Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Atlantic)   Playing poker? During my Syria hearings? It's more likely than you think   (theatlantic.com) divider line 124
    More: Fail, John McCain, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, hearings, State of the Union  
•       •       •

2059 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2013 at 3:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-09-03 08:51:10 PM  
This is why we don't have time to read that big 'ole 2400 page healthcare bill.

www.washingtonpost.com
 
NFA
2013-09-03 09:55:15 PM  
IMPEACH
IMPEACH
IMPEACH!
 
2013-09-03 11:50:51 PM  
Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?
 
2013-09-03 11:58:04 PM  
McCain already had a hard-on for doing in Assad. For him the hearing was just a show. His mind was made up long before the CW attack. That being said he said that he lost "Thousands of dollars" in that game so there is that.

\fake dollars... he said
 
2013-09-04 12:09:33 AM  
That's no phone, that's a "MIMIC" (Mossad Issued Mass Indoctrination Computer).

McCain is just helping Kerry give the Full House the Royal Flush.

That's all.
 
2013-09-04 12:18:26 AM  
The bigger thing is, can someone determine what site that is.... is it just some "play for fun" site, or an illegal offshore site for real money?

If it is the latter, the  theppa.org  will have a field day with it.
 
2013-09-04 12:21:40 AM  

dletter: The bigger thing is, can someone determine what site that is.... is it just some "play for fun" site, or an illegal offshore site for real money?

If it is the latter, the  theppa.org  will have a field day with it.


Apparently VIP Poker on an IPhone... oh well.   McCain is getting it on Twitter tho, since he sent a tweet trying to laugh it off.
 
2013-09-04 01:37:03 AM  
With the committee room a full house and Obama going all in, the people deserve a straight answer in spades from Senator McCain. Looking flush won't cut it. America needs its hearts won over, not beaten with clubs.
 
2013-09-04 03:45:52 AM  
McCain's a royal deuce.
 
2013-09-04 03:56:19 AM  

Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?


This unilateralism stuff is not good.
 
2013-09-04 03:59:00 AM  
Maybe if there was something worth debating here. Either we're the world's beacon of freedom or we're just another country looking out for ourselves. If we believe in the dignity of man and the rule of law, we are impelled to act in Syria. If we don't care about the use of illegal weapons, then we sit this one out.

It's really as simple as that. It doesn't take 3 hours to make up your mind. Just take the vote and go home.
 
2013-09-04 04:01:11 AM  
Reminds me a bit of this.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi - briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/
 
2013-09-04 04:02:33 AM  
Is Pokeghazi a scandal yet?
 
2013-09-04 04:08:32 AM  
Personally, I'm more concerned with the main point of the article -- people's attention spans in the smart-phone era are for shiat. They're becoming more rude and self-centered, as if there were no divider between the web and real life anymore. If they don't get immediate gratification from whom they're with, there's always a website that will tell them anything they want to hear in the moment.
 
2013-09-04 04:35:40 AM  

Paris1127: With the committee room a full house and Obama going all in, the people deserve a straight answer in spades from Senator McCain. Looking flush won't cut it. America needs its hearts won over, not beaten with clubs.


A little advice for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo
 
2013-09-04 04:45:23 AM  
So how do we know the Syrian rebels didn't use the chemical weapons? They've already been proven (by the UN even) to at least have sarin in their possession. Either way, it's a very bad idea to back people that have open members of Al Qaeda do a good amount of the fighting for them.
 
2013-09-04 05:04:16 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Either we're the world's beacon of freedom or we're just another country looking out for ourselves.


Beacon of freedom? What planet have you been living on for the past 10 years?
 
2013-09-04 05:06:10 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Personally, I'm more concerned with the main point of the article -- people's attention spans in the smart-phone era are for shiat. They're becoming more rude and self-centered, as if there were no divider between the web and real life anymore. If they don't get immediate gratification from whom they're with, there's always a website that will tell them anything they want to hear in the moment.


Which is funny because that wasnt the point in the article. It didn't focus on attention being worse. Only that there's more obvious evidence to see if they're paying attention or not.
 
2013-09-04 05:06:23 AM  

dletter: The bigger thing is, can someone determine what site that is.... is it just some "play for fun" site, or an illegal offshore site for real money?

If it is the latter, the  theppa.org  will have a field day with it.


poker king
 
2013-09-04 05:07:45 AM  

doloresonthedottedline: Lenny_da_Hog: Personally, I'm more concerned with the main point of the article -- people's attention spans in the smart-phone era are for shiat. They're becoming more rude and self-centered, as if there were no divider between the web and real life anymore. If they don't get immediate gratification from whom they're with, there's always a website that will tell them anything they want to hear in the moment.

Which is funny because that wasnt the point in the article. It didn't focus on attention being worse. Only that there's more obvious evidence to see if they're paying attention or not.


The obvious evidence just makes it obvious.
 
2013-09-04 05:18:31 AM  
This is the same deuce that biatched about the lack of information from the administration on Benghazi when the administration was holding meetings on Benghazi that he failed to attend.
 
2013-09-04 05:18:43 AM  

TheJoe03: So how do we know the Syrian rebels didn't use the chemical weapons? They've already been proven (by the UN even) to at least have sarin in their possession. Either way, it's a very bad idea to back people that have open members of Al Qaeda do a good amount of the fighting for them.


Why would Assad, white, western educated man, want to gas rebels, a bunch of brown terrorists? That does not make sense
 
2013-09-04 05:40:30 AM  
i1.ytimg.com

Thought we wouldn't notice, but we did.
 
2013-09-04 06:04:28 AM  

LewDux: Why would Assad, white, western educated man, want to gas rebels, a bunch of brown terrorists? That does not make sense


Well the people of the Levant are technically Caucasian, but I still don't get what the hell you're talking about. Hell, gassing rebels only serves to put him in a shiatty position with the world, since I guess using chemical weapons is a bigger deal than killing people with bombs and bullets. I REALLY hate to agree with Putin, but if we have evidence that the Syrian government gassed their people, why hasn't it been shown to the public or at least the UN? I don't see how our plan to bomb Syria will lead to anything positive, it would be nice for you to prove me wrong instead of bringing up some stupid racial argument that doesn't even make sense.

/Unless I missed your point, and in that case I'm sorry. It's 3 AM and my insomniac ass can't sleep.
 
2013-09-04 06:07:37 AM  
How long was he playing? 2 minutes or an hour? Obviously it's a facepalm moment. But did anyone besides me actually watch the session? No new information whatsoever. Maybe in the closed session where they could have some classified material, but the televised one? It was a formality to get statements on the record. Everything discussed had been in the media for days. Only an oblivious moron (wait, this is congress) would not know what was going on.

Had he been checking his email or news websites for updates, would there be the same uproar? You'd think he'd be fully briefed before and know that the meeting was a dog and pony show. Not excusing this in the slightest you understand.
 
2013-09-04 06:40:44 AM  
It's funny because people at work are posting on Fark to complain about it.
 
2013-09-04 06:42:48 AM  
What about the person taking random pictures of people being distracted by their cell phones? Wasn't he distracted by his cell phone?
 
2013-09-04 06:43:51 AM  
What's worse is that he was playing against Biden and didn't catch any of his tells.
 
2013-09-04 06:44:46 AM  

PainfulItching: How long was he playing? 2 minutes or an hour? Obviously it's a facepalm moment. But did anyone besides me actually watch the session? No new information whatsoever. Maybe in the closed session where they could have some classified material, but the televised one? It was a formality to get statements on the record. Everything discussed had been in the media for days. Only an oblivious moron (wait, this is congress) would not know what was going on.

Had he been checking his email or news websites for updates, would there be the same uproar? You'd think he'd be fully briefed before and know that the meeting was a dog and pony show. Not excusing this in the slightest you understand.



It doesn't matter if it was 2 minutes or two hours. He's an elected official on the clock and on the public dime in public view.

Put the phone away John and try to at least look professional. Pretend your interested if you have to.
 
2013-09-04 06:48:22 AM  
Probably better than playing a flight simulator game and crashing constantly.
 
2013-09-04 07:00:08 AM  

You Are All Sheep: Probably better than playing a flight simulator game and crashing constantly.


forum.seneweb.com

This is the one that comes with the windows phone; it's impossible to land correctly.

\ yep straight to hell I know. 9/11 jokes are plane wrong.
 
2013-09-04 07:02:00 AM  

Harry_Seldon: Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?

This unilateralism stuff is not good.


WAPO wants to go. The liberal MSM media has spoken. Peace loving liberals want their chance at a war, too.
 
2013-09-04 07:04:37 AM  
Yeah, this is like my professor being mad at me for reading a book in class - when we were reviewing, and I already had an A locked in.

If you know how you're going to vote already, you don't need to listen
 
2013-09-04 07:05:59 AM  

sendtodave: Harry_Seldon: Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?

This unilateralism stuff is not good.

WAPO wants to go. The liberal MSM media has spoken. Peace loving liberals want their chance at a war, too. DERPDERP DERP LIBSlibsLIBS DERPderpDERP

 
2013-09-04 07:09:19 AM  
You got to know when to hold em. Know when to fold em. Know when to walk away. Know when to run.
 
2013-09-04 07:09:46 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Personally, I'm more concerned with the main point of the article -- people's attention spans in the smart-phone era are for shiat. They're becoming more rude and self-centered, as if there were no divider between the web and real life anymore. If they don't get immediate gratification from whom they're with, there's always a website that will tell them anything they want to hear in the moment.


www.otakunovideo.net

Knows that feel, bro.
 
2013-09-04 07:12:29 AM  

KeatingFive: sendtodave: Harry_Seldon: Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?

This unilateralism stuff is not good.


WAPO wants to go. The liberal MSM media has spoken. Peace loving liberals want their chance at a war, too. DERPDERP DERP LIBSlibsLIBS DERPderpDERP


So called liberals.
 
2013-09-04 07:13:34 AM  
Isn't this the exact reason cameras aren't allowed in many courthouses?
 
2013-09-04 07:18:28 AM  

TheJoe03: So how do we know the Syrian rebels didn't use the chemical weapons? They've already been proven (by the UN even) to at least have sarin in their possession. Either way, it's a very bad idea to back people that have open members of Al Qaeda do a good amount of the fighting for them.


This has been answered more than a dozen times.
 
2013-09-04 07:26:59 AM  
Let me express my poutrage over this from work.
 
2013-09-04 07:27:19 AM  
At least he wasn't playing Candy Crush.
 
2013-09-04 07:33:40 AM  
Better than nodding off.

It's not like he needs to pay attention anyway, nothing new was going to come to light and he's already out on the limb.
 
2013-09-04 07:34:07 AM  
Really?  People are going to "meh" this?  We're debating whether, as a country, we're going to kill people and maybe get our fellow Americans killed, not whether we want to use puce or goldenrod for the next TIPS report cover.  Seems like it's kind of important to pay full and complete attention to all the evidence and presentations. McCain is an irresponsible dumbass, bottomline.
 
2013-09-04 07:38:55 AM  
When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?
 
2013-09-04 08:08:56 AM  

RyogaM: Really?  People are going to "meh" this?  We're debating whether, as a country, we're going to kill people and maybe get our fellow Americans killed, not whether we want to use puce or goldenrod for the next TIPS report cover.  Seems like it's kind of important to pay full and complete attention to all the evidence and presentations. McCain is an irresponsible dumbass, bottomline.


He's been wanting to intervene since the beginning. There was no chance that he'd change his opinion.
 
2013-09-04 08:12:24 AM  

Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?


Republican Defense Squad Assemble!

/libs
 
2013-09-04 08:12:56 AM  
"Hell, I could have done ten years at the Hanoi Hilton if I could've played smartphone games!"
 
2013-09-04 08:18:48 AM  

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


Actually there is a pretty good reason why Chemical and Biological weapons are banned that I don't hear people talking about much.  It's an economic one.  See the bombs and bullets do lots of damage to stuff, buildings, infrastructure and the like leading leaders to realize the economic damage they end up doing to an area before they bomb the shiat out of it.  Now Chemical and Biological weapons, they kill the people without destroying any of that awesome infrastructure.  Leaving the supplies and material safe.  The cost of destroying a civilian population with chemical and biological weapons is way more trivial then the cost of bombing a population into the stone age.  Take that and the fact that it's a lot harder to control chemical weapons and biological weapons it's pretty clear why we would rather be bombed and shot.
 
2013-09-04 08:22:21 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-04 08:23:08 AM  
When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

is this a serious question

holy farking lol
 
2013-09-04 08:23:36 AM  
McCain would bomb anyone given the chance. His presence really isn't needed.
 
2013-09-04 08:25:03 AM  
I'm just surprised that mummy knows how to use a smartphone
 
2013-09-04 08:25:08 AM  
It wasn't like McCain was going to ask any hard questions of Kerry or listen to the answers of any hard questions.
 
2013-09-04 08:26:13 AM  

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


Apparently in 1968.
 
2013-09-04 08:29:13 AM  

TheJoe03: LewDux: Why would Assad, white, western educated man, want to gas rebels, a bunch of brown terrorists? That does not make sense

Well the people of the Levant are technically Caucasian, but I still don't get what the hell you're talking about. Hell, gassing rebels only serves to put him in a shiatty position with the world, since I guess using chemical weapons is a bigger deal than killing people with bombs and bullets. I REALLY hate to agree with Putin, but if we have evidence that the Syrian government gassed their people, why hasn't it been shown to the public or at least the UN? I don't see how our plan to bomb Syria will lead to anything positive, it would be nice for you to prove me wrong instead of bringing up some stupid racial argument that doesn't even make sense.

/Unless I missed your point, and in that case I'm sorry. It's 3 AM and my insomniac ass can't sleep.


Why would Assad, white, western educated man, want to gas rebels, a bunch of brown terrorists? That does not make sense

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense

Logic is good, but we are talking about mass murderer, son of mass murderer
 
2013-09-04 08:31:04 AM  
I can't stand McCain but so what.
 
2013-09-04 08:32:28 AM  

Astralwand: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

Actually there is a pretty good reason why Chemical and Biological weapons are banned that I don't hear people talking about much.  It's an economic one.  See the bombs and bullets do lots of damage to stuff, buildings, infrastructure and the like leading leaders to realize the economic damage they end up doing to an area before they bomb the shiat out of it.  Now Chemical and Biological weapons, they kill the people without destroying any of that awesome infrastructure.  Leaving the supplies and material safe.  The cost of destroying a civilian population with chemical and biological weapons is way more trivial then the cost of bombing a population into the stone age.  Take that and the fact that it's a lot harder to control chemical weapons and biological weapons it's pretty clear why we would rather be bombed and shot.


Not only that, but in this situation, Assad is threatening his neighbors for no good reason. They are known to have this stuff in the country. No matter who used it, it has been used. It is supposed to be under control of the government. If it isn't, then the government can't control it, and needs to dealt with. This is on par with some rouge getting ahold of a nuclear launch code. Deal with the rouge AND permanently dismember and bury the source of the screwup, no matter who or where. Its too damn important.
 
2013-09-04 08:33:55 AM  
I wonder how many times they've had to replace McCain's phone because he wrote on the screen with that Sharpie.
 
2013-09-04 08:34:29 AM  
Taking a page from the Assadite/Russiophiles, but that one picture is not enough proof that McCain was playing poker. We need concrete video proof. What proof there is isnt credible even if there is a picture.
 
2013-09-04 08:34:35 AM  
Imagine how it would feel to be a Syrian civilian knowing the fate of your country and very life is being debated by thunder thumbs McCain and Pelosi 5 year old grandchild input influencing foreign policy.
 The mental state of our current leadership is highly questionable.
www.nndb.com
Somewhere a dog is giving intel advice to a congressman.
 
2013-09-04 08:35:32 AM  
imokaywiththis.jpg

McCain's been Obama's little sock-puppet about going to War on Syria. Last night he was on The O'Reilly Factor spouting Obama talking points.
 
2013-09-04 08:38:11 AM  

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
 
2013-09-04 08:38:23 AM  

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.
 
2013-09-04 08:39:47 AM  

PainfulItching: This is on par with some rouge getting ahold of a nuclear launch code.


Or an eyeliner getting a suitcase nuke.
 
2013-09-04 08:41:20 AM  

Paris1127: With the committee room a full house and Obama going all in, the people deserve a straight answer in spades from Senator McCain. Looking flush won't cut it. America needs its hearts won over, not beaten with clubs.


We were at the same table when the chips were checked
A gamblin Rebel who Inspects the Deck
Just when you thought we would fold our hand
Against all odds we raised the bet like we changed the plans
It was live on air but in between station breaks
I was holdin a pair and just made the table stakes
Split the demos, put insurance on tapes
A safeguard against the crusaders in capes
If I double down they say the Gods are sharks
If we win against the house they thought the cards was marked
We draw hit after hit from a royal flush menu
While the dealer promoted the full house venue
A spade in the club with the heart to wear diamonds
The high roller who got credit upon signin
They look puzzled when I shuffle, most of 'em stunned by the hustle
Recourse of bluff game's your muscle
 
2013-09-04 08:43:09 AM  

neversubmit: I can't stand McCain but so what.


That's how I feel, seems rather hypocritical to get upset about something so trivial. I mean...I realize bombing Syria isn't trivial, but everyone gets bored at work.
 
2013-09-04 08:43:14 AM  

Astralwand: Take that and the fact that it's a lot harder to control chemical weapons and biological weapons it's pretty clear why we would rather be bombed and shot.


Clearly the destruction to buildings and infrastructure leading up to the gas attack hasn't deterred Assad.  So the outrage now isn't that a lot of civilians are still dying, but that the damage to buildings and infrastructure isn't commensurate?  That's a curious threshold.

PainfulItching: Not only that, but in this situation, Assad is threatening his neighbors for no good reason.


If only there was some kind of international political body that was established specifically to respond to such regional conflicts and human rights crises...
 
2013-09-04 08:45:07 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: neversubmit: I can't stand McCain but so what.

That's how I feel, seems rather hypocritical to get upset about something so trivial. I mean...I realize bombing Syria isn't trivial, but everyone gets bored at work.


who exactly is upset here
 
2013-09-04 08:45:55 AM  

HighOnCraic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention


I wonder what the cosplay was like for that 'con.
 
2013-09-04 08:46:43 AM  

thamike: Thought we wouldn't notice, but we did.


yafh.com
 
2013-09-04 08:46:56 AM  

Radioactive Ass: McCain already had a hard-on for doing in Assad. For him the hearing was just a show. His mind was made up long before the CW attack. That being said he said that he lost "Thousands of dollars" in that game so there is that.

\fake dollars... he said


Will he have to sell one of his houses?
 
2013-09-04 08:49:15 AM  
I am sure there is a good answer to this question but it alludes me, why did the Syrian government use chemical weapons to kill 1500 people after Obama made his Red Line statement? They were doing just fine killing people, and not risking foreign intervention, using conventional weapons.
 
2013-09-04 08:50:51 AM  
If it was somebody on record as saying they weren't convinced either way and wanted to hear the case be made, it might be a thing, but McCain is not exactly an undecided vote on this one.  The comedy shows will have fun with it, though.

It would have been so much better if he was watching cat videos.
 
2013-09-04 08:50:52 AM  

HighOnCraic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention


And by what jurisdiction is that enforced?

Wooly Bully: This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.


That isn't really an answer to my question.
 
2013-09-04 08:51:05 AM  
I like how he thinks it's a joke too, imagine doing that and getting caught in a super important business meeting in the private sector.
 
2013-09-04 08:51:36 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: seems rather hypocritical to get upset about something so trivial


Seems rather hypocritical to use Syria as a platform for taking pot-shots at the President, only to piss away time in the hearing playing on your phone.
 
2013-09-04 08:53:16 AM  

Gunny Highway: They were doing just fine killing people, and not risking foreign intervention, using conventional weapons.


I don't think Assad has much to worry about here.  We can't even figure out who the "bad guys" are.  I'd like to think we're a bit more deliberative about going to war after Bush's little trek to Iraq that we would at least identify the enemy first this time around.
 
2013-09-04 08:55:19 AM  

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

And by what jurisdiction is that enforced?


Yeah, the Duke boys clearly crossed the county line after deploying that nerve gas.
 
2013-09-04 08:55:22 AM  

Gunny Highway: I am sure there is a good answer to this question but it alludes me, why did the Syrian government use chemical weapons to kill 1500 people after Obama made his Red Line statement? They were doing just fine killing people, and not risking foreign intervention, using conventional weapons.


I heard a retired general on NPR say in the area that they used chemical weapons the rebels had been dug in and just got a shipment of  anti aircraft missiles and they had shot down 2 planes already. I don't know if that's true but it's what was said...
 
2013-09-04 08:56:40 AM  

GoldSpider: Gunny Highway: They were doing just fine killing people, and not risking foreign intervention, using conventional weapons.

I don't think Assad has much to worry about here.  We can't even figure out who the "bad guys" are.  I'd like to think we're a bit more deliberative about going to war after Bush's little trek to Iraq that we would at least identify the enemy first this time around.


I hope that is true.  I was also hoping Congress was going to block this.

/optimist
 
2013-09-04 08:59:00 AM  

HighOnCraic: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

1997

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


Syria's not a signatory to the CWC.  Neither is Israel.
 
2013-09-04 08:59:21 AM  

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


GoldSpider: Wooly Bully: This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.

That isn't really an answer to my question.


Other people already answered you, The rest of us are just laughing in disbelief.
 
2013-09-04 08:59:25 AM  

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

And by what jurisdiction is that enforced?

Wooly Bully: This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.

That isn't really an answer to my question.



 The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.
The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed.[5][6] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.
 
2013-09-04 09:00:43 AM  

Gunny Highway: I hope that is true. I was also hoping Congress was going to block this.

/optimist


Oh the other hand, the White House seems determined to make this happen despite polling that shows overwhelming opposition to military intervention.  I'm at a total loss in figuring out what is driving this.
 
2013-09-04 09:03:31 AM  

GoldSpider: Gunny Highway: I hope that is true. I was also hoping Congress was going to block this.

/optimist

Oh the other hand, the White House seems determined to make this happen despite polling that shows overwhelming opposition to military intervention.  I'm at a total loss in figuring out what is driving this.


That is sort of why I was hoping Congress would put their foot down and maybe try to grab that "Congress decides if we go to war" power back.  It would at least put the office of the President in an awkward spot, ignore Congress or obey.  Could set a good precedent.
 
2013-09-04 09:07:07 AM  

HighOnCraic: The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.


You missed the part where I asked how the agreement (which as imontheinternet pointed out, Syria did not sign) is enforced.  Strongly-worded letters?
 
2013-09-04 09:08:47 AM  

dletter: dletter: The bigger thing is, can someone determine what site that is.... is it just some "play for fun" site, or an illegal offshore site for real money?

If it is the latter, the  theppa.org  will have a field day with it.

Apparently VIP Poker on an IPhone... oh well.   McCain is getting it on Twitter tho, since he sent a tweet trying to laugh it off.


Yeah, his response was awesome.

I think McCain is starting to say "Frak it" and just saying whatever is on his mind nowadays, especially since he doesn't really have anything to lose.  Let's hope, because his "reformed maverick" and "Bush is an awesome president" days suck.
 
2013-09-04 09:10:13 AM  

imontheinternet: HighOnCraic: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

1997

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

Syria's not a signatory to the CWC.  Neither is Israel.


Israel has signed it, but they haven't ratified it yet.
 
2013-09-04 09:10:54 AM  

Wooly Bully: Other people already answered you,


They haven't either.  All they've said is that a body armed with nothing more than good intentions says chemical weapons are bad.

Wooly Bully: The rest of us are just laughing in disbelief.


Indeed, it's laughable to suggest we ought not kick yet another middle eastern hornets' nest.  "If you're not with us, you're against us", right?
 
2013-09-04 09:14:13 AM  

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.

You missed the part where I asked how the agreement (which as imontheinternet pointed out, Syria did not sign) is enforced.  Strongly-worded letters?


Isn't this thread about a hearing on whether or not we should enforce it?
 
2013-09-04 09:15:41 AM  

GoldSpider: I'm at a total loss in figuring out what is driving this.


ordnance doesn't grow on trees
 
2013-09-04 09:15:51 AM  

CPennypacker: Isn't this thread about a hearing on whether or not we should enforce it?


Fair point.  Goody, another "global" pact that the United States alone is responsible for enforcing.  Just delightful.
 
2013-09-04 09:16:31 AM  

GoldSpider: Wooly Bully: Other people already answered you,

They haven't either.  All they've said is that a body armed with nothing more than good intentions says chemical weapons are bad.

Wooly Bully: The rest of us are just laughing in disbelief.

Indeed, it's laughable to suggest we ought not kick yet another middle eastern hornets' nest.  "If you're not with us, you're against us", right?


Look, there are two possibilities here. One is that you were actually asking a question because you wanted to know something, which makes no sense because you could have looked up the answer yourself with that device in front of you.

The other, and we all know this is what's happening, is that you were asking what's known as a "rhetorical question". You don't want an answer at all; you're trying to make a point without bothering to do the work of presenting evidence and a reasoned argument.

So please stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending it's the former. You aren't smart enough to patronize us.
 
2013-09-04 09:17:17 AM  

Headso: ordnance doesn't grow on trees


Indeed, but I'd thought we'd exorcised most of the MIC cronies from the White House by now.
 
2013-09-04 09:20:07 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Isn't this thread about a hearing on whether or not we should enforce it?

Fair point.  Goody, another "global" pact that the United States alone is responsible for enforcing.  Just delightful.


I see your point though. One of the reasons Checmical and Biological weapons are frowned upon is because they are very effective at killing civilians, and not so effective at killing enemy combatants. If Assad is slaughtering civilians indiscriminantly anyway, then the question of whether the use of chemical weaponry warrants intervention in this case isn't very cut and dry at all.
 
2013-09-04 09:21:02 AM  

Wooly Bully: One is that you were actually asking a question because you wanted to know something, which makes no sense because you could have looked up the answer yourself with that device in front of you.


There are so many toothless global goodwill organizations out there, I was unaware there was one that specifically dealt with chemical weapons.  My sincerest apologies.

Of course that still doesn't answer why indiscriminately killing people with gas is worse than bombs or bullets.  The closest thing to an answer I got to that was that gas doesn't damage buildings and infrastructure.
 
2013-09-04 09:24:16 AM  

CPennypacker: If Assad is slaughtering civilians indiscriminantly anyway, then the question of whether the use of chemical weaponry warrants intervention in this case isn't very cut and dry at all.


Precisely my point.  That and the fact that we have no idea who the rebels are, and who would be in charge should we assist them in toppling Assad.  I suppose, though, we should be quite competent at creating democratic middle-eastern governments after our case-study in Iraq, right?
 
2013-09-04 09:27:47 AM  

GoldSpider: There are so many toothless global goodwill organizations out there, I was unaware there was one that specifically dealt with chemical weapons. My sincerest apologies.


Well, the toothlessness you're referring to is a real problem, but that wasn't in your so-called "question".

As for when chemical weapons became prohibited, which was your question, you can look that up. There's a ton of information about it out there if you're genuinely interested.
 
2013-09-04 09:28:26 AM  

HighOnCraic: imontheinternet: HighOnCraic: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

1997

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

Syria's not a signatory to the CWC.  Neither is Israel.

Israel has signed it, but they haven't ratified it yet.


Still, neither are parties.  There's probably an argument to be made by Syria's UN membership or the Geneva Conventions, but Syria not being bound by the CWC really undercuts the case under international law.
 
2013-09-04 09:33:53 AM  

Wooly Bully: As for when chemical weapons became prohibited, which was your question, you can look that up.


Without enforcement there is no prohibition.

Look at all of the human rights violations countries like China get away with, despite similar prohibitions in the UN charter.  Without an established (and consistently exercised) means of enforcement, these kinds of agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on.
 
2013-09-04 09:40:52 AM  

imontheinternet: HighOnCraic: imontheinternet: HighOnCraic: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

1997

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

Syria's not a signatory to the CWC.  Neither is Israel.

Israel has signed it, but they haven't ratified it yet.

Still, neither are parties.  There's probably an argument to be made by Syria's UN membership or the Geneva Conventions, but Syria not being bound by the CWC really undercuts the case under international law.



The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects - the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying to other parties and that these obligations would cease to apply if the prohibited weapons were used against them.
The main elements of the protocol are now considered by many to be part of customary international law.

And Syria signed it.

 http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/a/1925/syrianarabrepublic/acc/pa ris
 
2013-09-04 09:41:36 AM  
Wait until he finds out about Candy Crush.
 
2013-09-04 09:43:36 AM  

HighOnCraic: And Syria signed it.

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/a/1925/syrianarabrepublic/acc/pari s


So this is the UN's problem to deal with then, right?
 
2013-09-04 09:54:05 AM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 850x567]


Farking brilliant.
 
2013-09-04 09:56:22 AM  

HighOnCraic: The main elements of the protocol are now considered by many to be part of customary international law.

And Syria signed it.


They signed and ratified it in '25, but refused to sign or ratify it again on this specific issue in 1997.  Again, that undercuts the argument that a war on Syria over chemical weapons is lawful under international law.

Plus, when that was signed in '25, it was understood to prohibit the use of chemical weapons against other nations, not internally.  The prohibition of using the weapons internally came about later.  According to the link, the international courts didn't deal with the question of internal use until '95, two years before Syria refused to sign the new treaty.

Also, all this analysis comes before we even get to who enforces it or who even used chemical weapons in Syria, and there is likely also a question about whether it is lawful to intervene when the government forces used them, but not when the rebels do..
 
2013-09-04 10:04:17 AM  
Does McCain play poker better than he flies fighter jets?
 
2013-09-04 10:07:38 AM  

GoldSpider: Headso: ordnance doesn't grow on trees

Indeed, but I'd thought we'd exorcised most of the MIC cronies from the White House by now.


Do you know that the word "gullible" isn't listed in the dictionary?
 
2013-09-04 10:12:57 AM  

Therion: GoldSpider: Headso: ordnance doesn't grow on trees

Indeed, but I'd thought we'd exorcised most of the MIC cronies from the White House by now.

Do you know that the word "gullible" isn't listed in the dictionary?


Really? Let me look that up...
 
2013-09-04 10:13:02 AM  

Therion: Do you know that the word "gullible" isn't listed in the dictionary?


Not according to snopes.
 
2013-09-04 10:28:07 AM  

sendtodave: Harry_Seldon: Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?

This unilateralism stuff is not good.

WAPO wants to go. The liberal MSM media has spoken. Peace loving liberals want their chance at a war, too.


Oh, go fark yourself you partisan douchenozzle. Take your bullshiat back to Freep.
 
2013-09-04 10:46:04 AM  

trotsky: sendtodave: Harry_Seldon: Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?

This unilateralism stuff is not good.

WAPO wants to go. The liberal MSM media has spoken. Peace loving liberals want their chance at a war, too.

Oh, go fark yourself you partisan douchenozzle. Take your bullshiat back to Freep.


Liberals shouldn't be hawks.
 
2013-09-04 10:56:10 AM  

GoldSpider: Gunny Highway: I hope that is true. I was also hoping Congress was going to block this.

/optimist

Oh the other hand, the White House seems determined to make this happen despite polling that shows overwhelming opposition to military intervention.  I'm at a total loss in figuring out what is driving this.


http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-syrian-angle-obama-and-me di a-dont.html

This is about a huge pipeline. Maybe? I dunno.
 
2013-09-04 11:02:38 AM  

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: And Syria signed it.

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/a/1925/syrianarabrepublic/acc/pari s

So this is the UN's problem to deal with then, right?


We're still part of the UN and NATO.
 
2013-09-04 11:05:50 AM  

Fart_Machine: We're still part of the UN and NATO.


Right, so let's stop acting like the sole member.
 
2013-09-04 12:23:28 PM  
He should've called a press conference during the briefing to complain that nt enough information has been given.
 
2013-09-04 12:49:43 PM  

Bontesla: TheJoe03: So how do we know the Syrian rebels didn't use the chemical weapons? They've already been proven (by the UN even) to at least have sarin in their possession. Either way, it's a very bad idea to back people that have open members of Al Qaeda do a good amount of the fighting for them.

This has been answered more than a dozen times.


IN this thread? Really?
 
2013-09-04 01:10:08 PM  

PainfulItching: How long was he playing? 2 minutes or an hour? Obviously it's a facepalm moment. But did anyone besides me actually watch the session? No new information whatsoever. Maybe in the closed session where they could have some classified material, but the televised one? It was a formality to get statements on the record. Everything discussed had been in the media for days. Only an oblivious moron (wait, this is congress) would not know what was going on.

Had he been checking his email or news websites for updates, would there be the same uproar? You'd think he'd be fully briefed before and know that the meeting was a dog and pony show. Not excusing this in the slightest you understand.




Can I play?

What if he was looking at porn?
 
2013-09-04 01:13:51 PM  
TheJoe03:

This has been answered more than a dozen times.

IN this thread? Really?


media.tumblr.com

How can you emphasize IN? That doesn't even make any sense
 
2013-09-04 01:22:40 PM  

Tax Boy: TheJoe03:

This has been answered more than a dozen times.

IN this thread? Really?

[media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

How can you emphasize IN? That doesn't even make any sense


I accidentally pushed the shift key too long.
 
2013-09-04 01:25:30 PM  

Wooly Bully: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.




Duh, it's because it doesn't look as cool.

Why do we gas criminals in this country?
 
2013-09-04 01:56:25 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Wooly Bully: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.



Duh, it's because it doesn't look as cool.

Why do we gas criminals in this country?


Because they're not innocent civilians?
 
2013-09-04 02:06:10 PM  
flat the flop then jam on the turn unless the 7 hits.
 
2013-09-04 02:31:21 PM  

Fart_Machine: StoPPeRmobile: Wooly Bully: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.

Duh, it's because it doesn't look as cool.

Why do we gas criminals in this country?

Because they're not innocent civilians?




It's weird that we gas criminals but won't shoot them, for execution.
 
2013-09-04 11:54:35 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Fart_Machine: StoPPeRmobile: Wooly Bully: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.

Duh, it's because it doesn't look as cool.

Why do we gas criminals in this country?

Because they're not innocent civilians?

It's weird that we gas criminals but won't shoot them, for execution.


They still do in Utah.
 
Displayed 124 of 124 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report