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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Bobby Jindal: 'Obama's a moron for not waging war against Russia'   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 160
    More: Unlikely, Bobby Jindal, President Obama, Russia, Sen. John McCain, intelligence  
•       •       •

1961 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:27 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-10 01:29:36 PM
*cough cough*

Also, farking warmongers.
 
2014-03-10 01:29:53 PM
keep stroking your war boner
 
2014-03-10 01:30:21 PM
Get back to us when you know what volcanoes are and what they do, Bobby.

And we would not want a failure in you in office with access to air strikes.
 
2014-03-10 01:31:06 PM
Bobby Jindal: 'We could all be in Heaven right now if not for Ohama'
 
2014-03-10 01:31:55 PM
Obama's Bush is a moron for not waging war against Russia

is something I didn't hear in 2008.
 
2014-03-10 01:32:56 PM
President Jindal would have put on his finest luchador garb and grabbed the first plane to Moscow. Upon his arrival, he would have personally driven Putin from the Crimea with his signature Creationist Cockpunch and Volcanic Indian Burn moves.
 
2014-03-10 01:33:14 PM
I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.
 
2014-03-10 01:33:53 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 01:33:54 PM
Sphincter says, "our president is ... boasting about the record number of Americans on food stamps."

Right. Boasting.

You're a fecking idiot, Jindal.
 
2014-03-10 01:34:30 PM
He uses multilateralism as "not a process but an end" and is "loath to act with certainty."

And that "weakness," Jindal asserts, "will prove expensive for America; it always does."


Yes, because showing unilateral "strength" has never proved expensive for America...
 
2014-03-10 01:34:55 PM
What is different between the actions of Bush re Georgia versus Obama re Ukraine?

Yknow, aside that Obama is a Democratic president.

/yes I know. Thats the actual sticking point.
//cue the folk wholl focus on my second line and not my question.
 
2014-03-10 01:35:10 PM
img.fark.net

God dang it, Bobby.
 
2014-03-10 01:36:22 PM
And that "weakness," Jindal asserts, "will prove expensive for America; it always does."

What's expensive for America now? Insurance companies trying to screw the citizens? How about two unnecessary wars that helped to crash the economy? Thanks for your input Piyush but you're still not right.
 
2014-03-10 01:36:36 PM
FTFA: Nowhere in the 818-word column is it ever indicated how Bobby Jindal would end the crisis, but that likely wasn't   when he wrote the piece.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 01:37:14 PM
Nowhere in the 818-word column is it ever indicated how Bobby Jindal would end the crisis

You don't farking say
 
2014-03-10 01:38:50 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Nowhere in the 818-word column is it ever indicated how Bobby Jindal would end the crisis

You don't farking say


We're all taken aback, I can tell you.
 
2014-03-10 01:39:00 PM
Good luck with trying to boost cred for a 2016 Presidential bid with that. The 35% approval rating in his home state won't help either.
 
2014-03-10 01:39:00 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Nowhere in the 818-word column is it ever indicated how Bobby Jindal would end the crisis

You don't farking say


By a minute.
 
2014-03-10 01:40:10 PM

Summercat: *cough cough*

Also, farking warmongers.


busy chillin': keep stroking your war boner


To be fair, this is more "Oppose Obama in everything" than desire for war. If Obama took any sort of military action, I guarantee you everyone on the right would be condemning him for not being more prudent in his actions.

Just look at Libya
 
2014-03-10 01:41:00 PM
So how's that "We need to stop being the stupid party" working out for ya there, Bobby?
 
2014-03-10 01:41:13 PM
Apparently Bobby wants to see the world revert back to the days of the Cold War.
 
2014-03-10 01:41:25 PM
And had Obama taken some sort of military stance against Russia, the Right would be screaming bloody murder about how horribly Obama is treating our valued G8 partner, Russia.

It never ends. The carnival barkers are best ignored.
 
2014-03-10 01:41:35 PM

Cagey B: President Jindal would have put on his finest luchador garb and grabbed the first plane to Moscow. Upon his arrival, he would have personally driven Putin from the Crimea with his signature Creationist Cockpunch and Volcanic Indian Burn moves.


Can he stretch out his arms and throw Yoga Fire?  I might vote for him then.
 
2014-03-10 01:42:05 PM
0.tqn.com
Vool-CAY-now ree-sarch?
 
2014-03-10 01:42:12 PM
And Bobby Jindal is a nutria humping idiot that wouldn't know a good idea from his ass hole.

/There, see how easy that was.
 
2014-03-10 01:43:25 PM
wait, I thought the situation had nothing to do with Obama or the US.  which is it?
 
2014-03-10 01:43:30 PM
When even Vizzini knows that to get involved in a war with Russia would be a classic blunder, maybe your position is the unintelligent one.
 
2014-03-10 01:43:52 PM
Once again, GOP Presidential hopeful isn't talking to anybody but the frothing rank and file desperate for any Word showing Obama is a Bad Man.  It doesn't matter how screamingly false.

Poor Tim Pawlenty.  If only he had better timing, he could have sold the bridge collapsing in Minnesota as an uncommonly Good Thing, cf. starving little kids at school.
 
2014-03-10 01:44:31 PM
Up until now I though maybe Jindal was partially sane.

Just another GOP partisan hack I guess.
 
2014-03-10 01:44:32 PM
How's that "not being the stupid party" thing working for ya, Gunga Jindal?
 
2014-03-10 01:44:39 PM
Ah lousyana, the landfill of East Texas.
 
2014-03-10 01:44:44 PM

offmymeds: Apparently Bobby wants to see the world revert back to the days of the Cold War.


It's good for the 1%, which is the only constituency the GOP gives a shiat about.
 
2014-03-10 01:45:11 PM

Car_Ramrod: Summercat: *cough cough*

Also, farking warmongers.

busy chillin': keep stroking your war boner

To be fair, this is more "Oppose Obama in everything" than desire for war. If Obama took any sort of military action, I guarantee you everyone on the right would be condemning him for not being more prudent in his actions.

Just look at Libya


Indeed. However my coughcough posts indicate it was greened for liters with no comments on it. I usually dont comment on the article in them.

In this case, yes. This is reflexive "oppose the other party's guy" vitirol that we can expect from Republicans. In the issues they want to attack Obama on, theyve got nothing.

See my earlier post. Lets see who responds.
 
2014-03-10 01:46:02 PM

SpectroBoy: Up until now I though maybe Jindal was partially sane.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-10 01:46:04 PM

k4mi: And Bobby Jindal is a nutria humping idiot that wouldn't know a good idea from his ass hole.

/There, see how easy that was.


We went to the zoo in New Orleans once and there was a sign next to the nutria enclosure with - I kid you not - a nutria recipe.

Only in N'Awlins!
 
2014-03-10 01:46:24 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Once again, GOP Presidential hopeful isn't talking to anybody but the frothing rank and file desperate for any Word showing Obama is a Bad Man.  It doesn't matter how screamingly false.


Since it makes them look like complete idiots to moderates (i.e. the majority of eligible voters), I'm OK with this.
 
2014-03-10 01:46:49 PM
So which is it GOPtards?

Is Obama an empire building bully or a spineless weakling? You really need to pick an insult and stick with it.
 
2014-03-10 01:48:17 PM
Something something land war in Asia, something something thousands of nuclear warheads.
 
2014-03-10 01:49:07 PM
Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?
 
2014-03-10 01:52:02 PM
Stuff it up your ass, Piyush.
 
2014-03-10 01:52:47 PM
Ironically, little Bobby's real name, Piyush, is Hindi for "Pushkin."  It's true, you can look it up.
 
2014-03-10 01:52:58 PM
lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-10 01:54:20 PM
OH WAAH, 0bama's a WARMONGER for meddling with Libya, WAAH.

Gods damn you stupid 'baggers.
 
2014-03-10 01:58:13 PM

meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?


I think we should hold off on invading Russia....until wintertime.  Wintertime invasions of Russia always end well, right?
 
2014-03-10 02:00:40 PM
I hope with all my heart that he runs for president in 2016.  You ever see him give a speech on camera?  He looks like he was just animated during the last lightning storm.
 
2014-03-10 02:03:34 PM
*HEADDESK*
 
2014-03-10 02:05:49 PM

meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?


The Ukraine is in Europe.
 
2014-03-10 02:05:54 PM

lilbjorn: offmymeds: Apparently Bobby wants to see the world revert back to the days of the Cold War.

It's good for the 1%, which is the only constituency the GOP gives a shiat about.


I would have thought the days of the Cold War were actually much better for the middle class.  Hmm.
 
2014-03-10 02:06:07 PM
img.fark.net
//Obligatory
 
2014-03-10 02:06:56 PM
A world war over Crimea? Yeah that's a solid idea, Bobby. Could you go get us some Tang while the adults talk for while, mkay?
 
2014-03-10 02:07:42 PM

hiker9999: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

I think we should hold off on invading Russia....until wintertime.  Wintertime invasions of Russia always end well, right?


Do you really believe that A: if we went to war it would be fought on the ground not with drones and planes and B: Russia would stand a chance even if we did?
 
2014-03-10 02:08:18 PM
DJ Kittypie here, bringin' electronica to soothe your pissed cats and rustled jimmys, featuring...the infamous TFH.
 
2014-03-10 02:09:12 PM
It is disturbing seeing  GOP leaders say shiat that i have said while trolling and thought  "wow.. i really pushed it too far this time. it's obvious!"
 
2014-03-10 02:09:37 PM
While the president of Russia is using military force to invade neighboring countries, our president is reducing the size of our military

I know, right? Why can't we have a bold decisive leader like Putin? What good is having the largest military in the world if we can't use it to invade our neighbors? Why won't Obama annex Toronto???
 
2014-03-10 02:09:54 PM

SpectroBoy: Up until now I though maybe Jindal was partially sane.

Just another GOP partisan hack I guess.



This incident ...

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org

...demonstrated all anyone needs to know about the man's capability for sane, rational judgment.
 
2014-03-10 02:12:14 PM
I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.
 
2014-03-10 02:12:35 PM
for f*ck sake.
 
2014-03-10 02:12:51 PM
content.internetvideoarchive.com

wwwdelivery.superstock.com
 
2014-03-10 02:13:34 PM

rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.


You haven't seen War Games, have you?
 
2014-03-10 02:14:00 PM
...In an editorial for National Review...

LOL
 
2014-03-10 02:16:49 PM
Actually I could see Jindal as a VP choice.

He could be the next Dan Quayle.
 
2014-03-10 02:17:43 PM

nmrsnr: rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.

You haven't seen War Games, have you?


Not a great idea. I bet Putin is really good at Tic-Tac-Toe.
 
2014-03-10 02:19:34 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I bet Putin is really good at Tic-Tac-Toe.


Of course he is...you mark an X in the center square, and his O from the square on the right just invades yours.
 
2014-03-10 02:19:52 PM

ScaryBottles: SpectroBoy: Up until now I though maybe Jindal was partially sane.

[i.imgur.com image 500x203]


Which US senator is that again? He was in the first movie too, but was a governor at the time, i believe.
 
2014-03-10 02:20:56 PM

whidbey: Actually I could see Jindal as a VP choice.

He could be the next Dan Quayle.


Cruz/Jindal 2016!
 
2014-03-10 02:24:43 PM

Smoking GNU: ScaryBottles: SpectroBoy: Up until now I though maybe Jindal was partially sane.

[i.imgur.com image 500x203]

Which US senator is that again? He was in the first movie too, but was a governor at the time, i believe.


Patrick Leahy
 
2014-03-10 02:25:52 PM

rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.


This isn't a war plan! Its just some sort of horrible spasm!
 
2014-03-10 02:26:21 PM

Ned Stark: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

The Ukraine is in Europe.


For some reason, I thought the Ural's cut through Ukraine.

You can see how much I've been paying attention to the geopolitical dick waving going on.
 
2014-03-10 02:26:52 PM
This is absurd. All the GOP talking faces complain that the president is being weak and indecisive. But not a single one of them offers anything remotely specific about what they would have him do. Even a halfwit who is barely paying attention can see the flaw there.
 
2014-03-10 02:29:43 PM

meat0918: Ned Stark: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

The Ukraine is in Europe.

For some reason, I thought the Ural's cut through Ukraine.

You can see how much I've been paying attention to the geopolitical dick waving going on.


No, even before the Soviets moved all those countries west after ww2 they didn't quite.
 
2014-03-10 02:32:10 PM

stamped human bacon: lilbjorn: offmymeds: Apparently Bobby wants to see the world revert back to the days of the Cold War.

It's good for the 1%, which is the only constituency the GOP gives a shiat about.

I would have thought the days of the Cold War were actually much better for the middle class.  Hmm.


The days of the Cold War were better for a good portion of the middle class, but the Cold War itself has nothing to do with that.  War overwhelmingly benefits the rich at the expense of the taxpayers.

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
 
2014-03-10 02:34:41 PM

Ned Stark: meat0918: Ned Stark: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

The Ukraine is in Europe.

For some reason, I thought the Ural's cut through Ukraine.

You can see how much I've been paying attention to the geopolitical dick waving going on.

No, even before the Soviets moved all those countries west after ww2 they didn't quite.


Honest to goodness, I had Ukraine's location confused with Turkmenistan.

My geography teacher would be crushed.
 
2014-03-10 02:42:29 PM

Kittypie070: Stuff it up your ass, Piyush.


Which is the actual sound produced when stuffing things up one's ass.
 
2014-03-10 02:43:43 PM

rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditu re s

I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do. There are literally dozens of inroads to attack Russia from and they have to defend a vastly larger territory to defend with far fewer resources. They have more people to keep fed and safe. Technologically we're decades ahead of them and much better equipped. Thats all before we factor in our greatest trade partner who just happens to live right next door and have numerically the largest army in the world and little compunction about sending them into a meat grinder. If you think China will risk its fragile economic gains by allowing us to engage in a costly and destructive military conflict that we could potentially lose (as unlikely as that may be) you don't know much about economics.

If Russia launches thats a whole ballgame. Do think China will sit still for your little pin up's temper tantrum when it opens the door to the U.S. letting our shiat fly all over Asia? I'm not sure if you're aware of this but they have both air and wind in Asia so China has a vested interest in preventing us from nuking the shiat out of Russia. No cubby if China catches even a hint of the N word Putin will take a nasty fall down the stairs, after he accidentally ingested 1000% of a lethal dose of rat poison just before he shot himself in the face six or seven times while cleaning his rifle.

/sorry everyone but I'm sick of monday morning quarterbacks dousing their drawers over a war that isn't going to happen.
 
2014-03-10 02:44:10 PM
He added, "I think the administration has correctly sent word to Moscow, this is not acceptable."

Huh?
 
2014-03-10 02:46:15 PM

someonelse: This is absurd. All the GOP talking faces complain that the president is being weak and indecisive. But not a single one of them offers anything remotely specific about what they would have him do. Even a halfwit who is barely paying attention can see the flaw there.


That's the plan.  If you're Obama, you can't defend against their nothingness.
 
2014-03-10 02:47:35 PM

ScaryBottles: rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditu re s

I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do. There are literally dozens of inroads to attack Russia from and they have to defend a vastly larger territory to defend with far fewer resources. They have more people to keep fed and safe. Technologically we're decades ahead of them and much better equipped. Thats all before we factor in our greatest trade partner who just happens to live right next door and have numerically the largest army in the world and little compunction about sending them into a meat grinder. If you think China will risk its fragile economic gains by allowing us to engage in a costly and destructive military conflict that we could potentially lose (as unlikely as that may be) you don't know much about economics.

If Russia launches thats a whole ballgame. Do think China will sit still for your little pin up's temper tantrum when it opens the door to the U.S. letting our shiat fly all over Asia? I'm not sure if you're aware of this but they have both air and wind in Asia so China has a vested interest in preventing us from nuking the shiat out of Russia. No cubby if China catches even a hint of the N word Putin will take a nasty fall down the stairs, after he accidentally ingested 1000% of a lethal dose of rat poison just before he shot himself in the face six or seven times while cleaning his rifle.

/sorry everyone but I'm sick of monday morning quarterbacks dousing their drawers over a war that isn't going to happen.


//Proofreading
 
2014-03-10 02:52:22 PM

rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.


You've clearly never read Red Storm Rising.
 
2014-03-10 02:53:11 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 03:02:39 PM

Cagey B: President Jindal would have put on his finest luchador garb and grabbed the first plane to Moscow. Upon his arrival, he would have personally driven Putin from the Crimea with his signature Creationist Cockpunch and Volcanic Indian Burn moves.


Nah, he would've asked a Catholic priest to perform an exorcism on Putin.
 
2014-03-10 03:02:40 PM
Dear GOP,

Russia is NOT a 2nd rate middle east dictator with 3rd rate military tech.  It is a nuclear armed nation with the ability to send 100's to the US in less than 30 minutes.  If it comes to war, the US as you know it will be over, along with Russia and pretty much the entire planet.  Go away and let the grown-ups try to work this out before the gop tries to kill us all.
 
2014-03-10 03:07:09 PM

dr_blasto: whidbey: Actually I could see Jindal as a VP choice.

He could be the next Dan Quayle.

Cruz/Jindal 2016!


There you go. Book(mark) it.
 
2014-03-10 03:07:58 PM

jntaylor63: Dear GOP,

Russia is NOT a 2nd rate middle east dictator with 3rd rate military tech.  It is a nuclear armed nation with the ability to send 100's to the US in less than 30 minutes.  If it comes to war, the US as you know it will be over, along with Russia and pretty much the entire planet.  Go away and let the grown-ups try to work this out before the gop tries to kill us all.


www.blogcdn.com
 
2014-03-10 03:10:43 PM

Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.


Nuts.  Everyone knows you can invade Russia any time and it will be over by Christmas.
 
2014-03-10 03:21:08 PM
If the White House receives a 3:00 AM call for a commander-in-chief to give the OK to waste $220 million dollars with the construction of sand berms, by GOD do I want a President Bobby Jindal to be the one to accept that call.
 
2014-03-10 03:24:06 PM

Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.


You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.
 
2014-03-10 03:24:39 PM

Raoul Eaton: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

Nuts.  Everyone knows you can invade Russia any time and it will be over by Christmas.


You know who else ... nevermind.
 
2014-03-10 03:29:57 PM

Arkanaut: Raoul Eaton: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

Nuts.  Everyone knows you can invade Russia any time and it will be over by Christmas.

You know who else ... nevermind.



Napoleon?  I just know you were about to say "Napoleon."  Right?
 
2014-03-10 03:31:08 PM

ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.


It was supposedly said by Douglas MacArthur. After the Korean War, he urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia.

Of course, he also found out later that he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.
 
2014-03-10 03:31:38 PM
ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.
You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.


I still think William Goldman meant it as a RISK reference.
 
2014-03-10 03:32:14 PM
Jesus, do these people get migraines or something if we don't go to war every 2 1/2 years, or what? Maybe he's start bleeding profusely through his eyeballs? I don't know, but I'm starting to think that it would be worth it to lock him in a room with nothing but Doom and Gloom FauxNews 24/7 with their 'Nothing But Ukraine' special, and see how long until his head explodes... Then maybe we go ahead and draw a line in the sand... With his body.

www.esplatter.com
 
2014-03-10 03:32:17 PM

gas giant: Kittypie070: Stuff it up your ass, Piyush.

Which is the actual sound produced when stuffing things up one's ass.


So what if he ever pulls his head out of his ass? What sound would that make...?
 
2014-03-10 03:33:39 PM
ScaryBottles: ScaryBottles: rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditu re s

I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do. There are literally dozens of inroads to attack Russia from and they have to defend a vastly larger territory to defend with far fewer resources. They have more people to keep fed and safe.  .

.
Oh Dear God.  There are actually people who believe this?

No, they don't have anybody who they need to keep fed and safe.  During WWII, they lost 30 million people to starvation.  They simply don't care about that.

And territory?  Who gives a rat's ass about that?  This isn't Risk.

You can send lots of bombers and drones to kill all the civilians you want. It won't even slow them down.  It'll be Afghanistan except 10 times as big, 100 times the army, and winters that make Afghanistan look like Disneyland.  The more you bomb them, the more stubborn they'll become.  They'll resort to nukes almost immediately, and if those fail they'll switch to terrorism.  With suitcase nukes.

The only people who would risk all out war with Russia are are authoritarians hoping that this will turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany and idiots who think that using bombs on Russia will somehow prevent New York and Kansas City from being turned into piles of glowing rubble.

The only way to win a war against Russia is to make it so destructive that the will do anything to have it stop.  The Germans tried that and they failed.   We could kill ten million people and it would just make them more obstinate.

Read a book or two on WWII, and see if it helps you understand what it would take to conquer Russia.
 
2014-03-10 03:35:20 PM

ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.


So... war in Asia good?
 
2014-03-10 03:36:33 PM

whidbey: Get back to us when you know what volcanoes are and what they do, Bobby.

And we would not want a failure in you in office with access to air strikes.


How the fark did I miss THAT one? Seriously, I would bet that even Sarah Palin can understand why we would 'monitor' volcanoes.
 
2014-03-10 03:41:23 PM

MrBallou: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

It was supposedly said by Douglas MacArthur. After the Korean War, he urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia.

Of course, he also found out later that he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.

Wikiquote has that listed as unsourced and considering you are the first I've ever heard attribute it to McArthur (bear in mind I'm not implying you're a derp) I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt. There are tons of people who attribute the whole idea we only use 10% of our brain to Einstein or claim that Charles Darwin repudiated all his theories on his deathbed.
www.fbcomics.com
 
2014-03-10 03:43:27 PM

Arkanaut: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

So... war in Asia good?


No but nice try sweetie.... Land war in Asia no more of a clusterfark than anywhere else.
 
2014-03-10 03:46:49 PM

ScaryBottles: claim that Charles Darwin repudiated all his theories on his deathbed


My all-time favorite deathbed story is the one where Voltaire, asked by a priest to renounce Satan, replied "Now is not the time for making new enemies".
 
2014-03-10 03:47:33 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: ScaryBottles: ScaryBottles: rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditu re s

I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do. There are literally dozens of inroads to attack Russia from and they have to defend a vastly larger territory to defend with far fewer resources. They have more people to keep fed and safe.  .

.Oh Dear God.  There are actually people who believe this?

No, they don't have anybody who they need to keep fed and safe.  During WWII, they lost 30 million people to starvation.  They simply don't care about that.

And territory?  Who gives a rat's ass about that?  This isn't Risk.

You can send lots of bombers and drones to kill all the civilians you want. It won't even slow them down.  It'll be Afghanistan except 10 times as big, 100 times the army, and winters that make Afghanistan look like Disneyland.  The more you bomb them, the more stubborn they'll become.  They'll resort to nukes almost immediately, and if those fail they'll switch to terrorism.  With suitcase nukes.

The only people who would risk all out war with Russia are are authoritarians hoping that this will turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany and idiots who think that using bombs on Russia will somehow prevent New York and Kansas City from being turned into piles of glowing rubble.

The only way to win a war against Russia is to make it so destructive that the will do anything to have it stop.  The Germans tried that and they failed.   We could kill ten million people and it would just make them more obstinate.

Read a book or two on WWII, and see if it helps you understand what it would take to conquer Russia.


Do you not see how this situation might be different than WWII? If not then I'm not the one who needs to crack a book super patriot. Also I guess you missed the part where I said this war is never going to happen.
 
2014-03-10 03:48:02 PM

Kittypie070: gas giant: Kittypie070: Stuff it up your ass, Piyush.

Which is the actual sound produced when stuffing things up one's ass.

So what if he ever pulls his head out of his ass? What sound would that make...?


Bobby
 
2014-03-10 03:48:55 PM
Jindal even wonders if Obama's "timidity" is the byproduct of "a bohemian worldview that abhors conflict." Or maybe it stems from "a mushy optimism about a new world order ushered in by technology that adds a measure of leveling to the international playing field."

Translation:

pixel.nymag.com

/Dangerous, war mongering idiots...
 
2014-03-10 03:52:16 PM

meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?


The largest donor's to their party are part of the MIC and get Billions of dollars in government welfare for useless and uneeded weaponry through no-bid contracts, and if you don't take their money and do want they want, you will crucified in the MSM and they will give Millions to back your opponent.
 
2014-03-10 03:53:05 PM

guestguy: Jindal even wonders if Obama's "timidity" is the byproduct of "a bohemian worldview that abhors conflict." Or maybe it stems from "a mushy optimism about a new world order ushered in by technology that adds a measure of leveling to the international playing field."

Translation:

[pixel.nymag.com image 480x252]

/Dangerous, war mongering idiots...


Beautiful.
 
2014-03-10 03:58:16 PM

ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

So... war in Asia good?

No but nice try sweetie.... Land war in Asia no more of a clusterfark than anywhere else.


Other than the fact that we have to deploy troops, equipment, and supplies halfway around the world, yeah, it's NBD.   Okay, we have bases in Turkey, and maybe the Poles might want to cozy up to us, so it's not as much of a clusterfark as driving convoys into Afghanistan through Pakistan, but it's still an expensive and complicated proposition compared to, let's say, invading Panama.  Especially on relatively short notice.
 
2014-03-10 04:00:19 PM
news flash:  Obama is in fact wrong about doing nothing AND getting too involved.  You can't threaten to get involved and not be serious about it. Should have done nothing at all.
 
2014-03-10 04:00:24 PM

ScaryBottles: MrBallou: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

It was supposedly said by Douglas MacArthur. After the Korean War, he urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia.

Of course, he also found out later that he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.
Wikiquote has that listed as unsourced and considering you are the first I've ever heard attribute it to McArthur (bear in mind I'm not implying you're a derp) I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt. There are tons of people who attribute the whole idea we only use 10% of our brain to Einstein or claim that Charles Darwin repudiated all his theories on his deathbed.
[www.fbcomics.com image 570x303]


No derp. I first remember hearing that during the Vietnam war, but never saw a real citation. If it's a misquote, it's an old one.

In any case, it was quoted enough for Rob Reiner to use it in Princess Bride. It was a meme before Vizzini said it.
 
2014-03-10 04:00:57 PM

ScaryBottles: The Jami Turman Fan Club: ScaryBottles: ScaryBottles: rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditu re s

I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do. There are literally dozens of inroads to attack Russia from and they have to defend a vastly larger territory to defend with far fewer resources. They have more people to keep fed and safe.  .

.Oh Dear God.  There are actually people who believe this?

No, they don't have anybody who they need to keep fed and safe.  During WWII, they lost 30 million people to starvation.  They simply don't care about that.

And territory?  Who gives a rat's ass about that?  This isn't Risk.

You can send lots of bombers and drones to kill all the civilians you want. It won't even slow them down.  It'll be Afghanistan except 10 times as big, 100 times the army, and winters that make Afghanistan look like Disneyland.  The more you bomb them, the more stubborn they'll become.  They'll resort to nukes almost immediately, and if those fail they'll switch to terrorism.  With suitcase nukes.

The only people who would risk all out war with Russia are are authoritarians hoping that this will turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany and idiots who think that using bombs on Russia will somehow prevent New York and Kansas City from being turned into piles of glowing rubble.

The only way to win a war against Russia is to make it so destructive that the will do anything to have it stop.  The Germans tried that and they failed.   We could kill ten million people and it would just make them more obstinate.

Read a book or two on WWII, and see if it helps you understand what it would take to conquer Russia.

Do you not see how this situation might be different than WWII? If not then I'm not the one who needs to c ...


What's different is that now they can nuke us if they start losing. Do you notice how kid gloves we are with Pakistan and North Korea? Well unlike Best Korea, the Russians have missiles they could mount their nuclear devices on that could conceivably hit us. I'm absolutely sure Putin's enough of a dickhead to push the button. Sure, they'll glow brighter than we will in the end, but still an unacceptable outcome.
 
2014-03-10 04:01:49 PM

Kittypie070: gas giant: Kittypie070: Stuff it up your ass, Piyush.
Which is the actual sound produced when stuffing things up one's ass.

So what if he ever pulls his head out of his ass? What sound would that make...?


We're in no danger of ever finding out.
 
2014-03-10 04:03:50 PM

Summercat: What is different between the actions of Bush re Georgia versus Obama re Ukraine?

Yknow, aside that Obama is a Democratic president.

/yes I know. Thats the actual sticking point.
//cue the folk wholl focus on my second line and not my question.


Conservative history has again been retconned. Georgia now happened under Obama's watch. It was his weakness during that crisis that has led to Putin rearing his head over Ukraine.
 
2014-03-10 04:17:32 PM
Yeah Bobby a word of advice watch this movie and then tell me afterwards if that's a good idea.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-10 04:18:26 PM

Arkanaut: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

So... war in Asia good?

No but nice try sweetie.... Land war in Asia no more of a clusterfark than anywhere else.

Other than the fact that we have to deploy troops, equipment, and supplies halfway around the world, yeah, it's NBD.   Okay, we have bases in Turkey, and maybe the Poles might want to cozy up to us, so it's not as much of a clusterfark as driving convoys into Afghanistan through Pakistan, but it's still an expensive and complicated proposition compared to, let's say, invading Panama.  Especially on relatively short notice.


Okay guy I'll play along. Do you really think we'll invade? Why occupy territory when its so much easier to send in drones and bombers after we've blown the shiat out of any anti-aircraft batteries they might have from the upper atmosphere? See this where the technological and economic gap starts to matter. No we're not invading shiat, chances are we'll just shell Crimea from 20 miles off the coast after allowing a reasonable period for the civilians to file out of the cites. Meanwhile we won't toss so much as a firecracker within Russia's political borders. As far as your assertion that we can't mobilize fast enough you are aware that we have tens if not hundreds of thousands of personnel just to the south and the only thing between them and the Black Sea is a country we're friendly with. If this whole thing lights up who's side do you think Turkey is going to take?

www.tunbridgewells-ordinariate.com

But as I said before this all academic it will never reach that point. Sorry pal but not all of us get a stiffy when we watch Red Dawn.
 
2014-03-10 04:22:37 PM

MrBallou: ScaryBottles: MrBallou: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

It was supposedly said by Douglas MacArthur. After the Korean War, he urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia.

Of course, he also found out later that he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.
Wikiquote has that listed as unsourced and considering you are the first I've ever heard attribute it to McArthur (bear in mind I'm not implying you're a derp) I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt. There are tons of people who attribute the whole idea we only use 10% of our brain to Einstein or claim that Charles Darwin repudiated all his theories on his deathbed.
[www.fbcomics.com image 570x303]

No derp. I first remember hearing that during the Vietnam war, but never saw a real citation. If it's a misquote, it's an old one.

In any case, it was quoted enough for Rob Reiner to use it in Princess Bride. It was a meme before Vizzini said it.


The book The Princess bride where that lines comes from verbatim, was written in the 70's and like I said you are literally the first person I've ever heard say that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but now I'm not so sure I should've.
 
2014-03-10 04:25:31 PM

ScaryBottles: MrBallou: ScaryBottles: MrBallou: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

It was supposedly said by Douglas MacArthur. After the Korean War, he urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia.

Of course, he also found out later that he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.
Wikiquote has that listed as unsourced and considering you are the first I've ever heard attribute it to McArthur (bear in mind I'm not implying you're a derp) I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt. There are tons of people who attribute the whole idea we only use 10% of our brain to Einstein or claim that Charles Darwin repudiated all his theories on his deathbed.
[www.fbcomics.com image 570x303]

No derp. I first remember hearing that during the Vietnam war, but never saw a real citation. If it's a misquote, it's an old one.

In any case, it was quoted enough for Rob Reiner to use it in Princess Bride. It was a meme before Vizzini said it.

The book The Princess bride where that lines comes from verbatim, was written in the 70's and like I said you are literally the first person I've ever heard say that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but now I'm not so sure I should've.


/Again proofreading, maybe I should just stick to the gifs.
 
2014-03-10 04:31:35 PM

Mikey1969: whidbey: Get back to us when you know what volcanoes are and what they do, Bobby.

And we would not want a failure in you in office with access to air strikes.

How the fark did I miss THAT one? Seriously, I would bet that even Sarah Palin can understand why we would 'monitor' volcanoes.


They don't actually exist in most of the lower 48, so I guess he thought that argument was a bird.

And the ones that do exist are all covered in snow or are huge steaming calderas like Yellowstone, and aren't real volcanoes. Those are some hearty people up there in WY. They'll find a way to adapt if it does go up lots of caves up there, which if it did erupt certainly wouldn't happen in our lifetimes.

/and so on
 
2014-03-10 04:38:17 PM

gas giant: Kittypie070: gas giant: Kittypie070: Stuff it up your ass, Piyush.

Which is the actual sound produced when stuffing things up one's ass.

So what if he ever pulls his head out of his ass? What sound would that make...?

Bobby


that's just cruel, dude.
 
2014-03-10 04:38:33 PM

phaseolus: SpectroBoy: Up until now I though maybe Jindal was partially sane.

Just another GOP partisan hack I guess.


This incident ...



...demonstrated all anyone needs to know about the man's capability for sane, rational judgment.


Well, if I've learned anything the past two weeks, it's that Republicans value decisive, quick action, regardless of results. Leaders do something that makes other people react. What that something is seems to be irrelevant. By Republican Metrics, his plan was a great success.

Also of I am ever addressing a room full of Republicans, I am going to walk in, light the podium on fire and then put the URL for my superPAC on the projector and walk out while grabbing my dick.

They will be entranced by my leadership qualities.
 
2014-03-10 04:42:25 PM
I, too, wish WWIII upon us.
 
2014-03-10 04:49:07 PM
I have a stock phrase that can be a typical goto reposnse to everything that comes out any Conservative's mouth:  "STFU you retarded bag of filth, I do not feel like hearing another lie or demonstration of your ignorance of reality."

I figure it pretty much fits every response appropriate to Republican mouth noises.  It's sort of like a modern day Eliza, that would pass the Turing test for 40% of the US population.
 
2014-03-10 04:50:09 PM

forgotmydamnusername: ScaryBottles: The Jami Turman Fan Club: ScaryBottles: ScaryBottles: rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditu re s

I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do. There are literally dozens of inroads to attack Russia from and they have to defend a vastly larger territory to defend with far fewer resources. They have more people to keep fed and safe.  .

.Oh Dear God.  There are actually people who believe this?

No, they don't have anybody who they need to keep fed and safe.  During WWII, they lost 30 million people to starvation.  They simply don't care about that.

And territory?  Who gives a rat's ass about that?  This isn't Risk.

You can send lots of bombers and drones to kill all the civilians you want. It won't even slow them down.  It'll be Afghanistan except 10 times as big, 100 times the army, and winters that make Afghanistan look like Disneyland.  The more you bomb them, the more stubborn they'll become.  They'll resort to nukes almost immediately, and if those fail they'll switch to terrorism.  With suitcase nukes.

The only people who would risk all out war with Russia are are authoritarians hoping that this will turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany and idiots who think that using bombs on Russia will somehow prevent New York and Kansas City from being turned into piles of glowing rubble.

The only way to win a war against Russia is to make it so destructive that the will do anything to have it stop.  The Germans tried that and they failed.   We could kill ten million people and it would just make them more obstinate.

Read a book or two on WWII, and see if it helps you understand what it would take to conquer Russia.

Do you not see how this situation might be different than WWII? If not then I'm not the one ...


Do you really think China is just going to sit still as your little pinup girl throws a tantrum that will destroy an entire continent potentially? I guess some of guys aren't appreciating that war and politics have changed since Napoleonic times. Putin is a lot of things but I doubt he is dumb or reactionary enough to sandwich himself between the two most powerful military forces in the history of the world, both with nuclear arsenals that dwarf his own. I know he rustles your jimmies with the shirtless photos and the fly fishing all but in reality if we wanted to force the issue there would be nothing he could do to stop us. Its just a question of if we have the will or not. Like I said in another thread the other day I'll start pissing my pants when Putie Poot can field even 20% of our resources.
 
2014-03-10 04:52:11 PM

ScaryBottles: But as I said before this all academic it will never reach that point. Sorry pal but not all of us get a stiffy when we watch Red Dawn.


I thought I made it clear that I was a Princess Bride fan.
 
2014-03-10 04:52:12 PM

ScaryBottles: No we're not invading shiat, chances are we'll just shell Crimea from 20 miles off the coast after allowing a reasonable period for the civilians to file out of the cites.


Dear insane person, even if we'll forget everything else, you are talking about bombing the territory of your supposed ally, killing untold number of Ukraine's citizens, even if they are currently in disagreement with official Kiev, destroying all they've build and earned through their whole lives. Many of them will not leave the cities, and where would they even go? Where would they return after you've bombed the cities?

You actually have a reasonable number of former Russian and Ukrainian citizens inside your borders. Immigrants, you know. Do you really want a dozen more nine-elevens, now with full support of Russia?

ScaryBottles: Meanwhile we won't toss so much as a firecracker within Russia's political borders.


As if that farking matters for Russia! Russia historically see itself as "Defender of the Slavs"; that's an incredibly powerful emotional trigger for Russians, evolved through endless invasions of foreigners throughout millenia; you starting to kill Russian civilians in the Crimea means that the whole of Russia, all the parties currently disjointed, liberals and conservatives, communists and libertarians, slavophiles and pro-westerners, will unite in a single monolith with the singular goal of waging war unto you, or the whole world if it comes to that, and damn the consequences.

There is no stronger motivation for a Russian to fight than foreigners killing Russian civilians.
 
2014-03-10 04:56:27 PM
War on Russia would consist of opening up natural gas sales to the world.
 
2014-03-10 05:07:42 PM

Grahor: ScaryBottles: No we're not invading shiat, chances are we'll just shell Crimea from 20 miles off the coast after allowing a reasonable period for the civilians to file out of the cites.

Dear insane person, even if we'll forget everything else, you are talking about bombing the territory of your supposed ally, killing untold number of Ukraine's citizens, even if they are currently in disagreement with official Kiev, destroying all they've build and earned through their whole lives. Many of them will not leave the cities, and where would they even go? Where would they return after you've bombed the cities?

You actually have a reasonable number of former Russian and Ukrainian citizens inside your borders. Immigrants, you know. Do you really want a dozen more nine-elevens, now with full support of Russia?

ScaryBottles: Meanwhile we won't toss so much as a firecracker within Russia's political borders.

As if that farking matters for Russia! Russia historically see itself as "Defender of the Slavs"; that's an incredibly powerful emotional trigger for Russians, evolved through endless invasions of foreigners throughout millenia; you starting to kill Russian civilians in the Crimea means that the whole of Russia, all the parties currently disjointed, liberals and conservatives, communists and libertarians, slavophiles and pro-westerners, will unite in a single monolith with the singular goal of waging war unto you, or the whole world if it comes to that, and damn the consequences.

There is no stronger motivation for a Russian to fight than foreigners killing Russian civilians.


I'm crazy because I don't think we should be wetting ourselves over a paper tiger strutting around to impress his meathead regressive buddies? If Putin did what you all seem to be getting moist over there wouldn't be a Russia within a few days. I don't mean Russia as a country would be done I mean it would no longer be there. Its super amusing all of guys getting hot and bothered over a potential strike from Russia without considering the realistic consequences of doing so. We have enough nukes to destroy everything everywhere several times over and China isn't too far behind us. Of course I'm making the assumption that Putin has a little more on the ball than you apparently do.
 
2014-03-10 05:11:00 PM

Kittypie070: that's just cruel, dude.


Just to be clear:
He's the one in abject terror of ever putting his real name on a ballot because of the very idiots he wants voting for him.
The only reason I mock the name is his resentment of it.

/My real name is something most people would expect belongs to a cartoon character, yet I live with it.
 
2014-03-10 05:27:44 PM

gas giant: My real name is something most people would expect belongs to a cartoon character, yet I live with it.


Your parent named you Yosemite Sam?  Penelope Pitstop?  Mr. Horse?
 
2014-03-10 05:32:17 PM
This from a guy that tried to fill the ocean in with sand because "Obama wouldn't do it". Hint, it didn't work.
 
2014-03-10 05:36:34 PM

SpectroBoy: So which is it GOPtards?

Is Obama an empire building bully or a spineless weakling? You really need to pick an insult and stick with it.


Why should they? It works for about 30% of the voting public and that's MORE than half!

/anti-intellectualism!
//or gerrymandering
///dealer's choice
 
2014-03-10 05:37:05 PM

wxboy: Obama's Bush is a moron for not waging war against Russia

is something I didn't hear in 2008.


God told him it wasn't the right time so he's excused

Next
 
2014-03-10 05:38:34 PM

stamped human bacon: lilbjorn: offmymeds: Apparently Bobby wants to see the world revert back to the days of the Cold War.

It's good for the 1%, which is the only constituency the GOP gives a shiat about.

I would have thought the days of the Cold War were actually much better for the middle class.  Hmm.


Apparently you're not old enough to remember "Vietnam is good for business.  Invest your sons."
 
2014-03-10 05:39:32 PM

gas giant: Kittypie070: that's just cruel, dude.

Just to be clear:
He's the one in abject terror of ever putting his real name on a ballot because of the very idiots he wants voting for him.
The only reason I mock the name is his resentment of it.

/My real name is something most people would expect belongs to a cartoon character, yet I live with it.


Holy hells, gas giant, your profile is the most entertaining thing I've read all week.
 
2014-03-10 05:43:31 PM

Mr. Horse: Your parent named you Yosemite Sam?  Penelope Pitstop?  Mr. Horse?


B.R. Bean at your service, sir.
 
2014-03-10 05:46:10 PM

Kittypie070: Holy hells, gas giant, your profile is the most entertaining thing I've read all week.


Thanks!
Lots of blasts from the past in there.
 
2014-03-10 05:46:31 PM
w00t bean
 
2014-03-10 05:46:48 PM

skykid: Yeah Bobby a word of advice watch this movie and then tell me afterwards if that's a good idea.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 315x462]


Sure just so long as Putin doesn't mind being president of a smoking radioactive crater. Thats what you jabronis seem to be missing here its not that he can't, its that he won't.
 
2014-03-10 05:49:31 PM
Is it just me or does Bobby Jindal come off as a guy so dumb he has no clue why people make fun of him still for such things as the volcano comment or the "party of stupid" comment? I mean like Paul Ryan levels of lacking self awareness here.
 
2014-03-10 05:51:07 PM

ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.


Yup, because it's fiction that means it's automatically bad advice...

Just look at how well it's gone for everyone else who's tried to invade Russia in the last century and a half...
 
2014-03-10 05:54:21 PM

Ned Stark: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

The Ukraine is in Europe.


Here is you, settled upon the surface of the planet earth, wherever you are posting from: .

Here is the point, in high orbit by the moon: .

I think you might have missed just what the meat of  meat0918's post was
 
2014-03-10 05:55:27 PM

ScaryBottles: I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do.


Other points in your post aside (and valid though they are), I have to take issue with this point, and provide a counter-example: Health care. Considering how much Americans spend on medical care, you'd think we'd get on the whole better service and longer lifespans on the average out of it. But that's not the case.

I present this statement cautiously, knowing that greater expenditure has almost no correlation with lesser service. However, if that greater expenditure is because of boondoggles, pork, and dubious government contracting, then it's safe to say that with the greater expenditure greater service is highly unlikely. And oh yes, we has the pork. We has  such the pork.
 
2014-03-10 05:59:42 PM

Empty Matchbook: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

Yup, because it's fiction that means it's automatically bad advice...

Just look at how well it's gone for everyone else who's tried to invade Russia in the last century and a half...


Once again do you not see how this situation might be different? And once again I guess you missed the part where I said its never going to come to that. If you can't be bothered to read the thread don't don't bother commenting it just makes you look like you're stupid. But by all means keep hiding under the bed to protect yourself from scawy, scawy, yet strangely sexually compelling impotent wannabe autocrat.
 
2014-03-10 06:05:29 PM
Because that will end well
 
2014-03-10 06:07:01 PM

ScaryBottles: No cubby if China catches even a hint of the N word Putin will take a nasty fall down the stairs, after he accidentally ingested 1000% of a lethal dose of polonium just before he shot himself in the face six or seven times while cleaning his rifle.


FTFY
 
2014-03-10 06:09:07 PM

ScaryBottles: Empty Matchbook: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

Yup, because it's fiction that means it's automatically bad advice...

Just look at how well it's gone for everyone else who's tried to invade Russia in the last century and a half...

Once again do you not see how this situation might be different? And once again I guess you missed the part where I said its never going to come to that. If you can't be bothered to read the thread don't don't bother commenting it just makes you look like you're stupid. But by all means keep hiding under the bed to protect yourself from scawy, scawy, yet strangely sexually compelling impotent wannabe autocrat.


I love the whole "internet prick" routine.  It never gets old.
 
2014-03-10 06:18:56 PM

Crabs_Can_Polevault: ScaryBottles: I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do.

Other points in your post aside (and valid though they are), I have to take issue with this point, and provide a counter-example: Health care. Considering how much Americans spend on medical care, you'd think we'd get on the whole better service and longer lifespans on the average out of it. But that's not the case.

I present this statement cautiously, knowing that greater expenditure has almost no correlation with lesser service. However, if that greater expenditure is because of boondoggles, pork, and dubious government contracting, then it's safe to say that with the greater expenditure greater service is highly unlikely. And oh yes, we has the pork. We has  such the pork.


You have a point but we haven't had shiathead derps attacking the military nearly as long as we have health care. Also our military isn't rigged to benefit insurance companies and fark everyone else. Maybe our citizens are unhealthy, our children illiterate and our infrastructure falling apart but the one thing we can still get right is killing people. Where Russia is farked is in the economic and technological arena. They have anti-aircraft weaponry but we have bombers that fly so high it wouldn't make a difference if they are even picked up by radar at all to solve that problem. They have troops dug in but we can shell them from off the coast twenty miles away. At that point all their fortifications which would be the only advantage they have just became one gigantic slaughter house. After they lose position and anti-aircraft capability they're just meat for the drones. All of these can be done via a few consoles in the white house with equipment and ordinance we already have right next door with very little risk to our soldier's lives. This isn't a freaking board game and most of the people in this thread are acting like we're playing Axis and Allies. Putin's forces are literally 50 years technologically behind ours and in the real world that matters. Not to mention China, another thing a lot of people in this thread are ignoring. Do you really think they're just going to throw their hands up and say "well its not my problem" As I said earlier warfare has changed since Napoleon. Yet they say I'm the one who needs to read a book.
 
2014-03-10 06:25:20 PM

born_yesterday: ScaryBottles: Empty Matchbook: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

Yup, because it's fiction that means it's automatically bad advice...

Just look at how well it's gone for everyone else who's tried to invade Russia in the last century and a half...

Once again do you not see how this situation might be different? And once again I guess you missed the part where I said its never going to come to that. If you can't be bothered to read the thread don't don't bother commenting it just makes you look like you're stupid. But by all means keep hiding under the bed to protect yourself from scawy, scawy, yet strangely sexually compelling impotent wannabe autocrat.

I love the whole "internet prick" routine.  It never gets old.


I'm in earnest this time. I'm getting tired of of idiots sprouting wood over what amounts to derp fan fiction.
 
2014-03-10 06:28:10 PM
Today I learned that it would be possible to turn Russia into a smoking crater without them getting off a single nuke to turn any of our cities into smoking craters in response. I guess we didn't need to spend half of the 20th century worrying about total nuclear annihilation then.
 
2014-03-10 06:35:25 PM

rynthetyn: Today I learned that it would be possible to turn Russia into a smoking crater without them getting off a single nuke to turn any of our cities into smoking craters in response. I guess we didn't need to spend half of the 20th century worrying about total nuclear annihilation then.


Yeah no one said that. You derps do love to put words in people's mouths don't you. So I guess you think we should just apologize and send them a really nice fruitbasket? Seriously why don't you climb down off your high horse captain and tell us all exactly what you think we should do here.
 
2014-03-10 06:53:26 PM

wxboy: Obama's Bush is a moron for not waging war against Russia

is something I didn't hear in 2008.


Pooty poot!
 
2014-03-10 07:02:50 PM
Just for the record everybody I'm firmly against military action over this but I'm sorry by every quantifiable measure Putin would lose in the event of such a confrontation so forgive me if I don't careen headlong into a hysterical fit over the prospect.

We should release just enough of our strategic reserves to crash their burgeoning energy interests. Seriously it would take far less than most people think.
 
2014-03-10 07:03:10 PM

ScaryBottles: hiker9999: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

I think we should hold off on invading Russia....until wintertime.  Wintertime invasions of Russia always end well, right?

Do you really believe that A: if we went to war it would be fought on the ground not with drones and planes and B: Russia would stand a chance even if we did?


Air superiority cannot hold an occupy territory.
 
2014-03-10 07:09:41 PM

hiker9999: ScaryBottles: hiker9999: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

I think we should hold off on invading Russia....until wintertime.  Wintertime invasions of Russia always end well, right?

Do you really believe that A: if we went to war it would be fought on the ground not with drones and planes and B: Russia would stand a chance even if we did?

Air superiority cannot hold an occupy territory.


Why would we occupy it? All we need to do is make it too bloody for Putin to hang on to it and we can absolutely do that. We aren't the ones going after new territory so why occupy? Like I just said though why bomb at all when we can destroy their fragile economy which will have the same end result, they are forced to abandon Crimea.
 
2014-03-10 07:14:31 PM

someonelse: This is absurd. All the GOP talking faces complain that the president is being weak and indecisive. But not a single one of them offers anything remotely specific about what they would have him do. Even a halfwit who is barely paying attention can see the flaw there.


I'd be worried if I were you, because if they are going to start a war then you know they are going to send someonelse.
 
2014-03-10 07:14:53 PM
Why in hell are you guys buying into Piyush's line of thought here and banging the what-if war drums??
 
2014-03-10 07:19:08 PM

Kittypie070: Why in hell are you guys buying into Piyush's line of thought here and banging the what-if war drums??


Thats all I'm sayin' everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax. Seriously last month a lot of these people were making Putin attention whore jokes on par with Fatty Kim and now all of a sudden he's going to conquer the world because Obama is a liberal painty waist.
 
2014-03-10 07:26:44 PM

ScaryBottles: hiker9999: ScaryBottles: hiker9999: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

I think we should hold off on invading Russia....until wintertime.  Wintertime invasions of Russia always end well, right?

Do you really believe that A: if we went to war it would be fought on the ground not with drones and planes and B: Russia would stand a chance even if we did?

Air superiority cannot hold an occupy territory.

Why would we occupy it? All we need to do is make it too bloody for Putin to hang on to it and we can absolutely do that. We aren't the ones going after new territory so why occupy? Like I just said though why bomb at all when we can destroy their fragile economy which will have the same end result, they are forced to abandon Crimea.



Problem is, Putin is both violent, and crazy.  If we bloody his nose, there's no real telling what he'll do, or where.  At least with ground forces, the carnage can be (somewhat) localized.
 
2014-03-10 07:44:57 PM

hiker9999: ScaryBottles: hiker9999: ScaryBottles: hiker9999: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

I think we should hold off on invading Russia....until wintertime.  Wintertime invasions of Russia always end well, right?

Do you really believe that A: if we went to war it would be fought on the ground not with drones and planes and B: Russia would stand a chance even if we did?

Air superiority cannot hold an occupy territory.

Why would we occupy it? All we need to do is make it too bloody for Putin to hang on to it and we can absolutely do that. We aren't the ones going after new territory so why occupy? Like I just said though why bomb at all when we can destroy their fragile economy which will have the same end result, they are forced to abandon Crimea.


Problem is, Putin is both violent, and crazy.  If we bloody his nose, there's no real telling what he'll do, or where.  At least with ground forces, the carnage can be (somewhat) localized.


Well as I said to a pp what you seem be ignoring is that China our top trading partner, who's economy inextricably entwined with our own is not going to allow us to lose or even be significantly embarrassed. Putin won't just be fighting us and he won't just be fighting in Crimea, he will have put himself in between the proverbial rock and hard place. Maybe you don't get that but I bet he does. This is all over the second the first U.S. boot hits the ground as I said it just remains to be seen if we will. As to the whys and hows I outlined them several times upthread. Sorry but I'm just not terrified of Russia militarily they might as well be fighting with sabers from horseback when compared to us or China.
 
2014-03-10 08:04:39 PM
Maybe we just misheard him and he really said the Republican Party SHOULD be the party of stupid. At least, if we judge him by what he has said since then, he definitely seems to be fully endorsing Republican stupidity.
 
2014-03-10 10:01:23 PM

neversubmit: Bobby Jindal: 'We could all be in Heaven right now if not for Ohama'


I don't see anyone stopping you, Bobby. Bon voyage and all that.
 
2014-03-10 10:51:35 PM

ArkPanda: Can he stretch out his arms and throw Yoga Fire? I might vote for him then.


Can he summon Demon Hipster Chicks?
 
2014-03-10 11:16:55 PM

flondrix: ArkPanda: Can he stretch out his arms and throw Yoga Fire? I might vote for him then.

Can he summon Demon Hipster Chicks?


Only if he's slick.
 
2014-03-11 11:23:30 AM

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Get back to us when you know what volcanoes are and what they do, Bobby.

And we would not want a failure in you in office with access to air strikes.

How the fark did I miss THAT one? Seriously, I would bet that even Sarah Palin can understand why we would 'monitor' volcanoes.

They don't actually exist in most of the lower 48, so I guess he thought that argument was a bird.

And the ones that do exist are all covered in snow or are huge steaming calderas like Yellowstone, and aren't real volcanoes. Those are some hearty people up there in WY. They'll find a way to adapt if it does go up lots of caves up there, which if it did erupt certainly wouldn't happen in our lifetimes.

/and so on


The thing about that comment that struck me is that Bobby is old enough to remember Mt. St. Helens. He farking knows that there are volcanoes in the lower 48 and that they can cause huge amounts of damage.
 
Displayed 160 of 160 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report