Obama's Olympic Failure...

[Cap'n Cat]

No wonder Conks will be out of power for decades.............

[TheDancinMonarch]

I don't care what you feel. What do you think? There is way too much feeling these days and not nearly enough thinking. Check with the cat.

Okay, I think that calling Obama a treasonous bastard is completely over the top, and represents perfectly the right wing's inability to rationally criticize the darkie who stole their office from them.

Let the record show that at no time have I ever used the word between the words "the" and "who" in the above post. It is an offensive term and is not in my vocabulary. But I do appreciate the THOUGHT that you put into the post. It's a start.

[AZGrizFan]

No wonder Conks will be out of power for decades.............

Funny. Can't wait for 2012.

[houndawg]

Nobody has ever made money hosting the Olympics, and Illinois doesn't need to go any broker than it already is. As somebody whose taxes would be paying for the party, I feel like we dodged a bullet.

Chicago would lose money... no doubt.

But, the Olympics would bring a **** ton of jobs, **** ton of contracts to construction companies, etc. I don't think it would necessarily be a net loss when those are taken into account.

It might not be a net loss for Chicago but it would for sure be a net loss here, 350 miles to the south. The joke is on RIO.

[houndawg]

It's not just "the right".

Most of the "experts" agreed the vote would come down to Chicago or Rio. Many of those same people thought that Obama making a presentation would put Chicago over the top.

Excuse me if i find it funny that after all that travel and expense to send Obama and his wife on separate trips to Copenhagen only to have Chicago get eliminated in the first round. Now that it is over, could it possibly be that Obama actually hurt Chicago's chances?

Yo, Baldy, he did a good thing. It ain't in his hands. You fvcks woulda berated him for not going and making a pitch, citing all the dollars we lost out on with the Olympics.

Now, go back to doing what you do best - being MY bitch!

[mod edit - removed image]

Fer chrissakes Baldy, wash your feet before you assume the position.

[AZGrizFan]

Okay, I think that calling Obama a treasonous bastard is completely over the top, and represents perfectly the right wing's inability to rationally criticize the darkie who stole their office from them.

Let the record show that at no time have I ever used the word between the words "the" and "who" in the above post. It is an offensive term and is not in my vocabulary. But I do appreciate the THOUGHT that you put into the post. It's a start.

Donks don't care about "the record". They're grasping at straws right now...and when they reach that level of desperation, they start calling people names. "Racist" is a convenient one.

[native]

...But, the Olympics would bring a **** ton of jobs, **** ton of contracts to construction companies, etc. I don't think it would necessarily be a net loss when those are taken into account.

Just another math-challenged and fact-challenged liberal who has never created a job or met payroll from his own pocket.

[native]

...

http://www.gaypaintings.com/gay_bear/gay_slave.jpg

The image referenced in Cap's irrelevant post has been removed from my response.

I believe in free speech and all, but this irrelevant bullshit does not belong on a politics or football thread. Are you trying to ruin the best FCS site on the web? Start a new thread, asshole. Mods, please take it down from here.

[Appaholic]

You don't believe that. Think before you post.

I do not want Obama to fail, but I do think he already is a failure. Maybe treasonous, too.

Native....come back from the edge...."treasonous"....c'mon...seriously, in what way? ...

[native]

I do not want Obama to fail, but I do think he already is a failure. Maybe treasonous, too.

Native....come back from the edge...."treasonous"....c'mon...seriously, in what way? ...

You make a fair point, Appy, but I would remind you that I used the weasel word "maybe."

But it's a fair question. Here is part of what Wikipedia says about the definition of treason:

""...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."

In my view, the GM deal violated the Constitution so egregiously that it might meet the second part of the definition, hence my use of "maybe." The ACORN business might be treasonous, too, in its effect to consciously undermine the law. I realize that the Constituional definition might be different than the wiki definition.

The world apology tour does not qualify for treason, but will surely live for eternity as gross stupidity.

[Appaholic]

Native....come back from the edge...."treasonous"....c'mon...seriously, in what way? ...

You make a fair point, Appy, but I would remind you that I used the weasel word "maybe."

But it's a fair question. Here is part of what Wikipedia says about the definition of treason:

""...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."

In my view, the GM deal violated the Constitution so egregiously that it might meet the second part of the definition, hence my use of "maybe." The ACORN business might be treasonous, too, in its effect to consciously undermine the law. I realize that the Constituional definition might be different than the wiki definition.

The world apology tour does not qualify for treason, but will surely live for eternity as gross stupidity.

So technically, Obama meets the definition....as does every president back to & including Andrew Jackson....sorry, the hyperbolic nature of claims such as this undermines any credible argument being attempted (by either party)....

[native]

You make a fair point, Appy, but I would remind you that I used the weasel word "maybe."

But it's a fair question. Here is part of what Wikipedia says about the definition of treason:

""...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."

In my view, the GM deal violated the Constitution so egregiously that it might meet the second part of the definition, hence my use of "maybe." The ACORN business might be treasonous, too, in its effect to consciously undermine the law. I realize that the Constituional definition might be different than the wiki definition.

The world apology tour does not qualify for treason, but will surely live for eternity as gross stupidity.

So technically, Obama meets the definition....as does every president back to & including Andrew Jackson....sorry, the hyperbolic nature of claims such as this undermines any credible argument being attempted (by either party)....

I take your point, but you dismiss really serious issues pretty lightly, Appy. I do not think every president has broken the Constitution, but I agree that more than one may have done so. Andrew Jackson's snub of the Supreme Court on the Trail of Tears issues would probably be one such case, as would Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. In the short term, the Patriot Act does not seem to have had any negative impact , but I agree with the critics that the long term effects will be deleterious.

[Skjellyfetti]

Funny. Can't wait for 2012.

Weren't you also pretty confident McCain was going to win in '08?

[Appaholic]

So technically, Obama meets the definition....as does every president back to & including Andrew Jackson....sorry, the hyperbolic nature of claims such as this undermines any credible argument being attempted (by either party)....

I take your point, but you dismiss really serious issues pretty lightly, Appy. I do not think everyt president has broken the COnstitution, but I agree that more than one may have done so. Andrew Jackson'd snub bing of the Supreme Court onthe Trail of Tears issues would be one such case.

I don't intend to dismiss them lightly, i just refuse to beat my head against the wall when a certain segment is NOW calling for an adherence to the constitution by their President, yet so readily rationalized & dismissed the previous administrations for "constitutional crimes" of the same magnitude but with different justifications...the feigned outrage by that side NOW seems disengenous given the past 6 years when they were in charge and derisvely referred to us true conservatives who pointed out this discrepnacy as un-American & treasonous....

[AZGrizFan]

Funny. Can't wait for 2012.

Weren't you also pretty confident McCain was going to win in '08?

Yeah, I was. Doesn't mean I can't not wait until 2012, does it?

[native]

I take your point, but you dismiss really serious issues pretty lightly, Appy. I do not think everyt president has broken the COnstitution, but I agree that more than one may have done so. Andrew Jackson'd snub bing of the Supreme Court onthe Trail of Tears issues would be one such case.

I don't intend to dismiss them lightly, i just refuse to beat my head against the wall when a certain segment is NOW calling for an adherence to the constitution by their President, yet so readily rationalized & dismissed the previous administrations for "constitutional crimes" of the same magnitude but with different justifications...the feigned outrage by that side NOW seems disengenous given the past 6 years when they were in charge and derisvely referred to us true conservatives who pointed out this discrepnacy as un-American & treasonous....

Your point is taken but my outrage is not feigned. And I do not take 4th amendment breaches lightly. I, for one, did not call those who opposed 4th amendment breaches treasonous. Their concerns have proven unfounded in the short term, but I agree that the 4th amendment concerns are genuine in the long term.

Please do not allow yourself to be satisfied with this "moral equivalency" bullshit. Every Constitutional breach is not the same. Each deserves to be analyzed on its own merits.

[native]

Rush told me he was... he also said he was an alien or sumthin'

Well, at least we know for sure that Obama isn't Hitler. Hitler got the Olympics.

(I got that joke from Bill Maher)

Even Maher is funny sometimes.

[native]

Pissed off???

Bush failed to get the Olympics for New York City?
Strange, I didn't know securing the Olympic Games was his job description.

Bush made a video and campaigned the IOC to select New York City for 2012...

It's not in their job description. I agree completely. But did you start threads in 2005 called "Bush's Olympic Failure" since the IOC picked London instead of New York? I doubt it.

GLAD YOU brought it up, skelly!

Bush sent along the nice little video making a pitch for NYC and did not make a fool of himself risking the prestige of the office of the Presidency in a hubristic attempt at personal diplomacy.

The comparison and contrast is striking ... and telling!

[Appaholic]

I don't intend to dismiss them lightly, i just refuse to beat my head against the wall when a certain segment is NOW calling for an adherence to the constitution by their President, yet so readily rationalized & dismissed the previous administrations for "constitutional crimes" of the same magnitude but with different justifications...the feigned outrage by that side NOW seems disengenous given the past 6 years when they were in charge and derisvely referred to us true conservatives who pointed out this discrepnacy as un-American & treasonous....

Your point is taken but my outrage is not feigned. And I do not take 4th amendment breaches lightly. I, for one, did not call those who opposed 4th amendment breaches treasonous. Their concerns have proven unfounded in the short term, but I agree that the 4th amendment concerns are genuine in the long term.

Please do not allow yourself to be satisfied with this "moral equivalency" bullshit. Every Constitutional breach is not the same. Each deserves to be analyzed on its own merits.

If you're equating a breach of the Constitution with treason, then yes, an action which, in it's nature, contradicts the rules in an amendment, is uncontitutional regardless of degrees...isn't your right to assemble techinically infringed upon by the requirement to obtain government permission via permit process? You can't get a "little" pregnant and there are no degrees to breaking a law...you're either constitutional or you're not.....

[Cleets Part 2]

The image referenced in Cap's irrelevant post has been removed from my response.

I believe in free speech and all, but this irrelevant bullshit does not belong on a politics or football thread. Are you trying to ruin the best FCS site on the web? Start a new thread, asshole. Mods, please take it down from here.

Wow..
Dictating from your high horse - calling on the Mods - speaking for everybody...

Back at it again I see native...

[native]

Your point is taken but my outrage is not feigned. And I do not take 4th amendment breaches lightly. I, for one, did not call those who opposed 4th amendment breaches treasonous. Their concerns have proven unfounded in the short term, but I agree that the 4th amendment concerns are genuine in the long term.

Please do not allow yourself to be satisfied with this "moral equivalency" bullshit. Every Constitutional breach is not the same. Each deserves to be analyzed on its own merits.

If you're equating a breach of the Constitution with treason, then yes, an action which, in it's nature, contradicts the rules in an amendment, is uncontitutional regardless of degrees...isn't your right to assemble techinically infringed upon by the requirement to obtain government permission via permit process? You can't get a "little" pregnant and there are no degrees to breaking a law...you're either constitutional or you're not.....

There are lots of degrees to breaking the law... besides, according to abortionists, pregnancy is one of them...

AND there should be reasonable exceptions to freedom of assempbly and expression: ...shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, gay-bashers disrupting military funerals, etc...

What is your point, really???

[native]

The image referenced in Cap's irrelevant post has been removed from my response.

I believe in free speech and all, but this irrelevant bullshit does not belong on a politics or football thread. Are you trying to ruin the best FCS site on the web? Start a new thread, *******. Mods, please take it down from here.

Wow..
Dictating from your high horse - calling on the Mods - speaking for everybody...

Back at it again I see native...

I did not dictate, I recommended. I spoke my piece forthrightly and in a public forum to Cap's "face," so that Cap and you and everyone else would be free to criticize me.

Anyone who supported the post in question being in the poli folder on this thread has no respect whatsoever for cs.com and lacks even a modicum of judgement. When you are a guest in someone else's house you shit in the bathroom and not on the living room floor.

Besides, you incognitive nitwit, I clearly spoke only for myself and not for "everyone else" with this particular post.

Thank you, Cleets, for graduating from Harvard and having an enormous IQ, yet always making me look good and letting me win.

[Appaholic]

If you're equating a breach of the Constitution with treason, then yes, an action which, in it's nature, contradicts the rules in an amendment, is uncontitutional regardless of degrees...isn't your right to assemble techinically infringed upon by the requirement to obtain government permission via permit process? You can't get a "little" pregnant and there are no degrees to breaking a law...you're either constitutional or you're not.....

There are lots of degrees to breaking the law... besides, according to abortionists, pregnancy is one of them...

AND there should be reasonable exceptions to freedom of assempbly and expression: ...shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, gay-bashers disrupting military funerals, etc...

What is your point, really???

You claimed Obama had "maybe" committed treasonous acts. I countered with yes, technically, and so has every other president using your criteria of a constitutional breach. You countered with yeah, but some constitutional breeaches are worse than others while deriding the "bullshit of moral equivalency" and there are degrees to breaking the law. I'm now countering with yes, there are degrees to breaking the law, but the law is broken regardless....which supports my claim that using your criteria of constitutional breach as a basis to claim treason has been commtted by a President, then all Presidents could be considered treasonous at some point in their administration. Have you thought of your point beyond "Obama is worse than Bush was by a few degrees"?

BTW, freedom of assembly has absolutely nothing to do with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater...one is meant to address grievances with a governing body (freedom of assembly) while the other serves no purpose other than to create chaos (limits of free speech addressed in Schenck v US)...but would probably be allowed if the government issued a permit allowing it....

[Appaholic]

...

http://www.gaypaintings.com/gay_bear/gay_slave.jpg

The image referenced in Cap's irrelevant post has been removed from my response.

I believe in free speech and all, but this irrelevant bullshit does not belong on a politics or football thread. Are you trying to ruin the best FCS site on the web? Start a new thread, asshole. Mods, please take it down from here.

Is this freedom of speech issue? or just a dgree of freedom of assembly?

[native]

There are lots of degrees to breaking the law... besides, according to abortionists, pregnancy is one of them...

AND there should be reasonable exceptions to freedom of assempbly and expression: ...shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, gay-bashers disrupting military funerals, etc...

What is your point, really???

You claimed Obama had "maybe" committed treasonous acts. I countered with yes, technically, and so has every other president using your criteria of a constitutional breach. You countered with yeah, but some constitutional breeaches are worse than others while deriding the "bullshit of moral equivalency" and there are degrees to breaking the law. I'm now countering with yes, there are degrees to breaking the law, but the law is broken regardless....which supports my claim that using your criteria of constitutional breach as a basis to claim treason has been commtted by a President, then all Presidents could be considered treasonous at some point in their administration. Have you thought of your point beyond "Obama is worse than Bush was by a few degrees"?

BTW, freedom of assembly has absolutely nothing to do with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater...one is meant to address grievances with a governing body (freedom of assembly) while the other serves no purpose other than to create chaos (limits of free speech addressed in Schenck v US)...but would probably be allowed if the government issued a permit allowing it....

1. I take most of your points.
2. Freedom of assembly DOES pertain to the gay-bashers at military funerals.
3. DAMM I'm glad I said "maybe," otherwise I would have very little wriggle room.


not done yet, though...