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.

(NPR)   Shorter NPR: BSABSVR   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Stupid, congresses, Lee University, Civil Rights Act of 1964, major piece, Morris Fiorina  
•       •       •

4383 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2014 at 5:42 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-10 01:36:21 AM  
While engaged in two wars and faced with the worst economic crisis since the great depression the US Congress decides to DO NOTHING and Alan Greenblatt suggests this might be a good thing.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFfUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
 
2014-03-10 02:39:39 AM  

whidbey: Hurr wut


Since I know you love research.

I still made it easy on you. Obama did go on TV and pinky swear to never ever use it.
Makes one wonder why they fought so hard to keep it, though, eh?
 
2014-03-10 03:00:49 AM  

s2s2s2: Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.


s2s2s2: Since I know you love research.

I still made it easy on you. Obama did go on TV and pinky swear to never ever use it.
Makes one wonder why they fought so hard to keep it, though, eh?


I know this is hard, but try to keep up here....

the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was wrote by congress. see that is their job. The president then enforces those laws. that is the executivebranches job. One way the executive does that is byrepresenting the government in a court of law should someone file suit against a law passed by congress.

showing up in court when a suit is filed, is not "the Obama administration made sure they were included". Congress  "made sure they were included": since they wrote it. perhaps those Republicans who wanted those provisions removed, should have spoke up a little bit and voted against it since, you know, they actually had the power to change what was in the bill.

now run along and go play Flappy Bird on your tablet or something if none of the other kids want to play with you
 
2014-03-10 03:04:44 AM  

s2s2s2: whidbey: Hurr wut

Since I know you love research.

I still made it easy on you. Obama did go on TV and pinky swear to never ever use it.
Makes one wonder why they fought so hard to keep it, though, eh?


No mention of Republicans opposing it.

Like I need any more proof you aren't a total poo-flinger. Say something snarky back. I dare you.
 
2014-03-10 03:05:59 AM  

log_jammin: now run along and go play Flappy Bird on your tablet or something if none of the other kids want to play with you


Aw, look at that. It isn't just me who's sick of your crap, s2.
 
2014-03-10 03:17:16 AM  

StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.


More likely we'll work towards single-payer with the new Senate supermajority and the House majority.

But I like your delusions of relevance, anyway.
 
2014-03-10 03:21:16 AM  

SpacePirate: BSABSVR?

No, I don't quite like the sound of that one.

BSABSVD?

Eh, I went with that one for awhile, but no.

BSABSVC?

Now we're talking.
[img.fark.net image 420x420]


Yeah, like the Republicans and Democrats would ever let a third party speak.

/Plus they're already so crazy they're immune to Cthulhu's mind-fark.
 
2014-03-10 04:24:52 AM  

whidbey: s2s2s2: Gyrfalcon: Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's not something I'm prepared to allow people to claim.

Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.

Hurr wut


I know, sometimes it's like Alice going ass over teakettle down the rabbit hole around here.
 
2014-03-10 06:03:09 AM  

Gyrfalcon: whidbey: s2s2s2: Gyrfalcon: Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's not something I'm prepared to allow people to claim.

Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.

Hurr wut

I know, sometimes it's like Alice going ass over teakettle down the rabbit hole around here.


Ever since CPAC started it's been a derpstorm on facebook of hilarious proportions.  My favorite is they have doubled down on "people who call out my bigotry for being against gay marriage are the real bigots."

That and stupid separation of powers arguments that totally ignores the fact that we fought a rather large civil war to resolve.
 
2014-03-10 06:30:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: BMFPitt: Gyrfalcon: We (me & whidbey) often disagree about details. That's why we come here. I would never think my puerile arguments would change his mind, nor his mine. But at least I know he has the courage of his convictions. More than I can say about at least half the ITGs on Fark.

So can we have an official ruling on whether you, as a fellow Obama supporter, were saying he was being a bit of a lockstep lackey?

I think I said there was no excuse for anyone who voted for the Patriot act and they all deserved censure for their various craven and opportunistic reasons. Obama included. They were more than "lockstep lackeys", they were cowards, and it was unconscionable and wrong.

I guess I don't understand how they were "cowards" if the threats seemed real enough at the time?

Also, do you really think we could have just pulled the plug on everything given that Bush's policies really did create enemies that we didn't have before?

Because the threats weren't real. That is, the war threats weren't real. The alleged WMDs were not real--this was known. Saddam's ties to 9/11 were not real--this was known. The so-called nuclear enrichment program was not real--this was known. The sanctions were working--this was known. Anyone with half a brain knew these things--they were in the 9/11 Commission Report, they had been in news reports, they were on the Internet. If you wanted to find more, it was available.

As to the "threat" of being called "unpatriotic"--that's b/s, as far as I'm concerned. This is still America. A charge of treason is hard to prove, and was harder still before we actually went to Iraq. So you didn't vote for a piece of legislation and the President called you unpatriotic--so what. It was 2001, the next election cycle wasn't coming up until next year, and people would have forgotten it by then. Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's n ...



This.

I am tired of hearing (usually from conservatives trying to defend the Bush administration without defending it), "oh, well, you know,  at the time..."

No. It is utter bullshiat. Perhaps it would sound persuasive to a newly-minted voter, but I can actually remember back that far. "The threats seemed real enough at the time" my ass. These politicians failed to do their jobs adequately, to put it in the mildest possible terms. They knew better, or should have. They could have said no, and didn't. They deserve every bit of blame they get for the ensuing clusterfark.

/this most certainly does NOT mean bsabsvr
 
2014-03-10 07:44:02 AM  

whidbey: Well maybe when you call Fark a "liberal echo chamber" it's kind of hard to get off the list.


When I see a bunch of people in a thread telling each other that nobody is ideologically pure enough for them, and complaining about imaginary bias, I'm going to call it an echo chamber.  Deal with it.

I dunno. What good things DO you support?

Here's a really quick list of good things that you would agree with if your brain weren't filtering them out and replacing them with imaginary derp:
 - Universal healthcare.
 - Marriage equality
 - Massively reduced military

 I would also say the 4th Amendment if you didn't seem so strongly against it.

 

whidbey: I guess I don't understand how they were "cowards" if the threats seemed real enough at the time?


"Threats" as in terrorism, or as in Bush saying mean things about them?

Also, do you really think we could have just pulled the plug on everything given that Bush's policies really did create enemies that we didn't have before?

We're talking about never enacting those policies which you supported.
 
2014-03-10 08:17:21 AM  
NPR has been pretty bad in recent years, especially domestic political news.

'Here to talk about this we have an expert, Dr. Educated.  And for another viewpoint, we have Mr. Talkingpoints from the CATO Institute.'
 
2014-03-10 08:18:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: I understand where you're coming from; and why you would think it was an insurmountable issue--but what's good for the goose is good for the gander imo. If Republicans were wrong to vote for the Patriot Act because patriotism, then Democrats were wrong to vote for it because fear. YMMV, and that's fine. We've got the damn thing now, and the better argument is How do we get rid of it?


Easy, really.

Become a single issue voter, and work with anyone and anyone to prevail on that issue.

My single issue is the removal of the 535 member limit on Congress, because I think a vast majority of what ails this country could be repaired if we got rid of that, and returned to the Constitutionally mandated 1 Representative per 20,000 citizens.

Now, of course, every sitting member of Congress will oppose removing this limit, for the same reason they put it in place- fear of their own person power diminishing, but it needs to be done.  Since the limit was put in place in 1911, every 10 years the census shows the increase in population, and the Congressional districts get redrawn, and each "Representative" in Congress represents a larger group of citizens, so the individual citizens matter less and less.

If we can get back to reasonably sized Congressional districts, communities can actually elect one of their own, to represent them, and to be answerable to them.  Let the members of Congress be beholden to their constituents, not their donors.

By reapportioning representation back to the citizens, as it should be, this can help break the two-party stranglehold on the system, and hopefully lead to a more parlimentary style system where multiple parties form coalitions to accomplish common goals.  We may even be able to successfully overhaul the electoral system, (Publicly Funded Elections. plurality/run-off voting please), but at the very least, it would demolish the current gerrymandering problems, and we'd likely never again see a situation like the one with background checks where 85% of the US supports it but it can't get passed because < 50% of congressional donors do.
 
2014-03-10 08:36:22 AM  

Gyrfalcon: How do we get rid of it?


Hang those that support it.

It's not that hard.
 
2014-03-10 08:58:37 AM  

log_jammin: I know this is hard, but try to keep up here....


Yeah, you seem lost.

"A federal court in New York has issued a permanent injunction blocking the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA but the injunction was stayed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals pending appeal by the Obama Administration."

whidbey: No mention of Republicans opposing it.


To be fair, they were probably just confused because Obama seemed to be for it. Here's a Mother Jones piece on it.

I guess you hate research not done by others.
 
2014-03-10 08:59:52 AM  

whidbey: log_jammin: now run along and go play Flappy Bird on your tablet or something if none of the other kids want to play with you

Aw, look at that. It isn't just me who's sick of your crap, s2.


Just a couple kids who have nothing to back up their bluster.
 
2014-03-10 09:04:38 AM  

log_jammin: showing up in court when a suit is filed, is not "the Obama administration made sure they were included".


When they are lawyers for "The Obama Administration" yes, it does. It's funny how that works, isn't it?
 
2014-03-10 09:10:36 AM  
From the Mother Jones piece I cited earlier:
Last year, during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress came close to authorizing the indefinite detention of American citizens captured on US soil who were suspected of terrorism. Ultimately, the House, the Senate, and the White House agreed on a compromise that would let federal courts decide whether such detentions were constitutional. That is, when confronted with the knotty question of whether the US government can detain its own citizens within the nation's borders without charging them with a crime, Congress decided not to decide. Still, activists on the left and right remain concerned, because although President Barack Obama promised not to use that power, the law does not explicitly prevent him from doing so. In the months since Obama signed the bill ... The revolt against the NDAA has brought together organizations and activists that disagree on almost every other issue-tea party activists, the states' rights Tenth Amendment Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Occupy Wall Street protesters....In Virginia, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell recently signed a bill that could prohibit state authorities from "knowingly" aiding in the military detention of a US citizen.

The Arizona Legislature passed a bill making it a misdemeanor for state officials to help the feds detain US citizens under the NDAA
 
2014-03-10 09:24:49 AM  

Alphax: NPR has been pretty bad in recent years, especially domestic political news.

'Here to talk about this we have an expert, Dr. Educated.  And for another viewpoint, we have Mr. Talkingpoints from the CATO Institute.'


Listening to NPR has been absolute torture enhanced interrogation tactics for some time now. They neutered themselves for the Bush cabal, and the GOP thanks them by cutting their funding. Hope you learned a lesson about negotiating with terrorists, NPR, but I doubt you have.
 
2014-03-10 09:55:28 AM  

StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.


Now that millions have enrolled under the ACA repealing it would take away benefits from voters and make them very angry. The  Republicans would have to be grotesquely stupid to repeal it outright.  (so, I guess it could happen).

I double dog dare em.
 
2014-03-10 10:00:47 AM  

Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.


So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.
 
2014-03-10 10:10:14 AM  

s2s2s2: pending appeal by the Obama Administration."


s2s2s2: When they are lawyers for "The Obama Administration" yes, it does. It's funny how that works, isn't it?


the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Like I said, I know this is hard, but the wording of articles and wiki entries doesn't change how our government works.

s2s2s2: Just a couple kids who have nothing to back up their bluster.


projection.jpg
 
2014-03-10 10:24:35 AM  

SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.


Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.
 
2014-03-10 10:25:20 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Gyrfalcon: I understand where you're coming from; and why you would think it was an insurmountable issue--but what's good for the goose is good for the gander imo. If Republicans were wrong to vote for the Patriot Act because patriotism, then Democrats were wrong to vote for it because fear. YMMV, and that's fine. We've got the damn thing now, and the better argument is How do we get rid of it?

Easy, really.

Become a single issue voter, and work with anyone and anyone to prevail on that issue.

My single issue is the removal of the 535 member limit on Congress, because I think a vast majority of what ails this country could be repaired if we got rid of that, and returned to the Constitutionally mandated 1 Representative per 20,000 citizens.

Now, of course, every sitting member of Congress will oppose removing this limit, for the same reason they put it in place- fear of their own person power diminishing, but it needs to be done.  Since the limit was put in place in 1911, every 10 years the census shows the increase in population, and the Congressional districts get redrawn, and each "Representative" in Congress represents a larger group of citizens, so the individual citizens matter less and less.

If we can get back to reasonably sized Congressional districts, communities can actually elect one of their own, to represent them, and to be answerable to them.  Let the members of Congress be beholden to their constituents, not their donors.

By reapportioning representation back to the citizens, as it should be, this can help break the two-party stranglehold on the system, and hopefully lead to a more parlimentary style system where multiple parties form coalitions to accomplish common goals.  We may even be able to successfully overhaul the electoral system, (Publicly Funded Elections. plurality/run-off voting please), but at the very least, it would demolish the current gerrymandering problems, and we'd likely never again see a situation like the one with backgro ...


I'm not sure I'd go with the strict 30K per rep -- 10k+ number of reps would be a bit unwieldy -- but I would like to see it get a bit more proportional.
 
2014-03-10 10:32:48 AM  

log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".


Keep saying it, it might become true, someday.
 
2014-03-10 10:33:39 AM  

log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".


Who is that guy who is administering the United States government these days?
 
2014-03-10 10:35:32 AM  

BMFPitt: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Who is that guy who is administering the United States government these days?


Valerie Jarrett.
 
2014-03-10 10:35:32 AM  

s2s2s2: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Keep saying it, it might become true, someday.


Keep saying "nu-uh!", it might become true, someday.
 
2014-03-10 10:36:16 AM  
Jeez whidbey
 
2014-03-10 10:37:44 AM  

BMFPitt: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Who is that guy who is administering the United States government these days?


And we have another one who needs a civics class.
 
2014-03-10 10:44:07 AM  

log_jammin: And we have another one who needs a civics class.


Here, let me provide it to you.
 
2014-03-10 10:47:29 AM  

log_jammin: s2s2s2: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Keep saying it, it might become true, someday.

Keep saying "nu-uh!", it might become true, someday.


Nearly everything I see on the topic refers to the government's lawyers as "Obama Administration lawyers". Now, I said "the Obama Admin" made sure it stayed in, which is the same "Obama Administration" as cited by the phrase "Obama Administration lawyers".

I get that you are trying to put some distance between Obama, personally, and the expansion of the NDAA, but that doesn't diminish the veracity of my original statement.
 
2014-03-10 10:53:50 AM  

BMFPitt: log_jammin: And we have another one who needs a civics class.

Here, let me provide it to you.


*yawn*

Where does that say Obama added provisions into the law and not congress?

Oh. Nowhere. Thanks for playing.
 
2014-03-10 10:57:51 AM  

log_jammin: Where does that say Obama added provisions into the law and not congress?

Oh. Nowhere. Thanks for playing.


Where does anyone say anything remotely like that?
 
2014-03-10 11:00:09 AM  

s2s2s2: log_jammin: s2s2s2: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Keep saying it, it might become true, someday.

Keep saying "nu-uh!", it might become true, someday.

Nearly everything I see on the topic refers to the government's lawyers as "Obama Administration lawyers". Now, I said "the Obama Admin" made sure it stayed in, which is the same "Obama Administration" as cited by the phrase "Obama Administration lawyers".

I get that you are trying to put some distance between Obama, personally, and the expansion of the NDAA, but that doesn't diminish the veracity of my original statement.


1. They are lawyers appointed by the obama admin, not lawyers that represent the obama admin.

2. You didn't say the obama admin "made sure they stayed in". You said the obama admin "made sure they were included" and how even GOP law makers didn't want them included. After that I told you who makes the laws. Hint: its not Obama. Or "obama administration lawyers".

Now...I'm done with your dishonest, goal post moving "argument". Have a nice day.
 
2014-03-10 11:00:29 AM  
the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

Cool assertion, bro
 
2014-03-10 11:01:04 AM  

SoupGuru: I go to doctors that don't practice medicine.


So you have a holistic healer?
 
2014-03-10 11:01:44 AM  

BMFPitt: log_jammin: Where does that say Obama added provisions into the law and not congress?

Oh. Nowhere. Thanks for playing.

Where does anyone say anything remotely like that?


You're the one who jumped into the middle of the conversation. Perhaps you could take the time to actually read what I said, who I said it to and why.
 
2014-03-10 12:01:56 PM  

Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.

Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.


Except that it is CLEARLY parody. No reasonable person will see that believe "Gosh, I guess Bill O'Reilly was on TV during slavery and supported the practice". So there is no defamation.
 
2014-03-10 12:17:45 PM  

SpectroBoy: Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.

Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.

Except that it is CLEARLY parody. No reasonable person will see that believe "Gosh, I guess Bill O'Reilly was on TV during slavery and supported the practice". So there is no defamation.


You sound defensive.
 
2014-03-10 12:22:05 PM  

Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.

Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.

Except that it is CLEARLY parody. No reasonable person will see that believe "Gosh, I guess Bill O'Reilly was on TV during slavery and supported the practice". So there is no defamation.

You sound defensive.


You sound like you got nothing.
 
2014-03-10 12:30:29 PM  

fusillade762: It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.


You aint new to the politics tab and you need a citation for that claim?
 
2014-03-10 12:45:44 PM  

log_jammin: 1. They are lawyers appointed by the obama admin, not lawyers that represent the obama admin.

2. You didn't say the obama admin "made sure they stayed in". You said the obama admin "made sure they were included" and how even GOP law makers didn't want them included. After that I told you who makes the laws. Hint: its not Obama. Or "obama administration lawyers".

Now...I'm done with your dishonest, goal post moving "argument". Have a nice day.


The court case that would have removed them was fought by "Lawyers with absolutely no connection to the Obama Admin!". I'm sad to see you're going with the "Empty Suit" argument.

I will, but only because you don't mean it. ;)
 
2014-03-10 01:07:27 PM  

log_jammin: Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.

Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.

Except that it is CLEARLY parody. No reasonable person will see that believe "Gosh, I guess Bill O'Reilly was on TV during slavery and supported the practice". So there is no defamation.

You sound defensive.

You sound like you got nothing.


At least I know the difference between defamation and copyright infringement.
 
2014-03-10 01:20:21 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: Well maybe when you call Fark a "liberal echo chamber" it's kind of hard to get off the list.


When I see a bunch of people in a thread telling each other that nobody is ideologically pure enough for them, and complaining about imaginary bias, I'm going to call it an echo chamber.  Deal with it.


I am dealing with it. People who call Fark an "echo chamber" are unable to come up with real arguments that get traction. How many times do I have to remind you of this? I guess a lot, because you using the term as if it doesn't have consequences.

Here's a really quick list of good things that you would agree with if your brain weren't filtering them out and replacing them with imaginary derp:
- Universal healthcare.
- Marriage equality
- Massively reduced military

I would also say the 4th Amendment if you didn't seem so strongly against it.


I'm not against it. Again, you need to stop worrying about what I'm posting and focus on your own shiat.
 
2014-03-10 01:23:35 PM  

s2s2s2: whidbey: log_jammin: now run along and go play Flappy Bird on your tablet or something if none of the other kids want to play with you

Aw, look at that. It isn't just me who's sick of your crap, s2.

Just a couple kids who have nothing to back up their bluster.


You never backed up your "bluster" in the first place.

The honorable thing to do would be to retract your statements. Both of them.
 
2014-03-10 01:50:32 PM  

whidbey: you need to stop worrying about what I'm posting and focus on your own shiat.


Projection ain't just a river in Egypt.
 
2014-03-10 01:57:33 PM  

whidbey: I am dealing with it. People who call Fark an "echo chamber" are unable to come up with real arguments that get traction. How many times do I have to remind you of this? I guess a lot, because you using the term as if it doesn't have consequences.


You keep trying to convince me that I was wrong in this fantasy you had.  I keep pointing out that you are arguing with a fantasy.

Also, if my arguments don't gain traction in Freeperville, it's only because my positions are wrong?

Again, you need to stop worrying about what I'm posting and focus on your own shiat.

Oh the irony, coming from someone who has spent months trying to convince me that I'm a strawman in his head.
 
2014-03-10 02:05:12 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: I am dealing with it. People who call Fark an "echo chamber" are unable to come up with real arguments that get traction. How many times do I have to remind you of this? I guess a lot, because you using the term as if it doesn't have consequences.

You keep trying to convince me that I was wrong in this fantasy you had.  I keep pointing out that you are arguing with a fantasy.

Also, if my arguments don't gain traction in Freeperville, it's only because my positions are wrong?


No, they don't gain traction because it's a dictatorship there. Read their TOS

Again, you need to stop worrying about what I'm posting and focus on your own shiat.

Oh the irony, coming from someone who has spent months trying to convince me that I'm a strawman in his head.


It's actually a lot less than that. I know it seems like an eternity to you.
 
2014-03-10 02:49:40 PM  

whidbey: You never backed up your "bluster" in the first place.


Oh, I see. You are trolling. My bad, troll on. Doesn't bother me, much.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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