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.

(NewsMax)   As Obama rattles the war sabres, he's cutting military pay raises in half, violating federal law and boosting troop morale as we head into WWIII   (newsmax.com) divider line 196
    More: Dumbass, Wwiii, President Obama, NAFTA, national emergency, world leaders, genetically modified organisms, federal law, Military Officers Association of America  
•       •       •

1762 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 9:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-09 10:22:16 AM

Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.



If the "war" hasn't actually started yet... can we legally call it that?
 
2013-09-09 10:23:58 AM

WhoIsWillo: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

Have we been fighting a lot of naval battles lately?


The United States Navy currently has zero battleships.  How can we hope to maintain our dominance over the dastardly Spaniards without a ready fleet of dreadnoughts?
 
2013-09-09 10:25:23 AM
So, Newsmax is complaining about this as a thing. Where were these farkwits when the invasion forces entering Iraq in 2004 couldn't get what they needed to fight, like body armor, and working weapons? Oh, they glossed over that because Bush? Where were they when Rumsfeld's shiat strategy began to fail almost immediately out of the box? Where were they when others said that Iraq would distract from the mission in Afghanistan and turn both into an extreme shiatshow instead of just a normal one?

Yeah. If these turds finally wised up about dumb wars I could almost respect them. But no. It's all about the scarey black guy in office and not any political objection.

Retards. Retards all of them.
 
2013-09-09 10:25:35 AM

Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.


You know, when you get into work and find the memo about which catchphrases and talking points to use this week, it's best not to use all of them at once.
 
2013-09-09 10:32:12 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.

Oh it has conservative humor. Like this:

What did one liberal say to the other liberal?

"Say, Jerome! It's been a hard day of forcibly converting Christian schoolchildren to the homosatanist agenda! What say we stop by a marihuana dispensary on our way to the abortion clinic for our nightly shift killing white babies for Allah?"


Ha! As if a liberal is going to have a day job, much less a night job. They'd be Conservatives as soon as they saw their first paychecks.
 
2013-09-09 10:35:20 AM
Pay raise?  What's that?
 
2013-09-09 10:35:37 AM

dennysgod: Obama is acting just like GWBush just before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, yet most of the people who supported Bush back then are against Obama going after Syria today even though their justifications are the same.


And those of us who were against the Iraq war in 2003 are also against Syria in 2013.  At least we're consistent.

And enough of this WWIII shtick, if US bombing some country is your basis we'd be on WWX by now.

Agreed.
 
2013-09-09 10:35:57 AM
I don't want a war. I don't want to support a bellicose party.

Or a pro-surveillance state party.

Or a party that puts wealth before principles.

But, hey, at least they're not republicans! Because only wedge social issues matter.
 
2013-09-09 10:36:29 AM

trotsky: So, Newsmax is complaining about this as a thing. Where were these farkwits when the invasion forces entering Iraq in 2004 couldn't get what they needed to fight, like body armor, and working weapons? Oh, they glossed over that because Bush? Where were they when Rumsfeld's shiat strategy began to fail almost immediately out of the box? Where were they when others said that Iraq would distract from the mission in Afghanistan and turn both into an extreme shiatshow instead of just a normal one?


Sounds like someone's not supporting the troops!  You're either with us or against us!
 
2013-09-09 10:40:20 AM

Aristocles: newsmax?


lol
 
2013-09-09 10:44:14 AM

sendtodave: I don't want a war. I don't want to support a bellicose party.

Or a pro-surveillance state party.

Or a party that puts wealth before principles.

But, hey, at least they're not republicans! Because only wedge social issues matter.


so go vote green party and be all smug about it. no one cares what you want.
 
2013-09-09 10:50:43 AM

theorellior: Hey, here's a concept: why don't we raise taxes on the wealthy people who require the US military to secure their assets abroad and give these true patriots in uniform the pay raises they so desperately need?


As a devil's advocate, if the US military is not having recruitment (and retention) problems, then why are raises really necessary?
 
2013-09-09 10:54:08 AM

GanjSmokr: FTFA:  Obama wrote to congressional leaders: "I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members, who have made such great contributions to our nation over the past decade of war. As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our nation on a sustainable fiscal course."

From about a year ago (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/21/letter-preside nt -regarding-alternative-plan-pay-increases-civilian-feder):  Civilian Federal employees have already made significant sacrifices as a result of a two year pay freeze.  As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course.  This is an effort that continues to require tough choices and each of us to do our fair share.

Oddly similar?


OMG! Impeach him!
 
2013-09-09 10:54:40 AM

theorellior: Aristocles: I didn't read the article because newsmax, but Obama wants to start an illegal war on Syria, to what "assets" do you refer?

I'm talking about the entire US military here, Sparky, which allows the US to secure all manners of foreign ports, capital, shipping and territory. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs have no use for those assets, so they have no skin in the game.The people who directly benefit from this service provided by the US government should think about ponying up.


Wanna know who the biggest welfare queens in the US are? Oil companies. So, don't tell me they have no skin in the game.
 
2013-09-09 10:54:55 AM

EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.


If we go to war again wouldn't the military be exempt from the sequestration?

A Mediterranean port, supporting our puppets the Saudis, and getting out from under sequestration? A win-win if I ever heard of one. No wonder he's giving a speech.

/bitter
/sick of war
 
2013-09-09 10:56:31 AM

Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.



upload.wikimedia.org
Our new President
 
2013-09-09 10:58:06 AM

Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.


Fell for it how? The idea was to make the consequences of Congress not doing it's job so unappealing to both sides that they would be forced to do their job. Nobody intended for the sequestration to happen. The only thing Obama can be blamed for is underestimating how big a bunch of incompetent idiots  Congess is.
 
2013-09-09 10:58:21 AM
img196.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-09 11:00:51 AM
Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.

Not illegal.  Not a war.  But hey, you got the Syria part right.
Bless your heart.
 
2013-09-09 11:01:37 AM
Maybe they should cut you know at the top .....why the f*ck do generals need to live in Mansions?  They should be on bases with their troops?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-mansio ns -20130721,0,295607,full.story
 
2013-09-09 11:02:22 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: [img196.imageshack.us image 640x823]


Yeah, because that's the way budgeting works.  Sure.
 
2013-09-09 11:05:39 AM
Losemax is for the Teatards who find Merkin Stinker too intellectually challenging.
 
2013-09-09 11:08:14 AM
Very first Monday morning article, and it's an Opposite Day headline with a Newsmax link... so it's going to be that kind of week, eh? Great...
 
2013-09-09 11:09:14 AM

give me doughnuts: Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.



Our new President


If only. Then I would finally receive the slack which I crave and deserve.
 
2013-09-09 11:10:56 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Cutting military pay raises in half???  OMG, you mean I might get $20 more/month vs $40?  How will I live?


To be fair, that's also what Democrats call a "cut" when it's to a program they like.
 
2013-09-09 11:12:18 AM

GoldSpider: CPT Ethanolic: Cutting military pay raises in half???  OMG, you mean I might get $20 more/month vs $40?  How will I live?

To be fair, that's also what Democrats call a "cut" when it's to a program they like.


There is no substance to this statement at all.
 
2013-09-09 11:14:02 AM

kregh99: Newsmax

I stopped reading there.


Since the majority of sites linked here on Fark that start with the symbol for Neon are troll sites, you should just stop reading at Ne-.
 
2013-09-09 11:19:06 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: I don't want a war. I don't want to support a bellicose party.

Or a pro-surveillance state party.

Or a party that puts wealth before principles.

But, hey, at least they're not republicans! Because only wedge social issues matter.

so go vote green party and be all smug about it. no one cares what you want.


Really? Because polls say that most Americans don't want war, either. Or to be snooped on. Or that only money talks.

So, maybe the parties don't, maybe stooges for the parties don't but the people sure seem to care precisely about those things.

Also, the jerk store called.
 
2013-09-09 11:19:11 AM
I wish that the right's objection to foreign adventures would last longer than a couple of nanoseconds after a Republican is in the White House.  I also wish that they could learn to understand that imaginary means "not real" and actual means "real," instead of the other way around.  WMDs, for example.  But FW:FW:FW:FW:FW, I guess.
 
2013-09-09 11:22:39 AM

sendtodave: Really?


really.
 
2013-09-09 11:23:35 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: Really?

really.


Jerk. Store.
 
2013-09-09 11:26:20 AM

sendtodave: Jerk. Store.


I've tried talking to you reasonably in the past. the moment you get called on something you run away. so what's the point?

we get it, the dems are bad. just almost as bad as the republicans. and you're just so tired of it. fine. good. like I said, just go vote green party, and have fun with it.
 
2013-09-09 11:26:46 AM

Kibbler: I wish that the right's objection to foreign adventures would last longer than a couple of nanoseconds after a Republican is in the White House.  I also wish that they could learn to understand that imaginary means "not real" and actual means "real," instead of the other way around.  WMDs, for example.  But FW:FW:FW:FW:FW, I guess.


I don't necessarily want to assume the worst, buuuut... I'm almost certain that the moment a Republican is back in power, war is back on the Menu.
 
2013-09-09 11:30:11 AM

Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.


That's true, but missing context.  The sequester was meant to be so onerous that it would force meaningful negotiation.  Everybody at the time agreed this was the case, but the republicans decided that it wasn't so bad and Obama.  Responsibility for the sequester rests squarely on the shoulders of the GOP.
 
2013-09-09 11:33:31 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: Jerk. Store.

I've tried talking to you reasonably in the past. the moment you get called on something you run away. so what's the point?

we get it, the dems are bad. just almost as bad as the republicans. and you're just so tired of it. fine. good. like I said, just go vote green party, and have fun with it.


Run away? Wat.

I'm more interested in figuring out why these guys still get any support from the left than I am in throwing away a single vote.
 
2013-09-09 11:34:53 AM

LasersHurt: Kibbler: I wish that the right's objection to foreign adventures would last longer than a couple of nanoseconds after a Republican is in the White House.  I also wish that they could learn to understand that imaginary means "not real" and actual means "real," instead of the other way around.  WMDs, for example.  But FW:FW:FW:FW:FW, I guess.

I don't necessarily want to assume the worst, buuuut... I'm almost certain that the moment a Republican is back in power, war is back on the Menu.


Also back on the menu when Reps get back in power:

Debt doesn't matter
Respect the office not matter if you disagree
You've nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide...
 
2013-09-09 11:35:16 AM
I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on most things and think he's in a better position than any of us to know what's good for the country, but he can flat out suck my dick for cutting pay raises for the troops, especially considering all the other wasteful shiat he turns a blind eye to. fark you, Mr President.
 
2013-09-09 11:37:49 AM

freak7: I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on most things and think he's in a better position than any of us to know what's good for the country, but he can flat out suck my dick for cutting pay raises for the troops, especially considering all the other wasteful shiat he turns a blind eye to. fark you, Mr President.


Congratulations.
 
2013-09-09 11:43:05 AM

jcooli09: Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.

That's true, but missing context.   The sequester was meant to be so onerous that it would force meaningful negotiation.  Everybody at the time agreed this was the case, but the republicans decided that it wasn't so bad and Obama.  Responsibility for the sequester rests squarely on the shoulders of the GOP.


...and this is where the whole cunning plan fell apart. We (meaning people with functional cerebra) already knew we were dealing with people who were willing to blow up the nation's creditworthiness in their pursuit of power. There was absolutely no reason to think that there was anything -  anything - that could force these people to relinquish their perceived advantage.
 
2013-09-09 11:44:17 AM

sendtodave: throwing away a single vote.


throwing away a vote?? but they're just like the republicans!
 
2013-09-09 11:47:10 AM

Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.


Actually they have a humorless "satire" site called The Peoples Cube, which sells winning apparel like this

tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com


So you know they're gonna be hilarious.
 
2013-09-09 11:47:53 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: throwing away a single vote.

throwing away a vote?? but they're just like the republicans!


Can I has left wing tea party plz? Democratic schism? Party that has to listen to its wing?
 
2013-09-09 11:48:46 AM

sendtodave: Can I has left wing tea party plz? Democratic schism? Party that has to listen to its wing?


like i said. vote green and be as smug as you want to about it.
 
2013-09-09 11:52:14 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: Can I has left wing tea party plz? Democratic schism? Party that has to listen to its wing?

like i said. vote green and be as smug as you want to about it.


So, that's a no to democrats becoming more left wing, right?
 
2013-09-09 11:55:05 AM

ad_rizzle: Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.

Actually they have a humorless "satire" site called The Peoples Cube, which sells winning apparel like this

[tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com image 600x306]


So you know they're gonna be hilarious.


Actually, I like these. Makes it easier to avoid ignorant paranoid idiots that way.
 
2013-09-09 11:57:38 AM

advex101: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

And the ships that we have now are orders of magnitude more capable than those ships.


Quantity still matters, though. There's a reason we had to send destroyers through Suez. Our ships don't cover the same ground.
 
2013-09-09 11:58:34 AM
Wait...I thought these people were against pay raises for government workers.

Now, they're for them?

Will anyone explain?
 
2013-09-09 12:00:18 PM

sendtodave: So, that's a no to democrats becoming more left wing, right?


last I checked I wasn't in control of the democratic party, and you weren't in charge of defining what is or isn't "left wing".
 
2013-09-09 12:03:48 PM

ad_rizzle: Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.

Actually they have a humorless "satire" site called The Peoples Cube, which sells winning apparel like this

[tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com image 600x306]


So you know they're gonna be hilarious.


Somewhere there's a modelling agency that specializes in providing people who look like total douches.
 
2013-09-09 12:08:27 PM

vygramul: Quantity still matters, though. There's a reason we had to send destroyers through Suez. Our ships don't cover the same ground.


That's more of an airspace issue. We could strike on Damascus from inside the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report