|
Is there some way to read reddit where the format isn't entirely a piece of poo poo? I'm curious to see his responses but I really do not give a poo poo about the comments discussing the correct pluralization of acronyms.
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
Mauser posted:Is there some way to read reddit where the format isn't entirely a piece of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 11:16
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Probably hold John Kerry in contempt, because why the gently caress not. On the plus side their tough talking "prosecutor" heading the committee looks like a cross between Julian Assange and Pepe le Pew, so that's fun. Tell me again, why didn't the Democrats do this to Bush regarding lies leading into the Iraq clusterfuck?
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
sleepingbuddha posted:Tell me again, why didn't the Democrats do this to Bush regarding lies leading into the Iraq clusterfuck? Dems were on board with it for the most part and admitting you're wrong is hard. It also would have required acknowledging that the NYT was in the bag for the Bush administration leading up to the war. Most people probably just shudder thinking back on that time. There's a lot of really ugly truths that few of them really want to face.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Sure, they voted for it, but I'd be even more pissed to find out I voted for a war based on lies. The real problem is that the Democrats are way too drat conciliatory. Oh we don't want to set a precedent of impeaching the President, not like you guys did to our last one and will likely do to the current one. It's time to take some notes from the opposition's playbook.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
The issue of race ocassionaly comes up in this thread, and some people have even suggested that from time to time, Republican politicians and their supporters might be motivated by racial prejudices. Marco Rubio calls bullshit on that reasoning. quote:Sen. Marco Rubio reacted with indignation on Wednesday to comments by former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who earlier this week explained his decision to switch parties from Republican to Democrat was fueled in part by racism within the GOP. Never? Never ever? I think it might be time for Mr. Rubio to be fitted for a hearing aid...
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
McDowell posted:As part of their skin-deep social concern; Yuppies are generally averse to any kind of action requiring hardship or sacrifice, which are necessary to prevent disaster in the long term. I disagree, but then again maybe we have different definitions of what yuppie means here? I'm thinking the Hoboken crowd - whose jobs are certainly more challenging, require more intellectual investment and much longer hours than your typical retail or whatever position. e Oh, my mistake if I misread. If its social issues only, I suppose, but I don't think anyone has a moral obligation to be concerned with anything, never mind anything that doesn't necessarily effect them. It might make you a bit of a bad person, but then again that's a wildly wide net to cast in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
richardfun posted:The issue of race ocassionaly comes up in this thread, and some people have even suggested that from time to time, Republican politicians and their supporters might be motivated by racial prejudices. "Here are your winnings, sir." Sen. Marco Rubio has seen racism in his party, but his job relies on him not seeing it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
Vis-a-vis the SCOTUS decision on Senatorial sectarian prayer, I was reminded that this happened several years ago. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A Here's to hoping the SCOTUS decision leads to a lot more of it happening 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:David Barton is as much of an intellectual as your angry grandfather is.  That goes for every conservative 'intellectual' I can think of, but I did think his particular bullshit was particularly lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Magres posted:Some days you have Scotch on hand and don't want something with a bite. ErIog posted:The AG is also not going to prosecute all their frivolous contempt votes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:This is also known as "being a pussy." That presents an interesting conundrum for the GOP. Holder announced he is retiring later this year. So they don't want to confirm the new AG because they don't want to confirm any Obama appointee, but they need an AG to go forward on their circus.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Don't know how this works exactly, but I would assume prosecutorial authority / discretion of that kind would transfer to an acting AG in the absence of a PAS AG, or maybe to the DAG or an AAG? E: Here we go, 28 USC § 508 (a): quote:(a) In case of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, or of his absence or disability, the Deputy Attorney General may exercise all the duties of that office, and for the purpose of section 3345 of title 5 the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 16:37 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I wouldn't be so sure about this. This isn't the same thing as Holder's contempt vote in 2012, where it was a civil contempt vote and Obama asserted executive privilege to moot it. This is a criminal contempt vote, and it would set a pretty bad precedent if DOJ simply refused to prosecute, no matter how frivolous the charges are. Imagine if, the next time we have a Republican president, a Democratic committee held an administration member in contempt for something actually serious, and they were able to just cite the instance in which Holder didn't prosecute Lerner. Well, they could just walk out of the chamber like petulant children. Oh wait: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/washington/15contempt.html?hp
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
John Boehner has been watching too much House of Cards.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Bernie Sanders did an AMA on Reddit and the local population of crazies was shockingly well heeled. Maybe its just that Bernie magic: Haha apparently he's been making the occasional post in their politics forum for the past month before this.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well, they could just walk out of the chamber like petulant children. The Obama white house just needs to photocopy the statement from the Bush white house saying that they are protected from contempt of congress by executive privilege and give it to Boehner.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well, they could just walk out of the chamber like petulant children. Ahahaha there is so much in there, including this hidden gem: quote:House Republican leaders described the contempt vote as a political ploy that drew time away from what they described as a more important debate over extending a federal law to allow eavesdropping on domestic telephone calls and e-mail in pursuit of terrorists. So are the Republicans for or against White House authorized NSA wiretaps?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl3a1hh1hHQ Mysterious lights have been seen over Aleppo, Syria. Maybe the Martians can do us a solid.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's like someone stuck Bruce Campbell's face on Julian Assange, and then smashed his face in to a wall repeatedly. Captain Kangaroo + older lesbian lady.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Ahahaha there is so much in there, including this hidden gem: FBI / DHS wiretaps. Probably. (With technology and expertise borrowed from but Totally Not administered by the NSA.) The NSA's come suspiciously close to brazenly breaking their charter, but that'd be another step up that frankly they don't particularly need to take. Just authorize the domestically empowered enforcement agencies to have at it and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Dystram posted:John Boehner has been watching too much House of Cards.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
quote:in the same way that shows like 24 apparently (terrifyingly) influence real law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
In a 60-36 decision, the public announced today that they think the Roberts Court is chasing a partisan or personal agenda rather than rendering impartial rulings on law http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5279535?utm_hp_ref=tw I just have to wonder who the 36% are, those who see outliers from the GOP agenda like the ACA being upheld and say "well they don't always rule on partisan grounds, they must be impartial"?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Justus posted:Vis-a-vis the SCOTUS decision on Senatorial sectarian prayer, I was reminded that this happened several years ago. That poor guy
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
I always find it hard to believe that Republicans are still trying to rehabilitate Nixon and cast the shame of Watergate onto Democrats. I don't think alot of people cate about what Nixon abs Reagan did. Hell when u bring up Reagan's treason it gets waved away as the cost of Empire. Now let me tell you about how millenials are lazy and want something for nothing instead of hard work KomradeX fucked around with this message at 20:59 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:
The question is worded: "Now I'm going to read a pair of statements. Please tell me which of the following is closer to your point of view, even if neither is exactly right."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
If you thought the Benghazi distraction was going to be enough you were mistaken. Now they are going to gear up after Clinton for being insufficiently aggressive against Boko Haram http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/house-benghazi-committee-050814?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_57354298 Religious nutjobs against black women being educated are now something the GOP is opposed to, rather than their base
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:If you thought the Benghazi distraction was going to be enough you were mistaken. Now they are going to gear up after Clinton for being insufficiently aggressive against Boko Haram
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:How exactly was Hillary supposed to "handle" a militant group in another country, which afaik made no direct or indirect threats to us? Just more evidence that Islamic militants are not considered terrorists but law-abiding white Christian freedom lovers are by this Kenyan Marxist administration.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:How exactly was Hillary supposed to "handle" a militant group in another country, which afaik made no direct or indirect threats to us? The same way Obama was supposed to prevent things from going nuts in Ukraine and Syria. Which is to say that there's nothing Hillary could have effectively done as SecState means precisely nothing to those making such accusations, it's just "BAD THING, HER FAULT!!!"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Lois Lerner was held in criminal contempt of congress!  This is fantastic and hilarious, because if she refuses to comply, the procedure for the case gets really weird. She's due all the normal protections of the law as a criminal defendant- and there are doubts that the elements of a contempt charge could even be met.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Lois Lerner was held in criminal contempt of congress! I feel like it's safe to say the GOP hosed up here. This isn't a rhetorical motion. This is actual law with real criteria to be met. And they don't have a goddam thing to back it up.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Crain posted:I feel like it's safe to say the GOP hosed up here. This isn't a rhetorical motion. This is actual law with real criteria to be met. And they don't have a goddam thing to back it up. "Those LIEberals are using legal procedure to block our pursuit of justice!"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Crain posted:I feel like it's safe to say the GOP hosed up here. This isn't a rhetorical motion. This is actual law with real criteria to be met. And they don't have a goddam thing to back it up. They actually know what they're doing though. If it is indeed complete bullshit (it is) theres three options: 1. DoJ ignores it and does not impanel a grand jury 2. DoJ puts the joke of a case in front of a grand jury and it refuses to indict 3. DoJ gets a grand jury indictment and it goes to trial and they're found not guilty. No matter the result they can claim that the justice department threw the case.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:In a 60-36 decision, the public announced today that they think the Roberts Court is chasing a partisan or personal agenda rather than rendering impartial rulings on law People who desperately want to believe that the Supreme Court is above partisan politics and is instead just being the impartial judges they swore to be (they never have been, but partisanship has become far more prevalent in the past 20 years). And yeah, probably some people who thought that the ACA stands out for its "impartiality", though gutting the commerce clause has been on the conservative bench's to-do list since the Rehnquist court, so I don't know that I would the ACA ruling up as a bastion of impartiality.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I do wonder sometimes if shows like that influence real politics, in the same way that shows like 24 apparently (terrifyingly) influence real law enforcement. The West Wing inspired some members of the House of Commons in 2006.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
The Republicans actually get an image victory with all the members of the public for whom getting held in contempt of congress is proof of guilt, which is most of their base. I mostly think it's funny because the grand jury and other procedural stuff for contempt of congress is weird. hobbesmaster posted:They actually know what they're doing though. If it is indeed complete bullshit (it is) theres three options:
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I was listening to C-SPAN this morning discussing the Nigerian kidnappings/Boko Haram issue there, and most callers were asking two questions: 1) "These are girls! Why haven't we intervened sooner!" Well mostly because the Nigerian government has a pretty good idea where Boko Haram is hiding but they've decided not to do anything about it because the government is corrupt. 2) "Why hasn't Western media focused more attention on this?!" Because nobody cares about Africa, CNN is still looking for flight 370 and it happened around the same time a ferry capsized near Korea. We care more about Korea than Nigeria. And what burned me the most is the media correspondent (can't remember who) was basically saying "Well I'm disappointed the media didn't pick this up sooner but at least it's picked it up now and helped drum up support along with the Twitter hashtags." Oh, great, a month after the event took place when many of the girls have been scattered to the four winds, we start focusing on it. I mean yeah better late than never but come on.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
The fuckers are flogging Vilerat's corpse for money http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/john-boehner-benghazi-fundraising-106493.html
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:40
|
|