue patriots, who want to show how serious they are about protecting us from them thar SCARY, SCARY TERRISTS, not like those pussy Dems who only care about human rights, and that's socialism and goes against GAAAHHHD and JEEEZUS.

Y'all.
 
2012-07-08 07:35:11 PM

BronyMedic: The phrase I used was Illegitimate Combatant, or Francs-tieur. Those are the historical and correct terms. That's the great thing about FARK: You can alter what you quote from me all you want, but my original statement is still there.

The Phrase "Enemy Combatant" is a strawman you decided to make and argue from. Using that phrase as the definition of POW status, everyone who takes up arms against a belligerant state would be entitled to it, which is factually untrue.



A strawman? The phrase enemy combatant was a phrase USED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and yourself with a variation of it.

Now you're just getting desperate here.

BronyMedic: Holy crap, really?!

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

It wasn't until the Third and Fourth Geneva conventions that guidelines were established for the treatment of Francs Tieurs who conducted their actions in accordance with the laws of international conflict.


Holy crap, really? You do realize America always kept POW's in fair conditions for basically, ever. Except for scattered treatment here and there. You claimed America lined up and shot them all, which is false and always has been.

BronyMedic: Ok, admit it. At this point, you're pretty much just trolling me to see if you can get me upset, right?

I know you're more intelligent than this. Really, I know you are.



You couldn't even back up your own claims that America used the Geneva Convention to hold them "indefinitely" when the convention itself calls for a tribunal to decide. You self owned your FIRST CLAIMED ARGUMENT

Then your second argument was treatment of POW's that was never historically accurate to America.

And lastly you resort to the cries of strawman, trolling, etc. It's a weak argument you lost from the start, be a man and admit you have no historical knowledge to be debating this topic and move on.
 
2012-07-08 07:37:10 PM

BronyMedic: In March 2009



In 2009 is a key phrase.

Do you know how to read?

So your claim of following the Geneva Convention only started in 2009

Most were held since 2001/2002

Finally, can you admit Gitmo made a mockery of the same convention you claimed validated its existence?
 
2012-07-08 07:42:13 PM
intelligent comment below: A strawman? The phrase enemy combatant was a phrase USED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and yourself with a variation of it.

Now you're just getting desperate here.


So now you're trying to drag me into an argument I never made? I never mentioned the Bush Administration, or any of their definitions. You Did. What I did mention, on the other hand, was the legality in the international court of doing what they did.

intelligent comment below: Holy crap, really? You do realize America always kept POW's in fair conditions for basically, ever. Except for scattered treatment here and there. You claimed America lined up and shot them all, which is false and always has been.

Except that's completely untrue, and there are numerous documented cases of American Forces massacring or summarily executing prisoners of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Teardrop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canicatt%C3%AC_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacre
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,692037,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead


Oh, and the fact that people who are held at Gitmo are considered to be Francs-Tieurs, not POWs, by the United States. That's a big difference.

intelligent comment below:
You couldn't even back up your own claims that America used the Geneva Convention to hold them "indefinitely" when the convention itself calls for a tribunal to decide. You self owned your FIRST CLAIMED ARGUMENT Then your second argument was treatment of POW's that was never historically accurate to America. And lastly you resort to the cries of strawman, trolling, etc. It's a weak argument you lost from the start, be a man and admit you have no historical knowledge to be debating this topic and move on.
 
2012-07-08 07:44:07 PM
intelligent comment below: In 2009 is a key phrase.

Do you know how to read?

So your claim of following the Geneva Convention only started in 2009

Most were held since 2001/2002


I could ask you the same question. However, at this point, I'm just going to ignore you. You're entire line of conversation on this has been completely intellectually dishonest, filled with selective quoting, ignoring what I say, revisionist history, and blatent strawmanning/trolling.
 
2012-07-08 07:49:29 PM

intelligent comment below: What_do_you_want_now: Wow, someone is just squatting and threadshiatting all over the place in here. I mean, the headline was giggle-worthy, and expected a chuckle in here. But this "intelligent comment below" guy just needs someone to scream in his face for about an hour, just scream, and maybe he'll have an idea of what everyone else is reading.

I mean, really, why ARE you mad, bro?


Thanks for that waste of text.

Can't debate what I say
check
Can't backup your own opinions or arguments
check


Not debating or even making points, but really man, you sound mad.

....or trolling beautifully.

If trolling, continue.
If mad, please seek professional help. If you come by my office and mention "FARK.com", I may give your insurance company a reduced rate.
 
2012-07-08 07:50:59 PM
What_do_you_want_now: If mad, please seek professional help. If you come by my office and mention "FARK.com", I may give your insurance company a reduced rate.

Do you see many people who suffer from Third Degree Butthurt from FARK?
 
2012-07-08 08:00:43 PM

BronyMedic: What_do_you_want_now: If mad, please seek professional help. If you come by my office and mention "FARK.com", I may give your insurance company a reduced rate.

Do you see many people who suffer from Third Degree Butthurt from FARK?


Honestly, after a wilting look into the Politics tab once, maybe I should look into offering counselling and therapy services tailored to these individuals.

Group Discount, even?
 
2012-07-08 08:07:12 PM

lack of warmth: Cataholic: NFA: "Your HOA still won't allow a flag in the front yard "

Anyone who buys a house with a Home Owners Association gets the tyrannical government they deserve.

Hint: HOA's are actually considered local government

In Florida, we have a statute that prevents HOAs from restricting flagpoles. Is a beautiful thing.

In the USA we have the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, if anyone would like to look it up and read it to a HOA since they can't understand some things are outside their jurisdiction.

/you can't make me admit to Florida being part of my country


This. It's a federal law stating that an HOA cannot legally prohibit the display of the US flag. It may place some restrictions on the flagpole type and size (so no 50-foot flagpoles) and other reasonable restrictions. Here you go:

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

7/24/2006--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 - States that a condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent an association member from displaying the U.S. flag on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use. States that nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with: (1) federal law or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag; or (2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium, cooperative, or residential real estate management association.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr42
 
2012-07-08 08:31:36 PM

intelligent comment below: ronaprhys: As for trolling, you're spouting support for Obama like he's done no wrong and everything he shiats is gold. Seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


citation needed


ronaprhys: Except that I don't support the Republicans. And that you're not particularly smart.

I refuted everything you tried throwing at me, so insulting my intelligence does not help you


Actually, no you didn't. And no citations are needed. Scroll down.

And no, you aren't particularly smart. You've been called on your nonsense then decided to try and move the goal posts (I call it that to be generous to you. What you actually did was try and fail miserably).

You are a failure at life.
 
2012-07-08 08:35:08 PM
60 Minutes: Obama Reiterates Promise To Close Guantanamo Bay, End Torture

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....

Of course...if Mittens wins in November he will torture them to death and then baptize them...

 
2012-07-08 08:35:57 PM

St_Francis_P: One reason I won't live in suburbia; I've heard too many HOA horror stories.


It's not the horror stories that bug me, it's the concept of my neighbors having any say in how I live my life provided that my life stays within my plot of land.

Obviously there are things like smells, noises, and chemicals, but I'm not here to improve your property value.

And ironically, I drive up property values because whenever I buy a home I buy it with enough 'buffer' around it that I don't give a damn if my neighbors do have 3 broken down trucks in their front yard.

You should just accept the fact that if you are buying a house on an overdeveloped plot with your bedroom window 6' from your neighbor's kitchen window that you should be happy if ALL you see are a few warts.
 
2012-07-08 08:36:10 PM

intelligent comment below: So why aren't you blaming your politicians who blocked Obama from closing it?


Sorry. I'll consult you next time so that I cover everything that you want to hear.
 
2012-07-08 08:40:57 PM

Mugato: Catsaregreen: And our HOA is pretty relaxed about overgrown grass (they don't care), but they do get anal about trees/bushes encroaching into the roads (for good reason). Even then, they send a note before getting a fine-y.

And, best of all, there's a house on my commute home that's NOT in our subdivision, but is completely covered with car parts, dead appliances and a goat. And the next-door neighbor's house has been up for sale for at least 3 years. Yeah, good luck ever selling that one.

Well I suppose it depends on the HOA. My dad lives in one who are total assholes. And even though his place is impeccable, they really do have busy bodies walking around scanning for anything they can cite people for, all in the name of their "property values", which everyone knows is just a bullshiat excuse for exacting control over others. Most of them are so old, even if any of that nonsense did affect their property values, they'll be dead before they could sell the house anyway. They should be glad for the lower property taxes.


I'm starting to wish my dad DID live in one. Just visited yesterday and for the second month in a row, his lawn looks like a jungle, there's a thistle growing from the sidewalk that's taller than anyone I know, some sort of wild grape vine is slowly but surely taking over his ginormous pine tree (this worries me because it's the last pine on the block that hasn't fallen due to wind storms or over-saturated ground), and lastly there's a nightshade vine taking over his front bushes. This along with 8-12" tall grass is starting to piss me off.

He was pretty sick and hospitalized late last year/January, but he still managed to find the strength to get married and start doing stuff with the new wife, so... yeah, he's just being that lazy neighbor that everyone hates. And because he got married, he doesn't apparently have any money to have a professional take care of it.
 
2012-07-08 08:41:21 PM
I'm also curious of the claim that the government isn't bound by the Constitution outside of the US.

That's a disturbing load of bullshiat. If the US government somehow built a colony on a planet 4 billion light years away the Constitution would still apply even there because the Constitution is literally the thing which gives the US government permission to exist. It's a granting of powers, so by definition, if the US government is doing anything it claims isn't 'covered' by the Constitution, then it has no legitimate authority to do so.
 
2012-07-08 08:50:47 PM
kim jong-un: I'm also curious of the claim that the government isn't bound by the Constitution outside of the US.

As I understand it, Martial Law doctrine governs occipation areas until control is turned over to local Governments. Under Martial Law, certain provisions of the United States constitution, like Habeas Corpus, right of free travel and the four primary freedoms, are subject to restrictions.
 
2012-07-08 08:51:42 PM
.... but to be fair, people who put flags in the front of their yards are jerks.
 
2012-07-08 08:58:21 PM
farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-07-08 09:24:40 PM
He WOULD have shut it down, if the Republicans would let him. But since they're on their little "Do everything we can to oppose Obama at every turn for every thing" kick, enjoy having Gitmo open for a while longer.

No one to blame but yourselves, Conservatives.
 
2012-07-08 10:25:52 PM

dbrunker: [farm5.staticflickr.com image 500x287]


So vote Republican!
 
2012-07-08 10:38:43 PM

clowncar on fire: lack of warmth: Cataholic: NFA: "Your HOA still won't allow a flag in the front yard "

Anyone who buys a house with a Home Owners Association gets the tyrannical government they deserve.

Hint: HOA's are actually considered local government

In Florida, we have a statute that prevents HOAs from restricting flagpoles. Is a beautiful thing.

In the USA we have the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, if anyone would like to look it up and read it to a HOA since they can't understand some things are outside their jurisdiction.

/you can't make me admit to Florida being part of my country

Unless of course you forgo that right as a condition for living in that neighborhood when you enter the HOA agreement.
Hmmm... I can't fly a flag whenever I get the urge, but damn these streets sure look nice...

Most HOA's ignore the flag thing around the holiday. The flag thing is an attempt to keep people from putting up sport fan flags, and gawdy "love my Siamese cat" banners- not to keep people from showing their patriotism.

I seasonally hang a 4x6 flag and noone has said anything about it for the last 5 years


The Act states that no landlord or HOA can even put American flag rules into the agreement. Of course the Act doesn't protect other flags and if people don't want too many flags waving that is up to those people. Whether they 'ignore' the Flag around holidays matters not since they by no legal means can tell you to take it down.
 
2012-07-08 10:39:42 PM
lack of warmth: The Act states that no landlord or HOA can even put American flag rules into the agreement. Of course the Act doesn't protect other flags and if people don't want too many flags waving that is up to those people. Whether they 'ignore' the Flag around holidays matters not since they by no legal means can tell you to take it down.

Can they still get on you for not displaying it properly according to the US Flag Code? There's specific rules, for example, when it comes to display and time of day/weather.
 
2012-07-08 10:59:50 PM

BronyMedic: lack of warmth: The Act states that no landlord or HOA can even put American flag rules into the agreement. Of course the Act doesn't protect other flags and if people don't want too many flags waving that is up to those people. Whether they 'ignore' the Flag around holidays matters not since they by no legal means can tell you to take it down.

Can they still get on you for not displaying it properly according to the US Flag Code? There's specific rules, for example, when it comes to display and time of day/weather.


Deernuts posted the whole thing above. What got me going is HOA's that have told folks under no terms they are allowed to fly their Flag and that some folks don't know they have some rights protected by the Flag Act of 2005. Especially when one condominium told a veteran he couldn't fly a regular size flag on a pole attached to his condo. I saw it in the paper, it was not ostentatious by any stretch. The Act was all that kept him from getting kicked out once they had their mind set.

I don't have a HOA and I do have a Flag once flown over the White House. All I need is the pole (the thing is huge), but I wouldn't leave it out over night. I would want it to last. I agree with the US Flag Code, but don't tell me it can never fly.
 
2012-07-08 11:29:34 PM

What_do_you_want_now: Not debating or even making points, but really man, you sound mad.

....or trolling beautifully.

If trolling, continue.
If mad, please seek professional help. If you come by my office and mention "FARK.com", I may give your insurance company a reduced rate.



So you just get angry at what I say and feel the need to troll and poke me, thinking you're making me upset? Sounds like you should stop projecting there, son.
 
2012-07-08 11:30:34 PM

fireclown: intelligent comment below: So why aren't you blaming your politicians who blocked Obama from closing it?

Sorry. I'll consult you next time so that I cover everything that you want to hear.



No need, I already have you on a long list of known trolls here. These conversations are done
 
2012-07-08 11:31:36 PM

Hugemeister: 60 Minutes: Obama Reiterates Promise To Close Guantanamo Bay, End Torture Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....Of course...if Mittens wins in November he will torture them to death and then baptize them...



Obama has ended torture, and expedited release of those without evidence and tribunals to those with evidence. This is all after Republicans blocked his order to close it. Sounds like he's doing exactly what he said within the limits of Constitutional powers?
 
2012-07-08 11:32:42 PM

ronaprhys: Actually, no you didn't. And no citations are needed. Scroll down.

And no, you aren't particularly smart. You've been called on your nonsense then decided to try and move the goal posts (I call it that to be generous to you. What you actually did was try and fail miserably).

You are a failure at life.



Move what goal posts? I specifically addressed everything you said. You have no reply so now you're just crying troll, goal posts, and now personally insulting me. You have no idea who I am or what I do, but you're sure I'm a failure huh. Projection, it's the new in thing
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report