"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[brawndolicious]

Okay, good for you Judge Judy. When they bring out hypotheticals and circular logic, you can't exactly convince them by just pointing out that they're wrong.

[Eric P]

http://www.nationalconfidential.com/20120724/conservatives-complain-beauty-pageants-have-liberal-bias-create-miss-conservative-event/

Conservatives Complain Beauty Pageants Have Liberal Bias, Create “Miss Conservative” Event

[Joe Molotov]

We already know who the winner is gonna be:

http://www.nationalconfidential.com/20120722/tampa-strip-club-hires-palin-lookalike-for-gop-convention/

[Oblivion]

This is absolutely glorious:

http://readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com/2012/07/idiot-wall-street-journal-columnist.html

Basically some dipshit writer for the WSJ tried to diminish the credit the government should receive for creating the internet (which he claims it didn't), and writes a stupid article where two of the key people he cites refuted him the next day.

[Mr. Gundam]

Whoops!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9424524/Mitt-Romney-would-restore-Anglo-Saxon-relations-between-Britain-and-America.html

[Cormacaroni]

yeah, that is a whopper

'English-speaking white people, UNITE against these darkies'. Mitt may have to disavow that advisor.

[pickle]

"...and he feels that the special relationship is special"

Well then.

[Phoenix Dark]

anonymous adviser 

[Positive Touch]

cant wait for the eventual moment when a republican forgets to keep dancing around the issue and just flat-out says "YOU JUST CANT TRUST BLACK PEOPLE, RIGHT"

well that didnt take long

[recursivelyenumerable]

yeah, that is a whopper

'English-speaking white people, UNITE against these darkies'. Mitt may have to disavow that advisor.

how does one disavow an anonymous advisor?

[Great Rumbler]

yeah, that is a whopper

'English-speaking white people, UNITE against these darkies'. Mitt may have to disavow that advisor.

how does one disavow an anonymous advisor?

Anonymously?

[Boogie]

yeah, that is a whopper

'English-speaking white people, UNITE against these darkies'. Mitt may have to disavow that advisor.

how does one disavow an anonymous advisor?

Anonymously?

Retroactively.

[Eric P]

 

[Joe Molotov]

Romney also retroactively resigned from the SLC Olympics before the shredding all the documents about other things that didn't happen but if they did he definitely wasn't involved in them. Man is a wizard! The space-time continuum is putty in his hands.

“Transparency? There was none with [the Salt Lake Organizing Committee] when he was there,” said Kenneth Bullock, a committee member who represented the Utah League of Cities and Towns. “Their transparency became a black hole. It was nonexistent.”

According to Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul, “Mitt Romney resigned from SLOC in early 2002 to run for governor of Massachusetts and was not involved in the decision-making regarding the final disposition of records.”

http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-24/nation/32805512_1_mitt-romney-andrea-saul-romney-campaign-spokeswoman

[Mr. Gundam]

Boy, Mitt sure is good at resigning from jobs!

[Human Snorenado]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-obama-maintains-his-massive-lead-among-latinos--1

The poll — based on an oversample from Tuesday night’s NBC/WSJ survey — shows Obama earning the support of 67 percent of Latino voters nationwide, easily trumping Mitt Romney, who earns the support of just 23 percent.

waka waka, bitches

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/25/1113549/-What-s-fatty-and-greasy-and-pretends-to-be-a-teenage-girl-on-the-internet

Influencing multi million dollar companies yet I'm not an icon smh

[Mr. Gundam]

I've still never had Chick-Fil-A...

[Atramental]

I've still never had Chick-Fil-A...

You're not missing out on much.

Now Zaxby's... that's another story. *drool*

[Mr. Gundam]

The only Chick-Fil-A in Washington state is up in Bellingham on the campus of Western Washington University. It's in the student dining hall and you have to be a student to eat at it.`

[Human Snorenado]

[pickle]

yeah, that is a whopper

'English-speaking white people, UNITE against these darkies'. Mitt may have to disavow that advisor.

how does one disavow an anonymous advisor?

Anonymously?

Retroactively.

 

[Oblivion]

I've still never had Chick-Fil-A...

I've only eaten there once, and it was like 2 months ago. If I never eat there again, it's not major loss.


In other news, I can't get enough of these type of stories:

The A.D. Morgan Corporation employs 50 people and has annual revenues of about $80 million, according to its website. The company lists more than 130 projects and developments. Impressive, no doubt. But the list is nearly all government projects. [...]

"We're not going to have an opportunity in the private sector, they have a tendency to use lump sum, low bid," Smith said, explaining how government bids work. "So by virtue of what it is that we do, we go to the client base that purchases construction services that way."

More lols:

As for Ramos, his company's Facebook page describes Value Enterprise Solutions as "providing value added service/education to businesses, local government, federal government, Department of Defense, and industry contract organizations." [...]
In the Air Force for 24 years, Ramos dismissed the role it played in providing him the training and expertise to run his business today.

"It wasn't handed to me," Ramos said. "I worked my butt off. My military experience taught me integrity. But that didn't come from the government."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/25/1113668/-Romney-again-uses-government-contracting-businesses-to-say-government-doesn-t-help-businesses

:usacryeagle etc.

[Human Snorenado]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/obama-calls-for-gun-control-after-colorado.php?ref=fpa

sigh... i just feel like this has the potential to be a huge mistake, politically

[Mandark]

Looking forward to the next wave of comments on Van Cruncheon's FB (for some reason a gathering place for heavily armed libruls) explaining that Democrats need to not just forsake the idea of gun control, but loudly shout it down!

In all seriousness, Obama's playing this as safe as you can on that issue, couching everything in the language of law enforcement and respect for soldiers.  Some people will see this as a sign that he's going to have the government confiscate all guns, ammo, and sharp objects, but those people were already convinced that three years of inaction was proof of an even more devious anti-firearm plan.

[Van Cruncheon]

who says libtards aren't bloodthirsty

[Van Cruncheon]

seriously, though, it seems really facile and almost fetishistic to argue that GUNZ are the problem when the pathology points to a problem that's entirely cultural.

GUNZ, the new DEATH TOTEM

[Oblivion]

I want to be on Drinky's FB friend list. :/

[Phoenix Dark]

I was a bit hesitant when I read the headline about Obama tackling gun control today, but reading his comments...I'm not seeing anything controversial here. Which should make the right's freak out even more pathetic.

I'd imagine Obama will eventually push for some compromise that doesn't include re-instating the assault weapons ban. And it'll be filibustered

[Mandark]

seriously, though, it seems really facile and almost fetishistic to argue that GUNZ are the problem when the pathology points to a problem that's entirely cultural.

GUNZ, the new DEATH TOTEM

Just like it would be disingenuous to imply that people were ignoring all other factors in saying guns were "the problem"!  Real talk, I had some issues with that FB thread a few months ago but kept out cause hell, I don't know these people.  To sum up:

Cruncheon says hey, there are a lot of white dudes in rural areas who aren't evangelicals, and have a pretty live-and-let live view of life.  They don't vote Democratic cause they're worried that liberals are out to take away their guns and basically threaten their way of life.  If the Dems give up any even symbolic gestures towards gun control, they could pick up a lot of these votes!

From there you get a bunch of white dudes who like guns saying "yeah, for purely practical reasons, it's in the Democratic Party's best interests to appeal to white dudes who like guns!"

So here's the thing. Conceding that serious changes to gun regulation have been off the table since about forever, ending the symbolic part would mean repudiating gun control activists, and letting them know that their cause isn't welcome in the Democratic party. Not just national organizations like the Brady Campaign, but local jurisdictions that try to deal with things on a county or municipal level.

In concrete terms, we're talking about going to the Democratic Party of Washington DC and saying "Hey guys, I know you had a handgun law overturned by the Supreme Court recently.  That sucked. Anyhoo, as loyal Democrats we're going to ask you not to pull that shit in the future. I know it might be important to your constituency, but we figure since you guys get no Congressional representation and only get tenuous self-rule locally anyways, they're used to being disenfranchised. Don't worry, it's all in a good cause: so the national party can win white votes in districts far from your or any other city! Thanks for understanding."

I know that "privilege" gets used like a rhetorical cudgel in intra-librul online sissyfights, but... well, I'm bothered by how easily progressives of a certain mindset and cultural niche can wind up appointing themselves as arbiters of what is Important to liberalism and what isn't, and then somehow not realize that they're advocating the same strategic retreat and triangulating that they cry about when its their own pet issue (ie the public option) getting traded away for votes.

[Mupepe]

I can see why gun control is an important platform for the Democratic base considering only 21% of Democrats think that protecting gun rights is more important than gun control.  However, I'm part of the 21% although I would be for certain changes to gun control laws (mostly more mandatory classes, etc).  But I would be hard pressed to vote for any candidate whose platform is based on gun control or an assault rifle ban.  I'd probably sit home and not vote at all.  That 21% along with the (lol) independents will make their voices heard and definitely have an effect on any race considering they believe very strongly in it. 

And for example, an assault rifle ban seems to enbody the same type of willful ignorance you mentioned, Mandark.  Instead of trying to tackle the tough issues at the root of the problem we're going to keep cutting off branches and hope the problem stops growing.  It seems to be a denial that any other factor is influencing shooting sprees, it's just all those gunz!1 Especially since real life experience has shown us that the ban in 1994 effectively did nothing to curb violence. 

But again, I do see why it's important to the party's base.  It just puts Democrats like myself in an awkward partnership with the rest of the party when I know many of them would actually love to see something that means a lot to me done away with. 

Edit: To clarify, I'm not really arguing with you.  I'm just stating how awkward it is to be a gun lover and a Democrat.

[Mupepe]

Another thing that's extremely frustrating with owning guns as a Democrat is the sheer amount of ignorance regarding them.  Especially when it's from a party that seems to pride itself on being more informed and of logic on issues.  Reading the GAF threads about gun control is unbearable.  And it's precisely that reason why I believe most gun control measures would be so ineffective and only really harm law abiding owners.  If you don't take the time to understand something then how can you effectively regulate it?

[Atramental]

I'm a pro-gun "Democrat" as well but don't tell anyone on GAF. 

[Eric P]

i'm very pro gun.
but i don't now nor have i ever owned a gun

[TakingBackSunday]

I don't really have an issue with people owning guns, it's the absolute ignorant defense of the second amendment that pisses me off.  The fact that some stock up on a shitload of weapons because they think they're a "militia" is just 

[Van Cruncheon]

yeah, the second amendment defense is bullshit. i've always railed on it. it's an almost meaningless amendment these days, and is held up by dogmatics on the paranoid right solely because it seems convenient.

my problem with gun control is that it solves nothing. it's a lot of heat and noise; a left-wing railing against the DEATH TOTEM that is a gun. it's their own culture war.

you can have a society with strict gun laws that has no violence (Japan), and you can have a society with little-to-no gun regulation that ALSO has no violence (Switzerland). the problem is that we are a fractured and divisive society with a terrible public mental health infrastructure. taking or limiting gun ownership away is an abdication of the core problem: that crazy people are easily alienated from society and then fed media messaging that confirms their paranoid schizophrenia or psychopathy. if these killers hadn't had guns, they could have detonated a fertilizer bomb or found some other way of lashing out against the society they believe is conspiring to destroy them and their values.

guns are strictly totemic, and until libtards acknowledge that problem, they'll continue to sound incredibly shrill on the subject. OH GOD NO, GIT THAT GUN AWAY FROM ME, OUT OF MY HOUSE IT WILL KILL US ALLLLLLLLLL.

people kill other people. it's not the how that ultimately matters, it's the why.

[Human Snorenado]

I just fail to see why regular people need access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.  There are only two reasons I can think of:  1) "they're cool and I want them!" and 2) to kill people.  1) isn't a good enough reason to outweigh 2).

[BlackMage]

I'd rather be shot than stabbed. Just sayin'

[Van Cruncheon]

they don't, but why do regular people NEED just about anything that isn't food and shelter? automatic weapons are GREAT fun to shoot and use for a select group of enthusiasts, including me.

if someone wants to kill you, they will. no doubt guns make it more convenient, but so does dynamite.

(that said, i am ALL for mandatory registration, mental health/domestic violence checks, and training requirements for the different weapon classifications.)

[Van Cruncheon]

i'm just saying, libruls need to get over their OWN weird paranoid fear of guns. guns are just tools. tools for killing, but maybe, just MAYBE, EDUCATION is the answer, not irrational terror.

[Human Snorenado]

Doug- what's more likely:

1) American society becomes a more tolerant, understanding culture that provides the appropriate medical care that curtails tragedies like the Aurora shooting, and also ends the stupid drug war that fuels a lot of gang violence

-or-

2) We enact another assault weapons ban that makes it tougher for some loonies to get their hands on dangerous weapons.

Considering that 2) actually happened and 1) is a fucking pipe dream, I know which one I'm going to put my efforts behind.

[BlackMage]

yes, we get it drinky. you have a small penis.  maybe im into that

[Mupepe]

I just fail to see why regular people need access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.  There are only two reasons I can think of:  1) "they're cool and I want them!" and 2) to kill people.  1) isn't a good enough reason to outweigh 2).

Uh, take away a semi automatic weapon and you take away a large percentage of guns.  All my handguns are semi-automatic.  A large percentage of hunting rifles are semi automatic.  Go hunting with a bolt action and try to fire fast enough to kill something that's charging you.  Yeah, no. 

And as far as automatics, they're cool and I want them.  And even before the Hughes Amendment I believe there was only one murder that was committed (in 1932 or something) with a legally owned/obtained automatic weapon.  And I believe there's only been one since (in 1988).  It also didn't effect crime rates, much like the '94 ban on assault rifles.  I don't really care about repealing the Hughes Amendment although it would be nice.

[Van Cruncheon]

false choice, there. here's another rhetorical one for you

what's more likely:

1) an assault weapons ban in today's massively schizophrenic political climate, rife with paranoia even among independents.

-or-

2) passing stricter federal penalties for the sales of guns to folks with DV or mental health records?

[TakingBackSunday]

I have a shotgun at my house for defense purposes only.  I don't mind the keeping of weapons in that regard

[Brehvolution]

We won't see any meaningful gun law changes until some high profile right wingers take an early dirtnap. It has to affect them before they would consider doing anything about it.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

people kill other people. it's not the how that ultimately matters, it's the why.

[BlackMage]

We won't see any meaningful gun law changes until some high profile right wingers take an early dirtnap. It has to affect them before they would consider doing anything about it.

You are now being watched! 

[Brehvolution]

I like to be watched. 

[BlackMage]

I like to be watched. 

[Mr. Gundam]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-london-olympics-gaffes.php?ref=fpa

Does Mitt have any clue what he is doing?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/the-persistent-oddness-of-mitt-romney.html

I found this even weirder. What kind of man doesn't watch his wife compete in the Olympics?! I guess when you're the 0.001%, competing at the Olympics is about as exciting as whatever weeknight game is on at the local sports bar.

[Oblivion]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-london-olympics-gaffe-live

[Himu]

I'm fine with people having guns. I mostly take issue with the culture surrounding them, and complete lack of respect for human life for a piece of metal with a trigger. Guns shouldn't be banned, that's ridiculous, but the laws should definitely be tightened in that they require mandatory classes and teach awareness to what they may encounter with the ownership of a gun and how to defuse situations without whipping one out.

hell, I think children should be taught how to handle guns and the ramifications of them in elementary school. I have handled a total of 6-7 guns throughout the course of my life, how to reload, shoot, take care of all through the Boy Scouts. For all the shit Boy Scouts gets - and deservedly so - THAT gave me more respect and fear of guns than any thing I've ever seen since.

[Human Snorenado]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-london-olympics-gaffe-live

When Boris Johnson thinks you're a fuck up...

[Phoenix Dark]

Clearly Romney's Anglo-Saxon abilities were on cool down

[Atramental]

Last time Anglo-Saxons got into a conflict Americuh was created. 

edit:

[Phoenix Dark]

This apparently is not a joke. Just saw it on my facebook timeline, from a sincere libertarian

[Human Snorenado]

Sometimes I think I want to live in Libertopian fantasy land just for a day, so I can look at shit like that with straight face and type distinguished mentally-challenged things like "they exist because they do"

[Mandark]

Gun control gets discussed in the wake of psychotic episodes like the one we just had, but gun violence's largest impact, and the subject of most attempts at regulation, is the flooding of handguns into cities.  Where you have not just high fatality rates (in DC, where it's gotten much better, it still causes ~5 times as many deaths as traffic accidents), but all the attendant feedback loops with other social ills (driving down property values, keeping out investment and quality services).

Note, I don't think Democrats should be pursuing gun control.  I don't personally think it makes a large difference, and I certainly don't think anything that could realistically pass, given the political climate and court challenges, would make it harder in practical terms to get a firearm.

But while "someone will always find a way" may apply to the obsessively driven, but I'm not at all convinced that making violence more efficient and convenient has no impact on its frequency.  Even the most hysterical liberals will concede other factors are at work (can you get a liberal talking about crime without a ton of hemming and hawing about the myriad root causes?), so I don't think it's fair to accuse them of ignoring the real issue.