And tonight we shall all contemplate Obama's similarities to a comic book character who wears makeup, kills people for fun, and doesn't exist. Because otherwise Steve would have done that google image search for nothing, and that would simply be a crime unto the only free thinker on the forum. Tomorrow, we will discuss how Obama is the evil courage wolf, or perhaps a chimpanzee. It's critical! It's novel! It's relevant! WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE CARE ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY?!
Read Charlie Wilson's War and learn why troop surges are justifiable. You can't legitimately wreck a nation (which the village idiot was only too keen to do) and then leave it to rot (which is what President Obama is trying to avoid).
Goddamn it, I am sick of this shit. Every time a legitimate discussion comes up, you mainline pure crap directly into it, utter kipple that has NO BEARING on the president's success or failure at all. None of us want war, we just want to tie up the loose ends and not look like the enemy of all that's good. That's what the president is trying to do. Why is it bad when Obama does it, but perfectly legitimate when some nepotistic dolt gives the command? Also, Obama didn't give himself the Nobel Prize. It's not his fault someone ELSE chose wartime as an "opportune" moment to give him such an honor.
This is the abridged version. For the full version of "SHUT THE FUCK UP," click here.
I'm tempted to write a Greasemonkey script that filters all of your posts to the word "Derp." At least they'd contribute in the form of some mild humor, instead of being pure ego-stroking spam.
Oh cut me a break, we are pulling back in Iraq and we are at least attempting to stabilize Afghanistan again before we pull out of there... If he just cut and run you'd be criticizing him as a coward... If Obama said he liked Bacon on his sandwich you'd go on a campaign against bacon.
But of course we all know that only conservatives are inflammatory. Oh wait... you guys are sticking your head in the sand on that issue too.
Just a note, if you look back at my previous statements you'll find that I've consistently been against the Iraq war and for us being in Afghanistan, my position has never changed on this. (My issue has always been that we went into Iraq without first completing our mission in Afghanistan when we had no need to rush into Iraq).
oh and the doctrine of preemptive war...
oh and sending in troops into Iraq without proper equipment...
and declaring the mission accomplished and have Iraq become more unstable...
@ Kilarney: Did you consistently miss me saying in SEVERAL threads that there are nut jobs on the liberal side, too. They use similar tactics and it is equally horrifying. However, the Democratic party does not adopt these tactics as their modus operandi.
What about that Huffington Post article is so naive? That article seems to outline the possible positive and negative ramifications of the situation. Nowhere does it say that success is assured or even realistically possible unless some improbable tasks are accomplished.
But of course we all know that only conservatives are inflammatory. Oh wait... you guys are sticking your head in the sand on that issue too.
The way I see it, the "you guys" you refer to might be sticking their heads in the sand and not seeing the inflammatory dick-wads on their side... but when it comes to inflammatory dick-wads from the conservative side, YOU ARE THE DICK-WAD!
We know people say stupid things on both sides, but on your side YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING THE STUPID THINGS.
Who here said anything that could be interpreted in any way as "moving the goalposts"?
You like to use these little colloquialisms, probably as a substitute for thought, but I don't think you understand what they mean. It is readily apparent that you don't understand what "counting chickens before they've hatched" means because you used it twice in the health care thread but you were unable to show who had actually "counting chickens before they've hatched".
But of course we all know that only conservatives are inflammatory.
Who here said anything like that?
Oh wait... you guys are sticking your head in the sand on that issue too.
When did this become an "issue"? Who here is "sticking his/her head in the sand" on this "issue"? Once again, do you really understand what "sticking your head in the sand" means? If so, show us by citing an example of where someone here is actually "sticking his/her head in the sand".
Are you doing alright? Are things okay at work and home? I only ask because your constant acting out on this board makes me think that you have some serious problems in other aspects of your life. Your sad obsession with trying to make people think Obama is bad makes me wonder if your behavior is symptomatic of some graver behavioral problem, There are places you can go for help. Are you being treated for anything now? Are you abusing substances? I know that we sometimes joke about such things here, but if you're abusing drugs and/or alcohol, you need some help.
If things are okay in the real world for you, that's great, but I am increasingly of the opinion that you should try and get some help before this type of behavior you demonstrate here begins to adversely affect your work and your personal life.
ReadCharlie Wilson's Warand learn why troop surges are justifiable. You can't legitimately wreck a nation (which the village idiot was only too keen to do) and then leave it to rot (which is what President Obama is trying to avoid).
Classic. You cite Charlie Wilson as an expert without knowing what he has to say.
Pretty much the biggest pwn I've seen here in a long time.
Oh my god Kilarney, you are such a loser. I'm reeling from the lame. Seriously?
If a self-proclaimed victory and an even more brutally crippled macro were all it took to win an argument, there wouldn't even be a need for debates like this. Good lord, you gaping asshole. Why are you even here?
Citing an expert in defense of your point who completely disagrees with you. Uhh... that's a loss. Sorry, but you're going to have to admit this if you hope to be seen as having any critical reasoning ability.
Despite the fail macro and the usual assholery, Kilarney did have a point about Charlie Wilson.
I respect you totally. Honestly, I respect people that I disagree with. I lose any and all respect when you let a personal animus override intelligence and reason.
So lackofcheese, you are a decent dude. I may not agree with you, but you have shown integrity.
As for the macro, trust me, you guys don't want to go there. My use of macros is WELL below others here. They are used in reference to me on a regular basis, and yet people complain on the rare event that I drop one? Oh.... so tender, so fragile!
I thought we were taking on the health insurance industry...
Yes. We need lower drug prices. (fail) We need public competition to the insurance industry (fail - CBO says the public option will NOT be competitive)
As for the macro, trust me, you guys don't want to go there. My use of macros is WELL below others here. They are used in reference to me on a regular basis, and yet people complain on the rare event that I drop one? Oh.... so tender, so fragile!
The issue was not the presence of a macro, but more so that it was a relatively poor one.
As for the macro, trust me, you guys don't want to go there. My use of macros is WELL below others here. They are used in reference to me on a regular basis, and yet people complain on the rare event that I drop one? Oh.... so tender, so fragile!
The issue was not the presence of a macro, but more so that it was a relatively poor one.
Ahh... fair enough. I chose a poor one on purpose. It was my subtle statement that I think the things are stupid in most cases.
Despite the fail macro and the usual assholery, Kilarney did have a point about Charlie Wilson.
I understand. However, the issue isn't and hasn't been whether or not he's right, but rather that he acts like a total douchebag. His posts are smug, taunting, and blatantly impotent in a wide array, whether he is wrong or right on the issue. That he has yet to even realize this destroys any credibility he might otherwise have.
And Kilarney, please remove hand from dick. The macro was painfully unfunny. That was the issue that you missed, yet again.
Despite the fail macro and the usual assholery, Kilarney did have a point about Charlie Wilson.
I understand. However, the issue isn't and hasn't been whether or not he's right, but rather that he acts like a total douchebag. His posts are smug, taunting, and blatantly impotent in a wide array, whether he is wrong or right on the issue. That he has yet to even realize this destroys any credibility he might otherwise have.
And Kilarney, please remove hand from dick. The macro was painfully unfunny. That was the issue that you missed, yet again.
You say my posts are taunting and then tell me to "remove hand from dick." Hypocrisy, thy name is loltsundere.
Kilarney, I often times am very interested in the information you provide and the points you make, even when I disagree with them. However, the mode and tone of your message is such that it lowers the debate which is then lowered further as people respond to you. You cannot present yourself in a manner that seems to focus more on winning points and "being right" than furthering the discussion and then lose respect for others that respond in a manner that is on par with the tone that you are setting. It is hard for me not to see hypocrisy in your criticism of others.
That being said, I still respect you. No one is perfect and I doubt there is a single person on the forums that has taken part in a discussion such as this that hasn't on at least one occasion gone too far.
ok ok OK... Everyone has a big "I can find dumbasses on the internet" penis. We found stupid liberals during Bush's presidency. We found stupid conservatives during Obama's presidency. We are all great at calling each other names, as established in the mean thread. Howsabout we evaluate what people say based on what they say and not ad hominem? I am confident that most of us can present a rebuttal that stands on its merits and not on vitriol. Can we please try? A douche pointing out that animals evolve is not wrong just because he is a douche. Sure, he/she may have been incendiary many times before, but that doesn't necessarily mean the instant point is invalid. It would help it the instant point was not phrased in a douchey way, and if people would give non-douchey phrasing fair consideration.
Howsabout the terms, pros, and cons of that health care bill that the House passed, eh? People have raised some valid concerns.
Drug prices? Malpractice reform? Competition in the industry? Affordability scales? Prices the plans will pay for procedures? Timeline?
The timeline concerns me more than any other issue. By waiting until 2013 it allows for a regime change that may quash the Bill. While I think the proposal has flaws, I think it moves the nation in a good direction. Clinton's all-or-nothing stance got us nowhere and weakened his presidency. This bill contains many compromises (on both sides) and is a bit of a mess. However, it is a two-steps-forward-one step-back situation. Make a decent, but somewhat flawed attempt and then work out the kinks, and so on. I won't lie, in my opinion, anything less than a single payer system seems temporary and arcane.
Drug prices? Malpractice reform? Competition in the industry? Affordability scales? Prices the plans will pay for procedures? Timeline?
Drug Prices: President and Congress made secret deal such that there will be NO reduction in drug prices.
Competition in the industry: Non-partisan CBO has determined that the public option will be MORE expensive than private insurance.. Only a small percentage of Americans will be eligible for the public option.
Affordability scales: Medicaid is raised to 150% FPL. Therefore, poor people will have no choice, and must join medicaid. Individuals who do qualify can only join the cheapest, most basic plans for the first two years.
Prices the plans will pay for procedures: This is quite complex. One aspect to both bills is that they will create voluntary incentives to doctors and hospitals that provide good care rather than more care. The problem... it's voluntary. Doctors and hospitals that are wasteful will continue to operate that way unpunished.
Timeline: For a final bill or for the programs under a bill signed into law? As for the bill itself, the House missed Obama's timeline. The Senate may or may not get something done before the end of the year. Frankly, I don't think that's too bad given the magnitude of the legislation.
And Kilarney, please remove hand from dick. The macro was painfully unfunny. That was the issue that you missed, yet again.
You say my posts are taunting and then tell me to "remove hand from dick." Hypocrisy, thy name is loltsundere.
You reap what you sow.
I think you were the one who was complaining about it. As a matter of fact, you did what you complained about in the same post. What is your point here? No offense, but you really need to learn some debating skills. Your arguments are about 2% better than saying: "I know you are, but what am I?"
Comments
And tonight we shall all contemplate Obama's similarities to a comic book character who wears makeup, kills people for fun, and doesn't exist. Because otherwise Steve would have done that google image search for nothing, and that would simply be a crime unto the only free thinker on the forum. Tomorrow, we will discuss how Obama is the evil courage wolf, or perhaps a chimpanzee. It's critical! It's novel! It's relevant! WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE CARE ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY?!
Goddamn it, I am sick of this shit. Every time a legitimate discussion comes up, you mainline pure crap directly into it, utter kipple that has NO BEARING on the president's success or failure at all. None of us want war, we just want to tie up the loose ends and not look like the enemy of all that's good. That's what the president is trying to do. Why is it bad when Obama does it, but perfectly legitimate when some nepotistic dolt gives the command? Also, Obama didn't give himself the Nobel Prize. It's not his fault someone ELSE chose wartime as an "opportune" moment to give him such an honor.
This is the abridged version. For the full version of "SHUT THE FUCK UP," click here.
I'm tempted to write a Greasemonkey script that filters all of your posts to the word "Derp." At least they'd contribute in the form of some mild humor, instead of being pure ego-stroking spam.
Remember LBJ? If not, you should check out a book.
But of course we all know that only conservatives are inflammatory. Oh wait... you guys are sticking your head in the sand on that issue too.
oh and the doctrine of preemptive war...
oh and sending in troops into Iraq without proper equipment...
and declaring the mission accomplished and have Iraq become more unstable...
What about that Huffington Post article is so naive? That article seems to outline the possible positive and negative ramifications of the situation. Nowhere does it say that success is assured or even realistically possible unless some improbable tasks are accomplished.
We know people say stupid things on both sides, but on your side YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING THE STUPID THINGS.
Just give it a rest.
You like to use these little colloquialisms, probably as a substitute for thought, but I don't think you understand what they mean. It is readily apparent that you don't understand what "counting chickens before they've hatched" means because you used it twice in the health care thread but you were unable to show who had actually "counting chickens before they've hatched". Who here said anything like that? When did this become an "issue"? Who here is "sticking his/her head in the sand" on this "issue"? Once again, do you really understand what "sticking your head in the sand" means? If so, show us by citing an example of where someone here is actually "sticking his/her head in the sand".
Are you doing alright? Are things okay at work and home? I only ask because your constant acting out on this board makes me think that you have some serious problems in other aspects of your life. Your sad obsession with trying to make people think Obama is bad makes me wonder if your behavior is symptomatic of some graver behavioral problem, There are places you can go for help. Are you being treated for anything now? Are you abusing substances? I know that we sometimes joke about such things here, but if you're abusing drugs and/or alcohol, you need some help.
If things are okay in the real world for you, that's great, but I am increasingly of the opinion that you should try and get some help before this type of behavior you demonstrate here begins to adversely affect your work and your personal life.
Pretty much the biggest pwn I've seen here in a long time.
If a self-proclaimed victory and an even more brutally crippled macro were all it took to win an argument, there wouldn't even be a need for debates like this. Good lord, you gaping asshole. Why are you even here?
And the goalposts keep moving...
If Afghanistan is botched, at least Obama took on Pharma. Oh, wait. The transparent President made a secret deal to oppose lower drug prices. Change you can believe in. And we wonder why the fantastic public option will cost more than private insurance? Hmm... I see some dots to be connected.
So lackofcheese, you are a decent dude. I may not agree with you, but you have shown integrity.
As for the macro, trust me, you guys don't want to go there. My use of macros is WELL below others here. They are used in reference to me on a regular basis, and yet people complain on the rare event that I drop one? Oh.... so tender, so fragile!
Health care industry: 2
Democrats: 0
And Kilarney, please remove hand from dick. The macro was painfully unfunny. That was the issue that you missed, yet again.
That being said, I still respect you. No one is perfect and I doubt there is a single person on the forums that has taken part in a discussion such as this that hasn't on at least one occasion gone too far.
Howsabout the terms, pros, and cons of that health care bill that the House passed, eh? People have raised some valid concerns.
Drug prices?
Malpractice reform?
Competition in the industry?
Affordability scales?
Prices the plans will pay for procedures?
Timeline?
I won't lie, in my opinion, anything less than a single payer system seems temporary and arcane.
Competition in the industry: Non-partisan CBO has determined that the public option will be MORE expensive than private insurance.. Only a small percentage of Americans will be eligible for the public option.
Affordability scales: Medicaid is raised to 150% FPL. Therefore, poor people will have no choice, and must join medicaid. Individuals who do qualify can only join the cheapest, most basic plans for the first two years.
Prices the plans will pay for procedures: This is quite complex. One aspect to both bills is that they will create voluntary incentives to doctors and hospitals that provide good care rather than more care. The problem... it's voluntary. Doctors and hospitals that are wasteful will continue to operate that way unpunished.
Timeline: For a final bill or for the programs under a bill signed into law? As for the bill itself, the House missed Obama's timeline. The Senate may or may not get something done before the end of the year. Frankly, I don't think that's too bad given the magnitude of the legislation.