RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


atursvcMaam -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 9:40:26 PM)

my only concern with the actual website is the same that i have with any political response. They, any political site, tends to be filled with half truths to complete lies. The presentation on the first link makes our president and those who support him out to be paranoid lunatics, and i found that to be a bit disturbing.
i am a con, but it hardly seems sporting when it is made this easy. This all seems pretty childish, don't you think?




popeye1250 -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 9:40:51 PM)

Obama; Democrats deserve better!




Aylee -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 9:41:51 PM)

“TV interview, public statement, forwarded email, rumor, TV ad, video ad, radio ad, robocall, website/blog.”

These are the menu choices for your 'Report' on fellow citizens.





Owner59 -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 10:09:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam

my only concern with the actual website is the same that i have with any political response. They, any political site, tends to be filled with half truths to complete lies. The presentation on the first link makes our president and those who support him out to be paranoid lunatics, and i found that to be a bit disturbing.
i am a con, but it hardly seems sporting when it is made this easy. This all seems pretty childish, don't you think?


It`s speech to speech, info to info ,with the public sorting out who`s BSing and who isn`t.


What`s wrong with that?









Lucylastic -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 10:12:06 PM)

I just heard a kajillion sphincters go WTF?????
surely it has to be a hack by some sick fuck




TheHeretic -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 10:18:32 PM)

I get forwarded emails from family and friends.  Are they the ones I'm supposed to report?  Yeah.  The whole concept is creepy.  (And how many political opposition researchers are going to have their jobs destroyed by this?  It's worse than the ATMs!)

Then we have another little thing.  They are soliciting people to report "attacks" on the President.  Now obviously, if they are notified of a threat towards the President, they would be fully expected to pass that information to the proper authorities immediately.  It would seem better to me to keep a bright line between the campaign, and even being perceived as working with law enforcement.  I'd like to see a little disclaimer, about logging off, and calling the local FBI office for a threat, much like the answering system at a hospital will tell you that if this is an emergency, hang up and dial 9-1-1.

Notice who thinks it is a grand idea. 




Owner59 -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 10:19:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

“TV interview, public statement, forwarded email, rumor, TV ad, video ad, radio ad, robocall, website/blog.”

These are the menu choices for your 'Report' on fellow citizens.



It`s the disinfecting sun-light, that`s bothering your eyes.

Do you think bush`s dirty-trick-smear of John McCain having a mixed-race baby out of wedlock, would have been as devastating if McCain had been able to respond in real time?

This is why you cons are nervous.

The sun-light.

We`re dealing with people who will do/say/lie/cheat/steal anything to win.

What`s creepy about exposing them?

Do they think free speech means getting to lie/smear/cheat and not get responded to?

That sounds like a great big coward/pussie, who can`t own his own words.




Kirata -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 10:37:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

It`s the disinfecting sun-light, that`s bothering your eyes.

Oh ferchrissake, Owner, get a grip. It's a pro-Obama partisan website!

Promoting it is the functional equivalent of a rightie glorifying Breitbart.

K.




TheHeretic -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 10:39:38 PM)

Too funny, O59!  And was it just yesterday that your "special friend" was tossing slurs and accusations about snitches.

Yoo-Hoo!  Skippy!  Care to weigh in on this one?




Owner59 -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 10:56:29 PM)

Bratfart makes shit up,smears,makes falsehoods and purposely uses the most disgusting dirty-tricks,like race-baiting, to scare folks.I know you know this.


I don`t see that on this website.If you can show me where it is,please do.

Exposing/ him and folks like him is perfectly reasonable.


A better comparison would be the GOP`s website.

That it`s a partisan site is not issue, in of itself.Partisanship is quite neccessary and not a bad thing,in of it`s self.

If the facts are varifiable and true,it doesn`t matter who presents them.If they are not,folks will take that into account when considering who`s BSing them or not.

If someone signs their name to something,people will know who`s responcible for the text and take it into account.

We just want to make sure those responcible for dirty tricks, get their names signed to them, too.Only douche-bag cowards will have a problem with that.



Politics is a dirty game.

If the players can`t deal, they should find something else to do.







tazzygirl -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:04:10 PM)

Ah hell, no matter who you are, this is funny shit!

Its funny that its up at all.

Its funny that its being inundated with conservatives posting none stop it seems.

Its funny that the media is having a laugh as well.

Cant think of a single President who hasnt done at least one stupid thing while in office.

And, yes, I am prepared to list them for the last couple. [;)]




Kirata -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:08:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

If the facts are varifiable and true,it doesn`t matter who presents them.

A partisan source is not a reliable font of unspun facts. But that said, I do agree with your statement.

I hope you will be gracious if an occasion arises to quote it back to you. [:D]

K.






siamsa24 -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:22:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Let me see if I have this correct. . .

It is wrong for a law enforcement officer to check to see if someone is in the country legally.

It is good to feel up children at the airport (I note that Big Sis has promised a slow down on this).

And the way to unify our country is by spying on my neighbors.

Does this sound right?


Just to kind of clarify, I am guessing you are referring in the first question to the Arizona law, right (please correct me if I am wrong). 
Based on my understanding (which I will admit, is limited) that law only applies when an officer suspects the individual of another crime and requests identification (much like how one is asked for a driver's license after being pulled over by a law enforcement officer after a traffic violation).  Can someone please correct me if I am incorrect in interpreting that law?




Termyn8or -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:23:23 PM)

Before I get to reading the replies let me get this straight.......

We are talking about talking about talking about talking about talking about talking about talking abiout talking about talking about........

T^T




siamsa24 -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:28:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Before I get to reading the replies let me get this straight.......

We are talking about talking about talking about talking about talking about talking about talking abiout talking about talking about........

T^T


This is why I don't bother participating in the political forums, I ask a question regarding a particular law and I get ridiculed because it doesn't follow a certain agenda or line of thinking.

Yes, I replied without reading the remaining posts, as far as I know that's not a crime yet. 




Kirata -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:32:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: siamsa24

This is why I don't bother participating in the political forums, I ask a question regarding a particular law and I get ridiculed...

Pssssst....

He wasn't replying to you.

K.




siamsa24 -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:39:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: siamsa24

This is why I don't bother participating in the political forums, I ask a question regarding a particular law and I get ridiculed...

Pssssst....

He wasn't replying to you.

K.




Which is why I always use the quote button, so I don't make a total ass out of myself. 




My apologies. 




StrangerThan -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:41:10 PM)

You know what you sound like, Owner? Republicans defending the Patriot Act under Bush. I don't know how many times I heard some simpleton shit like, well, if I don't commit a crime, I have nothing to worry about!

Of course, the same Democrats who railed against it then, are reveling in undulating ecstasy now that it is administered by Obama - proving beyond any reasonable doubt that their righteous rage was neither righteous nor anger based upon an attack on freedoms, but rather encapsulated by the hatred of Bush.

It's not nervous laughter you sense. It is belly aching, can't catch your breath laughter. I should sign up today and talk about stupid republican cunts, shouldn't I? I mean fuck, if we're going to look at ugly sides, let's pull up rocks that have donkeys on them as well as those with elephants. Hell, a good msnbc diatribe could provide hours of posting glamour on.. we need theme music.. .da da dummm, Attack Watch.

I can't believe you're defending this bullshit. If it had risen from the other side, you'd be screaming. Then again, you probably screamed at the Patriot Act didn't you?

Just for you 59, I have the first candidate you can  report. It's called the American Civil Liberties Union. Here are some excerpts

Torture and extraordinary rendition are no longer officially condoned. But most other policies—indefinite detention, targeted killing, trial by military commissions, warrantless surveillance, and racial profiling—remain core elements of our national security strategy today.


Thus has President Obama claimed the unchecked authority to use lethal force against a United States citizen, far from any battlefield, on the basis of his own unilateral determination that the citizen poses a threat to the nation. And thus has Congress passed laws intended to detain prisoners at Guantanamo indefinitely, even though the prison is a blight on our nation’s conscience and history and a recruiting tool for our enemies.

But President Obama’s pledge to close Guantanamo was undermined by his own May 2009 announcement of a policy enshrining at Guantanamo the principle of indefinite military detention without charge or trial.

With the Obama administration’s so-called “targeted killing” program, there is no ability to correct what can be lethal errors.
No national security policy raises a graver threat to human rights and the international rule of law than targeted killing, because the government claims the unchecked authority to impose an extrajudicial death sentence on people—including U.S. citizens—located far from any battlefield.


In Afghanistan, where the Obama administration has continued the Bush administration’s policy of detaining individuals for years without charge or trial based on secret evidence and without access to a lawyer, our NATO allies refuse to transfer captives to U.S. custody.

Using Patriot Act authority, the Bush Administration started—and the Obama Administration has continued—to conduct wholesale “preventive” surveillance of innocent Americans without judicial review.

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has used excessive secrecy to hide possibly unconstitutional surveillance. Two members of Congress have been ringing alarm bells about the government’s use of Patriot Act authorities, urging additional congressional oversight—to no avail. Hobbled by executive claims of secrecy, Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have nevertheless warned their colleagues that the government is operating under a “reinterpretation” of the Patriot Act that is so broad that the public will be stunned and angered by its scope, and that the executive branch is engaging in dragnet surveillance in which “innocent Americans are getting swept up.”

Full text here - http://www.aclu.org/national-security/report-call-courage-reclaiming-our-liberties-ten-years-after-911 if you want to read it for more juicy tidbits to report.

The laughter you hear is the correct response. What I will tell you and every other dimwit democrat is that this kind of bullshit calls into question the left's stance on liberty and freedom more than it achieves whatever vaunted purpose it proclaims to defend. But hey, keep snickering and defending what amounts to brown shirt tactics. After all, it's the right party - this time.




tazzygirl -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:44:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: siamsa24

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: siamsa24

This is why I don't bother participating in the political forums, I ask a question regarding a particular law and I get ridiculed...

Pssssst....

He wasn't replying to you.

K.




Which is why I always use the quote button, so I don't make a total ass out of myself. 




My apologies. 



He used the reply feature, which posts the name of the person he is replying too in the lower right hand corner of the post.




Owner59 -> RE: Obamas Latest Laughing Stock, "Attack Watch" (9/14/2011 11:54:40 PM)

What administration gave us this jem?


Warning our fellow American citizens "you need to watch what you say and watch what they do"?

What is more stifling of freedom of speech than those statements?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875