Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I forget to say in my last post that Obama took the troops out of Iraq, saving millions of tax payer money instead of buying guns and tanks and crap for a war that shouldn't have happened.

At 11/10/10 07:30 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote: I forget to say in my last post that Obama took the troops out of Iraq, saving millions of tax payer money instead of buying guns and tanks and crap for a war that shouldn't have happened.

....Except all those soldiers are being replaced by private contractors which cost about 4x more then a US soldier to maintain.

At 11/10/10 07:29 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote: I don't think Obama is doing a bad job. Even though he probably hasn't fixed the country, he atleast tried to. By the way, when did the recession start? Hmm? About 3-4 years ago. Who was president then? Lol.

Any idea how and why the recession happened?

Over the course of about eight years banks were allowed to write mortgages to ppl who were considered "sub-prime" for a mortgage. These were high risk mortgages b/c the ppl getting them tended to have low credit scores and bad credit histories.

Now what allowed these banks to make these loans were changes to FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC policies on what credit scores these half-private/half-government financial institutions would buy from the mortgage companies.

So FANNIE & FREDDIE would bundle these 'junk' or 'high-risk' loans and sell them to other banks.

Now one of the things about these loans was the fact that many of them were Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) which meant that after about 7 years the interest rate would adjust to current rates automatically. This resulted in many ppl's mortgage payments going up, often to prices that they could not make.

So the banks started to foreclose.

Which eventually led to a rumor that Bear-Stearns was becoming insolvent because of a heavy amount of these 'junk' mortgage bundles that initiated with fly-by-night companies such as Country Wide. Bear-Stearns stock plummeted resulting in an inability to remain open and they basically went under.

Now Bear-Stearns was not your neighborhood bank. It was "too big to fail" which meant that if it tanked...it could tank the entire US finiancial industry. In fact SECTREAS Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernake went to members of Congress and told them if drastic measures were not taken...the country's financial infrastructure would collapse within hours.

Now who do you think made the policy that allowed this?

In September 1999 President Bill Clinton issued the policy directive that allowed this because both minority interest groups and the finance industry was saying this would lead to increased minority housing. (Nevermind the fact that the boom economy of the 1990s benefited the middle class of all races...thus increasing the amount of minorities buying homes.)

Now not all of the blame goes to Clinton. Afterall, even The New York Times could see the danger in such a policy move back in 1999:
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Bush knew this was a ticking time bomb, I guess rather than appear racist or unsympathetic to minorities...he hoped it would blow-up on another president.

(I know...facts can be so inconvienent.)

At 11/10/10 07:30 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote: I forget to say in my last post that Obama took the troops out of Iraq, saving millions of tax payer money instead of buying guns and tanks and crap for a war that shouldn't have happened.

Yeah...about that...

Did you know that with the urging of China, Russia and Germany...Saddam Hussein considered selling oil under the "Oil for Food" programme in Euros instead of dollars.

Another quick history lesson: after WWII it was decided under the Marshall plan that all oil sold in the world would be sold in US dollars. In the 1970s, recognizing that this meant that the dollar was based on the oil standard as well as the gold standard...Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard.

So...if Hussein sold oil in Euros the US dollar would most likely tank because now the Euro could threaten its value and cause massive deflation.

So Clinton actually considered invading Iraq...over the value of the dollar as it relates to oil.

Another inconvienent fact:
Under the Clinton/Gore administration we were in a de facto state of war w/Iraq. We were spending tons of money sending the Air Force and Navy to patrol the Northern and Southern "No Fly Zones" for ten years. Clinton authorized the massive use of force with Operation: Dessert Fox.

So, from a structuralist perspective: the Iraq war was going to happen regardless of who won the 2000 presidential election. Then with 9/11, there was going to be pressure on the president to act, and considering bin-Laden was using US military activity in Iraq to justify jihad on the US...

Another argument I hear alot is Bush and Cheney made their fortunes in the oil industry. Did you know Al Gore's family fortune also came from oil? Look up Albert Gore Sr and Occidental oil sometime. In 2000 the only candidate who was not "big oil" was Gore's running mate Lieberman.

You guys are blaming the recession on Obama. Obama didn't start the recession, ok? He has to clean it up, and he IS TRYING. Now instead of spending weeks arguing with every freaking republican on this website, here.

At 11/10/10 07:29 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote: I don't think Obama is doing a bad job. Even though he probably hasn't fixed the country, he atleast tried to. By the way, when did the recession start? Hmm? About 3-4 years ago. Who was president then? Lol.

who was the president when the snowball started rolling? oh yeah, Clinton, a Democrat. nice try, though. Who were the ones who covered up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? oh yeah, the democrats, who were angered by the accusation, denied it was going to happen, then blamed bush when it DID happen. yeah. nice try, you fail. you went the extra mile, right off a cliff.

Also, I find it highly ironic that the son of Dan Quayle is saying he is the worst president ever... Sorry, I don't have enough characters left to explain why that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. (7,772 left after that last sentence.)

thats because you lack the mental capacity to explain it.

At 11/10/10 07:30 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote: I forget to say in my last post that Obama took the troops out of Iraq, saving millions of tax payer money instead of buying guns and tanks and crap for a war that shouldn't have happened.

this proves you have no clue what you're talking about. he removes the soldiers and makes damned sure the public knows about it, then moves in private contractors who cost a hell of a lot more (something bush got criticized for) and of course the news media doesn't cover it.

Remember blackwater? the mercenary group that got international attention for their abuses in Iraq that the liberals shouted about? Still around, still making money, Obama administration money at that. yep, the very group that the liberals screamed at bush for using are still being used by your precious Obama.

Obama will probably go down as a worse president than Bush. Unless he does something huge. he will probably be done come 2012 and will fade into obscurity... until he releases his memoire.

Obama doesn't want to try and investigate Bush's administration for one VERY good reason, He's continuing the same things Bush did and he knows if he locks Bush up, he's next as soon as he leaves office.

Obama charges people for leaking data to wikileaks more than Bush did.

I think that Obama is just letting the people around him do whatever they want, because he's a bitch and he's just like them.

That's what I think anyway. Same about bush. Clinton (the male one) a little less so. my 2 cents.

At 11/11/10 09:50 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote: You guys are blaming the recession on Obama. Obama didn't start the recession, ok? He has to clean it up, and he IS TRYING. Now instead of spending weeks arguing with every freaking republican on this website, here.

1) I'm not blaming Obama for being the cause of the recession. If you read my post carefully you'll see that I blame (rightly) Clinton for setting the policy in motion that led to the root cause of the collapse of '08: sub-prime mortgages. You'll also see I hold Bush at fault as well since he could have reversed the policy, afterall with his experiences with the Savings & Loan debacle of the late '80/early '90s...you'd think he'd be sensitive to the problems of such 'thrift' industries.

2) He is trying...but he's doing what we've done since FDR in applying Keynsian principles of priming the pump. Sure that has some effectiveness when it comes to recessions where the root cause is over-supply and companies lay-off workers because orders stop coming in due to market saturation. But that is not what is going here...this is a problem with the credit of America (from the average Joe all the way up to Washington DC). Throwing money at the problem and growing government is actually making things worse...hence the "jobless" recovery we're now enjoying.

Now...do you think you understand the problem and can offer a credible defense of the president...or are you going to let a website with all the depth of a bumper sticker do your arguing/thinking for you?

Obama's done a pretty respectful job as President considering all the problems that he had to fix that were caused by the Bush administration. I also think he is being judged unfairly because of his race, he also hurt himself a bit with a campaign when he promised radical changes but all changes need time to develop, they don't just happen overnight as many people expect.

he's okay to me. i mean he DIDNT actually start any war

At 10/9/10 04:23 AM, chairmankem wrote: Bullshit. I'm pretty sure that 2nd Amendment is pretty vague.

Well, you're not very bright then.

1. "A well regulated Militia...": The country needs a well regulated militia. Militia is a vague term that doesn't convey the same meaning that it did in the 18th century. Back then, that could very well have meant getting a whole bunch of people together at the town magazine and defending yourselves from bandits, redcoats, natives, whomever. Those threats don't really exist today and so it would be useless to interpret it as such nowadays.

The Militia is a state entity that was enacted to protect the state against the federal government and consisted of every free male of the state. To ignore the very clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment one has to ignore the laws of the time REQUIRING the citizenry to be armed, the Constitutional debates, the Revolutionary war, and the Federalist papers. In short, one has to deliberately misunderstand the Amendment. Since you are trying to be cute, I'm cutting out the 2nd part of your deliberately nonsensical argument.

3. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.": This basically says, when pulled strictly out of context, that people have the right to carry weapons. Of course, we interpret that to mean firearms, but it doesn't say that here, does it? Nor does every use of the word 'armament' imply a gun. A medieval 'man-at-arms' certainly wasn't equipped with one.

Wow. That is stunningly stupid and dishonest. "Arms" meant guns. Pure and simple.

Moreover, these words are extremely clear. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is not a clause that says "If the militia ever becomes useless, this Amendment is null and void." Nor did A SINGLE FOUNDER see the meaning of this amendment as anything other than "People have the right to own guns."

That's a straw man argument because you're just taking the easiest snippet from the Constitution to syntactically analyze. It's like saying "'DOG BITES MAN' MEANS 'DOG BITES MAN', NOT 'MAN BITES DOG'" -- well, good job, that's not exactly doctoral work you're doing there. Try not stating the blatantly obvious.

Well, I'm taking the "snippet" that is used the most often and that only has one meaning in the document. Whatever the justification, the 2nd Amendment clearly states that Congress cannot make a law banning the keeping and bearing of arms. Even if we re-write the preamble to say "Since ice cream is tasty, Congress shall make no law..." it still means the same thing. That you are arguing this, despite even you acknowledging that it can have no other meaning, shows dishonesty.

Oh yeah, just because the Constitution never mentions it means that no laws at all can be made about it. At all.

Yes. That is what it means. Way to know your constitution!

Where exactly in the Constitution does it define a set page length? Why does this even matter? After all, the Constitution never said that legislators were required to read the laws that they pass. And even if they did, why would it matter? What would breaking it down into a thousand different laws accomplish anyway? It would still be impossible to parse the entire material completely in a meaningful amount of time, if not make the job a thousand times harder.

You're done fool.

At 8/13/10 10:06 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: he blames Bush for everything, even though he's only making it worse

When did he say that?

At 11/21/10 04:00 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote:

At 8/13/10 10:06 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: he blames Bush for everything, even though he's only making it worse

When did he say that?

All the time. When it comes to the wars or the economy he talks about how he "inherited" the problem. Also, it is not only Bush but the entire Republican party. Did you hear his comments right before the election when he brought back his "they (the Repubs) drove the car in a ditch...they can ride but in the backseat" analogy?

Whenever someone points out to Obama (or the Democratic leadership) that their policies are not working (or in the case of the war they are using Bush's policies)...they bring up that the collapse and wars happened on Obama's watch.

I mean this is just common knowledge at this point.

At 10/9/10 04:23 AM, chairmankem wrote:

At 10/9/10 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Actually, the Constitution has NO vagueness to it. The federal government has the following powers: (listed). That's it. Nothing else. Pretty clear. Claiming that the constitution is vague is like claiming a rent agreement is vague...

Bullshit. I'm pretty sure that 2nd Amendment is pretty vague.

1. "A well regulated Militia...": The country needs a well regulated militia. Militia is a vague term that doesn't convey the same meaning that it did in the 18th century. Back then, that could very well have meant getting a whole bunch of people together at the town magazine and defending yourselves from bandits, redcoats, natives, whomever. Those threats don't really exist today and so it would be useless to interpret it as such nowadays.

If you look at the Constitution, and the accompanying philosophical tracts, you'll see that the Founders were only interested in Imperialism only as far as this continent. They did not want to get embroiled in the affairs of Europe. So they limited the Army. If you look you'll see that they make it hard for an Army to be established permanently; ie: Congress can only fund the Army for two years at a time. Furthermore, the document speaks of the 'militia' as something apart from organized military forces; defining it as of age and able bodied males (I don't have the exact text infront of me). Finally, the Constitution makes provisions for the Navy apart from the Army...allowing it permanence.

They also have an understanding of history and human progress...being products of the Enlightenment. When governments deem 'arms' as too powerful or inappropriate for civilians...that is when governments tend to stop being protectors of civil rights and begins trampling on them. So as a bulwark against tyranny they gave citizens this right.

2. "... being necessary to the security of a free State...": Filler. Geniuses or not those Founding Fathers sure knew how to make a document with so little to say seem so pompous and lengthy.

Actually...no it is not filler. If you look at the part you cherry-picked and diced up: "A well regulated militia..." you'll notice there is no verb attached to it. What is the purpose of a militia in this Amendment? What is doing here? "...being necessary to the security of a free state..." provides this context. It provides a verb: being...and without a verb acting on your noun you don't have a sentence.

Furthermore, this clause of the amendment "A well regulate militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." is what is known as a 'preamble' or explanatory clause. This mode of writing was very common in the Founder's time, and (if you know about how the English language was written/spoken back then) it's meaning is pretty clear with little or no vagueness: the Militia (being defined Constitutionally as different from a state-backed Army) is what keeps society free.

3. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.": This basically says, when pulled strictly out of context, that people have the right to carry weapons. Of course, we interpret that to mean firearms, but it doesn't say that here, does it? Nor does every use of the word 'armament' imply a gun. A medieval 'man-at-arms' certainly wasn't equipped with one.

1. We're not talking about the medieval ages here, but the end of the Enlightenment. Arms referred to guns and maybe swords. It did not refer to trebuches or crossbows. When you look at the historical context as well as their writings...it refers to guns.

2. There is no pulling it out of context involved here. The possesive noun in this clause of the Amendment is "the people". When "the people" are mentioned in the Constitution it means individuals; private citizens. Now, what is being talked about is a right and since the possesive noun in this clause is "the people"...this makes it an individual right not a state or federal right (which would be the case if the possesive noun was "militia".

3. The verbs in this clause are 'action' verbs...not a passive verb such as "be"...unlike the preamble. This means the meat of the amendment can be found in this half of the Amendment. This is where the government's ability to do something is curtailed.

Supreme Court cases outline what the Constitution is for today, not for events that happened a century ago.

Yes and no. The Constitution is not a living document, but something with a well-established philosophy behind it and that was crafted by men who had an eye towards the future. Look at the 3/5 clause. Many point to that as a symbol of America's inherent racisim...but they couldn't be more wrong. The Founders, knowing that slavery was a divisive issue in 1776, put that in there so that the South could not become disproportionally strong in the House and thereby block efforts to end slavery. They knew that technology and ppl's attitudes would change towards this horrible institution.

But I digest...

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution as new technologies (such as internet and the info age) come into existence that the Founder's had no conception of. That is the extent of the Constitution being a "living document" in relation to the SCOTUS.

Now how it really "lives" is through Amendments...the people voting on changes. But none have been made that alters the second amendment...

Personally I believe that every politician is considered "Worst **** Ever" and after their successor is in office, they are somewhat glorified and their more positive works are remembered. Happened to Bush, will happen to Obama.

This is why the whole world hates America:

Once upon a time the Democrats were scheming in their lair for stratagies on how to get elected. The argument went on for hours because the only way to get 3 poloticians to agree is to kill 2. But suddently a brilliant mind rose up to the stand and spoke his undenyable logic:

"lets get the first something to happen in our election"-Genious

"what do you mean?"-Some guy

"I mean lets put a woman, or a black guy, or why not A RETARD in charge?"-Genious

"because the republicans already put a retard in charge at least 10 times"-Some other guy

"thats not the point, I say we put a woman up there, and kidnap some Kenyan kid and rase him to be an average liberal American"-Genious

"yea! and if they dont vote for our guy they're a sexist or a racist!"- The first guy after genious

And thus; the Obama legasy began. All went well after the Republicans mistakingly put another redneck idiot in charge once again, and then another, OLDER one with an even MORE redneck vice presedent.

But then the cake walk ended, the recession that Bush started has draged on well into Obama's rein, people started blaming uncle jamima for all their problems.

Worse, the Republican party caught on to the democrat's mind tricks and branded every Obama supporter a Socialist, just as McCain supporters were branded racists.

Now all must slander Obama or they are Socialist, but they better not vote against them or their Racist. The correct course of action is to Vote for Obama, and then complain about it later, and thats exactly what the Tea party found their way around because they were so moderately right wing that they voted AGAINST all the democrat senators in order to dismantle Obama.

This will allow them to blame Obama for doing nothing because we all know how willing to co-operate Republicans are, If the Democrats write "we change nothing" on a piece of paper and attempt to pass it, you can garentee those Republicans will be all over it until the last drop of blood.

and the best part, they didn't vote against Obama directly, they just voted against his staff and reduced his importance to a mere power of Veto; successfuly setting America up for a Political deadlock.

and we all lived happily ever after, THE END.

I was gonna vote William Henry Harrison as the worst President. Or maybe Nixon for nearly being brought up on criminal charges. But I guess in this scenario, if you're a firefighter who rushes into an inferno, and your hosemen kink your line because they don't quite agree with how you're fighting the fire, that makes you responsible for the fire to begin with.

At 12/1/10 09:56 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: This will allow them to blame Obama for doing nothing because we all know how willing to co-operate Republicans are, If the Democrats write "we change nothing" on a piece of paper and attempt to pass it, you can garentee those Republicans will be all over it until the last drop of blood.

Except that people voted against the Democrats because they didn't like what Obama was doing and voted to make him stop doing it. Not to blame him for doing nothing.

But whatever...

At 11/12/10 06:48 PM, MegaTr0n36 wrote: Obama's done a pretty respectful job as President considering all the problems that he had to fix that were caused by the Bush administration. I also think he is being judged unfairly because of his race, he also hurt himself a bit with a campaign when he promised radical changes but all changes need time to develop, they don't just happen overnight as many people expect.

Recession: As I have already covered in-depth earlier the cause of the recession can be traced back to Clinton-era policies. Bush continued the policies that allowed easy credit thereby enabling the ticking time-bomb to get bigger instead of defusing it. He also tried various "stimulus" initiatives to keep the economy afloat and advert economic downturn...thereby adding to the country's debt. Now here comes Obama and he's continuing the same trajectory of government spending when we don't have it to spend. All things considered: Obama's economic policy is just an extension of the Clinton-Bush policies that got us into this mess.

Wars: We are on the same trajectory that Bush mapped out in the final years of his administration. Obama has stayed the course. 'Nuff said.

Race: This is one of the areas I have been most sorely disappointed in the man. While I did not vote for him (because of his ideology...not his race) I did hope his administration would heal some of the deep racial wounds in this country. Instead he has made them worse. His AG, Eric Holder's decision to drop the voter-intimidation charges against two members of the New Black Panther Party is unexcusable. Would he be so dismissive if it were KKK members in white hoods and nooses? Then there was the Professor Henry Gates affair in Harvard (or was it Yale?) when he knee-jerked and blamed a white cop for acting 'stupidly' for dealing with an angry, uncooperative citizen who was disturbing the peace. Oh yeah...the cop who works for arguably the most PC police dept in the country also taught police on the best ways to hand interracial police operations and actions.

Finally, there are ppl like you who want to knee-jerk that opposition to Obama is motivated purely out of racist motives. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr died for a dream where one day a person will be judged for the content of his ideas and his character...instead of the color of his skin. This is something that I whole heartedly agree with him and I honor his life and work. Obama was the first Democrat I seriously thought about voting for because I had "Bush-fatigue". But then I evaluated his ideas and I found them to be too far Left for my comfort. Then I examined his character. There is so much crap out there that I had to filter through before I got to a CNN special and I was left with an opinion that here was a man who really believed in his ideology (something I give him high marks for)...but he also displayed too much hubris (something I find dangerous in a president). So I voted against him. So now I am getting tired of being called a racist.

I have more examples...but I have to run and bid NG for the time being adieu.

At 12/2/10 06:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 12/1/10 09:56 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: This will allow them to blame Obama for doing nothing because we all know how willing to co-operate Republicans are, If the Democrats write "we change nothing" on a piece of paper and attempt to pass it, you can garentee those Republicans will be all over it until the last drop of blood.

Except that people voted against the Democrats because they didn't like what Obama was doing and voted to make him stop doing it. Not to blame him for doing nothing.

But whatever...

Hes gonna be blamed for doing nothing by the end of his term, believe me.

he was already blamed for not being responsive enough for BP's oil spill, and now that the republicans can repel any law he wants to pass, its gonna be pretty hard for him to respond to any problems. guess who they are gonna blame for that?

The totally unbiased, not-propaganda folks over at RightChange are blaming Obama for NK trolling around the Korean peninsula, and for Wikileaks.

God. Damnit. America.

At 12/2/10 10:19 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Hes gonna be blamed for doing nothing by the end of his term, believe me.

he was already blamed for not being responsive enough for BP's oil spill, and now that the republicans can repel any law he wants to pass, its gonna be pretty hard for him to respond to any problems. guess who they are gonna blame for that?

Well, I could point out that a Republican Congress was so effective they got Clinton re-elected.

Regardless.

No one will blame him as a do-nothing. His stimulus package was extremely destructive. His insane health care plan was destructive. His "gender equaliy" laws have cost jobs. His crap enforcement of polling laws was awful. Etc.

He is hardly a do-nothing President. And he'll be remembered as a halfwit boy prince who tried to play President.