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.

(Think Progress)   Remember how Fox News was claiming that Al Jazeera would be used to spread Islamic Propaganda in the US? It looks like Fox News decided to get the jump on them   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 186
    More: Dumbass, spread of Islam, Secretary of State John Kerry, propaganda, out in the street, chemical warfares, Syrian opposition  
•       •       •

6456 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2013 at 2:21 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-02 12:37:17 PM
Syria has certainly led to some strange bedfellows lately.
 
2013-09-02 01:49:10 PM
How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.
 
2013-09-02 02:24:11 PM
Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....
 
2013-09-02 02:26:40 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....


Sunni or Shia?
 
2013-09-02 02:26:49 PM
ThinkProgress is really stretching here. Wallace asked for a response to comments made by Syrian officials. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not his fault if the Syrian govt lies.

too bad I'm on a tablet and can't hover the link...
/never would have clicked if I'd known it was gsorosfundedThinkProgress
 
2013-09-02 02:27:14 PM

simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?


Saudi prince, so Sunni.
 
2013-09-02 02:27:31 PM

ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.


Because MSNBC still exists.
 
2013-09-02 02:27:38 PM

ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.


Because both sides baddy bad or something.

CNN and FN massively suck and television would greatly improve if they were removed, just for different reasons.
 
2013-09-02 02:30:57 PM

Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.


Well, I guess Fox will support the revolution and be against the Government.
 
2013-09-02 02:31:03 PM
Nice work there, Wallace. I'm sure your dad would be so proud of you right now.
 
2013-09-02 02:31:38 PM

simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?


Sunni today, with a 40% chance of Shia overnight.
 
2013-09-02 02:36:33 PM
Now Wallace should reminds us again that he's a journalist, a fair and impartial journalist, simply reporting the news, not creating it, and not pushing ideology or partisan politics, and so he shouldn't be lumped in with the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity, the very idea is preposterous.
 
2013-09-02 02:37:34 PM
There are no "good" sides in this, there's only a humanitarian crisis.

...Which we'll probably ignore, unless Chevron scientists figure out a way to get profitable energy out of alleviating human suffering.
 
2013-09-02 02:40:29 PM
 
2013-09-02 02:41:07 PM

StopLurkListen: There are no "good" sides in this, there's only a humanitarian crisis.

...Which we'll probably ignore, unless Chevron scientists figure out a way to get profitable energy out of alleviating human suffering.


The Irish once developed a way to convert alcohol into pure energy.

Their civilization hasn't been the same since.
 
2013-09-02 02:41:49 PM
Think Progress

Stopped reading right there.
 
2013-09-02 02:42:25 PM
So, Fox News is co-opting Syrian propaganda now?
 
2013-09-02 02:43:06 PM

super_grass: Think Progress

Stopped reading right there.


You must be very well infromed.
 
2013-09-02 02:43:11 PM

super_grass: Stopped reading


We know it's hard, but keep at it! We know you can do it. You'll soon be 'reading to learn' instead of 'learning to read'.
 
2013-09-02 02:43:43 PM

freak7: ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.

Because MSNBC still exists.


Is your life really so empty and pathetic that you spend a holiday trolling on the internet?
 
2013-09-02 02:44:40 PM

freak7: ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.

Because MSNBC still exists.

[In erudite British accent]

Here we see the BSABSVR in his natural habitat. The BSABSVR prefers to live in an extremely even environment, equating all possible things in any given category from its surroundings... at every opportunity.
 
2013-09-02 02:45:04 PM
Just as an aside, AJ America is doing a great job of covering all kinds of stuff that you don't see on CNN or just about anywhere else.

I'd highly recommend that if you have a chance, sit down and watch it every now and again.  It reminds me of what news used to be like, say, 20 years ago.
 
2013-09-02 02:47:43 PM

Nobodyn0se: freak7: ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.

Because MSNBC still exists.

[In erudite British accent] Here we see the BSABSVR in his natural habitat. The BSABSVR prefers to live in an extremely even environment, equating all possible things in any given category from its surroundings... at every opportunity.


I know that voice--it's David Attenborough!
 
2013-09-02 02:49:28 PM

Aristocles: ThinkProgress is really stretching here. Wallace asked for a response to comments made by Syrian officials. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not his fault if the Syrian govt lies.

too bad I'm on a tablet and can't hover the link...
/never would have clicked if I'd known it was gsorosfundedThinkProgress


I can assume you are a moran not only because of you "gsorosfunded" stupidity but also because the source of the link is right under the headline for all to see.
 
2013-09-02 02:50:28 PM

super_grass: Think Progress

Stopped reading right there.


Oh, I thought you were just a pro-Chavez troll.  Nice to see you've moved on to being a general issue troll account.
 
2013-09-02 02:53:11 PM
Chris Wallace is a smug little douchebag. I can't stand that guy.
 
2013-09-02 02:55:05 PM

Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.


Could be Wahabi,
 
2013-09-02 02:56:57 PM

2wolves: Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.

Could be Wahabi,


And thus Al Qaeda. Now Fox News makes sense.
 
2013-09-02 02:58:18 PM

ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.


Fox v Franken.
 
2013-09-02 03:09:40 PM

super_grass: Think Progress

Stopped reading right there.


You must hate the way they accurately quote people.
 
2013-09-02 03:09:59 PM
StopLurkListen:

hard, but

LOL, you like butt!

/ I'm so clever!
 
2013-09-02 03:12:19 PM

Satanic_Hamster: super_grass: Think Progress

Stopped reading right there.

Oh, I thought you were just a pro-Chavez troll.  Nice to see you've moved on to being a general issue troll account.


I was copying and pasting top-voted comments off the Huffington Post, which the original article actually linked.

The HuffPo idiots tend to get the Fark Patriots all in a tizzy when it comes to foreign policy and news.
 
2013-09-02 03:14:20 PM
Hmmm, I think the airport cafe I'm in is blocking "liberal" sites like thinkprogress.org.  Censorship is evil, Republicans.  Just thought I'd remind you.
 
2013-09-02 03:20:04 PM

BMulligan: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Sunni today, with a 40% chance of Shia overnight.


Sounds like we're in for a 50% chance of a Shiat storm tomorrow.
 
2013-09-02 03:22:46 PM

StopLurkListen: We know it's hard, but keep at it! We know you can do it. You'll soon be 'reading to learn' instead of 'learning to read'.


and yet when there's any right-wing news source, you idiots pull the same "stopped reading" card. then you pat each other on the back about it as if being ignorant is something to be proud of.
 
2013-09-02 03:25:18 PM

sugardave: Hmmm, I think the airport cafe I'm in is blocking "liberal" sites like thinkprogress.org.


Some content filters can be really, really stupid, especially those that work off of user-submitted ratings and complaints. There was one at a hospice that I spent time in that blocked the Houston Chronicle as porn. So it might be censorship, or it might just be a really dumb filter.
 
2013-09-02 03:27:56 PM

ongbok: ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.

According to their lawyers Fox news isn't a news organization, they are an entertainment organization.


Canada agreed. Apparently, the U.S. has a narrower backbone than Canada.
 
2013-09-02 03:28:02 PM

sugardave: Hmmm, I think the airport cafe I'm in is blocking "liberal" sites like thinkprogress.org.  Censorship is evil, Republicans.  Just thought I'd remind you.


Obama a democrat
 
2013-09-02 03:30:29 PM

Aristocles: sugardave: Hmmm, I think the airport cafe I'm in is blocking "liberal" sites like thinkprogress.org.  Censorship is evil, Republicans.  Just thought I'd remind you.

Obama a democrat


At Tenagra.
 
2013-09-02 03:31:02 PM

grimnir: sugardave: Hmmm, I think the airport cafe I'm in is blocking "liberal" sites like thinkprogress.org.

Some content filters can be really, really stupid, especially those that work off of user-submitted ratings and complaints. There was one at a hospice that I spent time in that blocked the Houston Chronicle as porn. So it might be censorship, or it might just be a really dumb filter.


CIPAfilter is retarded. Hits totally random things. And then at my HS we had an admin who did things like block Fark because 'people used dirty language'...
 
2013-09-02 03:31:05 PM

the_dude_abides: StopLurkListen: We know it's hard, but keep at it! We know you can do it. You'll soon be 'reading to learn' instead of 'learning to read'.

and yet when there's any right-wing news source, you idiots pull the same "stopped reading" card. then you pat each other on the back about it as if being ignorant is something to be proud of.


There aren't two sides to every issue, and behavior of the supposed 'liberal' media is quite different compared to Fox News.  Think Progress, MSNBC, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, etc, actually use real data and facts to back up their stories.  Yes, they tend to cover issues that are more liberal audience finds appealing, but when they report, they report the truth.

Fox has built an empire on manufacturing outrage, misquoting to get the desired effect, misdirecting the discussion on issues, and misrepresenting the facts.

Being on opposite sides of the political spectrum does not make them equal in terms of journalistic integrity and value.
 
2013-09-02 03:32:40 PM

Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni Wahabbi.


FTFY.
 
2013-09-02 03:33:58 PM
No Zionist domination of media here, just a liberal media that went apeshiat yesterday after Obama disobeyed Tel Aviv. LOL.
 
2013-09-02 03:34:40 PM

TuteTibiImperes: the_dude_abides: StopLurkListen: We know it's hard, but keep at it! We know you can do it. You'll soon be 'reading to learn' instead of 'learning to read'.

and yet when there's any right-wing news source, you idiots pull the same "stopped reading" card. then you pat each other on the back about it as if being ignorant is something to be proud of.

There aren't two sides to every issue, and behavior of the supposed 'liberal' media is quite different compared to Fox News.  Think Progress, MSNBC, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, etc, actually use real data and facts to back up their stories.  Yes, they tend to cover issues that are more liberal audience finds appealing, but when they report, they report the truth.

Fox has built an empire on manufacturing outrage, misquoting to get the desired effect, misdirecting the discussion on issues, and misrepresenting the facts.

Being on opposite sides of the political spectrum does not make them equal in terms of journalistic integrity and value.


I can't tell if you're joking or not.
 
2013-09-02 03:34:41 PM
Not related to Fox News, but :

KERRY: I don't believe so at all and that is in the hands of the Congress of the U.S. The president has made his decision. The president wants to stand up and make certain that we uphold the international norm.... I think the Assad regime needs to recognize that they have refocused the energy of the American people on him, on his regime.

That phrase is really getting on my damned nerves.  The international norm is to stand by the treaties we've already signed.  Striking Syria would be a direct violation of our treaties with the UN.
 
2013-09-02 03:35:33 PM
The Syrian government is secular, so it would have been Syrian propaganda, but not Islamic.

Don't expect either Fox or submittard to know that though.
 
2013-09-02 03:36:35 PM

rohar: Not related to Fox News, but :

KERRY: I don't believe so at all and that is in the hands of the Congress of the U.S. The president has made his decision. The president wants to stand up and make certain that we uphold the international norm.... I think the Assad regime needs to recognize that they have refocused the energy of the American people on him, on his regime.

That phrase is really getting on my damned nerves.  The international norm is to stand by the treaties we've already signed.  Striking Syria would be a direct violation of our treaties with the UN.


I don't want to sound rude or anything, but if it came down to it, I'm afraid most people are going to trust the interpretation of the United States Secretary of State over that of rohar of Fark.com
 
2013-09-02 03:37:55 PM

super_grass: Think Progress

Stopped reading right there.


So you support FOX News? The Muslim, Arab owned network? You must love terrorists! Why do you hate America?!
 
2013-09-02 03:41:10 PM

the_dude_abides: StopLurkListen: We know it's hard, but keep at it! We know you can do it. You'll soon be 'reading to learn' instead of 'learning to read'.

and yet when there's any right-wing news source, you idiots pull the same "stopped reading" card. then you pat each other on the back about it as if being ignorant is something to be proud of.


Um...no.  Think Progress typically quotes directly.  Usually they include video or audio of what they are covering so you can see/hear it yourself.  Wallace either did or did not say what they claim he said.

FOX et al spend most of their time mocking Obama for his choice of paperclips or asking Donald Trump what his opinion is (that is, in the rare event that the triumvirate of geniuses at FOX & Friends can't sufficiently derpsplain what unconstitutional outrage Obama will be using to destroy America that day).
 
2013-09-02 03:45:51 PM

Infernalist: rohar: Not related to Fox News, but :

KERRY: I don't believe so at all and that is in the hands of the Congress of the U.S. The president has made his decision. The president wants to stand up and make certain that we uphold the international norm.... I think the Assad regime needs to recognize that they have refocused the energy of the American people on him, on his regime.

That phrase is really getting on my damned nerves.  The international norm is to stand by the treaties we've already signed.  Striking Syria would be a direct violation of our treaties with the UN.

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but if it came down to it, I'm afraid most people are going to trust the interpretation of the United States Secretary of State over that of rohar of Fark.com


You might have a point if it wasn't already commonly known:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/leading-edge-leg al -advice-everyday-matters/2013/aug/31/attacking-syria-not-legal-attack- we-must/

And here you are beating the drum for war AND treaty violations.
 
2013-09-02 03:50:21 PM

rohar: Infernalist: rohar: Not related to Fox News, but :

KERRY: I don't believe so at all and that is in the hands of the Congress of the U.S. The president has made his decision. The president wants to stand up and make certain that we uphold the international norm.... I think the Assad regime needs to recognize that they have refocused the energy of the American people on him, on his regime.

That phrase is really getting on my damned nerves.  The international norm is to stand by the treaties we've already signed.  Striking Syria would be a direct violation of our treaties with the UN.

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but if it came down to it, I'm afraid most people are going to trust the interpretation of the United States Secretary of State over that of rohar of Fark.com

You might have a point if it wasn't already commonly known:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/leading-edge-leg al -advice-everyday-matters/2013/aug/31/attacking-syria-not-legal-attack- we-must/

And here you are beating the drum for war AND treaty violations.


Hey, everyone - someone cited the Moonie Times, and apparently they were even serious! Isn't that hilarious?
 
2013-09-02 03:51:18 PM

ongbok: ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.

According to their lawyers Fox news isn't a news organization, they are an entertainment organization.


Shouldn't they have to call themselves something slightly different then? You know, like peanut spread instead of peanut butter or orange drink instead of orange juice. How about, "Fox News Substitute,  Now with 10% Real News!"?
 
2013-09-02 03:54:29 PM

BMulligan: rohar: Infernalist: rohar: Not related to Fox News, but :

KERRY: I don't believe so at all and that is in the hands of the Congress of the U.S. The president has made his decision. The president wants to stand up and make certain that we uphold the international norm.... I think the Assad regime needs to recognize that they have refocused the energy of the American people on him, on his regime.

That phrase is really getting on my damned nerves.  The international norm is to stand by the treaties we've already signed.  Striking Syria would be a direct violation of our treaties with the UN.

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but if it came down to it, I'm afraid most people are going to trust the interpretation of the United States Secretary of State over that of rohar of Fark.com

You might have a point if it wasn't already commonly known:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/leading-edge-leg al -advice-everyday-matters/2013/aug/31/attacking-syria-not-legal-attack- we-must/

And here you are beating the drum for war AND treaty violations.

Hey, everyone - someone cited the Moonie Times, and apparently they were even serious! Isn't that hilarious?


Better?

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/31/217429978/analysts-obama-lacks-legal-f ra me-for-a-syria-strike

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-martin/international-law-and-the _b _3849593.html
 
2013-09-02 03:57:23 PM

Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.


so the good kind of muslims?
 
2013-09-02 03:58:00 PM

simplicimus: 2wolves: Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.

Could be Wahabi,

And thus Al Qaeda. Now Fox News makes sense.


Sunni ... Shia, like there's a difference. They all hate our Freedumz!
 
2013-09-02 04:07:26 PM

Infernalist: rohar:

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but if it came down to it, I'm afraid most people are going to trust the interpretation of the United States Secretary of State over that of rohar of Fark.com


s11.postimg.org
windows screenshot
 
2013-09-02 04:13:34 PM

whither_apophis: simplicimus: 2wolves: Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.

Could be Wahabi,

And thus Al Qaeda. Now Fox News makes sense.

Sunni ... Shia, like there's a difference. They all hate our Freedumz!


Makes a difference to the Muslims. One worth killing about.
 
2013-09-02 04:13:54 PM
The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.
 
2013-09-02 04:14:13 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Um...no. Think Progress typically quotes directly. Usually they include video or audio of what they are covering so you can see/hear it yourself. Wallace either did or did not say what they claim he said.


No, he said it.  It's right there on the linked page.
 
2013-09-02 04:20:33 PM

skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.


See, the legal problem here is that the Chemicals Weapons Treaty that the majority of countries signed, including Syria, says nothing about a government's use of CWs inside their own borders, only against other countries. So technically, Syria is not violating International Law.
 
2013-09-02 04:21:16 PM

skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.


you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?
 
2013-09-02 04:22:54 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Um...no.  Think Progress typically quotes directly.  Usually they include video or audio of what they are covering so you can see/hear it yourself.  Wallace either did or did not say what they claim he said.

FOX et al spend most of their time mocking Obama for his choice of paperclips or asking Donald Trump what his opinion is (that is, in the rare event that the triumvirate of geniuses at FOX & Friends can't sufficiently derpsplain what unconstitutional outrage Obama will be using to destroy America that day).


...and now you're gonna rationalize and pretend it's somehow different when your side does it. you're delusional beyond belief.
 
2013-09-02 04:24:00 PM

namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?


The President doesn't think he needs Congress' authorization. No one here, including you, honestly thinks that the President is unable to launch a buttload of Tomahawks without getting the approval of Congress. Why pretend that you do believe this just because you cannot admit that the President was a bit injudicious in his choice of words?
 
2013-09-02 04:27:28 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: BMulligan: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Sunni today, with a 40% chance of Shia overnight.

Sounds like we're in for a 50% chance of a Shiat storm tomorrow.


I certainly don't want to be in the area when the Shia hits the fan.
 
2013-09-02 04:28:25 PM

namatad: you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?


The United States has been involved in exactly five declared wars against a total of eleven nations. There have been plenty of examples of military conflicts approved by Congress but not in the form of a formal declaration of war, going back to the First Barbary War of 1802. And of course, America's longest war was undeclared and waged without any official congressional approval - the 46-year Apache War.
 
2013-09-02 04:30:05 PM

namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?


Skully appears to be advocating a return to the imperial presidency of the previous administration.
 
2013-09-02 04:30:51 PM

BMulligan: namatad: you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

The United States has been involved in exactly five declared wars against a total of eleven nations. There have been plenty of examples of military conflicts approved by Congress but not in the form of a formal declaration of war, going back to the First Barbary War of 1802. And of course, America's longest war was undeclared and waged without any official congressional approval - the 46-year Apache War.


yet there is something just real nice about the President getting approval from congress before launching a strike, if possible. It's just not a love for propriety or limitations on executive power which are causing the President to do it in this case.
Let's not pretend that it is.
 
2013-09-02 04:32:15 PM
Ah, DerpProgress.  The interviewer was giving the Secretary of State an opportunity to respond to published quotes, and somehow this is made out to be the spreading of propaganda.  Keep up the good work, derpers.
 
2013-09-02 04:32:16 PM

El Pachuco: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

Skully appears to be advocating a return to the imperial presidency of the previous administration.


nah, as I said, I like the fact that the President is going to congress to get approval. I am just wondering where the sudden love for congressional ok came from.

/not really wondering
 
2013-09-02 04:35:33 PM

skullkrusher: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

The President doesn't think he needs Congress' authorization. No one here, including you, honestly thinks that the President is unable to launch a buttload of Tomahawks without getting the approval of Congress. Why pretend that you do believe this just because you cannot admit that the President was a bit injudicious in his choice of words?


Good grief, we have multiple threads discussing the WPR. The President has 48 hours to inform the heads of Congress of his intent and 60 days to act before Congress can approve or disapprove of the action, and the president has another 30 days after that to remove the troops. The reasoning is simple. Events in the real world can move faster than Congress can react.
 
2013-09-02 04:36:04 PM

skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.


Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.
 
2013-09-02 04:36:20 PM

skullkrusher: yet there is something just real nice about the President getting approval from congress before launching a strike, if possible.


Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying that if Congress chooses not to authorize military action (and, given Congress' general intransigence these days, that wouldn't be a shock) and Obama decides to go it alone, it wouldn't be in any way unprecedented.
 
2013-09-02 04:37:10 PM

skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.


You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.
 
2013-09-02 04:37:35 PM

simplicimus: skullkrusher: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

The President doesn't think he needs Congress' authorization. No one here, including you, honestly thinks that the President is unable to launch a buttload of Tomahawks without getting the approval of Congress. Why pretend that you do believe this just because you cannot admit that the President was a bit injudicious in his choice of words?

Good grief, we have multiple threads discussing the WPR. The President has 48 hours to inform the heads of Congress of his intent and 60 days to act before Congress can approve or disapprove of the action, and the president has another 30 days after that to remove the troops. The reasoning is simple. Events in the real world can move faster than Congress can react.


so you agree that the President does have this power? Good.
 
2013-09-02 04:38:19 PM

BMulligan: skullkrusher: yet there is something just real nice about the President getting approval from congress before launching a strike, if possible.

Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying that if Congress chooses not to authorize military action (and, given Congress' general intransigence these days, that wouldn't be a shock) and Obama decides to go it alone, it wouldn't be in any way unprecedented.


indeedy.
 
2013-09-02 04:39:05 PM

buckler: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.


huh? Was that a half-assed B-but Bush?
 
2013-09-02 04:39:31 PM

cchris_39: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.


Yes, yes, we get it. Obama did something and you don't like it because [insert BS reason here]. Go crawl back under your concern troll rock
 
2013-09-02 04:40:08 PM

cchris_39: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.


I don't know that he blinked. He might not want to help Al-Qaeda, and rightfully so. He did talk out his ass last summer, however, and is now interested in finding cover to get out of it though. That's what I think is going on.
 
2013-09-02 04:41:29 PM

skullkrusher: simplicimus: skullkrusher: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

The President doesn't think he needs Congress' authorization. No one here, including you, honestly thinks that the President is unable to launch a buttload of Tomahawks without getting the approval of Congress. Why pretend that you do believe this just because you cannot admit that the President was a bit injudicious in his choice of words?

Good grief, we have multiple threads discussing the WPR. The President has 48 hours to inform the heads of Congress of his intent and 60 days to act before Congress can approve or disapprove of the action, and the president has another 30 days after that to remove the troops. The reasoning is simple. Events in the real world can move faster than Congress can react.

so you agree that the President does have this power? Good.


He's got the power. Just not a internationally recognized cause, or the support of any other nation. So, he punts.
 
2013-09-02 04:42:14 PM

buckler: Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.


This would come as a huge shock to all those presidents over the years who employed military force without benefit of a declaration of war. Frankly, I can't think of more than a handful of presidents who have not done so. And some of those did were involved in the drafting of the Constitution.
 
2013-09-02 04:45:09 PM

BMulligan: buckler: Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.

This would come as a huge shock to all those presidents over the years who employed military force without benefit of a declaration of war. Frankly, I can't think of more than a handful of presidents who have not done so. And some of those did were involved in the drafting of the Constitution.


Yup. Last one was WWII. I'd be interested to learn how that fell by the wayside.
 
2013-09-02 04:47:31 PM

simplicimus: So technically, Syria is not violating International Law.


There are however laws in regards to war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity etc that do apply to stuff within borders. Chemical weapons in this case would just be how the law was violated, but not the law violation itself.
 
2013-09-02 04:47:49 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-02 04:48:12 PM

BMulligan: buckler: Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.

This would come as a huge shock to all those presidents over the years who employed military force without benefit of a declaration of war. Frankly, I can't think of more than a handful of presidents who have not done so. And some of those did were involved in the drafting of the Constitution.


We last declared was in 1941. I think there have been a few kerfuffles since then. Anyway, the President's actions without a Declaration are covered by the WPR, which was passed by Congress in 1973. And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force. Having a Navy is constitutional, and so by extension I'd guess the Marine Corps.
 
2013-09-02 04:48:40 PM

buckler: BMulligan: buckler: Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.

This would come as a huge shock to all those presidents over the years who employed military force without benefit of a declaration of war. Frankly, I can't think of more than a handful of presidents who have not done so. And some of those did were involved in the drafting of the Constitution.

Yup. Last one was WWII. I'd be interested to learn how that fell by the wayside.


That's just the point - undeclared wars are an American tradition going back to the very founding of the Republic. This is nothing new - declared wars have always been the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of American military action from the very beginning of our history has been in undeclared wars.
 
2013-09-02 04:51:49 PM

simplicimus: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

See, the legal problem here is that the Chemicals Weapons Treaty that the majority of countries signed, including Syria, says nothing about a government's use of CWs inside their own borders, only against other countries. So technically, Syria is not violating International Law.


pretend reasons to go to war are pretend.
we pretty much always use dumb-ass reasons for wars.
god said
lies
they are killing innocents

ok that last one is a bit of a good reason
sort of
 
2013-09-02 04:52:46 PM

simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.


Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.
 
2013-09-02 04:58:05 PM

El Pachuco: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

Skully appears to be advocating a return to the imperial presidency of the previous administration.


PLUS
I said it was ILLEGAL ... not that The President would or would not break the law.
PLUS, they can always pretend to claim clear and present danger, PLUS the chem weapon treaty might require them to attack, plus the laws against genocide require the president to attack, PLUS the insane patriot act might allow an attack if they CLAIM terrorism ... ROFL

and yah
I am all for the president following the law, rather than what that asshole bush did for 8 years.
 
2013-09-02 04:58:05 PM
The sheer assholishness of Fox News and the teabaggers is just amazing. Berate the president for not asking congress (before anything is clear or decided). Then put down the president for looking weak by asking congress. They don't care what our country looks like on the international level, they don't care how they might even be emboldening the terrorists by calling the president weak. They only care about being pissy little biatches. Seriously, fark them.

I has a sad.
 
2013-09-02 04:59:10 PM

BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.


The peacetime army stuff is unconstitutional.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
 
2013-09-02 05:01:13 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Is your life really so empty and pathetic that you spend a holiday trolling on the internet?


It's hilarious, and a little sad, that you think that's a troll.  Talk about not being able to see the big picture.
 
2013-09-02 05:01:56 PM
I reiterate: we need to let the Russians and the UN deal with this. It's the Russians' backyard, and it's Turkey's neighbor where the refugees will head, so pretty much, they've got first dibs. The Russians and the British don't really want to go in, because Syria's military still has the receipts for their goodies, and no one wants to really discuss that.

The humanitarian interests are pressing, but there are no "good" sides in this conflict, just lesser degrees of worse. Regime change will plunge the country into further civil war, and will last a while. Assad is the favorite, because the trains run on time, and he lets the Russians park there. The EU wants the US to step in, because they want nothing to do with the ugliness that will result. The Russians just want things to settle down so that they can see a return on their investment in the region. The various players in the Middle East all see opportunities in the unrest to get factions of friends installed, and while folks keep pointing to the humanitarian angle, there are damn few folks with hands clean in this, and the only way to REALLY clean this mess up, is to go in hard, clamp down on EVERYONE and no one has the the stomach, or the resources to do that.

This IS a tragedy, and it's been brewing a long while, and folks have wrung their hands about it, and now that it's boiling over, folks want to capitalize on it, and make points here and abroad, and few want to really do much to actually do much, because without the Russians' support, there is nothing close to a happy ending, and the Russians have no intention of doing much. Yes, it sucks. If you're a civilian in Syria, or if you're in a rebel group, or a civil servant there as well.

All the saber rattling, all the rhetoric, it's empty, because this situation has been brewing for years, and we've sat and watched. Maybe if we sit this one out, we might learn a bit about the price paid for doing nothing. It's a lesson we need to learn.
 
2013-09-02 05:02:10 PM
We've apparently become a nation of moral cowards.  Look what another president has said about the use of WMDs

Campaigning for the vital 23 electoral votes of Ohio, Vice President Bush said today that the United States must take the lead in making sure that nations using chemical and biological weapons are punished.
''The barriers against chemical warfare, breached as we've seen during the Iran-Iraq war, must be repaired and raised even higher,'' Mr. Bush said, vowing to make nations that use such weapons ''pay a price.''
''They must know that continued violation of the ban against the use of such weapons carries a heavy penalty,'' he continued. ''Not just a fine or a minor sanction that can be ignored. That's not enough.''


Apparently, Obama is a throwback to a time when we had a more resolute moral character.  Bush the Elder made that statement in 1988, and, apparently, between then and now, we've, as a nation, decided that the use of chemical and biological weapons, even against civilians, ain't a big deal. Bush the Elder made that statement knowing the character of his country, knowing that, at that time, we as a country would not sit idly by as women and children were gassed to death.  Obama's biggest failure with his bright line statement was assuming the American public give a damn about the use of WMDs in 2013.  If he made that statement 20 years ago, the American public would have his back and agree.  In 2013, 400 gassed children are not a big deal.
 
2013-09-02 05:02:53 PM

cchris_39: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.


Again, you idiots biatched yourselves inside-out when Obama DIDN'T ask Congress in Libya. And you'd be doing the same if he didn't now.
 
2013-09-02 05:07:36 PM

BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.


troll probably thinks that the federal income tax is unconstitutional and that he should be allowed to own slaves ...
 
2013-09-02 05:08:30 PM

simplicimus: BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.

The peacetime army stuff is unconstitutional.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"


Point out the part there that makes maintaining a standing army unconstitutional.
 
2013-09-02 05:26:29 PM

Cataholic: Ah, DerpProgress.  The interviewer was giving the Secretary of State an opportunity to respond to published quotes, and somehow this is made out to be the spreading of propaganda.  Keep up the good work, derpers.


How would you respond to that is different than "haven't you handed Syria and Iran at least a temporary victory". Chris Wallace isn't going to sleep with you.
 
2013-09-02 05:42:11 PM

Aristocles: ThinkProgress is really stretching here. Wallace asked for a response to comments made by Syrian officials. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not his fault if the Syrian govt lies.

too bad I'm on a tablet and can't hover the link...
/never would have clicked if I'd known it was gsorosfundedThinkProgress


THIS

/I hate FOX News
 
2013-09-02 05:47:03 PM
the_dude_abides:right-wing news source

Does not compute, Will Robinson.
 
2013-09-02 05:47:45 PM

freak7: Satanic_Hamster: Is your life really so empty and pathetic that you spend a holiday trolling on the internet?

It's hilarious, and a little sad, that you think that's a troll.  Talk about not being able to see the big picture.



Well see the thing is you are a troll, the first place I spotted you was in the geek tab, I had posted about a touch screen tablet with a keyboard dock, with a linked video, you then insisted it was shiat and in fact didn't have a touch screen and could not be undocked from the keyboard, after that everyone in the thread pretty much considered you a moron if they felt pity for you, or a troll otherwise.
 
2013-09-02 05:49:50 PM

Heliovdrake: Well see the thing is you are a troll, the first place I spotted you was in the geek tab, I had posted about a touch screen tablet with a keyboard dock, with a linked video, you then insisted it was shiat and in fact didn't have a touch screen and could not be undocked from the keyboard, after that everyone in the thread pretty much considered you a moron if they felt pity for you, or a troll otherwise.


First farkied him due to racist trolling in Zimmerman threads.  Good to know he gets around.  What a sad and pathetic life to go around trolling all the tabs.

Though, I'm not sure what's more pathetic.  That he might be a mod doing this for page views, or this is actually just a random person doing this on their own time.
 
2013-09-02 05:51:50 PM

Heliovdrake: freak7: Satanic_Hamster: Is your life really so empty and pathetic that you spend a holiday trolling on the internet?

It's hilarious, and a little sad, that you think that's a troll.  Talk about not being able to see the big picture.


Well see the thing is you are a troll, the first place I spotted you was in the geek tab, I had posted about a touch screen tablet with a keyboard dock, with a linked video, you then insisted it was shiat and in fact didn't have a touch screen and could not be undocked from the keyboard, after that everyone in the thread pretty much considered you a moron if they felt pity for you, or a troll otherwise.



Almost forgot,
Here's the thread where I first leaned you were unable comprehend reality as it is.
http://www.fark.com/comments/7913796/Sales-of-Microsofts-Surface-Pro- t ablet-are-so-strong-company-has-decided-to-extend-its-special-August-o nly-sale-price-until-forever?cpp=1
 
2013-09-02 05:54:17 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Heliovdrake: Well see the thing is you are a troll, the first place I spotted you was in the geek tab, I had posted about a touch screen tablet with a keyboard dock, with a linked video, you then insisted it was shiat and in fact didn't have a touch screen and could not be undocked from the keyboard, after that everyone in the thread pretty much considered you a moron if they felt pity for you, or a troll otherwise.

First farkied him due to racist trolling in Zimmerman threads.  Good to know he gets around.  What a sad and pathetic life to go around trolling all the tabs.

Though, I'm not sure what's more pathetic.  That he might be a mod doing this for page views, or this is actually just a random person doing this on their own time.


  we got a lot of new trolls right around the Zimmerman trial I think.
 
2013-09-02 05:56:09 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Heliovdrake: Well see the thing is you are a troll, the first place I spotted you was in the geek tab, I had posted about a touch screen tablet with a keyboard dock, with a linked video, you then insisted it was shiat and in fact didn't have a touch screen and could not be undocked from the keyboard, after that everyone in the thread pretty much considered you a moron if they felt pity for you, or a troll otherwise.

First farkied him due to racist trolling in Zimmerman threads.  Good to know he gets around.  What a sad and pathetic life to go around trolling all the tabs.

Though, I'm not sure what's more pathetic.  That he might be a mod doing this for page views, or this is actually just a random person doing this on their own time.


And on a holiday, no less.  In any case, it's the same uncannily familiar, boring, antagonistic and/or ignorant shiat.

They even through in an "echo chamber" comment when they started to get ignored. Just sad.
 
2013-09-02 06:02:17 PM

BMulligan: simplicimus: BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.

The peacetime army stuff is unconstitutional.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Point out the part there that makes maintaining a standing army unconstitutional.


The difference is between Provide and maintain a Navy, vs. the rules attached to having an army.
 
2013-09-02 06:06:57 PM

LordJiro: Again, you idiots biatched yourselves inside-out when Obama DIDN'T ask Congress in Libya. And you'd be doing the same if he didn't now.


They hate the person and everything that he does. If god himself appeared and stated that Obama was the second coming, they would hate god and obama even more.

These are also the same people who stated that we should stand behind the president during time of war.
That not doing so put our soldiers overseas at deadly risk. that it gave aid to our enemies.

Oh wait. They meant only stand behind white GOP presidents.

/fark em
 
2013-09-02 06:07:24 PM

born_yesterday: And on a holiday, no less. In any case, it's the same uncannily familiar, boring, antagonistic and/or ignorant shiat.

They even through in an "echo chamber" comment when they started to get ignored. Just sad.


I'm wondering if the mods track how many people are favoriting or ignoring their troll accounts.  Maybe when a certain percent of regular readers has an account on ignore is when they break out a cluster of new troll accounts.
 
2013-09-02 06:09:22 PM

Fart_Machine: Cataholic: Ah, DerpProgress.  The interviewer was giving the Secretary of State an opportunity to respond to published quotes, and somehow this is made out to be the spreading of propaganda.  Keep up the good work, derpers.

How would you respond to that is different than "haven't you handed Syria and Iran at least a temporary victory". Chris Wallace isn't going to sleep with you.


when did you stop beating your wife?
:D

not every quote, from every source requires a response.
every nutter claiming to be jesus, claiming to have spoken to jesus, claiming that their opinion is equally valid; none of these nutters deserve a response. they are nutters.

/good thing that the presidents dont have time for fark
 
2013-09-02 06:09:54 PM

Heliovdrake: Well see the thing is you are a troll,


You should ignore everyone that you don't share a similar opinion with.  That way, you'd never be wrong about anything.  Wouldn't that be awesome?   I mean farking really, pulling out comments from another thread?  Sad, very sad.
 
2013-09-02 06:13:53 PM

StopLurkListen: super_grass: Stopped reading

We know it's hard, but keep at it! We know you can do it. You'll soon be 'reading to learn' instead of 'learning to read'.


F**k it. He'll be a stripper.
 
2013-09-02 06:18:02 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: Well see the thing is you are a troll,

You should ignore everyone that you don't share a similar opinion with.  That way, you'd never be wrong about anything.  Wouldn't that be awesome?   I mean farking really, pulling out comments from another thread?  Sad, very sad.


I brought it up because it shows you denying reality for several posts despite being show to be wrong.

So either you are an idiot, or a troll.

/I suppose you could an both.
//or a shill.
 
2013-09-02 06:27:01 PM

Satanic_Hamster: born_yesterday: And on a holiday, no less. In any case, it's the same uncannily familiar, boring, antagonistic and/or ignorant shiat.

They even through in an "echo chamber" comment when they started to get ignored. Just sad.

I'm wondering if the mods track how many people are favoriting or ignoring their troll accounts.  Maybe when a certain percent of regular readers has an account on ignore is when they break out a cluster of new troll accounts.


I have been thinking about a meta-site which "presented" fark ignore data.
You could see how many people ignored you, favorited you, and how many people over all ignored a certain troll. 

There is an opportunity for fark to expand its roll as a social website!!

/I spend way too much time looking at data.
 
2013-09-02 06:29:31 PM

namatad: LordJiro: Again, you idiots biatched yourselves inside-out when Obama DIDN'T ask Congress in Libya. And you'd be doing the same if he didn't now.

They hate the person and everything that he does. If god himself appeared and stated that Obama was the second coming, they would hate god and obama even more.

These are also the same people who stated that we should stand behind the president during time of war.
That not doing so put our soldiers overseas at deadly risk. that it gave aid to our enemies.

Oh wait. They meant only stand behind white GOP presidents.

/fark em


They really tossed all of their nonwhite GOP presidents under the bus.
 
2013-09-02 06:32:39 PM

namatad: Satanic_Hamster: born_yesterday: And on a holiday, no less. In any case, it's the same uncannily familiar, boring, antagonistic and/or ignorant shiat.

They even through in an "echo chamber" comment when they started to get ignored. Just sad.

I'm wondering if the mods track how many people are favoriting or ignoring their troll accounts.  Maybe when a certain percent of regular readers has an account on ignore is when they break out a cluster of new troll accounts.

I have been thinking about a meta-site which "presented" fark ignore data.
You could see how many people ignored you, favorited you, and how many people over all ignored a certain troll. 

There is an opportunity for fark to expand its roll as a social website!!

/I spend way too much time looking at data.


I always thought that in your public account data, it should show how many people have you on ignore, and how many people have you Favorited.
 
2013-09-02 06:33:40 PM

Heliovdrake: I brought it up because it shows you denying reality for several posts despite being show to be wrong.


You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything, what you've proven, without a doubt, it your ability to accept that not everybody shares your opinion.  Now please do me a favor and stop cyber stalking me.
 
2013-09-02 06:36:20 PM

Heliovdrake: namatad: Satanic_Hamster: born_yesterday: And on a holiday, no less. In any case, it's the same uncannily familiar, boring, antagonistic and/or ignorant shiat.

They even through in an "echo chamber" comment when they started to get ignored. Just sad.

I'm wondering if the mods track how many people are favoriting or ignoring their troll accounts.  Maybe when a certain percent of regular readers has an account on ignore is when they break out a cluster of new troll accounts.

I have been thinking about a meta-site which "presented" fark ignore data.
You could see how many people ignored you, favorited you, and how many people over all ignored a certain troll. 

There is an opportunity for fark to expand its roll as a social website!!

/I spend way too much time looking at data.

I always thought that in your public account data, it should show how many people have you on ignore, and how many people have you Favorited.


Oooooo, and how many of which color have you favorited.  I mean, not the color of the person favoriting you, but the color they used.  You racist bastards.
 
2013-09-02 06:37:34 PM

the_dude_abides: Lionel Mandrake: Um...no.  Think Progress typically quotes directly.  Usually they include video or audio of what they are covering so you can see/hear it yourself.  Wallace either did or did not say what they claim he said.

FOX et al spend most of their time mocking Obama for his choice of paperclips or asking Donald Trump what his opinion is (that is, in the rare event that the triumvirate of geniuses at FOX & Friends can't sufficiently derpsplain what unconstitutional outrage Obama will be using to destroy America that day).

...and now you're gonna rationalize and pretend it's somehow different when your side does it. you're delusional beyond belief.


No, I'm gonna say that while both sides may be bad, both sides are most definitelyNOTequallybad.

This point is obvious to non-"conservatives"
 
2013-09-02 06:44:25 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: I brought it up because it shows you denying reality for several posts despite being show to be wrong.

You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything, what you've proven, without a doubt, it your ability to accept that not everybody shares your opinion.  Now please do me a favor and stop cyber stalking me.


You're doing it again.
 
2013-09-02 06:49:54 PM

Nobodyn0se: freak7: ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.

Because MSNBC still exists.

[In erudite British accent] Here we see the BSABSVR in his natural habitat. The BSABSVR prefers to live in an extremely even environment, equating all possible things in any given category from its surroundings... at every opportunity.


Stolen from another thread:

Dara O'Briain on the media's obsession with balance:

So they interview a rocket scientist. "Mr NASA guy, you've built a new space station."

They go, "That's very interesting, But for the sake of balance, we must now turn to Barry who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. Barry, what do you think of this space station plan?"
 
2013-09-02 06:53:12 PM

simplicimus: BMulligan: simplicimus: BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.

The peacetime army stuff is unconstitutional.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Point out the part there that makes maintaining a standing army unconstitutional.

The difference is between Provide and maintain a Navy, vs. the rules attached to having an army.


You don't have any training or experience in constitutional analysis, do you? Because I've got to say, you're really bad at it.
 
2013-09-02 07:10:03 PM

Lionel Mandrake: No, I'm gonna say that while both sides may be bad, both sides are most definitelyNOTequallybad.

This point is obvious to non-"conservatives"


yeah man, totes... when democrats act like pieces of shiat, it still FEELS right because you're on board with the ideology lol
 
2013-09-02 07:10:38 PM

simplicimus: BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.

The peacetime army stuff is unconstitutional.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"


And this is why Army funding is based on a 2 year appropriation cycle.  Perfectly constitutional.
 
2013-09-02 07:22:26 PM

fusillade762: Stolen from another thread:

Dara O'Briain on the media's obsession with balance:

So they interview a rocket scientist. "Mr NASA guy, you've built a new space station."

They go, "That's very interesting, But for the sake of balance, we must now turn to Barry who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. Barry, what do you think of this space station plan?"


lolz it doesn't get any more self-serving than that

"hay guys, remember when we said both sides were bad? well, it turns out our side is awesome and only the republicans are bad. and that's like, scientific, because we're the party of facts and truth and stuff."
 
2013-09-02 07:26:41 PM
Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.
 
2013-09-02 07:36:51 PM
[Fox argued that] the administration has shown weakness in failing to unilaterally strike Syria

There's the pivot. We all knew this was going to happen. Just last week, Obama was an "imperial president" that was going to strike Syria without getting the thumbs up from Congress.

/Thumbs up their asses, my friend. Thumbs up their asses.
 
2013-09-02 07:50:26 PM

Heliovdrake: namatad: Satanic_Hamster: born_yesterday: And on a holiday, no less. In any case, it's the same uncannily familiar, boring, antagonistic and/or ignorant shiat.

They even through in an "echo chamber" comment when they started to get ignored. Just sad.

I'm wondering if the mods track how many people are favoriting or ignoring their troll accounts.  Maybe when a certain percent of regular readers has an account on ignore is when they break out a cluster of new troll accounts.

I have been thinking about a meta-site which "presented" fark ignore data.
You could see how many people ignored you, favorited you, and how many people over all ignored a certain troll. 

There is an opportunity for fark to expand its roll as a social website!!

/I spend way too much time looking at data.

I always thought that in your public account data, it should show how many people have you on ignore, and how many people have you Favorited.


ALAS, just a count of favorites only goes so far.
I favorite 1st time offenders, comment as to WHY, color code them as BLACK and next time they troll they get the ignore list ....

but yah, counts would be awesome

WAIT!!!! no one likes me on fark??
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
2013-09-02 07:56:16 PM

theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.


perhaps. Both also true, however.

Clearly, assisting the rebels will be siding with the side AQ is on. Asking Congress to make the decision takes the hard choice out of his hands. Ergo, being weak.
 
2013-09-02 08:04:27 PM

theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.


If Obama does X it's the worst thing ever.
 
2013-09-02 08:07:43 PM

Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.

If Obama does X it's the worst thing ever.


If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess
 
2013-09-02 08:12:43 PM

Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.

If Obama does X it's the worst thing ever.


have you noticed that the RIGHT has been pretty quiet about the unemployment rate these days?
the best that they have left is that THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WITH RMONEY !!!!
 
2013-09-02 08:16:16 PM

skullkrusher: If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess


no man, you don't GET it. he's not just thinking 10 moves ahead, he's thinking 20 moves ahead. because he's like, a genius and stuff. smartest guy in the room. he knows more about policy than his policy guys. the long game, bro, the LONG game. whoa... i just blew my own mind. need to go sit down for a while, brb.
 
2013-09-02 08:27:26 PM

theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.


Bears repeating because I have no clue what Conservatives want Obama to do (besides resign) and I don't think they do either.

So do Conservatives want Obama to go into Syria or not? Because if he would have said no to attacking Syria, the Conservatives would've view Obama as weak right?
 
2013-09-02 08:27:35 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.

If Obama does X it's the worst thing ever.

If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess


Funny I never said that. Still trolling for attention? Sad.
 
2013-09-02 08:31:49 PM

max_pooper: Aristocles: ThinkProgress is really stretching here. Wallace asked for a response to comments made by Syrian officials. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not his fault if the Syrian govt lies.

too bad I'm on a tablet and can't hover the link...
/never would have clicked if I'd known it was gsorosfundedThinkProgress

I can assume you are a moran not only because of you "gsorosfunded" stupidity but also because the source of the link is right under the headline for all to see.


It's still a stretch for think progress to spend time on this. Any balking by our president would be seen as a small victory by the opposition... both Assad and GOP.
 
2013-09-02 08:37:08 PM

Mrtraveler01: Bears repeating because I have no clue what Conservatives want Obama to do (besides resign) and I don't think they do either.


If he resigned they'd biatch endlessly on how weak and pathetic he is.
 
2013-09-02 08:44:41 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.

If Obama does X it's the worst thing ever.

If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess

Funny I never said that. Still trolling for attention? Sad.


observing for lulz, actually.

The object of your affection looks a little bit foolish here. I didn't expect you to admit it. He's just playing the long game. I know, I know.
 
2013-09-02 08:46:52 PM

the_dude_abides: skullkrusher: If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess

no man, you don't GET it. he's not just thinking 10 moves ahead, he's thinking 20 moves ahead. because he's like, a genius and stuff. smartest guy in the room. he knows more about policy than his policy guys. the long game, bro, the LONG game. whoa... i just blew my own mind. need to go sit down for a while, brb.


it's amazing. Honestly, he objectively looks stupid in this regard. Talked of redlines and enormous consequences and now faced with the decision, he punts the choice to Congress. If he has reservations about striking Syria and it is quite clear that he does and I agree with those reservations, sack up and say so. He looks like the empty suit he has been wrongfully accused of being for the past 5+ years.
 
2013-09-02 08:52:19 PM
skullkrusher:  Still trolling for attention.

Yawn.  Run along now.
 
2013-09-02 08:56:03 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher:  Still trolling for attention.

Yawn.  Run along now.


We're gonna run with our usual game of you attempting to save face without addressing anything? That's always fun.
 
2013-09-02 08:59:54 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher:  Still trolling for attention.

Yawn.  Run along now.

We're gonna run with our usual game of you attempting to save face without addressing anything? That's always fun.


This is now a race to get the last word.

ALLEZ BUTTHURT
 
2013-09-02 09:01:47 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher:  Still trolling for attention.

Yawn.  Run along now.

We're gonna run with our usual game of you attempting to save face without addressing anything? That's always fun.


Oh yeah, I forgot this is some kind of prestige thing for you. 

Ok, just so you can go away happy I concede you won the internet on something I never said.
 
2013-09-02 09:17:05 PM

PanicMan: simplicimus: BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.

The peacetime army stuff is unconstitutional.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

And this is why Army funding is based on a 2 year appropriation cycle.  Perfectly constitutional.


The standing army was created was created by an act of congress. Several, in fact: The Continental Army, followed by the Legion of the United States, followed by the United States Army. It's legal, just not in the Constitution.
 
2013-09-02 09:19:39 PM
Nope,nope,nope,nope,nope. No more farking wars in the middle east. Let them farking sort it out.
 
2013-09-02 09:28:20 PM
Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.
 
2013-09-02 09:29:33 PM
simplicimus:
The standing army was created was created by an act of congress. Several, in fact: The Continental Army, followed by the Legion of the United States, followed by the United States Army. It's legal, just not in the Constitution.

What simplicimus might look like:

starsmedia.ign.com
 
2013-09-02 09:41:35 PM

Satanic_Hamster: simplicimus:
The standing army was created was created by an act of congress. Several, in fact: The Continental Army, followed by the Legion of the United States, followed by the United States Army. It's legal, just not in the Constitution.

What simplicimus might look like:

[starsmedia.ign.com image 480x270]


Don't get the reference, but I'm older, greyer,not as clean cut and a little more hefty. I do like french cuffs and cufflinks, but the shirt collar is hideous.
 
2013-09-02 09:43:59 PM

Aristocles: ThinkProgress is really stretching here. Wallace asked for a response to comments made by Syrian officials. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not his fault if the Syrian govt lies.

too bad I'm on a tablet and can't hover the link...
/never would have clicked if I'd known it was gsorosfundedThinkProgress


DRINK!
 
2013-09-02 09:50:10 PM

skullkrusher: it's amazing. Honestly, he objectively looks stupid in this regard. Talked of redlines and enormous consequences and now faced with the decision, he punts the choice to Congress. If he has reservations about striking Syria and it is quite clear that he does and I agree with those reservations, sack up and say so. He looks like the empty suit he has been wrongfully accused of being for the past 5+ years.


yeah, there's no way to spin this whole debacle in a positive light. at best, obama looks incompetent. at worst, he looks like a huge pussy on the world stage. i think fareed zakaria summed it up pretty well -- "Whatever your views on the larger issues, it's hard not to conclude that the administration's handling of Syria over the last year has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy."
 
2013-09-02 09:52:39 PM

blackminded: Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni Wahabbi.

FTFY.


Wahabbi is a subset of Sunni
 
2013-09-02 09:58:39 PM

cchris_39: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.


So you really care about what the shiatstains running Syria think.  How quaint.
 
2013-09-02 10:03:28 PM

simplicimus: Don't get the reference, but I'm older, greyer,not as clean cut and a little more hefty. I do like french cuffs and cufflinks, but the shirt collar is hideous.


www.rewindreviews.com
 
2013-09-02 10:10:58 PM

Satanic_Hamster: simplicimus: Don't get the reference, but I'm older, greyer,not as clean cut and a little more hefty. I do like french cuffs and cufflinks, but the shirt collar is hideous.

[www.rewindreviews.com image 400x291]


Goodfellas? More hideous shirt collars?
 
2013-09-02 10:13:02 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher:  Still trolling for attention.

Yawn.  Run along now.

We're gonna run with our usual game of you attempting to save face without addressing anything? That's always fun.

Oh yeah, I forgot this is some kind of prestige thing for you. 

Ok, just so you can go away happy I concede you won the internet on something I never said.


nah, I just like arguing on the internet. It's fun. It becomes not fun when it becomes a lame attempt at saving face which is what it pretty much invariably becomes with you. OK, you win. Whatever. You're boring.
 
2013-09-02 10:13:49 PM

Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.


go away, Phil.
 
2013-09-02 10:14:30 PM

simplicimus: Goodfellas? More hideous shirt collars?


Yep.  Jimmy Two Times, said everything two times.

simplicimus: The standing army was created was created by an act of congress.

 
2013-09-02 10:16:43 PM

Satanic_Hamster: simplicimus: Goodfellas? More hideous shirt collars?

Yep.  Jimmy Two Times, said everything two times.

simplicimus: The standing army was created was created by an act of congress.


But not a constitutional amendment.
But not a constitutional amendment.
 
2013-09-02 10:20:25 PM

skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.


nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.
 
2013-09-02 10:22:19 PM

Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.


I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me
 
2013-09-02 10:26:34 PM

skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.

I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me


Oh Christ, and this is me trying cope with the average American. Don't you farking people hate gays? Aren't you "disappointed" when your loinfruit end up liking the same sex? I'm sorry I'm a Canadian trying relate to you trash.
 
2013-09-02 10:32:53 PM

Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.

I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me

Oh Christ, and this is me trying cope with the average American. Don't you farking people hate gays? Aren't you "disappointed" when your loinfruit end up liking the same sex? I'm sorry I'm a Canadian trying relate to you trash.


that's much more fitting your MO. Keep up with your bad self, Canader.
 
2013-09-02 10:58:15 PM

Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.

I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me

Oh Christ, and this is me trying cope with the average American. Don't you farking people hate gays? Aren't you "disappointed" when your loinfruit end up liking the same sex? I'm sorry I'm a Canadian trying relate to you trash.


Only bad people hate gays. Only bad parents are disappointed when their children are gay. So, if you're conflating being gay with traits that are negative, including being alcoholic, then you would be a bad person and a bad parent.
 
2013-09-02 11:04:18 PM

Selena Luna: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.

I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me

Oh Christ, and this is me trying cope with the average American. Don't you farking people hate gays? Aren't you "disappointed" when your loinfruit end up liking the same sex? I'm sorry I'm a Canadian trying relate to you trash.

Only bad people hate gays. Only bad parents are disappointed when their children are gay. So, if you're conflating being gay with traits that are negative, including being alcoholic, then you would be a bad person and a bad parent.


no, you see, he was just making a biting criticism of the American bogeyman as he crosses the Canadian countryside astride his 28 point moose, Gretsky, defending his noble, happy brethren from the barbarians at the gates to the South.
 
2013-09-02 11:22:22 PM

skullkrusher: Selena Luna: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.

I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me

Oh Christ, and this is me trying cope with the average American. Don't you farking people hate gays? Aren't you "disappointed" when your loinfruit end up liking the same sex? I'm sorry I'm a Canadian trying relate to you trash.

Only bad people hate gays. Only bad parents are disappointed when their children are gay. So, if you're conflating being gay with traits that are negative, including being alcoholic, then you would be a bad person and a bad parent.

no, you see, he was just making a biting criticism of the American bogeyman as he crosses the Canadian countryside astride his 28 point moose, Gretsky, defending his noble, happy brethren from the barbarians at the gates to the South.


Hooboy. That was a nice generalization. Where do they worship Gretsky? Tim Hortons?
 
2013-09-02 11:24:56 PM

Selena Luna: skullkrusher: Selena Luna: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.

I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me

Oh Christ, and this is me trying cope with the average American. Don't you farking people hate gays? Aren't you "disappointed" when your loinfruit end up liking the same sex? I'm sorry I'm a Canadian trying relate to you trash.

Only bad people hate gays. Only bad parents are disappointed when their children are gay. So, if you're conflating being gay with traits that are negative, including being alcoholic, then you would be a bad person and a bad parent.

no, you see, he was just making a biting criticism of the American bogeyman as he crosses the Canadian countryside astride his 28 point moose, Gretsky, defending his noble, happy brethren from the barbarians at the gates to the South.

Hooboy. That was a nice generalization. Where do they worship Gretsky? Tim Hortons?


Celine Dion concerts.
 
2013-09-02 11:25:49 PM

skullkrusher: Selena Luna: skullkrusher: Selena Luna: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.

I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me

Oh Christ, and this is me trying cope with the average American. Don't you farking people hate gays? Aren't you "disappointed" when your loinfruit end up liking the same sex? I'm sorry I'm a Canadian trying relate to you trash.

Only bad people hate gays. Only bad parents are disappointed when their children are gay. So, if you're conflating being gay with traits that are negative, including being alcoholic, then you would be a bad person and a bad parent.

no, you see, he was just making a biting criticism of the American bogeyman as he crosses the Canadian countryside astride his 28 point moose, Gretsky, defending his noble, happy brethren from the barbarians at the gates to the South.

Hooboy. That was a nice generalization. Where do they worship Gretsky? Tim Hortons?

Celine Dion concerts.


Well, I guess that is sort of like gospel music. If you're really bad at gospel.
 
2013-09-02 11:35:23 PM

Selena Luna: skullkrusher: Selena Luna: skullkrusher: Selena Luna: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: skullkrusher: Phil Moskowitz: Imagine how Mike Wallace feels about his sniveling coont of a son? I could handle gay, underachiever, alcoholic, but this human fecal vessel? I'd never speak to him.

go away, Phil.

nothing registers in your brain, does it? You're just this empty pissed off nothing.

I registered that you included gay in your list of undesirable traits. So you're a bad dad who would regard that as alcoholism or underachiever, no need to lash out at me

Oh Christ, and this is me trying cope with the average American. Don't you farking people hate gays? Aren't you "disappointed" when your loinfruit end up liking the same sex? I'm sorry I'm a Canadian trying relate to you trash.

Only bad people hate gays. Only bad parents are disappointed when their children are gay. So, if you're conflating being gay with traits that are negative, including being alcoholic, then you would be a bad person and a bad parent.

no, you see, he was just making a biting criticism of the American bogeyman as he crosses the Canadian countryside astride his 28 point moose, Gretsky, defending his noble, happy brethren from the barbarians at the gates to the South.

Hooboy. That was a nice generalization. Where do they worship Gretsky? Tim Hortons?

Celine Dion concerts.

Well, I guess that is sort of like gospel music. If you're really bad at gospel.


I actually took the wife to see her in Vegas earlier this summer. Not as incredibly awful as I had feared. It was incredibly awful but I was imagining far worse.
 
2013-09-03 12:06:03 AM

A Terrible Human: Nope,nope,nope,nope,nope. No more farking wars in the middle east. Let them farking sort it out.


"We've shiat in your punchbowl and you're not even grateful. Fine, sort it out yourself!"
 
2013-09-03 02:25:15 AM

simplicimus: Satanic_Hamster: simplicimus: Goodfellas? More hideous shirt collars?

Yep.  Jimmy Two Times, said everything two times.

simplicimus: The standing army was created was created by an act of congress.

But not a constitutional amendment.
But not a constitutional amendment.


did you have a point or are you just a troll?
the constitution grants congress the power to make "laws" ...
those acts of congress are constitutionally legal, until SCOTUS says otherwise
 
2013-09-03 04:12:06 AM

skullkrusher: the_dude_abides: skullkrusher: If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess

no man, you don't GET it. he's not just thinking 10 moves ahead, he's thinking 20 moves ahead. because he's like, a genius and stuff. smartest guy in the room. he knows more about policy than his policy guys. the long game, bro, the LONG game. whoa... i just blew my own mind. need to go sit down for a while, brb.

it's amazing. Honestly, he objectively looks stupid in this regard. Talked of redlines and enormous consequences and now faced with the decision, he punts the choice to Congress. If he has reservations about striking Syria and it is quite clear that he does and I agree with those reservations, sack up and say so. He looks like the empty suit he has been wrongfully accused of being for the past 5+ years.


Yep. And if he does, America is not going to lose anything. Not prestige, not influence and not friends. Among the people of the world at least. We'll get the silly farks goin 'Amurica is weak Amurica is weak!!!' And well.... they're silly farks.

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington

The west has been interfering in the ME for centuries. Not much good has come from it. How about we give them the opportunity to forget, or at least perhaps forgive. Time to let them sort it.
 
2013-09-03 04:52:25 AM

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.

perhaps. Both also true, however.

Clearly, assisting the rebels will be siding with the side AQ is on. Asking Congress to make the decision takes the hard choice out of his hands. Ergo, being weak.


It's more like hedging bets than being weak. Imagine you're this poor dumb bastard: You make precision strikes that everyone seems to love these days, except the targets are being moved near schools and other collateral damage. You do nothing, and are called a pussy. You do something else and you indirectly aid AQ. No matter what you do, the media skewers you for it. Putting it to Congress is the only smart move here, even if it seems like a cop-out. It's exactly what I'd do if I were a professional politician. Obama might appear to be passing the buck but it's a hell of a lot better than ANY decision he hands down himself.

Sometimes that's just how the world works, son. It's chess with higher stakes. You know this, Scully. .
 
2013-09-03 06:54:23 AM

dickfreckle: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Conservatives: "If Obama strikes Syrian government targets, he'll be fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda... but if he asks Congress to give their blessing, he's being weak."

Lunatics.

perhaps. Both also true, however.

Clearly, assisting the rebels will be siding with the side AQ is on. Asking Congress to make the decision takes the hard choice out of his hands. Ergo, being weak.

It's more like hedging bets than being weak. Imagine you're this poor dumb bastard: You make precision strikes that everyone seems to love these days, except the targets are being moved near schools and other collateral damage. You do nothing, and are called a pussy. You do something else and you indirectly aid AQ. No matter what you do, the media skewers you for it. Putting it to Congress is the only smart move here, even if it seems like a cop-out. It's exactly what I'd do if I were a professional politician. Obama might appear to be passing the buck but it's a hell of a lot better than ANY decision he hands down himself.

Sometimes that's just how the world works, son. It's chess with higher stakes. You know this, Scully. .


Refusing to make the tough choice because of how people will react is almost a textbook definition of being weak, Dickie. You can call it political savvy if you'd like but to threaten the use of force and then not be willing to make the decision to use it... Weak.

If he truly believed that getting congressional approval was the proper thing to do and that was his motivation, I'd say that was a fine display of leadership. No one actually thinks that's what's going on though.
 
2013-09-03 07:27:49 AM
The Syrian government is not Islamist. I don't even get this headline.
 
2013-09-03 08:18:25 AM

2wolves: Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.

Could be Wahabi,


Or a Sushi.
 
2013-09-03 08:38:45 AM

skullkrusher: the_dude_abides: skullkrusher: If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess

no man, you don't GET it. he's not just thinking 10 moves ahead, he's thinking 20 moves ahead. because he's like, a genius and stuff. smartest guy in the room. he knows more about policy than his policy guys. the long game, bro, the LONG game. whoa... i just blew my own mind. need to go sit down for a while, brb.

it's amazing. Honestly, he objectively looks stupid in this regard. Talked of redlines and enormous consequences and now faced with the decision, he punts the choice to Congress. If he has reservations about striking Syria and it is quite clear that he does and I agree with those reservations, sack up and say so. He looks like the empty suit he has been wrongfully accused of being for the past 5+ years.


It seems silly to me to say that it is clear that he has reservations about striking Syria (and I agree that it is clear), that you agree with those reservations, but criticize him as being an empty suit only for not coming out and publicly stating those reservations. There is literally nothing worth while to be gained by doing so... other than perhaps eliminating the criticism of some that he is an empty suit, which I would imagine is not even on his radar of considerations.

I don't want him to get involved. If we end up not getting involved, I don't really care how that came to pass.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:19 AM

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: the_dude_abides: skullkrusher: If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess

no man, you don't GET it. he's not just thinking 10 moves ahead, he's thinking 20 moves ahead. because he's like, a genius and stuff. smartest guy in the room. he knows more about policy than his policy guys. the long game, bro, the LONG game. whoa... i just blew my own mind. need to go sit down for a while, brb.

it's amazing. Honestly, he objectively looks stupid in this regard. Talked of redlines and enormous consequences and now faced with the decision, he punts the choice to Congress. If he has reservations about striking Syria and it is quite clear that he does and I agree with those reservations, sack up and say so. He looks like the empty suit he has been wrongfully accused of being for the past 5+ years.

It seems silly to me to say that it is clear that he has reservations about striking Syria (and I agree that it is clear), that you agree with those reservations, but criticize him as being an empty suit only for not coming out and publicly stating those reservations. There is literally nothing worth while to be gained by doing so... other than perhaps eliminating the criticism of some that he is an empty suit, which I would imagine is not even on his radar of considerations.

I don't want him to get involved. If we end up not getting involved, I don't really care how that came to pass.


Personally I'd prefer every President look "weak" by putting military action up for a Congressional vote rather than bypassing them with an executive order. It's how our government should work unless you like the idea of an imperial Predident.

But this is SK and he wants attention so there's that.
 
2013-09-03 10:17:31 AM

wasteofspace: The west has been interfering in the ME for centuries. Not much good has come from it. How about we give them the opportunity to forget, or at least perhaps forgive. Time to let them sort it.


Are you kidding? They haven't even forgiven each other for a couple thousand years.
 
2013-09-03 12:48:14 PM

namatad: simplicimus: Satanic_Hamster: simplicimus: Goodfellas? More hideous shirt collars?

Yep.  Jimmy Two Times, said everything two times.

simplicimus: The standing army was created was created by an act of congress.

But not a constitutional amendment.
But not a constitutional amendment.

did you have a point or are you just a troll?
the constitution grants congress the power to make "laws" ...
those acts of congress are constitutionally legal, until SCOTUS says otherwise


Mostly, just playing. OD'd on too many mis-representations of what's Constitutional vs. Legal in previous Syria threads. Too damn much "Only Congress can declare war" and thus Libya was an impeachable offense and so would action in Syria. Just trying to excise some of the stupid I ran into.
 
2013-09-03 02:15:55 PM
It sounds like Fox is saying that Obama showed weakness by seeking the approval of congress, as required by the constiution--precisely what they criticized him for not doing in Libya.
 
2013-09-03 03:41:35 PM

Infernalist: Just as an aside, AJ America is doing a great job of covering all kinds of stuff that you don't see on CNN or just about anywhere else.

I'd highly recommend that if you have a chance, sit down and watch it every now and again.  It reminds me of what news used to be like, say, 20 years ago.


I was just saying that to a few of my friends.  then i go to work and i hear from all the teahadists that America is doomed bc of a station that they have never watched
 
2013-09-03 09:10:36 PM

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: the_dude_abides: skullkrusher: If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess

no man, you don't GET it. he's not just thinking 10 moves ahead, he's thinking 20 moves ahead. because he's like, a genius and stuff. smartest guy in the room. he knows more about policy than his policy guys. the long game, bro, the LONG game. whoa... i just blew my own mind. need to go sit down for a while, brb.

it's amazing. Honestly, he objectively looks stupid in this regard. Talked of redlines and enormous consequences and now faced with the decision, he punts the choice to Congress. If he has reservations about striking Syria and it is quite clear that he does and I agree with those reservations, sack up and say so. He looks like the empty suit he has been wrongfully accused of being for the past 5+ years.

It seems silly to me to say that it is clear that he has reservations about striking Syria (and I agree that it is clear), that you agree with those reservations, but criticize him as being an empty suit only for not coming out and publicly stating those reservations. There is literally nothing worth while to be gained by doing so... other than perhaps eliminating the criticism of some that he is an empty suit, which I would imagine is not even on his radar of considerations.

I don't want him to get involved. If we end up not getting involved, I don't really care how that came to pass.


He has reservations to the point where he clearly does not want the strike to happen yet he abdicates his responsibility in preventing that from happening because of what? Political expediency?

He can't say "The situation in Syria has evolved and we need to consider all options and weigh the ramifications of any actions the US takes"? Instead he says "I really wanna attack Syria and I have the authority to order it but I'm gonna ask Congress for cover so I don't have to"

Yeah, that's some wicked farking weaksauce,
 
2013-09-03 09:12:59 PM

Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: the_dude_abides: skullkrusher: If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess

no man, you don't GET it. he's not just thinking 10 moves ahead, he's thinking 20 moves ahead. because he's like, a genius and stuff. smartest guy in the room. he knows more about policy than his policy guys. the long game, bro, the LONG game. whoa... i just blew my own mind. need to go sit down for a while, brb.

it's amazing. Honestly, he objectively looks stupid in this regard. Talked of redlines and enormous consequences and now faced with the decision, he punts the choice to Congress. If he has reservations about striking Syria and it is quite clear that he does and I agree with those reservations, sack up and say so. He looks like the empty suit he has been wrongfully accused of being for the past 5+ years.

It seems silly to me to say that it is clear that he has reservations about striking Syria (and I agree that it is clear), that you agree with those reservations, but criticize him as being an empty suit only for not coming out and publicly stating those reservations. There is literally nothing worth while to be gained by doing so... other than perhaps eliminating the criticism of some that he is an empty suit, which I would imagine is not even on his radar of considerations.

I don't want him to get involved. If we end up not getting involved, I don't really care how that came to pass.

Personally I'd prefer every President look "weak" by putting military action up for a Congressional vote rather than bypassing them with an executive order. It's how our government should work unless you like the idea of an imperial Predident.

But this is SK and he wants attention so there's that.


hahaha, yeah, because he's asking Congress for authorization because it's the right thing to do.
Guy talked tough. Guy is not clearly passing the buck to Congress. This is not lost on ANYONE. You'll cheer it though because you're a cheerleader and that's what you don't get paid to do.
 
2013-09-03 09:13:45 PM

skullkrusher: hahaha, yeah, because he's asking Congress for authorization because it's the right thing to do.
Guy talked tough. Guy is not now clearly passing the buck to Congress. This is not lost on ANYONE. You'll cheer it though because you're a cheerleader and that's what you don't get paid to do.

 
2013-09-03 09:45:25 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: the_dude_abides: skullkrusher: If Obama does X is must be defended as 30th derivative multi-dimensional chess

no man, you don't GET it. he's not just thinking 10 moves ahead, he's thinking 20 moves ahead. because he's like, a genius and stuff. smartest guy in the room. he knows more about policy than his policy guys. the long game, bro, the LONG game. whoa... i just blew my own mind. need to go sit down for a while, brb.

it's amazing. Honestly, he objectively looks stupid in this regard. Talked of redlines and enormous consequences and now faced with the decision, he punts the choice to Congress. If he has reservations about striking Syria and it is quite clear that he does and I agree with those reservations, sack up and say so. He looks like the empty suit he has been wrongfully accused of being for the past 5+ years.

It seems silly to me to say that it is clear that he has reservations about striking Syria (and I agree that it is clear), that you agree with those reservations, but criticize him as being an empty suit only for not coming out and publicly stating those reservations. There is literally nothing worth while to be gained by doing so... other than perhaps eliminating the criticism of some that he is an empty suit, which I would imagine is not even on his radar of considerations.

I don't want him to get involved. If we end up not getting involved, I don't really care how that came to pass.

Personally I'd prefer every President look "weak" by putting military action up for a Congressional vote rather than bypassing them with an executive order. It's how our government should work unless you like the idea of an imperial Predident.

But this is SK and he wants attention so there's that.

hahaha, yeah, because he's asking Congress for authorization because it's the right thing to do.
Guy talked tough. Guy is not clearly passing the buck to Congress. This is not lost on ANYONE. You'll cheer it though because you're a cheerleader and that's what you don't get paid to do.


I don't care about the reason behind it. I care that it should be the norm for military action regardless of whomever is in office. But please keep pitching up those strawman and knocking them down. You're winning the Internet!
 
2013-09-03 09:58:37 PM

Fart_Machine: I don't care about the reason behind it. I care that it should be the norm for military action regardless of whomever is in office. But please keep pitching up those strawman and knocking them down. You're winning the Internet!


sure it should be. It should be how it always works except in rare circumstances where immediate action is required. However, that's not why Obama is passing the buck acting with respect for the separation of powers and limits on executive reach. You are just really, really, really upset that I mentioned that. Because you're a cheerleader and that's what you don't get paid to do. Like I said.
 
2013-09-03 10:10:47 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: I don't care about the reason behind it. I care that it should be the norm for military action regardless of whomever is in office. But please keep pitching up those strawman and knocking them down. You're winning the Internet!

sure it should be. It should be how it always works except in rare circumstances where immediate action is required. However, that's not why Obama is passing the buck acting with respect for the separation of powers and limits on executive reach. You are just really, really, really upset that I mentioned that. Because you're a cheerleader and that's what you don't get paid to do. Like I said.


I'm really really really upset? Well that's interesting. I'm actually laughing at all your dick waving trying to create a strawman narrative. Just for the attention. Like I said.

Please continue. :)
 
2013-09-03 10:30:39 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: I don't care about the reason behind it. I care that it should be the norm for military action regardless of whomever is in office. But please keep pitching up those strawman and knocking them down. You're winning the Internet!

sure it should be. It should be how it always works except in rare circumstances where immediate action is required. However, that's not why Obama is passing the buck acting with respect for the separation of powers and limits on executive reach. You are just really, really, really upset that I mentioned that. Because you're a cheerleader and that's what you don't get paid to do. Like I said.

I'm really really really upset? Well that's interesting. I'm actually laughing at all your dick waving trying to create a strawman narrative. Just for the attention. Like I said.

Please continue. :)


studies show that people who say they are laughing on the internet are actually crying on the inside.
 
Displayed 186 of 186 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report