-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bush's final FU to America
- Thread starter Phoenix
- Start date
- Status
Environmental policy is one area where libertarians of the JayDubya variety really come off as fucking hypocrites. They get so riled up over damage of property by individuals but turn a complete blind eye to systematic damage to property public and private, because apparently it gets less sinful the more wells you poison.devilhawk said:
SouthernDragon
Member
devilhawk said:
Eh, I don't feel like fighting you, I actually like you and your posts. I just saw his argument as deliberately obtuse; it's pretty apparent, to me, why'd these things would be objectionable, even if you didn't agree with my political leanings.
The Lamonster
Member
THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSKarakand said:
MWS Natural
Member
Karakand said:
:lol Yeah right like it really matters to the many two issue voters of America. A republican can be for open dumping of raw sewage chemicals in the playground of school yards as long as they were against abortion and gay marriage with supposed "Christian values". Americans ain't learn shit, just wait till Dem's fix all this crap after 16 years and they'll be right back at square 1 electing a republican to fuck it all up again.
polyh3dron
Banned
? elaborate please.krypt0nian said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
AmMortal said:
um.. the laws CAN be overturned.. they just are a pain in the ass to do so...
im sure your country is all peaches and creme!
JimiNutz
Banned
marwan said:
-There's a crazy loophole that allows American Presidents to push a bunch of laws through, without them having to force these laws through Congress first.
-Bush has decided that he would like to help out all his friends, and attempt to lock-in his legacy for years to come, by pushing a bunch of crazy laws through.
-He is therefore going to make a shitload of new changes effecting the environment, healthcare, labour/agriculture, national security, and well just about everything.
-This means that Obama will probably have to spend most of the beginning of his term trying to overturn these batshit insane changes-as if he hadn't inherited a load of economic and foreign policy shit already :lol
gutter_trash
Banned
this one is the most discusting one IMO
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
Flynn said:
Hey, come on. That's an unfair strawman attack on JD. Obviously he has a very clear cut moral and ethical code. You can't destroy other people's property directly, whether or not you can profit directly from it.
Of course, a systemic but indirect destruction of public property (you know... because the whole concept of public property and resources is an invalid one), that leads to the harm of many... that's no problem. Because public resources and goods are only to be used for directly protecting against physical encroachment from others.
JzeroT1437
Member
I'm gonna step outside the common denominator and suggest not killing him, and merely ask: Why have the American people have never sought to oust an administration? It's supposedly our constitutionally duty to remove ourselves from the current system of Government if said Government fails us--on a smaller level, wouldn't it be our duty to rid ourselves of an administration which ignores the will of the people and which is distorting the government in such a way that it is failing?
Fallout-NL
Member
I wonder what that motherfucker expects to happen when he shows up at the Pearly Gates.
worldrunover
Member
Yeah I can totally see how that means "bring yo gun to a national park". Yep. No way to even parse that.
That is one hell of a poison pill.
What a scary loophole. Basically, at the end of his or her legislation period the president can do whatever the fuck they want? Sure, it's only smaller scale stuff, not full-blown laws, but holy shit, there has to be a better way to ensure smooth operation even in times of a change in leadership figure.
I do not claim to fully understand this, nor do I claim to have a solution to this problem that doesn't involve 20 pages of contrived laws, ... but dayum. Shit's broken.
Oh well. One thing is sure, I do not want to be in Obamas shoes. The next few years are gonna be hell for him and everybody involved. Poor guy.
What a scary loophole. Basically, at the end of his or her legislation period the president can do whatever the fuck they want? Sure, it's only smaller scale stuff, not full-blown laws, but holy shit, there has to be a better way to ensure smooth operation even in times of a change in leadership figure.
I do not claim to fully understand this, nor do I claim to have a solution to this problem that doesn't involve 20 pages of contrived laws, ... but dayum. Shit's broken.
Oh well. One thing is sure, I do not want to be in Obamas shoes. The next few years are gonna be hell for him and everybody involved. Poor guy.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
News Bot said:
Maybe in a few years? You do realize that a majority of these new regulations probably won't be repealed or changed, right? So what exactly is preventing you from moving to the US? I'm just trying to understand whatever you're saying.
Monocle
Member
Of course not. The disagreement I have with AmMortal's post is he chose to mock America's symbols and ideals rather than the despotic asshole who is currently doing his damnedest to undermine them, and the absurd laws that make his actions legal. AmMortal essentially blamed everything but the problem by insinuating that the guilt lies with the nation's aggregate stupidity, not our mudsucking hayseed of a commander-in-chief.NutJobJim said:
whytemyke said:
good thing the feds have no jurisdiction over here. I've seen broadsheet newspapers cry for a Lee Harvey Oswald.
why is it wrong? because he causes deaths in a more "civilised" fashion? plenty of people call for Mugabe's head and no one bats an eyelid. how many thousands died in the War on Terror?
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
He was banned calling for Bush's death. Just drop it.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
JzeroT1437 said:
Because one of the first things Pelosi did when she became house speaker was say that impeachment was "off the table".
My blood boiled when I heard that.
99% of american politics is just a big racket.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
wangman31888 said:
yeah but doesnt congress have a chance to glance over those atleast, i know there was quite a stir when clinton had some seedy names on his list:lol :lol .
Stoney Mason
Banned
JzeroT1437 said:
It it almost impossible to do so with parties. We don't have a parliamentary system or third parties so it is very difficult to reach the vote threshold for impeachment when party loyalty is very strong.
xBerserker
Member
WTF that's makes me sick to my stomach.VictimOfGrief
Banned
Meh, sounds worse that it probably will be.
thetechkid
Member
Guns in national parks sounds like a good idea, now the gangbangers will be able to walk around parks and take down any illegal activities and keep the kids safe.
adamsappel
Member
Eh, I don't quite see the need for the banning of firearms in national parks. I'm not like Jay and think the right is sacrosanct and can't be regulated (in fact, that very word is in the amendment, but let's not encourage Jay to post that idiotic sentence diagram again). Certainly I think they should be banned from the gift shop, but when camping, I don't think it's a bad idea to have one, as long as you have a permit for it.
Everything else on that list is shit though, and I hate Bush all the more for it.
Everything else on that list is shit though, and I hate Bush all the more for it.
- Status