StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 WTF? (Fox news related). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 That slut is having so much lesbian sex she wants us to pay for her birth control! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) WTF? (Fox news related). All she did was expose her complete lack of common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) WTF? (Fox news related). The Y2HH definition of Twitter -- the convergence of narcissism and boredom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) The Y2HH definition of Twitter -- the convergence of narcissism and boredom. That's a pretty accurate definition. But I don't think it's the worst type of narcissism -- if you have 1 million followers or whatever, apparently people what to hear what you're doing/think. And if you're a normal person with not that many followers, well, do whatever the hell you want anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 A Good Cartoon--Re-imagining right-wing cartoons The threat of Iranian and North Korean missiles is illusory, yet they still overshadow important domestic issues. There's more, these are hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 So this one involves Girls Gone Wild and an internship in the office of a sitting Democratic Senator. That alone ought to be worth a read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) The question is what's actually in the bill, as the title of the bill means nothing but a cheap/easy headline for sensationalistic purposes. Such as this. I don't actually know the details of the bill in question...but what this does, on the surface, is attempt to make it look like those that didn't vote for it "want violence against women", when that may not be the actual case, and probably isn't the case. Edit: This is a little additional information on this http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/politics/sen...buse/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/us/polit...n-act.html?_r=1 Doesn't appear they voted against it because they are pro-violence toward women...but that's exactly what that Think Progress info-graphic attempted to portray. Edited April 27, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I actually have a copy of the bill and it consists of one sentence. It reads: "Violence against women should be illegal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) I actually have a copy of the bill and it consists of one sentence. It reads: "Violence against women should be illegal." If only bills were written that plain and simple that everyone could easily understand what was being voted on...if only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Obama can be a major douche. President Obama gave an interview to Rolling Stone‘s Jann Wenner this week and was asked about his administration’s aggressive crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries, including ones located in states where medical marijuana is legal and which are licensed by the state; this policy is directly contrary to Obama’s campaign pledge to not “use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana.” Here’s part of the President’s answer: I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law. I can ’ t a s k the Ju s tice Department to s ay, “ Ignore completely a federal law that ’ s on the boo k s ” . . . . The only tension that’s come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we’re telling them, “ Thi s i s s uppo s ed to be again s t the law, but we want you to turn the other way. ” That ’ s not s omething we ’ re going to do. Aside from the fact that Obama’s claim about the law is outright false — as Jon Walker conclusively documents, the law vests the Executive Branch with precisely the discretion he falsely claims he does not have to decide how drugs are classified — it’s just extraordinary that Obama is affirming the “principle” that he can’t have the DOJ “turn the othe way” in the face of lawbreaking. As an emailer just put it to me: “Interesting how this principle holds for prosecuting [medical] marijuana producers in the war on drugs, but not for prosecuting US officials in the war on terror. Or telecommunications companies for illegal spying. Or Wall Street banks for mortgage fraud.” That’s about as vivid an expression of the President’s agenda, and his sense of justice, and the state of the Rule of Law in America, as one can imagine. The same person who directed the DOJ to shield torturers and illegal government eavesdroppers from criminal investigation, and who voted to retroactively immunize the nation’s largest telecom giants when they got caught enabling criminal spying on Americans, and whose DOJ has failed to indict a single Wall Street executive in connection with the 2008 financial crisis or mortgage fraud scandal, suddenly discovers the imperatives of The Rule of Law when it comes to those, in accordance with state law, providing medical marijuana to sick people with a prescription. via Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 10:22 PM) Obama can be a major douche. via In addition to what Jon Walker said, he CAN explicitly tell the Justice department to not enforce the law, since they're part of the Executive branch. Well, assuming their authority on that issue is purely executive; I don't think it would cross over into legislative powers in this context. Granted, this is off the top of my head and I'm tired, so it might be wrong. Edited April 28, 2012 by farmteam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 10:22 PM) Obama can be a major douche. via LOL. But he can on immigration. Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, “Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books” . . . . Isn't that what he explicitly did with DOMA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) Isn't that what he explicitly did with DOMA? No, he didn't stop enforcing DOMA. He chose to stop defending challenges in court to the validity of DOMA. That would be two completely different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Mitt Rmoney hired a foreign policy adviser who worked under John Bolton at the U.N. Ideal fit for the campaign's foreign policy areas, where they've mostly brought back people from the Bush administration. This adviser also happened to be gay. Under Republican pressure, this spokesman has now been asked to resign...solely because he was gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 1, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) Mitt Rmoney hired a foreign policy adviser who worked under John Bolton at the U.N. Ideal fit for the campaign's foreign policy areas, where they've mostly brought back people from the Bush administration. This adviser also happened to be gay. Under Republican pressure, this spokesman has now been asked to resign...solely because he was gay. I'm not saying this is true, but the article you linked specifically states it was Grenell's choice, and even that "senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign. Those were unsuccessful." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 QUOTE (farmteam @ May 1, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) I'm not saying this is true, but the article you linked specifically states it was Grenell's choice, and even that "senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign. Those were unsuccessful." Ok, rewording, that's fair. He resigned under outside pressure that only came about because of his sexual orientation, for no other reason other than that, and I don't know how you interpret that other than establishing a new standard that homosexuals cannot serve in a high level position in a Republican campaign without angering the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 1, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) Ok, rewording, that's fair. He resigned under outside pressure that only came about because of his sexual orientation, for no other reason other than that, and I don't know how you interpret that other than establishing a new standard that homosexuals cannot serve in a high level position in a Republican campaign without angering the base. Oh, I agree that it's terrible he felt he had to resign and that such pressure even existed in the first place. I guess it just slightly refocuses the attack from Romney's campaign specifically to a significant portion of the GOP in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 12:00 PM) A Good Cartoon--Re-imagining right-wing cartoons There's more, these are hilarious. lol This civic-minded gentleman is making sure that even though these Americans will be traveling in Mexico during election time, they will still be able to participate in American democracy. A good and not at all racist cartoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 The party of inclusiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (farmteam @ May 1, 2012 -> 07:51 PM) Oh, I agree that it's terrible he felt he had to resign and that such pressure even existed in the first place. I guess it just slightly refocuses the attack from Romney's campaign specifically to a significant portion of the GOP in general. It's probably worth pointing out in reply that even though the Romney campaign is saying they privately tried to convince him to stay on...they made no public comment or expression of support for him, and made no public efforts to call out the bigots who said he couldn't be a part of that campaign solely because he was gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Whoops. Guess I should have read the posts above mine before posting that link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts