Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It doesn't matter who the Commander in Chief is seriously, were all screwed it's just a matter of how long before the wick runs short and everything explodes.

People who think they are going to vote someone into office without their own agenda are kidding themselves.

It takes a special kind of person to want to be the Leader of the Free World.... and unfortunately those qualities generally don't lead to the best outcomes.

Last Commander in Chief was more trusted by the military then the current one

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm pretty sure Obama has given up at this point and is just trolling Congress. The last decent president was Clinton. GW and Obama have been back to back disasters.

IN many ways you are correct. The Housing thing started with changes during his administration however.

Not like it matters, our country is too stupid to keep our military where it belongs. We keep sticking our noses in everyone else's business.

Take our soldiers home and let them secure the borders. Let the brown people overseas blow themselves up. The oil will still be there after they are all dead.

 whembly wrote:

Here's a perfect, PERFECT example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/nyregion/us-attorney-warns-cuomo-on-ethics-case-.html?_r=0

The New York Times (not a "righty" news publication for sure) reports on a "sharply worded" letter to Governor Cuomo from the US Attorney leading the investigation.

Let's give The New York Times kudos for covering this story. This is happening in their backyard after all...

The rest of the national media? Ziltch. Nada.

The Huffington Post, which is about as lefty as you can get, ran this story (from Reuters) as their headline this morning: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/andrew-cuomo-us-attorney-investigation_n_5636753.html

Just sayin...

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Here's a perfect, PERFECT example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/nyregion/us-attorney-warns-cuomo-on-ethics-case-.html?_r=0

The New York Times (not a "righty" news publication for sure) reports on a "sharply worded" letter to Governor Cuomo from the US Attorney leading the investigation.

Let's give The New York Times kudos for covering this story. This is happening in their backyard after all...

The rest of the national media? Ziltch. Nada.

The Huffington Post, which is about as lefty as you can get, ran this story (from Reuters) as their headline this morning: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/andrew-cuomo-us-attorney-investigation_n_5636753.html

Just sayin...

And what did I say at the end of that post.

A quote from Cuomo? I'm not following. Do you think it was spin-ful?

The article was from Reuters, which I think is at least somewhat respected as a non-partisan news source, at least it used to be.

 jasper76 wrote:
A quote from Cuomo? I'm not following. Do you think it was spin-ful?

The article was from Reuters, which I think is at least somewhat respected as a non-partisan news source, at least it used to be.

Nah...

I said:

Or, it's like that a certain former Senator from New York who is the frontrunner for the D nomination in 2016 have anything to do with it? /tin foil

In other words, it cold be the Clinton Machine™ at work.

Is FoxNews covering the story any more than CNN or MSNBC?

No?

Well then I guess the amount of dirt that can be thrown at Clinton with this story is pretty much zero.

Wait, let me check with Breitbart really quick!

Still no mention of how Clinton is involved in all of this?

Man, she is powerful. When even the conspiracy theorists refuse to spin their webs about her involvement in this, then she must have called up the lizard people...

 d-usa wrote:
Is FoxNews covering the story any more than CNN or MSNBC?

No?

Well then I guess the amount of dirt that can be thrown at Clinton with this story is pretty much zero.

Wait, let me check with Breitbart really quick!

Still no mention of how Clinton is involved in all of this?

Man, she is powerful. When even the conspiracy theorists refuse to spin their webs about her involvement in this, then she must have called up the lizard people...

It's meant to mock Clinton's "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy™" meme she pushed all those years ago.

 jasper76 wrote:


Anyway, you do realize the US has been a socialist country for quite a long time, right?

Aha! HAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! *hysterical* HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! *convulsions*

OMG how did I miss this thread?
The US a socialist country, nope not even close . The only people that think the US is socialist are people who have no idea what socialism is. FFs you only just got "universal" health care , your social programs are deplorable and the US is a socialist country?

Oh feth me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Points up...my reply.

Frazzled, you're welcome and free to Ignore me, or apply for a moderator job and censor my posts as you see fit, as well.

In any case, cheers and good health!

I was a Mod. They kicked me out. And where's the justice in that? Just because a man makes a little mistake with a flame thrower and the Louvre and BAM! he's out. No Justice no Peace!
[

It was a great time in the history of dakka, Frazzled ruled with an iron fist much like Ghengis Khan. Much banings and moderating were done. In fact, I'd say Frazzled was a socialist moderator.

 kronk wrote:
Clinton did not completely suck.

He left that job to Lewinski

 Jihadin wrote:
Last Commander in Chief was more trusted by the military then the current one

I haven't seen a democratic administration in my lifetime the military trusted, so Obama's really not special in that regard.

I'm starting to understand why so many young voters don't affiliate themselves with either major political party.

 Random Dude wrote:
I'm starting to understand why so many young voters don't affiliate themselves with either major political party.

The funny thing is is that apolitical citizens are actually helping both the Republicans and Democrats. The extremes on both sides are pushing the agendas, and they take anyone else with a position close to their ideology along for the ride.

The unaffiliated will have to choose sides as we lack a clear third choice between the two parties.

There is something almost 40k about that.

REPENT OR BURN

 WarOne wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
I'm starting to understand why so many young voters don't affiliate themselves with either major political party.

The funny thing is is that apolitical citizens are actually helping both the Republicans and Democrats. The extremes on both sides are pushing the agendas, and they take anyone else with a position close to their ideology along for the ride.

The unaffiliated will have to choose sides as we lack a clear third choice between the two parties.

Wasn't that were the 2nd amendment was for?

America a socialist country?, the gap between rich and poor the amount of homeless,.....

Oh and unbridled capitalism works?

Feth this, back to burying my head in my models!

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Last Commander in Chief was more trusted by the military then the current one

I haven't seen a democratic administration in my lifetime the military trusted, so Obama's really not special in that regard.

And vice versa.

 Jihadin wrote:
Last Commander in Chief was more trusted by the military then the current one

He was a Republican and most of the military identifies as being conservative, so that's pretty much a given.

 Ouze wrote:

I haven't seen a democratic administration in my lifetime the military trusted, so Obama's really not special in that regard.

Yeah, I think last one was probably LBJ, though there's no good stats from that period so I wouldn't be able to prove it.

 Seaward wrote:

And vice versa.

What are you trying to state?

I think Seaward is trying to say that the military is inherently hawklike and untrustworthy to a party that tends to be more dovelike.

I don't understand how that follows from "vice versa", given the original statement.

Well, it makes perfect sense when you have a President like The Usurper B. Hussein "Superallah" Obama, who is simultaneously weak on terror while being a bloodthirsty warmonger via use of drones, too dumb to read a speech without a teleprompter while also being responsible for every detail of a vast conspiracy to mask his place of birth and/or religion, and so on, and so forth.

Tl;DR 'haters gonna hate".

Forgot Obama will never fail to attend a Fund Raiser

 Jihadin wrote:
Forgot Obama will never fail to attend a Fund Raiser

That is any politician. Fundraisers are what get them there, and what keep them there: Democrat, Republican, or Independent. It isn't just for fun either, as we the people have made it a money race that puts them into the position of having to constantly be raising money to keep up. Being upset that a politician attends fundraisers is like being upset if a soldier has a firearm.

 Ahtman wrote:
if a soldier has a firearm.

The preferred term is "Freedom Blaster".

Remember. We call it a "weapon". My weapon will have one of two names..Allie Sin or Isabella Soprano

 dogma wrote:
What are you trying to state?

That there hasn't, in Ouze's lifetime, been a military that a democratic administration has trusted.

 Seaward wrote:

That there hasn't, in Ouze's lifetime, been a military that a democratic administration has trusted.

In that case there hasn't been any Administration which has trusted the military since Bush 1, at the absolute earliest, and even that's questionable.

Anyway, how do you define Executive "trust" of the military? More funding? More adventurism?

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
if a soldier has a firearm.

The preferred term is "Freedom Blaster".

that's gold... if I had room in my sig that would be sigged, unfortunately my siggs require more stupidity than that. except for manchu, that one was smart