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.

(Reason Magazine)   Obama supporters are interviewed about Mitt Romney's policies on surveillance, detention, and kill lists...then they find out Obama has endorsed those policies too. Their reaction? Just watch   (reason.com) divider line 250
    More: Dumbass, Mitt Romney, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, make excuses, Burning Man, Dear Leader, child custody  
•       •       •

3079 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 2:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-01 10:35:01 PM
So, vote Republican obviously.
 
2012-11-01 10:41:29 PM

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


Such a tactic would NEVER work on a Romney supporter. Mostly because Romney doesn't have a stance on anything but also because Romney supporters only care about getting the near out of their White House.
 
2012-11-01 10:43:14 PM
It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.
 
2012-11-01 10:44:32 PM

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


Obviously. I mean, if you're mad at Obama for something and Romney promises to continue it, you should clearly vote for Romney! Because, you know, he's white.
 
2012-11-01 10:56:53 PM
So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!
 
2012-11-01 11:00:06 PM
So you're saying he's much more aggressive in anti-terrorism than Bush was, has a hell of a track record under his belt, and has turned "Al-Qaeda's number two man" into a synonym for "zero life expectancy"?

Ok. I concede your point.

Go ahead. Bring up the DJIA next. I dare you.
 
2012-11-01 11:04:25 PM

kingoomieiii: t's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.


Even worse are the people who will vote Romney because of the economy.

Obama wants to raise taxes so vote for the guy who profits from closing businesses.
 
2012-11-01 11:43:48 PM
Done in one.
 
2012-11-01 11:51:16 PM

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


or don't vote as a lot of dems have apparently decided to do.
 
2012-11-02 12:07:55 AM

Mrbogey: or don't vote as a lot of dems have apparently decided to do.


If you vote, you have no right to complain.
 
2012-11-02 12:17:10 AM

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


No, vote for neither party. The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.
 
2012-11-02 12:25:02 AM

slayer199: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

No, vote for neither party. The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


I like how you say they are the same and prove it by saying they're different. It's real convincing. Also that trying to save SS is clearly the same as privatizing it, they're definitely the same. The endless stream of Republicans saying both sides are the same continues. Mostly because no Democrat is dumb enough to say something like that.
 
2012-11-02 12:27:17 AM

Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!


This. There are dumbshiats on both sides.

The point is to NOT elect the dumbshiat as president. America did that from 2000-2008 and it left us really farked up.
 
2012-11-02 12:52:24 AM

slayer199: The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


yeah. The koch brothers are pumping tons of cash into the Romneys campaign because both sides are the same in every thing but rhetoric. that makes total sense.
 
2012-11-02 01:02:26 AM

slayer199: The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


This is a lazy, bullshiat argument.

It's possible that one can find them equally distasteful, but this "they're the same" crap is ridiculous.
 
2012-11-02 01:08:03 AM
Romney does actually support the NDAA, warrantless wiretaps, the TSA, and all forms of Orwellian government. So does Obama. So we're kinda farked either way, huh?
 
2012-11-02 01:17:09 AM

adjmcloon: the TSA, and all forms of Orwellian government.


Ha!
 
2012-11-02 01:21:43 AM
The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.

There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?
 
2012-11-02 01:26:22 AM
We told you guys repeatedly, Republicans won't be in charge forever. Whatever precedent is set will be used by future administrations. If the tools are available, even a decent guy like Obama is going to be tempted to use them. Road to hell and all that.
 
2012-11-02 01:29:05 AM

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.

There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?


perfectly stated.
 
2012-11-02 01:33:44 AM

hubiestubert: We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system.


If we believe in the supremacy of our system, we let that happen.

Otherwise we have a justice system of "Hold ma beer and watch this!"
 
2012-11-02 02:07:45 AM

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.


Sounds like they should never have been detained. And if so, then we have to let them out and face the consequences. This is why so many were opposed to the detentions and the subsequent torture they endured.
 
2012-11-02 02:22:31 AM

Frederick: Sounds like they should never have been detained.


I think that was kind of his whole point.
 
2012-11-02 03:02:42 AM

The Great EZE: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

Such a tactic would NEVER work on a Romney supporter. Mostly because Romney doesn't have a stance on anything but also because Romney supporters only care about getting the near out of their White House.


THIS. The guy has taken more positions than Sasha Grey.
 
2012-11-02 03:08:51 AM
We're all missing the real story here, which is that Mitt Romney apparently has a policy on something other than the black guy is socialist and magic underwear is awesome.
 
2012-11-02 03:09:50 AM
Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.
 
2012-11-02 03:11:05 AM
Democrats failed to stop the Republicans from advancing their authoritarian policies, so vote Republican.
 
2012-11-02 03:12:07 AM
Let's see...

There's the guy I disagree with on a few things, and the guy I disagree with about everything.

It's a good thing I already voted.
 
2012-11-02 03:12:15 AM

Frederick: hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Sounds like they should never have been detained. And if so, then we have to let them out and face the consequences. This is why so many were opposed to the detentions and the subsequent torture they endured.


Welcome to the point. They should NEVER have been in Gitmo in the first place. But now we're stuck with them unless you can find a President and a Congress willing to take risk of freeing them and having one turn around and bomb a plane because a decade in Gitmo turned him into a terrorist.
 
2012-11-02 03:12:59 AM

stoli n coke: The Great EZE: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

Such a tactic would NEVER work on a Romney supporter. Mostly because Romney doesn't have a stance on anything but also because Romney supporters only care about getting the near out of their White House.

THIS. The guy has taken more positions than Sasha Grey.


What did porn stars ever do to you?
 
2012-11-02 03:14:43 AM
I wish I had a double burger...
 
2012-11-02 03:15:30 AM
The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.
 
2012-11-02 03:16:44 AM

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.


What is this world coming to? It's so annoying when you can't arbitrarily imprison innocent people!
 
2012-11-02 03:18:03 AM

James F. Campbell: Democrats failed to stop the Republicans from advancing their authoritarian policies, so vote Republican.


I read a David Brooks editorial that basically boiled down to "You should vote for Romney because Obama won't be able to get anything done due to congressional obstructionism from the GOP".

/BSABSVR
 
2012-11-02 03:18:56 AM
Obama and Romney have incredibly different positions and would have incredibly different administrations. "They're virtually the same" is absolute horseshiat.

That said, there are several issues the two major parties fail to address, and it's alarming to say the least that there's no real choice on things like drone strikes or drug policy. But just because your most important issues aren't being represented doesn't mean the election's outcome has no consequences.
 
2012-11-02 03:20:25 AM
I'm sure if you unleashed a reporter in rural trailer parks in Alabama they would offer articulate, well-informed opinions on why they're voting for Mitt Romney.
 
2012-11-02 03:21:21 AM

Aaron Haynes: Obama and Romney have incredibly different positions and would have incredibly different administrations. "They're virtually the same" is absolute horseshiat.

That said, there are several issues the two major parties fail to address, and it's alarming to say the least that there's no real choice on things like drone strikes or drug policy. But just because your most important issues aren't being represented doesn't mean the election's outcome has no consequences.



Exactly. Perfectly stated.

fusillade762: I read a David Brooks editorial that basically boiled down to "You should vote for Romney because Obama won't be able to get anything done due to congressional obstructionism from the GOP".


Ugh. "These guys are so insane they won't work with the President towards the common good, so we should probably just give them what they want."

 
 
2012-11-02 03:21:37 AM

Genevieve Marie: Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.


Except that on almost every issue regarding civil liberties, Obama has been garbage as well. It's not about disagreeing on just one issue. Numerous issues including the ones in the article have been black eyes on his first term, at least to those people holding him to a decent standard of a progressive. His half-hearted attempt at support for gay marriage can barely count. I'm sick of hearing people continuing the mistakes of supporting a broken system and calling that pragmatic. Pragmatism is about what works and what's practical and clearly the system we have isn't working any more.
 
2012-11-02 03:24:58 AM
And Romney supporters wear shirts like this. Stupid people occupy all positions on the political spectrum. However, I will still never support Romney.

ayannanahmias.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-02 03:27:46 AM

FedExPope: Genevieve Marie: Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.

Except that on almost every issue regarding civil liberties, Obama has been garbage as well. It's not about disagreeing on just one issue. Numerous issues including the ones in the article have been black eyes on his first term, at least to those people holding him to a decent standard of a progressive. His half-hearted attempt at support for gay marriage can barely count. I'm sick of hearing people continuing the mistakes of supporting a broken system and calling that pragmatic. Pragmatism is about what works and what's practical and clearly the system we have isn't working any more.


Facts are that no radical overhaul of the system is going to occur in the next five days, and the next President is going to pick Supreme Court Justices that will hang out on that bench for the next several decades. It strikes me as very pragmatic to choose the person you think will at least pick competent justices and who won't make the system any worse than it is currently.
 
 
2012-11-02 03:32:50 AM
I live in Ohio and I voted on 10/17/2012. Went to a Bill Clinton rally at OCC today.

You'll like the prez I pick for you guys.

Trust me, trust Ohio.
 
2012-11-02 03:33:18 AM

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.

There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?


There are attempts to try prisoners in Gitmo, but everytime we attend one of these dog and pony shows a trial accidentally breaks out. This isn't even getting into the fact that the GOP Congress uses it's spending oversight to block the financing of trials for Gitmo prisoners, and blocked the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to transfer Guantanamo detainees to.
 
2012-11-02 03:35:06 AM

Atomic Spunk: The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.


For these kinds of "Look at how stupid group X is!" interviews, they'll usually talk to an enormous number of people until they find a few either ignorant enough or nervous enough on camera to make dumb mistakes. Add a few leading questions and a sprinkle of dishonest editing and you can make a room full of Mensa grads look like inbred morons.
 
2012-11-02 03:35:21 AM

Atomic Spunk: The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.


applies to all life. not just when you're before a camera.
 
2012-11-02 03:35:35 AM
George Washington killed a bunch of British people, but Britain is our ally. So isn't he a war criminal?

/same logic
 
2012-11-02 03:39:33 AM

Genevieve Marie: FedExPope: Genevieve Marie: Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.

Except that on almost every issue regarding civil liberties, Obama has been garbage as well. It's not about disagreeing on just one issue. Numerous issues including the ones in the article have been black eyes on his first term, at least to those people holding him to a decent standard of a progressive. His half-hearted attempt at support for gay marriage can barely count. I'm sick of hearing people continuing the mistakes of supporting a broken system and calling that pragmatic. Pragmatism is about what works and what's practical and clearly the system we have isn't working any more.

Facts are that no radical overhaul of the system is going to occur in the next five days, and the next President is going to pick Supreme Court Justices that will hang out on that bench for the next several decades. It strikes me as very pragmatic to choose the person you think will at least pick competent justices and who won't make the system any worse than it is currently.


And five days from the next Presidential election we'll be having this same conversation. It's never going to be the perfect time to overhaul the system. In another 4 years, we'll be in the same position and people will be saying then, as they are now, how this isn't the election to make these changes. We're not going to have any less on the line 4 years from now. Now, I realize that nobody is ever going to be truly and completely aligned with any one party, but if Obama is the best we can do, then I have little hope that the next election will present us with better options unless we make it known that we will no longer support having the mere appearance of a choice.
 
2012-11-02 03:43:18 AM

Genevieve Marie: fusillade762: I read a David Brooks editorial that basically boiled down to "You should vote for Romney because Obama won't be able to get anything done due to congressional obstructionism from the GOP".

Ugh. "These guys are so insane they won't work with the President towards the common good, so we should probably just give them what they want."


"Give in to the blackmail, it's your only choice."
 
2012-11-02 03:43:43 AM

FedExPope: but if Obama is the best we can do


Obama is, simply put, the best president we've had in at least my lifetime.
 
2012-11-02 03:44:52 AM

log_jammin: Atomic Spunk: The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.

applies to all life. not just when you're before a camera.


I agree. But it REALLY applies when you're on camera because then your bullshiat can't be denied or forgotten. If you're not on camera, you can always use the old " I didn't say that" excuse.
 
2012-11-02 03:47:30 AM
Let's interview republicans about the individual parts of the ACA, like coverage for pre-existing conditions, and see their reactions when they find out they support Obamacare.
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report