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.

(Breitbart.com)   Sec. of State Kerry stands up for women's rights in Saudi Arabia--Just kidding-he dismisses the issue as an internal matter   (breitbart.com) divider line 143
    More: Sad, Saudi Arabia, secretary of states, Jewish laws  
•       •       •

498 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-05 12:58:14 PM
i1.ytimg.com
"A matter of internal security." The age-old cry of the oppressor...
 
2013-11-05 01:00:39 PM
LET'S DECLARE A WAR OVER IT!

HERPA DERPA!
 
2013-11-05 01:03:39 PM
So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?
 
2013-11-05 01:07:53 PM

ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?


Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....
 
2013-11-05 01:10:47 PM
Since when don't we meddle in other countries affairs?
 
2013-11-05 01:17:01 PM

BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....


The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish
 
2013-11-05 01:23:32 PM
Sure, let's alienate the guys who provide our oil.
 
2013-11-05 01:24:26 PM
Meanwhile, in the Spockbeard universe, Breitbart says:

"Sec. of State Kerry stands up for ally's right to sovereign self-government--Just kidding-he condemns Saudi Arabia for a purely internal matter"
 
2013-11-05 01:24:37 PM

BunkoSquad: BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....

The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish


Ah...so Kerry didn't say that?  Or are we just shooting the messenger now?
 
2013-11-05 01:27:34 PM

BravadoGT: BunkoSquad: BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....

The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish

Ah...so Kerry didn't say that?  Or are we just shooting the messenger now?



And here you are, defending effing Breitbart....
 
2013-11-05 01:28:02 PM

BravadoGT: BunkoSquad: BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....

The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish

Ah...so Kerry didn't say that?  Or are we just shooting the messenger now?


No, we are pointing out that no matter what anyone in the Obama administration does, Breitbart will find fault with it.

Because Breitbart is nothing more than a shill of right wing propaganda without a shred of integrity.

Also, dead.
 
2013-11-05 01:32:05 PM

gilgigamesh: Also, dead.


that's his only redeeming quality.
 
2013-11-05 01:32:55 PM

gilgigamesh: BravadoGT: BunkoSquad: BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....

The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish

Ah...so Kerry didn't say that?  Or are we just shooting the messenger now?

No, we are pointing out that no matter what anyone in the Obama administration does, Breitbart will find fault with it.

Because Breitbart is nothing more than a shill of right wing propaganda without a shred of integrity.

Also, dead.


So...are you waiting for someone you like better to report Kerry's snub of women's rights before you become unhappy with his position?
 
2013-11-05 01:39:24 PM

BravadoGT: So...are you waiting for someone you like better to report Kerry's snub of women's rights before you become unhappy with his position?


"I know you guys think this site is full of shiat, but that shouldn't stop you from being outraged about what they're saying"
 
2013-11-05 01:51:25 PM
Kerry's weak stance on the issue aside, I had to laugh at this argument against women driving in the linked NYT story:

Another cleric, Sheik Mohammed al-Nujaimi, described the campaign as a "great danger," saying it would lead to ruined marriages, a low birthrate, the spread of adultery, more car accidents and "the spending of excessive amounts on beauty products."

/Women be shopping...
 
2013-11-05 01:55:56 PM

BravadoGT: So...are you waiting for someone you like better to report Kerry's snub of women's rights before you become unhappy with his position?


I don't care who it is. I believe in realpolitick. We aren't the arbiters of world morality. If the people of Saudi Arabia want to reform their treatment of women let them do so.
 
2013-11-05 02:00:56 PM

BravadoGT: Where's the conservative in this story?


source and submitter.
 
2013-11-05 02:03:22 PM
Here's the full dialogue in question:

QUESTION: Thank you very much. This is a question for His Highness. I was wondering: Saudi - you've spoken about your frustration with regard to the Security Council actions on Syria. You've heard Secretary Kerry say that the U.S. does not have a desire to get in the middle of the civil war, wants peaceful - unless it's through peace talks. What is it that you are doing and that you are - or there have been reports that you're increasing your support for the opposition militarily. Is that true? And how much further are you prepared to go to ensure that the civil war is ended? Also, what is the redline with regard to Iraq's participation in the peace talks?

And for Secretary Kerry, on Pakistan: Pakistan believes, while recognizing that you won't discuss the CIA drone strikes, that the killing recently of the Taliban leader Mehsud was an attempt to thwart the peace talks. And again, they're threatening to close the supply routes into Afghanistan. I was wondering what you can say to Pakistan's government to convince them that this was not an attempt to get in the middle of those peace talks with the Taliban. And just a follow-up: I was wondering what your take is on women driving in Saudi Arabia.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: Why didn't you ask me that question? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: The - what the Iranians can do and cannot do in Syria is a very intriguing question. Syria has now more than 140,000 casualties, more than two million refugees. It is the largest calamity that has befallen the world in the present millennium. If that isn't reason enough to intervene, to stop the bloodshed, I don't know what is. If one is choosing a moral choice between - to intervene or not to intervene, what is that choice going to be? Do I let this fighting continue, or do I help if I can? And the people are not dying only of weapons, all kind of weapons - weapons of mass destruction like the chemical weapons and weapons of high destructive capability like the ballistic missiles that have been used against cities of Syria.

Aside from the human loss and the tragedy of the human loss, Syria is part of the cultural history of the world. It has been a city it has (inaudible) the city, Damascus. For longer than any other city in the world, it has been considered a city, and resided by people of culture, by people of education. It is being destroyed by carpet bombing. If that isn't a disregard of human values, I don't know what is.

Now the United Nations is supposed to be an organization established after the destructiveness of the Second World War to prevent such destructiveness to happen again. Three years now, almost three years, they have been looking at this tragedy with apparent unconcern. How can this be? Is this the role of the Security Council? It is not that this is happening in Syria, which is an Arab country. If it is happening anywhere in the world, it would be a great tragedy. If we can't face tragedy of this sort, how can we say that we want to be - to establish a civilization based on social equality and justice? We can't assume these high moral values if we don't do something about Syria. We can't really say that we are taking the high road and establishing our humanity if we let this tragedy continue unabated.

SECRETARY KERRY: You didn't ask me, but let me just - I want to associate myself with the strong comments of Prince Saud al-Faisal regarding the tragedy and the level of devastation in Syria, and the need for the international community to respond, which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard now to get to the table, but also why the United States has brought this issue to the Security Council on several occasions, only to be stymied in deadlock. So we certainly agree that we need to respond to it.

Now with respect to Hakimullah Mehsud in Pakistan, without commenting on what may or may not have happened, obviously he has been reported to have been killed. And I will just say very clearly that this is a man who absolutely is known to have targeted and killed many Americans, many Afghans, and many Pakistanis. A huge number of Pakistanis have died at the hands of Hakimullah Mehsud and his terrorist organization. And the Tehrik-e Taliban has been devastating Pakistan in terms of its stability and opportunities to be able to respond to many needs of its people.

Obviously, the relationship between us and Pakistan is a very important one. We just had Nawaz Sharif in Washington for a period of time. We work very, very closely. We're closely engaged with the government in Pakistan. We have a strong ongoing dialogue with them regarding all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and we have very important shared interests, and we intend to continue to work together with them through the Strategic Dialogue that we have established, in order to work through these kinds of challenges.

But I think it's very, very clear that Pakistan has been deeply threatened by this insurgency in Pakistan. I think somewhere upwards of 50,000 troops and civilians have died in the last few years at the hands of the insurgency in Pakistan, and this man is one of those insurgents. So while we will welcome any discussions, we are sensitive to the concerns of the country, and we look forward to working very closely with the Government of Pakistan.

With respect to the issue of women driving here in Saudi Arabia, it's no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody, regardless of gender, race, or any other qualification. But it's up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure choices and timing for whatever events. I know there's a debate. We actually talked about this at lunch. There's a healthy debate in Saudi Arabia about this issue, but I think that debate is best left to Saudi Arabia, the people engaged in it, all of whom know exactly where we in the United States of America stand on this issue.


http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/11/216236.htm
 
2013-11-05 02:05:06 PM

gilgigamesh: BravadoGT: So...are you waiting for someone you like better to report Kerry's snub of women's rights before you become unhappy with his position?

I don't care who it is. I believe in realpolitick. We aren't the arbiters of world morality. If the people of Saudi Arabia want to reform their treatment of women let them do so.


I wonder what the Breitbartian reaction would be were our European allies to castigate us over abortion law or voter ID law or any other conservative policies.
 
2013-11-05 02:06:01 PM
Incidentally, I want to note that he was having a press conference with the Saudi Foreign Minister sitting right next to him.

Of course he's going to dodge the question. This is what a diplomat does. He's not going to antagonize his host while they are sitting right next to him. If he actually did answer that question and demanded that the Saudis give women the right to drive, I'd be calling for Kerry's resignation for diplomatic malpractice.
 
2013-11-05 02:21:40 PM

revrendjim: Sure, let's alienate the guys who provide our oil.


Good news, they provide less and less of our oil. We make more ourselves and get it from Canada.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-11-05 02:25:43 PM

revrendjim: Sure, let's alienate the guys who provide our oil.


Venezuela is already pretty well pissed off at us...
 
2013-11-05 02:39:44 PM

RexTalionis: Incidentally, I want to note that he was having a press conference with the Saudi Foreign Minister sitting right next to him.

Of course he's going to dodge the question. This is what a diplomat does. He's not going to antagonize his host while they are sitting right next to him. If he actually did answer that question and demanded that the Saudis give women the right to drive, I'd be calling for Kerry's resignation for diplomatic malpractice.


How dare he not make an empty gesture!
 
2013-11-05 02:45:00 PM

RexTalionis: Here's the full dialogue in question:

QUESTION: Thank you very much. This is a question for His Highness. I was wondering: Saudi - you've spoken about your frustration with regard to the Security Council actions on Syria. You've heard Secretary Kerry say that the U.S. does not have a desire to get in the middle of the civil war, wants peaceful - unless it's through peace talks. What is it that you are doing and that you are - or there have been reports that you're increasing your support for the opposition militarily. Is that true? And how much further are you prepared to go to ensure that the civil war is ended? Also, what is the redline with regard to Iraq's participation in the peace talks?

And for Secretary Kerry, on Pakistan: Pakistan believes, while recognizing that you won't discuss the CIA drone strikes, that the killing recently of the Taliban leader Mehsud was an attempt to thwart the peace talks. And again, they're threatening to close the supply routes into Afghanistan. I was wondering what you can say to Pakistan's government to convince them that this was not an attempt to get in the middle of those peace talks with the Taliban. And just a follow-up: I was wondering what your take is on women driving in Saudi Arabia.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: Why didn't you ask me that question? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: The - what the Iranians can do and cannot do in Syria is a very intriguing question. Syria has now more than 140,000 casualties, more than two million refugees. It is the largest calamity that has befallen the world in the present millennium. If that isn't reason enough to intervene, to stop the bloodshed, I don't know what is. If one is choosing a moral choice between - to intervene or not to intervene, what is that choice going to be? Do I let this fighting continue, or do I help if I can? And the people are not dying only of weapons, all kind of weapons - weapons of mass destruction like the chemical weapons and weapons of high destructive capability like the ballistic missiles that have been used against cities of Syria.

Aside from the human loss and the tragedy of the human loss, Syria is part of the cultural history of the world. It has been a city it has (inaudible) the city, Damascus. For longer than any other city in the world, it has been considered a city, and resided by people of culture, by people of education. It is being destroyed by carpet bombing. If that isn't a disregard of human values, I don't know what is.

Now the United Nations is supposed to be an organization established after the destructiveness of the Second World War to prevent such destructiveness to happen again. Three years now, almost three years, they have been looking at this tragedy with apparent unconcern. How can this be? Is this the role of the Security Council? It is not that this is happening in Syria, which is an Arab country. If it is happening anywhere in the world, it would be a great tragedy. If we can't face tragedy of this sort, how can we say that we want to be - to establish a civilization based on social equality and justice? We can't assume these high moral values if we don't do something about Syria. We can't really say that we are taking the high road and establishing our humanity if we let this tragedy continue unabated.

SECRETARY KERRY: You didn't ask me, but let me just - I want to associate myself with the strong comments of Prince Saud al-Faisal regarding the tragedy and the level of devastation in Syria, and the need for the international community to respond, which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard now to get to the table, but also why the United States has brought this issue to the Security Council on several occasions, only to be stymied in deadlock. So we certainly agree that we need to respond to it.

Now with respect to Hakimullah Mehsud in Pakistan, without commenting on what may or may not have happened, obviously he has been reported to have been killed. And I will just say very clearly that this is a man who absolutely is known to have targeted and killed many Americans, many Afghans, and many Pakistanis. A huge number of Pakistanis have died at the hands of Hakimullah Mehsud and his terrorist organization. And the Tehrik-e Taliban has been devastating Pakistan in terms of its stability and opportunities to be able to respond to many needs of its people.

Obviously, the relationship between us and Pakistan is a very important one. We just had Nawaz Sharif in Washington for a period of time. We work very, very closely. We're closely engaged with the government in Pakistan. We have a strong ongoing dialogue with them regarding all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and we have very important shared interests, and we intend to continue to work together with them through the Strategic Dialogue that we have established, in order to work through these kinds of challenges.

But I think it's very, very clear that Pakistan has been deeply threatened by this insurgency in Pakistan. I think somewhere upwards of 50,000 troops and civilians have died in the last few years at the hands of the insurgency in Pakistan, and this man is one of those insurgents. So while we will welcome any discussions, we are sensitive to the concerns of the country, and we look forward to working very closely with the Government of Pakistan.

With respect to the issue of women driving here in Saudi Arabia, it's no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody, regardless of gender, race, or any other qualification. But it's up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure choices and timing for whatever events. I know there's a debate. We actually talked about this at lunch. There's a healthy debate in Saudi Arabia about this issue, but I think that debate is best left to Saudi Arabia, the people engaged in it, all of whom know exactly where we in the United States of America stand on this issue.


http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/11/216236.htm


TL;DR

What do I get to be mad at Obama and Kerry about? Meddling in foreign countries internal issues thereby shoving our worldview down their throats or turning our backs on women's rights (but not abortion, fark the rights of those sluts)
 
2013-11-05 02:57:25 PM
There is a lot about our relationship to Saudi Arabia and most of it is bad.  The tail of the deal the Saud family made with the Wahhabi sect of Islam has had rather catastrophic effects for the middle east and the world.  For the support of the Wahhabi leaders, the King gave them total control over the holiest sites in Islam.  They used this and the huge sums of money from oil exports to set up madrasas all across the middle east to teach the very radical and intolerant views of Islam that have spawned many of the terrorist movements and/or the suppression of women's rights, etc.  The see other sects within Islam especially the Shia (Iran and most of Iraq) as non muslims.

Our leaders and even for the most part our press has turned a blind eye to this because we need their oil.  I am not saying we have to invade another country or even sanction them, but we could at least expose this clear connection to today's radicalization of many in the Islamic world.

Also, the role Britain played in actually setting up the Wahhabi sect and making it the radical arm of Islam to break the religious unity and create animosity to help their cause of defeating the Ottomans, is western imperialist douchebaggery at it's finest.  Here is a link to a good overview which strangely enough is from Britain.  We would never hear this story on a mainstream news program.   http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/02/22/290254/britain-saudis-wahhab i sm-a-look/
 
2013-11-05 02:59:03 PM
So are we finally going to bomb the people responsible for 9/11?
 
2013-11-05 03:03:27 PM

gunslinger_RG: There is a lot about our relationship to Saudi Arabia and most of it is bad.  The tail of the deal the Saud family made with the Wahhabi sect of Islam has had rather catastrophic effects for the middle east and the world.  For the support of the Wahhabi leaders, the King gave them total control over the holiest sites in Islam.  They used this and the huge sums of money from oil exports to set up madrasas all across the middle east to teach the very radical and intolerant views of Islam that have spawned many of the terrorist movements and/or the suppression of women's rights, etc.  The see other sects within Islam especially the Shia (Iran and most of Iraq) as non muslims.

Our leaders and even for the most part our press has turned a blind eye to this because we need their oil.  I am not saying we have to invade another country or even sanction them, but we could at least expose this clear connection to today's radicalization of many in the Islamic world.

Also, the role Britain played in actually setting up the Wahhabi sect and making it the radical arm of Islam to break the religious unity and create animosity to help their cause of defeating the Ottomans, is western imperialist douchebaggery at it's finest.  Here is a link to a good overview which strangely enough is from Britain.  We would never hear this story on a mainstream news program.   http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/02/22/290254/britain-saudis-wahhab i sm-a-look/


Wut?  presstv.com is an Iranian state-sponsored "news" outlet.
 
2013-11-05 03:09:50 PM

BravadoGT: gilgigamesh: BravadoGT: BunkoSquad: BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....

The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish

Ah...so Kerry didn't say that?  Or are we just shooting the messenger now?

No, we are pointing out that no matter what anyone in the Obama administration does, Breitbart will find fault with it.

Because Breitbart is nothing more than a shill of right wing propaganda without a shred of integrity.

Also, dead.

So...are you waiting for someone you like better to report Kerry's snub of women's rights before you become unhappy with his position?


You sound concerned. Are you concerned? Maybe we should engage in an international diplomatic snafu with a wealthy and influential nation because we don't like its policies on women. That kind of heavy-handed interventionism has served us so well in the past.

Here's a concept -- maybe Saudi women are smart and capable and don't need the cavalry to ride in.
 
2013-11-05 03:10:01 PM
Why should a woman in Saudi Arabia have any more rights than a woman in the Southern United States?
 
2013-11-05 03:13:49 PM
Lecturing a democracy like Israel is liberalism.

Israel is a democracy depending on which side of the wall you live. Plus, those crazy Israelis KEEP MOVING THE WALLS!

vladtepesblog.com
 
2013-11-05 03:15:09 PM

BravadoGT: gilgigamesh: BravadoGT: BunkoSquad: BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....

The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish

Ah...so Kerry didn't say that?  Or are we just shooting the messenger now?

No, we are pointing out that no matter what anyone in the Obama administration does, Breitbart will find fault with it.

Because Breitbart is nothing more than a shill of right wing propaganda without a shred of integrity.

Also, dead.

So...are you waiting for someone you like better to report Kerry's snub of women's rights before you become unhappy with his position?


Breitbart is all for staying out of other country's affairs when they want to ban the ghey or make Christianity the law of the land or outlaw Islam.

We're mocking them because this stance has nothing to do with what Kerry said, and has everything to do with that it's Kerry.
 
2013-11-05 03:15:35 PM
No, we don't go to war over this (as an idiot earlier in this thread said).  You just don't be so buddy-buddy with a government purposely living in the dark ages.
 
2013-11-05 03:15:46 PM

Peter von Nostrand: What do I get to be mad at Obama and Kerry about? Meddling in foreign countries internal issues thereby shoving our worldview down their throats or turning our backs on women's rights (but not abortion, fark the rights of those sluts)


Doesn't matter.  Just as long as you're mad at them.
 
2013-11-05 03:15:53 PM

ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?


Putting up bureaucratic roadblocks for women voting and restricting their personal medical options in this country - good.
Not making a stink over another country whose domestic polices we have no control over - bad.

Bonus points for them playing the b-b-b-but Israel! card.
 
2013-11-05 03:16:15 PM

BravadoGT: gunslinger_RG: There is a lot about our relationship to Saudi Arabia and most of it is bad.  The tail of the deal the Saud family made with the Wahhabi sect of Islam has had rather catastrophic effects for the middle east and the world.  For the support of the Wahhabi leaders, the King gave them total control over the holiest sites in Islam.  They used this and the huge sums of money from oil exports to set up madrasas all across the middle east to teach the very radical and intolerant views of Islam that have spawned many of the terrorist movements and/or the suppression of women's rights, etc.  The see other sects within Islam especially the Shia (Iran and most of Iraq) as non muslims.

Our leaders and even for the most part our press has turned a blind eye to this because we need their oil.  I am not saying we have to invade another country or even sanction them, but we could at least expose this clear connection to today's radicalization of many in the Islamic world.

Also, the role Britain played in actually setting up the Wahhabi sect and making it the radical arm of Islam to break the religious unity and create animosity to help their cause of defeating the Ottomans, is western imperialist douchebaggery at it's finest.  Here is a link to a good overview which strangely enough is from Britain.  We would never hear this story on a mainstream news program.   http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/02/22/290254/britain-saudis-wahhab i sm-a-look/

Wut?  presstv.com is an Iranian state-sponsored "news" outlet.


Not saying anything regarding his post, but *now* you're calling a websites integrity into question?

Gtfo.
 
2013-11-05 03:16:56 PM
BravadoGT:Wut?  presstv.com is an Iranian state-sponsored "news" outlet.

Dang... I did a quick search just to find a ref for what I said... did it too fast.  However, it is still worth your time to read other sources.  It is interesting.
 
2013-11-05 03:17:33 PM
I don't understand why our Secretary of State won't intentionally insult our allies.
 
2013-11-05 03:17:54 PM
gotta get that oil.
 
2013-11-05 03:18:06 PM

BravadoGT: Wut? presstv.com is an Iranian state-sponsored "news" outlet.


Says the guy defending breitbart.com.
 
2013-11-05 03:18:23 PM

ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?


I remember people being very concerned about Saddam's treatment of women in 2003.
 
2013-11-05 03:18:46 PM
Sorry folks, this is realpolitik.  Politicians give promises for election, but the state department provides all the official positions on each and every country up the chain of command, not down.
 
2013-11-05 03:19:23 PM

OgreMagi: No, we don't go to war over this (as an idiot earlier in this thread said).  You just don't be so buddy-buddy with a government purposely living in the dark ages.


Meanwhile, Republicans in Virginia are voting for a man who literally thinks oral sex should be illegal.
 
2013-11-05 03:19:49 PM

BravadoGT: Where's the conservative in this story?


in Saudi Arabia?
 
2013-11-05 03:21:19 PM
Sec of Lib John Libby the Lib bowing down before Saudi Arabia what a surprise he's no Real American
 
2013-11-05 03:22:09 PM
Much like the attack on Obama about medicare cuts, it doesn't matter if it is something that the GOP has always advocated. The more important thing is to attack Obama.

As shown by our resident retard dominating the start of this thread.
 
2013-11-05 03:24:49 PM

BravadoGT: [i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]
"A matter of internal security." The age-old cry of the oppressor...


Violating the Prime Directive again, Picard?
 
2013-11-05 03:25:15 PM

BunkoSquad: BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....

The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish


Questioning the accuracy of a Breitbart story is prudent.

Complaining that someone you don't like is pointing out something that's true makes you a partisan asshat.
 
2013-11-05 03:25:55 PM

gilgigamesh: BravadoGT: BunkoSquad: BravadoGT: ManateeGag: So, now conservatives are concerned with women's rights?

Where's the conservative in this story?  All I see is a liberal who pretends to care about women's rights....

The article is from Breitbart, a well-known dispenser of right-wing rubbish

Ah...so Kerry didn't say that?  Or are we just shooting the messenger now?

No, we are pointing out that no matter what anyone in the Obama administration does, we will defend it.


FTFE
 
2013-11-05 03:26:31 PM
He's not wrong. He's just an asshole.
 
2013-11-05 03:28:26 PM

Hickory-smoked: OgreMagi: No, we don't go to war over this (as an idiot earlier in this thread said).  You just don't be so buddy-buddy with a government purposely living in the dark ages.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Virginia are voting for a man who literally thinks oral sex should be illegal.


Politicians have a nasty habit of ignoring Supreme Court decisions and the Constitution.  Our SCOTUS has already ruled oral sex is none of the government's business.  I'm at work so I don't want to google the particular phrase needed to find the citation.

However, what does a moron running for office have to do with another country that effectively makes slavery government policy?
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report