Presidential candidates explained using D&D character sheets

[angelfromanotherpin]

I don't understand, Fectin. Your quote is from the middle of the article, but the very first sentence is:

President Obama declared himself optimistic after meeting with Republican House leaders Tuesday afternoon and called for a suspension of partisan politics as he and lawmakers try to craft a rescue of the nation's economy.

Emphasis mine. So you don't have to look any 'farther' than you did to find a contradiction of your assertion that Obama absolutely refuses to have 'any meetings at all with republicans.' You just have to be willing to read the actual first sentence.

I guess that might get in the way of cherry-picking Republican whining from 'earlier in the day' about not being consulted some hours before they were consulted, though.

[fectin]

Your counterargument is "no, he went and lectured them that one time"? Seriously?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Hey, you set the bar at 'absolute refusal' and 'any meetings at all.' Don't blame me for hitting your easy pitch.

And 'one time?' There are three more links, Fectin. From page one of a google search. I guess I could look at page two if I needed to more-than-quadruple refute you.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't interested in an honest engagement of evidence.

[fectin]

More that I'm not interested in defending my one sentance summary of the past three years on presidential politics as absolutely accurate.

You're correct though, I did set the bar at no meetings. Here's an update:

The weirdest thing has been watching him absolutely refuse to have any meetings dialogue at all with republicans (though to be fair, he doesn't talk with anyone), insist that he is constantly negotiating with republicans, then make crazy compromises that not even republicans actually want.

[Username17]

There has been lots of dialog with Republicans. They get an enormous amount of time to talk to the president and he is constantly letting them talk to him. For fuck's sake, he came out and let them rant at him for 90 minutes straight. He has consistently bent over backwards to do the whole "bipartisanship" shit. The cold hard reality is that the Republicans are not crazy because Obama refuses to listen to them, they are crazy because they are fucking crazy. Every time he talks to them and concedes anything at all, they just get more intransigent. It's ridiculous.

The thing where Republicans are demanding that we stop the Fed from "printing money" because even Milton Friedman is too much of a Commie for them now is not because Obama won't listen to them or allow them to get a word in edgewise. It's because they are fucking crazy. For fuck's sake, Obamacare is actually a Republican suggestion. It's called Romneycare. It's an actual thing they actually put on the table, and Obama took it up as a compromise with them. And they still whine that not enough of their ideas are being used.

The fact that Republicans are whining about being excluded from the process does not in any way mean that they are actually being excluded from anything.

-Username17

[sabs]

Fectin, the crazy thing is that you actually really think that there has been no dialogue with Republicans.

The Republicans are Bates Motel crazy these days. Obama is about as progressive as Reagan, but the Republicans are so out in right field, that they're calling him a fucking Socialist.

[fectin]

The Republicans are Bates Motel crazy these days.

Say it often enough, loud enough, and some of it will be believed?

He has consistently bent over backwards to do the whole "bipartisanship" shit.

No, he hasn't. He's said that he does, but as you point out moments later:

The fact that Republicans are whining about being excluded from the process does not in any way mean that they are actually being excluded from anything.

...saying it doesnt make it so.

The cold hard reality is that the Republicans are not crazy because Obama refuses to listen to them, they are crazy because they are fucking crazy. Every time he talks to them and concedes anything at all, they just get more intransigent. It's ridiculous.

Your "cold hard reality" is remarkably soft and and relative. Exactly what concessions has he made? I guess he did reschedule his address to congress that one time. And his administration did reopen drilling after those two judgements against him. Google says he "conceded" defeat on cap and trade, but I'm not sure how the status quo is a concession to anyone.

even Milton Friedman is too much of a Commie for them now

Err, what? Is your next point going to be about how Keynes was too republican because he opposed deficit spending?

Obamacare is actually a Republican suggestion. It's called Romneycare.

Romney is an asshat. Romneycare is ass-haberdashery. Calling it a republican suggestion is like calling the murder of US citizens (al-Aulaqi) a democrat policy.

It's an actual thing they(who?) actually put on the table, and Obama took it up as a compromise with them. And they still whine that not enough of their ideas are being used.

"make crazy compromizes..." is exactly what I said.

But the real point is that we need to put this partisan bickering aside, and agree that I'm right.

[RobbyPants]

Your "cold hard reality" is remarkably soft and and relative. Exactly what concessions has he made?

Backed extending Bush era tax cuts.

[Kaelik]

Hey, remember Bush's tax cuts that were set to expire? What happened to those things?

How about the special no abortion funding proviso in healthcare?

Hey, remember when we spent like a month courting republicans because we had 59 senators for it, and one democrat against it, so they spent months of Obama asking and begging for talks with Republicans, and the Republicans refusing to talk to him, because they knew that if they did, he might actually get something passed and they wouldn't be allowed to whine about not being consulted?

Seriously, when was the last time the Republicans had a majority in House/Senate/President, and then the Democrats whined about not being consulted just because they don't get everything they want? Pro tip, just because you don't get everything you want, only most things, doesn't mean that you aren't consulted. It means you are consulted, and then outvoted.

[Username17]

Calling it a republican suggestion is like calling the murder of US citizens (al-Aulaqi) a democrat policy.

Did you miss the part where the actual first draft was drawn up on the Heritage Foundation's Website? Or did you let that part slide down the memory hole?

Exactly what concessions has he made?

We could go point by point about how literally every single thing Obama has ever done was farther to the right than what 70% of Americans actually say they want, let alone what his own party organizers say they want. Hell, we could go point by point about how literally every single thing he has done (except being nice to gays) is something that the actual Republican Party has claimed to support within the last two decades. But none of that matters, because you're shifting goalposts again. You said he wasn't meeting with or listening to the Republican congressmen. And that is factually untrue. He has scheduled more face to face negotiation time with congressmen from the opposing party in his one term that isn't even over yet than the previous two presidents scheduled in their combined four. By a lot. Maybe more than all the presidents back to Reagan combined, I can't tell because 24-hour news networks did not exist back then and I'd have to add up congressional record numbers myself to get that comparison.

What the fuck is your actual point? Republicans whining about being excluded from the process is simply factually untrue. They have had more hours of face-to-face negotiation than any opposition party has ever had. They are simply intransigent. As you can see from the fact that they have actually broken filibuster records.

And we aren't even talking about important shit, the Republicans are blocking literally everything, even things they actually sponsored themselves. Fuck, they even filibuster Small Business Aid. You know, the thing they claim is their actual plan for ending the recession?

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Exactly what concessions has he made?

How about when Obama agreed to austerity measures in exchange for the debt ceiling being raised? That's a level of willingness to negotiate that's literally unprecedented, because no other congress has ever had the gall to take the full faith and credit of the U.S. hostage before.

But screw that, let's look at the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. To appease Republicans, the president requested that:

• The total spending be significantly smaller than recommended by economists.
• Infrastructure spending be cut to make room for more tax cuts (the least stimulative use of money). In the end, over 40% of the stimulus is tax cuts.
• The removal of contraception funding for poor women.
• Bankruptcy reform be delayed.

That's a lot for an opposition party who is badly outnumbered in both chambers of Congress to get. And in return they gave the bill 0 Republican votes in the House and 3 in the Senate.

Calling it a republican suggestion is like calling the murder of US citizens (al-Aulaqi) a democrat policy

As Frank said, the individual mandate originated on the Heritage Foundation, but it was also included in two Republican-sponsored bills introduced in 1993. The Consumer Choice Health Security Act had 25 Republican co-sponsors (including Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley who now oppose the mandate) and 0 Democratic co-sponsors. The Health Equity and Access Reform Today act had 19 Republican co-sponsors (including Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley) and 2 Democratic co-sponsors.

[fectin]

Hey, remember Bush's tax cuts that were set to expire? What happened to those things?

This happened:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/ ... x-cuts.php

Seriously, when was the last time the Republicans had a majority in House/Senate/President, and then the Democrats whined about not being consulted just because they don't get everything they want?

When was the last time the president whined so hard about how he was bending over backwards for the opposition?

Pro tip, just because you don't get everything you want, only most things, doesn't mean that you aren't consulted. It means you are consulted, and then outvoted.

Cool story. Youre right, that definitely applies to the bush tax cut extensions.

[fectin]

But none of that matters, because you're shifting goalposts again.

I made a two sentence reply agreeing and commiserating. How can anything I say after that be goalpost shifting?

K: Obama's behavior us confusing and distressing.
Me: I know! What's that about?
Angel:you said no meetings, but they're actually just rare. Also, send me drugs.
Me: err, your evidence is flawed
Angel:THIS IS THE HYPERBOLE POLICE!
Me: okay, I guess I'll agree less then. Whatever.
Sabs & Frank: republicans are all crazy liars!
Me: wtf?
Kaelik: bad examples.
Others: wall of text.
Me: Kaelik, those examples are bad.
Me: fuck it, I'm done now.

Lies and hostility: another stellar example of democrat outreach.

[Kaelik]

So, that thing where you "summarize" the conversation, but do it with bullshit lies about what everyone else said? It's not funny on 4chan, it wasn't funny when Roy and Zine did it, it's not funny now.

Goodbye stupid troll.

[Username17]

Hey, remember Bush's tax cuts that were set to expire? What happened to those things?

This happened:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/ ... x-cuts.php

There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. 31 Democrats being in favor of an extension to the Bush Tax Cuts does not make extending the Bush Tax Cuts to be a Democrat plan. It's still a Republican plan. The fact that there were some Democrats who agreed with it for any of a number of stupid reasons does not make it anything other than a Republican plan.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yeah, fectin is either trolling, or incapable of processing information. I suspect trolling because he's using the old saw of refusing to call the Democratic party by it's actual name. But either way, it's not worth engaging him further.

[infected slut princess]

We could go point by point about how literally every single thing Obama has ever done was farther to the right than what 70% of Americans actually say they want, let alone what his own party organizers say they want. Hell, we could go point by point about how literally every single thing he has done (except being nice to gays) is something that the actual Republican Party has claimed to support within the last two decades.

I don't know why you make Obama and Republicans out to be such dire enemies, like Obama wouldn't be doing these things anyway. You guys are talking liek it's a total mystery why Obama's policies are sorta similar to Republican policies.

The whole partisan thing is mostly theatre. Talk is cheap, and you should be smart enough to recognize that Republicans like to talk about smaller government, but they expand it in all cases when they are in power. Just like Democrats.

Whoever is in power, you get "Republican stuff" like wars and you get "Democratic stuff" like welfare. And you know there were times when Republican were against the wars and Democrats were against the welfare too, depending on the situation. But does it matter? You may have noticed how Obama has basically continued the general theme of Bush II with wars, welfare expansion, huge spending, assault on civil liberties. Just like... previous Presidents. And... previous Congresses. Whoa.

You are either in favor of the government doing stuff, or you are not. If you are, then Republicans and Democrats should suit you pretty well. This whole partisan "Democrat vs Republican" bullshit is just for unsophisticated fools and hacks.

This all started because people were wondering if the guy who created the Obama D&D character sheet was pro- or anti-Obama. Well, it says he's a compromiser... wow, big surprise. He's a demagogue who talks about ending wars, giving people free healthcare, protecting civil liberties, and creating a strong economy -- and then he delivers something else. Shocking, I know.The card says he kills innocent people with drones which is something few Obama lovers will say. So I don't think the writer was pro-Obama but I don't think they were necessarily pro-Republican either. And amazingly, if you take off your partisan goggles, there is more to the world than shallow Democrat vs. Republican debates.

[Kaelik]

WTF is this whiny troll doing in my thread?

Man, I feel like Josh circa March, this ignore is getting out of control.

[angelfromanotherpin]

See, here's the thing: that Obama governs in some ways as a moderate conservative, and in other ways as a disturbingly extreme authoritarian is a real problem that should be engaged and worked on.

But fectin is trying to engage a problem that is simply imaginary. Much like tzor's concerns about encroaching Sharia law, the concern that Obama excludes Republicans from negotiations is not a real thing. In fact, fectin's position is even worse, because while the Sharia law scare is based on no evidence at all, the exclusion postulate stands opposed by large amounts of easily acquired evidence.

I would love to have a discussion about increasing government transparency and limiting executive power and yes, income inequality. But the opposition has been and is too busy talking about birth certificates and death panels and terrorist fist bumps and other completely made-up bullshit to be a part of that discussion.

[Fuchs]

But fectin is trying to engage a problem that is simply imaginary. Much like tzor's concerns about encroaching Sharia law, the concern that Obama excludes Republicans from negotiations is not a real thing. In fact, fectin's position is even worse, because while the Sharia law scare is based on no evidence at all, the exclusion postulate stands opposed by large amounts of easily acquired evidence.

Lucky you. There's been some statements even by law professors over here that sharia law should be used in some function to better integrate people.

[Username17]

But fectin is trying to engage a problem that is simply imaginary. Much like tzor's concerns about encroaching Sharia law, the concern that Obama excludes Republicans from negotiations is not a real thing. In fact, fectin's position is even worse, because while the Sharia law scare is based on no evidence at all, the exclusion postulate stands opposed by large amounts of easily acquired evidence.

Lucky you. There's been some statements even by law professors over here that sharia law should be used in some function to better integrate people.

Again, Not a Real Thing. Some guy said that the family disputes section of the law should make reference to parts of Sharia for purposes of dealing with families of those backgrounds. As opposed to the current system in which apparently Swiss family law says to refer to the cultural traditions of those families.

As in: the proposal actually on the table is to explicitly limit the amount of Sharia that can apply in inheritance disputes, as opposed to the current system where the amount that can apply is vague.

-Username17

[Koumei]

To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if Switzerland took on Sharia law. Now, a part of Nice Europe, never happening, but Switzerland, yeah.

[Gx1080]

What infected slut princess said. Obama is just another servant of the plutocrats, only thing, he talks pretty and has the media fellating him.

The funny bit is that "less bad" voting, besides not working on a recession, is meaningless if the same agenda is done no matter the guy in charge.

PS: Sharia law zones do exist on Europe:

http://europenews.dk/en/node/48810

But is mostly small extremist groups that are getting told to fuck off by the locals.

[infected slut princess]

WTF is this whiny troll doing in my thread?

Man, I feel like Josh circa March, this ignore is getting out of control.

What the hell, man? this thread is mine.

Edit: And why the fuck do some people even care if others folks settle their own disputes in their own courts? Sounds like a good idea, to be honest. Why do some nuts on the "right wing" or whatever seem to think that Sharia law is going to take over America or even become a serious influence on the American legal system at all? Makes no sense to me.

[Fuchs]

Edit: And why the fuck do some people even care if others folks settle their own disputes in their own courts? Sounds like a good idea, to be honest. Why do some nuts on the "right wing" or whatever seem to think that Sharia law is going to take over America or even become a serious influence on the American legal system at all? Makes no sense to me.

Because the courts are there for cases when people do not agree. That's the entire point of a court. If you and your neighbour agree that you should pay for the damage you caused to the lawnmower he loaned you, all's well. If you don't - to the court you go.

Now, if you have some sharia court, where women are worth less than men, that's not well. Whenever you let religious crazies make their own rules, people get hurt. A lot. Just watch what the christian sects do to their members when they can form their own communities.

You let sharia law into the court system, you open the door for all kind of similarly stupid religious shit, and the ones who can't defend themselves - usually women and children raised in those shitty enviroments - suffer for it.

We need less religious shit in society, not more. It's bad enough people actually take the genesis seriously enough to wreck education, it's worse if they go for the "stone those people" approach so common in the bible. And the koran is not that far from the bible, which is why it's such a bad book.