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
 
2012-11-02 03:49:43 AM

kingoomieiii: 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.


Exactly. These asshats have some weird logic. They pick a topic, show how pissed Dems are, then do the big reveal where they show it's actually Obama in the examples. They never deny that Romney has the same stance today, but have the expectation that now the Obama voters will switch.

I just don't get it.
 
2012-11-02 03:51:48 AM

Baryogenesis: 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.


It won't work. I tried that with one guy who loves that he can keep his kids on the policy until they're 26. I don't think he understood that the ACA made that possible. 

That's also why Romney's "first-day repeal" is bullshiat. Do you think his base will like him taking away something they didn't realize they like.

His healthcare plan is to take the ACA, cross out Obama's name on the cover page, and add his own.
 
2012-11-02 04:08:38 AM
So, let me get this straight: If Romney's doing x, y, and z, and Obama's doing x, -y, and -z, I should...what?

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat


This. Anyone who says they agree with a candidate 100% on every issue is most likely the candidate.
 
2012-11-02 04:19:52 AM

GAT_00: 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.


You mad, BRO?
 
2012-11-02 04:24:53 AM

Mikey1969: kingoomieiii: 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.

Exactly. These asshats have some weird logic. They pick a topic, show how pissed Dems are, then do the big reveal where they show it's actually Obama in the examples. They never deny that Romney has the same stance today, but have the expectation that now the Obama voters will switch.

I just don't get it.


I believe the larger point is that Obama hasn't convinced the Congress to close Gitmo, therefore we must invade Iran.
 
2012-11-02 04:28:41 AM

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


Yeah, The hell you say! 
 
2012-11-02 04:33:23 AM

InmanRoshi: Mikey1969: kingoomieiii: 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.

Exactly. These asshats have some weird logic. They pick a topic, show how pissed Dems are, then do the big reveal where they show it's actually Obama in the examples. They never deny that Romney has the same stance today, but have the expectation that now the Obama voters will switch.

I just don't get it.

I believe the larger point is that Obama hasn't convinced the Congress to close Gitmo, therefore we must invade Iran.


Well, we can't close Gitmo. Because... Freedom, and stuff.

Next you'll be telling us to try them IN AMERICAN COURTS ON SACRED AMERICAN SOIL!!!BLAHH!!!111

/sure hope we get to see what obama can try to fix with a 2nd term mandate
 
2012-11-02 04:34:59 AM

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


uneducated or busily living their lives, attending school, working, commuting, getting some sleep at night, tending to their families and having very little actual free time to themselves? and during that free time when they may seek to be less uneducated about current affairs their media sources are biased, slanted, watered down opinion programs being passed off as news?

we live in a fast paced complex society where it is difficult at best to be informed. most people don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of staying abreast of factual information of the world around them.
 
2012-11-02 04:48:04 AM

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

Yeah, The hell you say!


thank you for that.
 
2012-11-02 04:50:36 AM

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

uneducated or busily living their lives, attending school, working, commuting, getting some sleep at night, tending to their families and having very little actual free time to themselves? and during that free time when they may seek to be less uneducated about current affairs their media sources are biased, slanted, watered down opinion programs being passed off as news?

we live in a fast paced complex society where it is difficult at best to be informed. most people don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of staying abreast of factual information of the world around them.


I wouldnt have a problem buying in to your theory if it werent for those same people you mention being informed on who is left on Dancing With the Stars, what Snooki is up to, and the latest WWE drama.
 
2012-11-02 04:50:52 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 system of justice is framed by rules that do not permit prosecutors to run roughshod over due process. How is "We don't want them to go free" an argument against due process? Dubya eff'ed up; if we hold dear the principle of due process, then we have to set free those illegally detained.

hubiestubert: 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.


This makes no sense. A mess handed to us demands we clean it up. You keep saying we can't try them, but that's not true. And if we don't have evidence to hold them-- evidence that would be admissible in our own venerable courts of law-- then we should let them go. Either we believe in the ideals of our system, or we don't. Wrt pennies and pounds, we're the ones spouting off on human rights and due process, criticizing governments for detentions with no due process-- how 'bout we put our money where our mouth is?

hubiestubert: 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?


The difference you're trying to highlight begs the question entirely. The fact of warrantless wiretaps, special renditions, phantom indictments and denial of due process is the question. How can these be allowed to underpin indeterminate detentions? We cherish the constitutional rights to counsel, from self-incrimination, to a fair and speedy trial, and from cruel and unusual punishment. Explain how it is that anyone should be denied these rights, especially if these are rights we exhort other nations to grant their citizens? If the mere accusation is sufficient, then what, exactly, is the standard at which any of these rights realize their effect??
 
2012-11-02 05:09:00 AM

jodaveki: f we hold dear the principle of due process


Doesnt the evidence indicate that, in fact, we dont?

jodaveki: how 'bout we put our money where our mouth is?


Because being a hypocrite is so much easier and self serving.

jodaveki: Explain how it is that anyone should be denied these rights, especially if these are rights we exhort other nations to grant their citizens?


Your living in the past, man. Hasnt the war on drugs proven yet to you that rights are subjective?
 
2012-11-02 05:16:05 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.


What exactly about his support was "half-hearted" or an "attempt"? He supports gay marriage. He's the first president to do so, and he did it in an election year. The Democratic Party has adopted it into their platform, only eight years after Bush arguably used it as a wedge to win a second term. The cultural turnaround on this issue has been incredible. He repealed DADT and stopped defending DOMA. He supports all of the state ballot measures this year. This is the most gay-friendly president in US history. The idea that it's some throwaway gesture and it barely matters is ridiculous.

I'd be a lot more understanding of people who argue against voting for Obama because of the deep flaws in the system if there was even the slightest nod toward the value of incremental good. But I never see it, just this fatalistic sneering about how far everyone is from the perfect ideal. It's all solution and no strategy.
 
2012-11-02 05:27:44 AM

Aaron Haynes: I'd be a lot more understanding of people who argue against voting for Obama because of the deep flaws in the system if there was even the slightest nod toward the value of incremental good. But I never see it, just this fatalistic sneering about how far everyone is from the perfect ideal. It's all solution and no strategy.


Before the repeal of DADT, I was talking to someone here and they were angry that Obama hadn't repealed it. I told them that congress had to repeal it and that it couldn't be reversed by executive order. The reply was priceless, "well he should just do it anyway!".
 
2012-11-02 05:31:14 AM
Dredge up all the morons you want. Obama's never lied to me. Lying is Romney's way of life.
 
2012-11-02 05:33:26 AM

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


Reason is supposedly a Libertarian rag. It's been tracking Republican over the past decade or so, but still, the point is more likely BSABSV this guy:

www.tampabay.com


/Rolls dice...
//the site the dude mentions, wearechange.org, is a Gary Johnson blog. Looks kinda official.
 
2012-11-02 05:37:08 AM
That's the entire point of an election. Who are you comfortable with wielding the same executive power? The former community organizer, or the former corporate raider?

Of course I feel way better about Obama than Romney on the exact same policies. He's proven far more consistency between what he says and what he does. Romney can't even be consistent between what he says and what he says.
 
2012-11-02 05:40:28 AM

andrewagill: the point is more likely BSABSV this guy:


Who is a republican.
 
2012-11-02 05:44:19 AM

log_jammin: Aaron Haynes: I'd be a lot more understanding of people who argue against voting for Obama because of the deep flaws in the system if there was even the slightest nod toward the value of incremental good. But I never see it, just this fatalistic sneering about how far everyone is from the perfect ideal. It's all solution and no strategy.

Before the repeal of DADT, I was talking to someone here and they were angry that Obama hadn't repealed it. I told them that congress had to repeal it and that it couldn't be reversed by executive order. The reply was priceless, "well he should just do it anyway!".


Hahaha, sheesh.

I'm skeptical of how he might lead the charge on a federal recognition of same-sex marriage, too. Setting aside the political difficulty, a lot of states have it banned through their constitutions. Does a federal law immediately overturn that? Wouldn't there be a massive legal battle? Do we really want the Roberts Court deciding this? I'm all for holding Obama to his promises, but sometimes the criticism seems to just be that "he should do better", avoiding any discussion of how you actually make it happen.
 
2012-11-02 05:49:30 AM

Aaron Haynes: I'm skeptical of how he might lead the charge on a federal recognition of same-sex marriage, too.


It' going to come down to the SCOTUS, IMO. we'll just have to hope the right people retire in the next 4 years.
 
2012-11-02 05:59:06 AM

log_jammin: andrewagill: the point is more likely BSABSV this guy:

Who is a republican.


Fair enough. Much like Reason Magazine, the Libertarian Party has been tacking Republican since about 2000.

It's sad, but at least he's not Babar.
 
2012-11-02 06:13:57 AM

balloot: 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.


Apparently is the key word here. Romney apparently wanted to abolish FEMA until this week.
 
2012-11-02 06:32:41 AM

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

If you vote, you have no right to complain.


If you DON'T vote, you have no right to complain.
 
2012-11-02 06:37:04 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.


The hidden lesson is this: If you actually KNOW what you're talking about during the on camera interview, you're most likely to wind up on the cutting room floor.

/Maybe with Sasha Grey
 
2012-11-02 06:37:58 AM
Look I'm as anti-murder as the rest of you


Oh wait nobody is? Support the troops? Fing Terrists everywhere?
Ok then.

//at least obama doesn't want to add 2 trillion random dollars to DoD so they can build more invisible tanks and spider robots
///they'll just ask congress for a separate "trivial inventions that cost incredible amounts" bill
//// or a rider on the "sacrifice twentysomethings so old people don't yell at clouds" bill
 
2012-11-02 06:39:13 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.


about 1% of your dna is different than a chimps. Are you telling me that there isn't 1% difference? Or are you a chimp?
 
2012-11-02 06:40:19 AM

X-boxershorts: 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.

The hidden lesson is this: If you actually KNOW what you're talking about during the on camera interview, you're most likely to wind up on the cutting room floor.

/Maybe with Sasha Grey


I got briefly interviewed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at a John Kerry rally in 2004, was asked questions about my situation and why I supported him. The final story in the paper mentioned the rally, but not a word on me.
 
2012-11-02 06:45:47 AM

jodaveki: 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 system of justice is framed by rules that do not permit prosecutors to run roughshod over due process. How is "We don't want them to go free" an argument against due process? Dubya eff'ed up; if we hold dear the principle of due process, then we have to set free those illegally detained.

hubiestubert: 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.

This makes no sense. A mess handed to us demands we clean it up. You keep saying we can't try them, but that's not true. And if we don't have evidence to hold them-- evidence that would be admissible in our own venerable courts of law-- then we should let them go. Either we believe in the ideals of our system, or we don't. Wrt pennies and pounds, we're the ones spouting off on human rights and due process, criticizing governments for detentions with no due process-- how 'bout we put our money where our mouth is?

hubiestubert: 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 are ...


Congratulations. You got my point. It IS shameful. It is also what we handed a fella, and then told him as a nation, that we don't want these folks in OUR prisons or courts. Worse, we ignored due process and then demanded that he do SOMETHING about terrorists, but not in our backyard.

Just to be clear: when the chain of evidence IS preserved, we CAN try folks. And have.

Ramzi Yousef-Captured in Pakistan, convicted for role in Bojinka plot in 1996, convicted for role in 1993 WTC bombing, sent to ADX Florence.

Wali Khan Amin Shah-Captured in Manila, convicted for role in Bojinka plot, sent to ADX Florence

Abdul Hakim Ali Hashim Murad - Captured in Manila, convicted for role in Bojinka plot, sent to ADX Florence

Eyad Ismoil - Captured in Amman, extradited to US, convicted of role in 1993 WTC bombing, sent to ADX Florence

Khalfan Khamis Mohamed-Captured in Cape Town, convicted of 1998 Embassy bombings, sent to ADX Florence

Mahmud Abouhalima-Captured in Egypt, convicted of 1993 WTC bombings, sent to ADX Florence

Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali-Convicted of 1998 Embassy bombings, sent to ADX Florence

Mohammed Odeh-Captured in Karachi, convicted of 1998 Embassy bombings, sent to ADX Florence

Mohammed A. Salameh-Convicted of involvement in 1993 WTC bombing, sent to ADX Florence

Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad-Captured in Germany, convicted of federal crimes related to funding Hamas, sent to ADX Florence

Apparently, Colorado hasn't disappeared in a geyser of radioactive vapor from all the pure EVIL concentrated there...
 
2012-11-02 06:46:46 AM

kingoomieiii: 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.


sure, but election time is a good time to put pressure on an incumbent
 
2012-11-02 06:48:51 AM
Democracy requires an informed electorate, so there ya go.

This is what happens when you treat politics like a team sport.
 
2012-11-02 06:50:52 AM
OMG that video was so powerful it made me forget Romney/Ryan are the incarnations of everything I find disgusting, detestable, and wrong with humanity and American culture.
 
2012-11-02 07:03:10 AM

Genevieve Marie: 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.


Which is why it continues.
 
2012-11-02 07:13:44 AM
A neoliberal is nothing but a neoconservative from Chicago.
 
2012-11-02 07:20:29 AM

Magruda: Which is why it continues.


No... it continues because 3rd parties are so weak they can barely get elected to low level local governmental positions and haven't proved that they can be trusted with a high level elected position at all...

You want there to be a viable 3rd party, start small, prove your 3rd party is worth voting for on a local level and get them in control of the majority of positions in your town. Then, if they're successful at improving the situation, get them into the state level until they're in control of that by running on their success at a local level... prove that they can run a state government and be successful. You do that and I'll THINK about voting for your 3rd party candidate for President.

The problem with most of you '3rd party' whiners is that you want to go "Straight to the top". You're not interested in learning the ropes... having them learn and earn their way to the top. You just want us to hand over all the reins and trust that these folks who have NO experience at running things and have no serious support structure would do a million times better than one of the two parties we have, yet you have zero proof upon which to base your faith in your 3rd party... BUT... you want us to vote for them...
 
2012-11-02 07:21:17 AM
Clearly, the only remaining option, then, is to vote for cancer.
 
2012-11-02 07:26:18 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: A neoliberal is nothing but a neoconservative from Chicago.


Account created: 2011-10-21 10:53:51

OH hey! Fresh out from under your bridge, eh? How about a steaming hot cup of STFU? I'll put some tasty mini-marshmallows in it for ya. We love when new folks show up and say blatantly trollish things that are devoid of meaning or consideration. It's SO COOL!...
 
2012-11-02 07:29:30 AM

JohnnyC: No... it continues because 3rd parties are so weak they can barely get elected to low level local governmental positions and haven't proved that they can be trusted with a high level elected position at all...


Plus, you have to deal with defenders of the status quo. I mean these guys will do what ever they can to convince you that voting 3rd party is a waste of time, when in reality they are just helping continue the two party system.

Some of them even think they are helping when they are all just clogs in the machine.
 
2012-11-02 07:30:36 AM

Magruda: Some of them even think they are helping when they are all just clogs in the machine.


A little Liquid Plumr will take care of that. Or, did you mean "cogs?"
 
2012-11-02 07:32:49 AM
Not diificult when Romney has taken every position on every issue.
 
2012-11-02 07:34:41 AM

Magruda: Plus, you have to deal with defenders of the status quo. I mean these guys will do what ever they can to convince you that voting 3rd party is a waste of time, when in reality they are just helping continue the two party system.


you are the very first person to make this argument. fo realz yo.
 
2012-11-02 07:36:42 AM

MurphyMurphy: /sure hope we get to see what obama can try to fix with a 2nd term mandate


It won't be a hell of a lot, as 2nd terms generally always suck ass for every President who gets one. While you see "2nd term mandate", political opponents see "lame duck President who won't be in Washington in 4 years".
 
2012-11-02 07:37:40 AM

Magruda: Plus, you have to deal with defenders of the status quo. I mean these guys will do what ever they can to convince you that voting 3rd party is a waste of time, when in reality they are just helping continue the two party system.


Defenders of the state in which... what? You'll need to be more specific. You're waving your gun around and missing the target entirely. Maybe try aiming a bit before you pull the trigger?
 
2012-11-02 07:40:47 AM
I have been pissed with Obama for turning into a Republican since shortly after he won the primary. What exactly is the news here?
 
2012-11-02 07:43:02 AM
FARK: The partisans prove themselves completely oblivious to the point, thus unwittingly reinforcing it.
 
2012-11-02 07:43:37 AM
The utter nerve of this, when Romney is their candidate, is farking impressive.
 
2012-11-02 07:44:00 AM
Summary: Stupid people exist and some of them vote Democratic.

[Imokwiththat.gif]

If only intelligent folk voted Democratic, we'd never win a single election.
 
2012-11-02 07:45:51 AM

EyeballKid: Magruda: Some of them even think they are helping when they are all just clogs in the machine.

A little Liquid Plumr will take care of that. Or, did you mean "cogs?"


Yes.

log_jammin: you are the very first person to make this argument. fo realz yo.


And you are the first to point that out.

JohnnyC: Maybe try aiming a bit before you pull the trigger?


You fail at basic reading comprehension. My claim is thus, the argument to dissuade 3rd party voting is exactly in line with the wishes of a two party system.
 
2012-11-02 07:47:49 AM
Wow, out of the first four comments, fully half play the race card.
 
2012-11-02 07:52:49 AM

kingoomieiii: 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.


Why is this so hard for certain people to get? Obama is a centrist. None of his policies are too liberal for liberals. Liberals will not "solve" the problems they have with Obama by voting in such a way that a more right-wing person takes office. Both sides are not the same, and, yes, a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Romney because there are only one of two people will will, and their names are not Stein or Johnson.
 
2012-11-02 07:54:51 AM

GoSlash27: FARK: The partisans prove themselves completely oblivious to the point, thus unwittingly reinforcing it.


Really? Well then, let's hear it.
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report