The Seriously? Theatre of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts V

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Reagan of course

This, although Bush gets far less credit than he deserves.

I agree, Bush deserves far more credit for destroying the economy and the Middle East than he actually gets. It's easier to blame the black guy.

Anyway, I don't see why anyone of any ideological persuasion would vote for Dubya.

No; he gets far less credit for protecting our country during the war on terror.  Clinton and Congressional Republicans were the ones who destroyed the economy by repealing Glass-Steagall.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Religious freedom. Forcing someone to obey a law that's against their religion is a violation of civil liberties.

What happens if they change religions, or change interpretation of their existing religion and now support things they once opposed and oppose things they once supported. Can they now ignore different bits of the law depending on what they decide to believe in?

Why should religious freedom be the only 'freedom' that should be allowed to opt out of the law. What about non-religious positions? What about ethical stances? Political ones, ideological ones. If you are a self described fascist and the traditions and stances of fascism resonate with you in your daily life and give you order, purpose and morals, should you be allowed to opt out of the laws that go against your fascist beliefs?

What about the other parts of the First Amendment? If it's your Freedom of Speech to say you think the races shouldn't mix, should you be allowed to ignore a law that's against their personal beliefs? Should the press be allowed to ignore the law because their rights are protected?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Homeschooling is child abuse.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

What is Cruz selling? Just anger and fear. Is this the best that Texas do? Really scraping the bottle of the barrel with Cruz!😲

The State of Texas has nothing to do with it.  It's the fact that there appears to be no other Texans interested in running.  The nation was genuinely blessed with another Texan some years ago.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The War on Drugs was started by Nixon in the 1970's as a way of controlling the drug love protestors of his ideals. Since then, the rate of people that have been put in jail or prison (they're different things) has skyrocketed and Nixon's successors have not done anything to end it.

Once Reagan came into office, he escalated the War on Drugs even further, incarcerating even more people. (mostly minorities) His wife Nancy started the famous "Just Say No" campaign, and LAPD chief started the infamous DARE program, which was accepted quickly. There were other ways that it was enforced. People were lead to believe that drug abuse was a major problem in the United States.

George W. Bush took the War on Drugs literally, and used violence on drug users. Thousands of SWAT raids for drug-related offences happened, and then there's the Mexican Drug Cartels.

However, unlike his predecessors, Obama has both admitted to drug use in his younger years and seems to be more progressive on drug use, including the announcement of a video about the failings of the drug war. Despite this, there are still violent actions against drug users and high incarceration of them.

Anyway, the point is, is Nixon's War On Drugs ever going to end? If it ends, it would mean surrendering to the drugs and declaring them the winner. Could Americans accept that? How exactly could an ending happening? Marijuana is legal in two states for fun and a few others for medicine, and has a reasonable chance of getting to be as widely accepted as alcohol. Harder drugs have no chance of being legal, so Dr. Feelgood's Cocaine Emporium (not sure where I first saw that used, but apologies to whoever used it first) still will be in business.

So, War on Drugs, will we finally surrender to the drugs? Or will it always be around, with the government always trying to incarcerate everyone who uses them?

I fail to see the Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad in that post.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Worst to least worst

Lincoln
FDR
Theodore Roosevelt
LBJ
Bush II
Obama
Wilson
Truman
Polk
Grant

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Election Stealer vs. Governor who is unpopular on Atlas.

I'll take the governor.

When did Nader steal an election?

Because they can't face the fact that Gore lost fair and square.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

From watching Toy as a child, apartheid South Africa, it is very similar to what the US went through and what the OLD SOUTH has transitioned to; to new South today, MO, FL, NC, AR, La, Va and NC.

No one wants to live in that way, but New South Africa, yes.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The US, assuming I don't live in a Deep South state. Otherwise, Apartheid South Africa.

:?:

Even if we assume that the modern-day US is just as discriminatory as Apartheid South Africa, which is bogus, the standard of living for blacks in the United States is pretty decent, whereas in Apartheid blacks lived in 1-room shacks with no running water or electricity.

Say what you want, but I don't want to live in a region where racist Republican Senators win reelection with 97% of the vote and where Republicans pass Jim Crow voter suppression laws. We're not in the 19th century anymore!

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Jackson is criticized for the IRA, but Lincoln is praised by you guys even though he caused a war murdering 600,000 Americans and didn't care about slavery? Lol ok

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

obviously one of the worst presidents we've ever had

not obvious at all.  overall his presidency was quite good.

i voted ff.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Horrible results, but democracy worked. Bush didn't steal the election and Gore lost fair and square.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Monarch=HP.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

You can't really compare Presidents across different historical periods.  Reagan was a horrible post-WWII 20th century President.  Buchanan was a horrible antebellum President.

Reagan is one of those horrible Presidents who we're lucky was President in the 1980s and not the 1860s or 1940s.  He was a Nazi sympathizer and would have been pro-slavery.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

They were, after all, the product of a war-monger who was so blood thirsty he foamed at the month whenever the word "Vietnam" was uttered, unlike FFs such as Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Magnus Reagan, who stood for truth, justice and the American way.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

1. CIVIL RIGHTS. Obama is unambiguously the BEST PRESIDENT in the history of the United States on Civil Rights.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Fascist=HP. One star

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Worst president in American history, bar none.

Nixon looked like a saint compared to him.

I almost stepped in a steaming pile of dog crap yesterday that had more integrity than Reagan.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Huge FF, the Rosa Parks of 2015 (completely serious).

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I'm actually surprised that FF isn't getting more votes on this heavily-male forum.

Anyway, Cosby is a literal HP.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

None of these men would be welcome in today's Democratic Party.

Foreign policy hawk and staunch free trader FDR would have supported Hillary in 2008, but then supported McCain in the general and joined the Tea Party in 2010. He would currently support Huckabee or Santorum, although they are to the left of him on some social issues.

Neo-Confederate Harry Truman was too much of a partisan hack to ever embrace the GOP, so he'd support Jim Webb. Needless to say, this endorsement would do nothing to boost Webb's numbers, and Truman would be shunned by Biden, Clinton or Sanders if he tried to endorse them down the road.

Staunch anti-Communist John Kennedy would be supporting a young, charismatic Catholic Senator by the name of Marco Rubio.

LBJ would have drifted away from the Democrats after 9/11 because of foreign policy, and would have likely endorsed Bush and spoken at the RNC in 2004. He would currently be supporting fellow Texan Ted Cruz.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I'll limit myself to the era since FDR.

Outstanding
Bill Clinton
Ronald Reagan
Harry Truman

Above average
George W. Bush
John F. Kennedy

Average
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Gerald Ford

Below average
George H.W. Bush
Lyndon B. Johnson

Failure
Jimmy Carter
Richard Nixon
Barack Obama
Franklin D. Roosevelt

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Well what do you know, we have a poster born after 9/11.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Just a thought, I had to Google the word "frothy" in conjunction with the name Santorum to find out why the nickname is used.  Now I know.  This is why we need more limits on free speech.  I would completely support throwing that a-hole in jail on obscenity charges (speaking about the vermin who published it).  The fact that people can get away with doing things like this, is why this country is in a sewer of liberalism and filth. 
As for Santorum naming Rubio's accomplishments, who cares?  Obama proved you don't need any accomplishments.  Just being an empty suit is enough!  Sure, Obama is smart, he's educated, he's elite.  But he never accomplished anything in the real world and is the least qualified person in any room he walks into!

Dan Savage is a terrible person though.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Please excuse the bump, but the number of references this has been getting lately inspired me to watch it a few days ago. Good God, it was awful

It's the worst movie that I've seen in a long time, and I am disturbed that so many people have recommended it to me in the years since its release. No wonder the movie's distributor acted as if it were trying to keep its audience as small as possible. I would do the same if I were contractually obligated to release the modern equivalent of The Birth of a Nation.

It's total smart-arsed pseudointellectual garbage

I never got the impression it was supposed to be anything other than slapstick comedy, much less any kind of "intellectual" project.

Either way it now seems, at least here in New York, that large families have come back into fashion amongst the wealthy and are now something of a status symbol. This trend does not seem limited to this city, or, indeed, this country.

This trend, assuming it is not fleeting, would contradict the premise of the film! (This is also a very good trend for other reasons, but that's for another time.)

The introduction is literally a pro-eugenics propaganda clip. This colors the entire movie, even if most of the remainder is driven by Sandler-esque attempts at humor.

I would say that that it doesn't really matter whether the implicit social darwinism is intentional, but it's hardly worth arguing something that's stated so directly. (Also, the idea that the person who created Office Space doesn't do social commentary is ridiculous.)  Am I missing some brilliant alternate interpretation? I have no idea how someone could watch the movie and just ignore what it's saying.

And that's without getting into the movie's classist take on intelligence, which just compounded the ugliness. Why does the movie conflate blue-collar stereotypes with stupidity? Is Mike Judge trying to compensate for what he did in Office Space, or something?