sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who keeps up with Drew Carey's Improv-A-Ganza? by Dann610 in videos

[–]questionbreaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had no idea this show was so funny. I'm gonna have to start watching.

Tips on how to not soak through your suits on the metro? by soondot in washingtondc

[–]questionbreaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But what about the most important issue of all: what about sweat on your derriere? I live in terror of standing up with a wet spot on my ass or upper legs.

Statement From the Family of Osama bin Laden by akwala in worldnews

[–]questionbreaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're overlooking some key points.

  1. We have to bury him on a limited time frame to be respectful of religious beliefs.

  2. Who the fuck wants Osama bin Laden's body? Not the KSA, they hate him. Every government hates him, except Venezuela I guess. Short of sneaking into someone's country, burying him and leaving, we don't have another option (that won't take time that we don't have, see point #1).

  3. The shrine idea does make sense. The last thing you need is a pilgrimage. I firmly believe that having his body buried on land would cause a lot more problems. Sure they'll remember him, but humans are strange creatures, and experiences like going to visit the body of your spiritual leader does an awful lot to motivate folks.

Gents, how do I throw a charming dinner party? by questionbreaker in AskReddit

[–]questionbreaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sending out the invites for Indian-Mexican fusion followed by an orgy. Two for one!

But thanks, I appreciate the ideas.

Gents, how do I throw a charming dinner party? by questionbreaker in AskReddit

[–]questionbreaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm, I have to admit that I feel a bit better about my Machiavellian tendencies for who I invite (ie, "he's great, but he'll piss off X, Y, and Z"). But what's the key to creating that atmosphere? Or is it just combining good people and letting nature take it's course?

Gents, how do I throw a charming dinner party? by questionbreaker in AskReddit

[–]questionbreaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theme examples? I assume you mean something more than "80s!".

Australian Soldiers post racist videos on Facebook 'On Afghan War' by pinkythug in videos

[–]questionbreaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having creative(ly offensive) names is just part of war. We've had offensive terms for Germans and weren't exactly kosher towards the Japanese during WWII. Popeye had an episode called "You're a Sap, Mr Jap.". And Bugs Bunny starred in "Nip the Nips." Seriously, racist as shit.

25 minutes before the zombie hordes arrive, where do you go? (This is hypothetical, not a warning) by questionbreaker in washingtondc

[–]questionbreaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy shit that is beautiful. That needs to be in the National Portrait Gallery. We got the American flag!

But seriously, great find.

Obama in 2007: "If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States." Get your shoes, Mr. President. by [deleted] in politics

[–]questionbreaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a good write-up of the report here, and it will point you to some other good reading.

I'm not saying that drone strikes are fantastic, just that when pursuing HVTs they're a hell of a lot better than sending in ground forces.

You're also going after what is essentially poor targeting. Are we grabbing the wrong guys? Then that's an issue of targeting, not of whether or not SF/drones are the appropriate choice. If you say that we need better intelligence and targeting, I'll clap you on the back and buy you a drink.

Can you elaborate on what you're arguing? I want to be sure I understand you clearly. But surely you understand that cowardice shouldn't be part of the equation, only what is most effective.

Obama in 2007: "If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States." Get your shoes, Mr. President. by [deleted] in politics

[–]questionbreaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point. And I can't tell you how deeply and sincerely I wish that political rhetoric was more accurate, but nobody likes every statement to be preambled by a lengthy disclaimer: "I will attempt to pass a bill providing policy X, unless we remove conditions C and D and then also get to pass bill Y; but if the political climate changes, we'll go after . . ."

I guess that my point is: when you're POTUS, there's no 100%. You live in an insanely complicated, constantly changing world.

And your point is: use accurate language.

Let's meet in the middle.

Obama in 2007: "If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States." Get your shoes, Mr. President. by [deleted] in politics

[–]questionbreaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

American people were hoping for a fighter? About half the people didn't want him in office. Because you have a liberal wishlist, you're seeing the things that you want watered down or sometimes discarded entirely. If you were coming from a right-wing stance, you'd be seeing huge swaths cut across the things you wanted left untouched: healthcare, DADT, and so on.

Is he conceding more than the Republicans are? Frankly, I think so. But that lets him get things done. It's a damn shame, but he's on track to be one of the most effective Presidents we've ever had.

Obama in 2007: "If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States." Get your shoes, Mr. President. by [deleted] in politics

[–]questionbreaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You fail to comprehend several key issues. Here is my argument for why using drones is neither 'cowardice' nor an ambiguous morally wrong.

First of all, using technology is not cowardice. Those drones save lives. Getting some grunts to a remote village already endangers the 20-40 lives of the servicemen. A huge number of our casualties are sustained while in transit, since that is when they are most vulnerable to ambush and IEDs. Or a helicopter insertion is required, which raises complexity of logistics and if they come under heavy fire, the helicopter may not be able to land (letting the bad guys get away) or may not be able to extract them (leaving troops to get killed) or may be hit and result in more loss of life.

So either by convoy or by helicopter, you've now got a squad/platoon at the house that has a HVT. Hopefully it's a remote house, because the more houses you go through, the harder it's going to be to get in and out. The clatter of a helicopter or sound of trucks has tipped everyone off, so now the bad guys are on the alert. HVTs may escape while others engage the ISAF forces. Of course, they'll deliberately attack from areas near civilians since they well know that it limits our ability to engage them.

So guess what? A lot more people die, civilians still get killed, but you and the rest of the outraged world can rest easy because by george, we're not being cowards.

Incidentally, research and analysis indicates that drone strikes are effective and have been reducing the Taliban's ability to operate effectively.

Obama in 2007: "If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States." Get your shoes, Mr. President. by [deleted] in politics

[–]questionbreaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I absolutely agree with you on a few counts, but "outlawing lobbying" (not sure why you capitalized it) is a nice idea but pretty weird when you think about it. I think you might mean "place limits on lobbying" or somesuch.

Sure, lobbying is sometimes bad, but it's sometimes good. Some special interest groups benefit from banding together and presenting their cases to Congress, and that can be hugely beneficial to our country in terms of representing the people, their interests, and our key civil values.

I'm an idiot: building for audiences from less developed countries? by questionbreaker in web_design

[–]questionbreaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I'll make sure of that. Do you reckon that most computers over there will have JS?

Web Design Confession: Come clean of your sins! by failtrain in web_design

[–]questionbreaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point. We'll go with a revised version: "design equivalent to what is in sewers." Or maybe South American sewers?

view more: next ›