Gas Bandit's Political Thread

[ElJuski]

2012 will probably disappoint you too, then.

 

[GasBandit]

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) wants to repeal the 22nd amendment. (That's the one limiting the president to 2 terms). Don't worry though, this isn't about Obama (and no, I'm not being sarcastic here)... he's proposed the same legislation in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007. Probably won't pass this time either.

The stock market did not react too well after Obama's inaugural address. That tends to happen on Wall Street on inauguration day, but this was the worst inauguration drop in history.

For those of you who are not feeling optimistic about an Obama presidency .. you might enjoy this article: Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears.

Today, Obama will discuss the possibility of an accelerated troop drawdown from Iraq with top military officials.

The Los Angeles Police Department has been told not to wear riot helmets because it might make demonstrators more upset. Yeah .. you don't want police upsetting law-breakers.

Iowa City is considering an ordinance that would www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2009/01/19/Metro/City-Eyes.Breath.Tests.For.Bar.Employees-3588632.shtml]allow police to breath-test entertainers[/url] at bars and restaurants to make sure that they don't have a blood-alcohol concentration of .02 or higher.

The outlook for Senator Kennedy after his collapse is good.

 

How's about the fact that Obama stopped prosecutions at Guantanamo? Remember how you gave him crap about "forgetting" about that? You were wrong. Admit it.

 

[JCM]

Nice catch Ed.

The stock market did not react too well after Obama's inaugural address. That tends to happen on Wall Street on inauguration day, but this was the worst inauguration drop in history.

For those of you who are not feeling optimistic about an Obama presidency .. you might enjoy this article: Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears.

The Los Angeles Police Department has been told not to wear riot helmets because it might make demonstrators more upset. Yeah .. you don't want police upsetting law-breakers.

:roll:

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

 

[Iaculus]

Hrm - unstickied again? Deliberate or unintentional?

 

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

They did an interesting experiment a few years ago at Mardi Gras. I'll attempt to locate the findings. They had police there watching out for things, but instead of having them in full riot gear they were plain clothes. The effect was amazing. It seems that th every presence of police in riot gear has an effect on the attitudes of the crowd. When they were there the crowd was MUCH more likely to act unruly.

So while I believe the LA cops have sort of the right idea, people will still see them so it becomes a matter of officer safety. Either allow all armor or none.

edit: And the unsticky was intentional. The page was becoming unwieldy for those with small screens or looking at the board on a handheld device. So I'm cleaning.

 

[Iaculus]

Plus, I suppose, this particular incarnation of the thread be getting locked soon.

 

[Krisken]

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

Well said, sir.

How's about the fact that Obama stopped prosecutions at Guantanamo? Remember how you gave him crap about "forgetting" about that? You were wrong. Admit it.

C'mon, he's the Fonz! He can't say the W word.

 

[Jake]

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

This is one of those cases where GB's "libertarian" mask slips. But I'm sure he has an explanation along the lines of "what I said wasn't what I said". :lol:

 

[GasBandit]

How's about the fact that Obama stopped prosecutions at Guantanamo? Remember how you gave him crap about "forgetting" about that? You were wrong. Admit it.

You're mischaracterizing my argument. And he's only put them "on hold" for 4 months "while he reviews" the situation. I'm still waiting to hear what he's going to do with the inmates, as he's acknowledged many of them are too dangerous to release. And really, how is 4 more months with no trials any different than "continuing to incarcerate without trial?" I sometimes wonder if perhaps it is too EASY to get out of guantanamo, as 36 detainees who were subsequently released went and got their terror on again.

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

We're talking about LA here. So it's pretty certain they're already lawbreakers

Seriously though.. if the riot squad is having to be called out for your "protest," chances are it's pretty much already a riot, isn't it?

 

[Iaculus]

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

We're talking about LA here. So it's pretty certain they're already lawbreakers

Seriously though.. if the riot squad is having to be called out for your "protest," chances are it's pretty much already a riot, isn't it?

See: Ed's Mardi Gras comment.

 

[GasBandit]

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

We're talking about LA here. So it's pretty certain they're already lawbreakers

Seriously though.. if the riot squad is having to be called out for your "protest," chances are it's pretty much already a riot, isn't it?

See: Ed's Mardi Gras comment.

Mardi Gras isn't a protest. I could see how sending cops in full riot gear to a festival might kinda cheese off some people.

edit: And the unsticky was intentional. The page was becoming unwieldy for those with small screens or looking at the board on a handheld device. So I'm cleaning.

Edit: Is there a special URL for handheld users? Because the thing is damn near unnavigable on my sidekick. But that may just be the sidekick.

 

[Iaculus]

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

We're talking about LA here. So it's pretty certain they're already lawbreakers

Seriously though.. if the riot squad is having to be called out for your "protest," chances are it's pretty much already a riot, isn't it?

See: Ed's Mardi Gras comment.

Mardi Gras isn't a protest. I could see how sending cops in full riot gear to a festival might kinda cheese off some people.

However, if it's SOP at major public gatherings, that rather puts the lie to your assertion that any protest riot police are dispatched to supervise must be sufficiently violent for riot police to be required.

 

I thought that only dictators considered demonstrators as law-breakers, not as people exercising their right (and only which only is allowed in a democracy), but hey, let the pigs eat apples and look like men.

We're talking about LA here. So it's pretty certain they're already lawbreakers

Seriously though.. if the riot squad is having to be called out for your "protest," chances are it's pretty much already a riot, isn't it?

See: Ed's Mardi Gras comment.

I'm looking for the study but am coming up unsuccessful. Googling riot gear and almost anything else just wants me to buy stuff or tell me about how it was used in an instance...

 

[GasBandit]

Mardi Gras isn't a protest. I could see how sending cops in full riot gear to a festival might kinda cheese off some people.

However, if it's SOP at major public gatherings, that rather puts the lie to your assertion that any protest riot police are dispatched to supervise must be sufficiently violent for riot police to be required.

Then the problem is it being SOP at major public gatherings. The answer is to not send riot squads to walk the street at mardis gras. The answer is NOT to tell riot cops at an actual demonstration-come-riot not to wear their helmets until the headbashing starts.

I'm looking for the study but am coming up unsuccessful. Googling riot gear and almost anything else just wants me to buy stuff or tell me about how it was used in an instance...

That's ok, I'm arguing under the assertion you are speaking truthfully.

 

The problem with the views of some enforcement divisions, any amount of large gathering can become unruly so they feel they need to be prepared - possibly because if something does happen and they are not there it would be impossible to regain control and they would be lambasted in the press and the court of public opinion.

Yet the fact that they are there merely exacerbates the situation and makes it more volatile by adding in an element that is largely negative by connotation and "stirs the pot", as it were.

Not sure how they should respond, though. The fact that the crowds there have proven unruly kinda calls for this level of presence.

 

[Iaculus]

The problem with the views of some enforcement divisions, any amount of large gathering can become unruly so they feel they need to be prepared - possibly because if something does happen and they are not there it would be impossible to regain control and they would be lambasted in the press and the court of public opinion.

Yet the fact that they are there merely exacerbates the situation and makes it more volatile by adding in an element that is largely negative by connotation and "stirs the pot", as it were.

Not sure how they should respond, though. The fact that the crowds there have proven unruly kinda calls for this level of presence.

Hence, I presume, the helmetless compromise.

 

The problem with the views of some enforcement divisions, any amount of large gathering can become unruly so they feel they need to be prepared - possibly because if something does happen and they are not there it would be impossible to regain control and they would be lambasted in the press and the court of public opinion.

Yet the fact that they are there merely exacerbates the situation and makes it more volatile by adding in an element that is largely negative by connotation and "stirs the pot", as it were.

Not sure how they should respond, though. The fact that the crowds there have proven unruly kinda calls for this level of presence.

Hence, I presume, the helmetless compromise.

But that's not a compromise - that's pandering. If their very presence could possibly do something bad to the views of the crowd, then I vote that the police are as safe as possible. To put them out there and then not give them all of the necessary tools is just plain wrong and stupid. Possibly there's some correlation between no helmets allowing the crowd to see them as people instead of robotic or non-human automatons, but I'd need to see the study that shows the lessening psychological impact of crowd reactions between helmeted/non-helmeted police.

 

In other news:

Obama - Fuck Yeah!

Summary of the article:

President Barack Obama's first public act in office Wednesday was to institute new limits on lobbyists in his White House and to freeze the salaries of high-paid aides.

Obama's new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.

In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.


Let me say it again:

Obama - Fuck Yeah!

 

[GasBandit]

In other news:

Obama - Fuck Yeah!

Summary of the article:

President Barack Obama's first public act in office Wednesday was to institute new limits on lobbyists in his White House and to freeze the salaries of high-paid aides.

Obama's new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.

In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.


Let me say it again:

Obama - Fuck Yeah!

Good start... how about a paycut for overpaid legislators?

 

He has nothing to do with that. Strangely enough, they are in charge of their own pay & benefits. Which is just stupid.


I wish I was in charge of my own pay & benefits...

 

[GasBandit]

He has nothing to do with that. Strangely enough, they are in charge of their own pay & benefits. Which is just stupid.


I wish I was in charge of my own pay & benefits...

Yeah, I know... but I can dream.

 

He has nothing to do with that. Strangely enough, they are in charge of their own pay & benefits. Which is just stupid.


I wish I was in charge of my own pay & benefits...

Yeah, I know... but I can dream.

You have a dream?



Never mind....

 

[makare]

He has nothing to do with that. Strangely enough, they are in charge of their own pay & benefits. Which is just stupid.


I wish I was in charge of my own pay & benefits...

Yeah, I know... but I can dream.

AWW if you have dream that means someday you might actually have hope.

you are really growing as a person.

 

[GasBandit]

He has nothing to do with that. Strangely enough, they are in charge of their own pay & benefits. Which is just stupid.


I wish I was in charge of my own pay & benefits...

Yeah, I know... but I can dream.

AWW if you have dream that means someday you might actually have hope.

you are really growing as a person.

Hope is the first step down the road to disappointment.

Besides, I think "Hope and Change" are going to be laughably cliche words for a while.

 

[Anubinomicon]

just the past 2 months alone has compensated for the last 8 years of bush, it's refreshing to see alot of people pissed off and bitter.

 

[GasBandit]

just the past 2 months alone has compensated for the last 8 years of bush, it's refreshing to see alot of people pissed off and bitter.

In the years to come, the thought of brain dead dolts like you screaming into the night "but... but... things were supposed to CHANGE!" will keep me well supplied in warm fuzzies, thanks much.

 

[Krisken]

just the past 2 months alone has compensated for the last 8 years of bush, it's refreshing to see alot of people pissed off and bitter.

Care to make this statement concise and relevant for us, the viewers? As it stands, I can't tell if this is meant as sarcasm, humor, or is a statement that traveled through a time warp.

 

[Iaculus]

just the past 2 months alone has compensated for the last 8 years of bush, it's refreshing to see alot of people pissed off and bitter.

In the years to come, the thought of brain dead dolts like you screaming into the night "but... but... things were supposed to CHANGE!" will keep me well supplied in warm fuzzies, thanks much.

Given the last few years had an adequate supply of pissed-off, bitter people, he may just be saying that it's nice things are going back to norml after two months of constant 'hope' and 'change'...

On an unrelated topic, it should be fun to see the neocons' abrupt about-face on the expansion of executive power. It's only OK when you have it, right, guys? :toocool:

 

[Troll]

On an unrelated topic, it should be fun to see the neocons' abrupt about-face on the expansion of executive power. It's only OK when you have it, right, guys? :toocool:

It's going to be a constant supply of "No, no, I always opposed expansions of executive power!" despite records pointing to the contrary.

 

[GasBandit]

just the past 2 months alone has compensated for the last 8 years of bush, it's refreshing to see alot of people pissed off and bitter.

In the years to come, the thought of brain dead dolts like you screaming into the night "but... but... things were supposed to CHANGE!" will keep me well supplied in warm fuzzies, thanks much.

Given the last few years had an adequate supply of pissed-off, bitter people, he may just be saying that it's nice things are going back to norml after two months of constant 'hope' and 'change'...

I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying. I'm pretty sure he's just a twat.

On an unrelated topic, it should be fun to see the neocons' abrupt about-face on the expansion of executive power. It's only OK when you have it, right, guys? :toocool:

I'm absolutely fine with Obama wiretapping phones, I never say anything interesting on there anyway. Other than that, I have in fact been a constant supplier of "The government is too big and we depend upon it too much" brand droning. It's a pity most of the records of that got flushed down the john at Image and Halfpixel, though.

 

[Troll]

Other than that, I have in fact been a constant supplier of "The government is too big and we depend upon it too much" brand droning. It's a pity most of the records of that got flushed down the john at Image and Halfpixel, though.

I can vouch for that.

 

[Iaculus]

On an unrelated topic, it should be fun to see the neocons' abrupt about-face on the expansion of executive power. It's only OK when you have it, right, guys? :toocool:

I'm absolutely fine with Obama wiretapping phones, I never say anything interesting on there anyway. Other than that, I have in fact been a constant supplier of "The government is too big and we depend upon it too much" brand droning. It's a pity most of the records of that got flushed down the john at Image and Halfpixel, though.

Did I say you weren't? Come on, man, join in with the schadenfreude!

 

[GasBandit]

On an unrelated topic, it should be fun to see the neocons' abrupt about-face on the expansion of executive power. It's only OK when you have it, right, guys? :toocool:

I'm absolutely fine with Obama wiretapping phones, I never say anything interesting on there anyway. Other than that, I have in fact been a constant supplier of "The government is too big and we depend upon it too much" brand droning. It's a pity most of the records of that got flushed down the john at Image and Halfpixel, though.

Did I say you weren't? Come on, man, join in with the schadenfreude!

Sorry. Usually when someone starts making generic references to unnamed "neocons," they're trying to get in a dig at me.

 

[Futureking]

Its the last page before this gets locked.

I'm part of the last page of an epic thread.