At 12/24/11 09:35 AM, Coop wrote: I've given up trying to make you see reason, because you're that unreasonable to not even consider my arguments. Take your victory, since that is what you view it as, for I have broad shoulders.

Here's the problem Coop...where was the reason and/or arguments in your second post? What you did say I responded to with facts. Yet you wanted to simply pull the "Arrogant American" card instead of engage in debate like you said you wanted.

The reason I said your arguments sounded like "Democratic Spin" was for the most part they were one or two sentence statements about people that up until my post you (by your own admission) did not know were running for the Repub nod. Take Huntsman for example...you called him dangerous and made mention of being Mormon...implying that made him dangerous. Dude...that's being rather bigoted don't you think? Especially since he appears to be the furthest thing from a fundamentalist Mormon.

As for "there's no winners or loosers" in political debate. I'm sorry, but as a trained political scientist I can authoritatively say that's simply not true.
* Someone wins the election.
* "War is the continuation of politcs. by other means." (Clausewitz) In the most extreme political debates, someone wins the war.
* Even on the BBS people win debates. Sometimes people convince their opponent that they are right (albeit rare), but more often it is won in the minds of those lurking the BBS or other posters.

So finally, the reason I claimed victory was not because I'm arrogant or unreasonable. It's because you wanted to focus on jab about the superficiality of your responses and withdraw rather than answer the rebuttals I made to your brief statements (statements...not arguments). In the end you withdrew having offered only opinions based on stereotypes and suppositions having never addressed the points of fact I brought up in my rebuttal.

I welcome debate. I'd rather not debate with bumper stickers, if you're willing to re-engage.

And Merry Christmas to you too! :)

At 12/24/11 11:36 AM, Spretznaz wrote: The one thing that really galls me is the transparency issue. Obama promised the most transparent government in history and what does he do? He classifies more information than Bush, prosecutes more whistleblowers than ANY president, and essentially locks down information. What he has done in office has proved to me that Obama is a liar who can't account for his actions.

I was a Bush supporter until about 2006, and then the fatigue set in. In fact it was during the Bush era that I started becoming evermore Libertarian instead of Conservative. There was something about Obama that I couldn't bring myself to trust and then I saw a CNN special on him. When they talked about how in 2000 he tried to get an audience with Gore at the Dem. Natl. Convention and didn't understand why Al didn't want to listen to a State Senator who lost a primary bid for the US House...I started to think maybe my gut was trying to tell me he was somewhat divorced from reality.

And that's what I think his problem is. He didn't know how to govern...and doesn't want to learn. My opinion is he is convinced of the correctness and nobility of his ideas and that people should just get in line with his policy ideas. The problem with this is the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If he has to get his hands dirty and do things he criticized to deliever us to the promised land...so be it.

*Hit post it early.

Where I was going with being a Bush supporter...

I really wanted Obama (despite my misgivings) to be what he advertised. I hoped he'd be like Clinton and develop a broad based coalition and temper his progressive leanings with pro-growth policies. I hoped he'd build consensus not only with Republicans but with business leaders. Instead he's wanted to push his agenda no matter what...not even listening to Steve Jobs when he tried to advise the president on how to get us out of the mess we've made for ourselves the previous 16 years.

At 12/24/11 04:22 PM, TheMason wrote: I really wanted Obama (despite my misgivings) to be what he advertised. I hoped he'd be like Clinton and develop a broad based coalition and temper his progressive leanings with pro-growth policies. I hoped he'd build consensus not only with Republicans but with business leaders. Instead he's wanted to push his agenda no matter what...not even listening to Steve Jobs when he tried to advise the president on how to get us out of the mess we've made for ourselves the previous 16 years.

So, according to you, Obama's big problem is that he won't compromise enough.

Astonishing. Truly astonishing.

At 12/24/11 03:58 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/24/11 09:35 AM, Coop wrote: I've given up trying to make you see reason, because you're that unreasonable to not even consider my arguments. Take your victory, since that is what you view it as, for I have broad shoulders.

Here's the problem Coop...where was the reason and/or arguments in your second post? What you did say I responded to with facts. Yet you wanted to simply pull the "Arrogant American" card instead of engage in debate like you said you wanted.

Oh, sorry. I thought that because you'd summed it all up into a "you're a dumb democrat" statement, that you didn't want to dance :3

As for "there's no winners or loosers" in political debate. I'm sorry, but as a trained political scientist I can authoritatively say that's simply not true.

Even Stephen Hawking doesn't know everything about Particle Physics.

* Someone wins the election.

I wouldn't say that - hung parliaments, Belgium being without a government for almost 2 years, Robert Mugabe.

* "War is the continuation of politcs. by other means." (Clausewitz) In the most extreme political debates, someone wins the war.

Not necessarily - eternal struggle, because they argue constantly. The subject matter may change, but eventually, the same thing may be revisited.

So finally, the reason I claimed victory was not because I'm arrogant or unreasonable. It's because you wanted to focus on jab about the superficiality of your responses and withdraw rather than answer the rebuttals I made to your brief statements (statements...not arguments).

*picks up the glove* I demand satisfaction, sir.

******

At 12/22/11 07:26 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, this is something that STARTED with Clinton.

I take on board your point, but the one thing you fail to come to terms with is that Bush did nothing whatsoever to deal with it either. 12-16 years of making it an issue cannot be cured by 4 years trying to undo it, surely.

So your point about how far back I could place the blame...isn't terribly convincing.

Oh, one more thing about that - the financial crisis was a worldwide thing, so it's hardly one single man's fault. All of the global economic leaders have to carry the can for that, surely?

Finally on Iraq: please don't lecture me on how "America fucked-up Iraq". The core of Middle Eastern instability comes from the Imperial hubris of the English and French following WWI.

Really? I thought it was the Americans sticking their oar in with us all after WWII, when we (re-)created Israel. That has done nothing good for anyone over the years.

The America Fucked up Iraq was cynicism that Dubya decided to invade Iraq when he had a half chance and the backing from the spineless Tony Blair. After the mess that George H.W. Bush made of Iraq and the attempts to remove Saddam, Dubya got that job done... sort of.

When you guys carved up the Arab/Muslim world in accordance with your own petrol and economic interests. I mean hell...up until you guys got involved Muslims and Jews got along! The best place to be a Jew was in the Middle East!

Well, that's not quite true - an uneasy peace over Jerusalem might have been a better way to put it, but all three religions around there (Christians, Jews and Muslims) have been squabbling over Jerusalem for thousands of years.

3) Generals: I wouldn't be too quick with the Dr. Strangelove stereotype of modern American generals. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has taken a significant toll on the US military.

And yet, Obama says that it was worth the cost in both money and blood in his "victory" speech.

4) Lybia: Really? No American influence? Really? Without NATO airstrikes the Lybian rebels would've had their asses handed to them. I've seen footage of them firing rocket launchers behind them because they didn't know which way to point the things.

Why not? They were good enough to overthrow the president of Egypt in the Arab Spring, why not in Libya? I think that NATO merely sped it up.

They had no discipline of fire, often shooting at nothing and wasting what little ammo they had.

Sorry, are we talking about American or Libyan troops here? Oh, it was the Libyans, because you can afford tons and tons of ammunition, because let's face it, you waste more than most. Hell, how much did you waste in shooting British troops in Afghanistan? During the conflict, you caused more British caualties than we sustained from the Taliban.

As for ill will towards Washington...the weapons we sent are alread ending up in Iranian and al-Qaida hands.

It's not our fault that you sell them to these people directly. All money is the same, no? I'm not happy that we supply Israel and other countries that really shouldn't be given more ammunition at all. Hell, during the Northern Ireland conflicts, I believe that we were supplying the IRA in a round-about fashion.

5) The Republican opposition: I think it's only going to end up between Newt and Romney with Romney best poised to survive. I think Romney will get it.

But one question: John Huntsman Jr...dangerous? Really? Yes he's Mormon...but not really any kind of fundamentalist one.

You missed my point on that one completely. Because I wrote the words "mormon" and "dangerous" in the same paragraph, then you think that I have labelled him a dangerous Mormon. Not so. My point specifically regarding the latter is laid out below:

and his experience with being close friends with Obama and Chinese Vice President, Xi Jinping. Dark horse, at best, I'm afraid, though dangerous.

Huntsman keeps his friends close and his enemies even closer. Which of those two is friend and which is foe? Could that change if he were to gain the nomination? I really don't know...

At 12/24/11 05:09 PM, Coop wrote:

Sorry, are we talking about American or Libyan troops here? Oh, it was the Libyans, because you can afford tons and tons of ammunition, because let's face it, you waste more than most. Hell, how much did you waste in shooting British troops in Afghanistan? During the conflict, you caused more British caualties than we sustained from the Taliban.

Before we mouth off about whose military can't shoot why don't we examine the empirical evidence?

Incidents of UK on UK Friendly Fire Incidents in Afghanistan -

1) In Sangin Province, a RAF Harrier mistakenly strafed British troops missing the enemy by 200 metres during a firefight with the Taliban in August 20, 2006. This angered British Major James Loden of 3 PARA, who called the RAF, "Completely incompetent and utterly, utterly useless in protecting ground troops in Afghanistan". British paratroopers even said that they rather prefer US air-support over the RAF.

No injuries or deaths

2) Lance Corporal Matthew Ford, from Zulu Company of 45 Commando Royal Marines, died after receiving a gunshot wound in Afghanistan on January 15, 2007, which was later found to be due to friendly fire. The final inquest ruled he died from NATO rounds from a fellow Royal Marine's machine gun. The report added there was no "negligence" by the other Marine, who had made a "momentary error of judgment".

One Death

3) On July 9, 2008, nine British soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment were injured after being fired upon by British Army Apache helicopter while on patrol in Afghanistan.

Nine Injuries

4) Captain Tom Sawyer, aged 26, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, and Corporal Danny Winter, aged 28, Zulu Company 45 Commando Royal Marines, were killed by an explosion on 14 January 2009. Both men were taking part in a joint operation with a Danish Battle Group and the Afghan National Army in a location north east of Gereshk in central Helmand Province. The MoD subsequently confirmed that two men died from friendly fire when they were hit in error by a Javelin anti-tank missile from British troops.

Two Deaths

5) A British Military Police officer was shot dead by a fellow British soldier while on patrol. It was reported that no charges are to be brought against a British army sniper who killed a British Military Policeman because he was allowed to open fire if he believed that his life was in danger.

One death

6) Sapper Mark Antony Smith, age 26, of the 36 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, was killed by a smoke shell fired upon by British troops in Sangin Province, Afghanistan. The MoD is investigating his death and said a smoke shell, designed to provide cover for soldiers working on the ground, may have fallen short of its intended target.

One Death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fi re#War_in_Afghanistan

Now, on the other hand...

US on UK Friendly Fire Incidents in Afghanistan.

1) On 5 December 2006, an F/A-18C on a Close Air Support mission in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, mistakenly attacked a trench where British Royal Marines were dug-in during a 10-hour battle with Taliban fighters, killing one Royal Marine

One Death

2) 5 December 2006: British Marine Pte. Jonathan Wigley's death was caused by gunfire from a U.S. F-18 aircraft.

One Death

3) July 2007: British Guardsman Matthew Lyne-Pirkis, of the Grenadier Guards, was wounded along with three other allied soldiers of the Afghan National Army after being hit by gunfire from a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship.

Four injuries

4) August 23, 2007: A USAF F-15 called in to support British ground forces in Afghanistan dropped a bomb on those forces. Three privates of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, were killed and two others were severely injured. It was later revealed that the British forward air controller who called in the strike had not been issued a noise-cancelling headset, and while he supplied the correct target co-ordinates, in the confusion and stress of the battle incorrectly confirmed one wrong digit mistakenly repeated by the pilot, and the bomb landed on the British position 1000 metres away from the enemy. The coroner at the soldiers' inquest stated that the incident was due to "flawed application of procedures" rather than individual errors or "recklessness".

The above is a tough one to call. The British air controller did give faulty coordinates, but technology had failed in this case. I only included it for the sake of completion.

5) Of two helicopters called in to support operations by the British Grenadier Guards and Afghan National Army forces in Helmand, the British Westland WAH-64 Apache engaged enemy forces, while the accompanying American AH-64D Apache opened fire on the Grenadiers and Afghan troops.

No injuries or deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S ._friendly-fire_incidents_since_1945_wit h_British_victims

So, unless I made a clerical error then the score so far is..........

British personnel killed and/or injured by British: Five deaths, nine injuries.

British personnel killed and/or injured by Americans: two deaths, four injuries.

Whether Obama deserves reelection is a moot question. He doesn't, but it's moot. The real question is, can any of the Republican front-runners beat him?

Uh, no. Not a chance. His approval rating could drop to 20%, and they still wouldn't be able to beat him.

Treated fairly by the press and his own party, Ron Paul might... might... be able to win, but that isn't going to happen. Calling for an end to the Drug War, promising to bring home our troops and pledging to audit the Fed have ensured that the powers-that-be will kill any chance he might have otherwise had.

Hell, they'll kill him if they have to.

At 12/22/11 07:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/22/11 08:31 AM, Coop wrote:

At 12/20/11 09:11 PM, TheMason wrote: With all due respect, I'd recommend you do your research before posting.

Finally on Iraq: please don't lecture me on how "America fucked-up Iraq". The core of Middle Eastern instability comes from the Imperial hubris of the English and French following WWI. When you guys carved up the Arab/Muslim world in accordance with your own petrol and economic interests. I mean hell...up until you guys got involved Muslims and Jews got along! The best place to be a Jew was in the Middle East!

but we did fuck up iran i think it was because president carter removed the shah of iran from power
but i could be mistaken

At 12/25/11 10:36 PM, dontpanic01 wrote: but we did fuck up iran i think it was because president carter removed the shah of iran from power
but i could be mistaken

You're mistaken. Way mistaken. The Iranians overthrew the Shah themselves, as well they should have. Our mistake was the CIA helping to install the bastard in the first place.

The only thing Carter had anything to do with was briefly giving the Shah asylum after he'd been exiled. At first Carter wasn't going to do it, but David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger twisted his arm, appealing to his humanity. In fact, what they did was set him up. Predictably enough, Iranian students seized our embassy, we had the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the U.S. gave the Shah the boot (his presence had done its work), Ted Koppel came on the air for 444 straight days announcing "Day _____ of the Iranian Hostage Crisis" at the beginning of every Nightline broadcast, and Carter was made to look like a jackass. Even before, the sold-out whores in Congress had been refusing to work with him.

Then, that nodding puppet Ronald Reagan was elected with a resounding cry of "Just Say NO," and the Rockefellers and Kissingers of this world have ruled the U.S. ever since: Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obummer. Jimmy Carter was the last U.S. President who was not wholly owned.

Next? Four more years of Obummer, and then, who knows? The way things are going, possibly a collapse, a Balkanized former United States, and Americans happy to get 57-cent-an-hour Chinese wages, which has apparently been the plan all along.

So according to a FOX News thing I was watching Obama is an evil elite boss that the Republicans must 'defeat'

At 12/24/11 08:47 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/23/11 12:53 PM, Coop wrote:

At 12/22/11 07:26 PM, TheMason wrote: Your original post was a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Democratic operative. Your second attempt...not too much better.

Ah, so you're that kind of American, are you? The one who views his own opinion as correct, then does the complete opposite of my posting, since your posts sound like a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Republican operative.

Opinion is a wonderful thing, don't you think? That two people can have points of view on it and they can both be wrong, since neither of us is going to agree that the other will be right in this, I shall leave it at that.

Thank you for the victory Coop.

Obviously you either: a) stopped reading after my retort or b) don't have anything substantial to say to my rebuttal.

He don't diserve it. if you where a real american you would realize that what he did is monsterous and toped anything bush would ever do. he went to war with out congress. he signed the defense act which imprisons all americans indfeniatlly when troops are on the streets. he destroyed what's left of the economy he killed what was left of our industry. he supported banning guns. which goes on the black market like everything else that gets ban that they have no control over. he is a perasetic control freak who only wants money and power just like bush before him. he don't diserve it. the era of libertarian has arrived.

At 12/26/11 11:40 AM, tyler2513 wrote: ...I honestly think he's tried his best and deserves another term as president.

Regardless of whether you believe he's done his best, or if you think, as I do, that he arranges deals with the other elected sold-out whores in Congress behind closed doors and that all their rhetoric and votes on bills are nothing but posturing for the masses, he's going to get another term as president. Because it's like this: Ron Paul is the only Republican who could possibly... maybe, but far from certainly... beat him, and the Republicans themselves and the corporate press will make damn sure Paul doesn't get the nomination. None of the rest of those stuffed shirts stand a snowball's chance in Hell against the incumbent.

For the first time since the Great Depression, over half of all Americans are either living in poverty or are "low-income." The vast majority is in no mood to go back to business-as-usual with the Party of the Obscenely Rich, and Obama tells prettier lies. You have to live in Nowheresville, Flyoverstate surrounded by provincial idiots to believe otherwise.

Obama is a two-termer, cut and dried. Remember, you heard it here first. (Or maybe not.)

Obama is going to kill us all soon god help us.

:(

At 12/24/11 05:09 PM, Coop wrote:

Furthermore, this is something that STARTED with Clinton.

I take on board your point, but the one thing you fail to come to terms with is that Bush did nothing whatsoever to deal with it either. 12-16 years of making it an issue cannot be cured by 4 years trying to undo it, surely.

1) Actually I do believe that I brought up Bush either keeping the bad policy or actually expanding it.
2) I put blame on Community Organizer Obama because in the 1990s he was advocating for and putting pressure on the Clinton administration to enact this policy.
3) I futher put blame on President Obama because I don't think he's really done anything to solve this problem...in fact he most likely believes that it good public policy.

So your point about how far back I could place the blame...isn't terribly convincing.

Oh, one more thing about that - the financial crisis was a worldwide thing, so it's hardly one single man's fault. All of the global economic leaders have to carry the can for that, surely?

Yes and no. The burst of the US housing bubble that was inflated from 2000-2008 nearly caused the US financial system to crash. This in turn fed into the bad fiscal policy that Europe has been engaged in to blossom into the Eurocrisis we're currently seeing.

It's called contagion. Now our problems are not the sum total of why the Euro is in trouble. However, they contribute to theirs and vice versa.

Finally on Iraq: please don't lecture me on how "America fucked-up Iraq". The core of Middle Eastern instability comes from the Imperial hubris of the English and French following WWI.

Really? I thought it was the Americans sticking their oar in with us all after WWII, when we (re-)created Israel. That has done nothing good for anyone over the years.

Yes we stuck our oar in on Israel, but so did France and the USSR.

The America Fucked up Iraq was cynicism that Dubya decided to invade Iraq when he had a half chance and the backing from the spineless Tony Blair. After the mess that George H.W. Bush made of Iraq and the attempts to remove Saddam, Dubya got that job done... sort of.

Iraq was something that was going to come to a head at some point regardless of Bush or Gore winning in 2000. In 1998 Clinton almost invaded b/c Hussein was about to sell his oil in Euros instead of dollars that would've radically devalued the US dollar.

Furthermore, remember hostilities from 1992 never really ended. The air war continued, albeit somewhat muted, all through the Clinton administration and up until the invasion.

When you guys carved up the Arab/Muslim world in accordance with your own petrol and economic interests. I mean hell...up until you guys got involved Muslims and Jews got along! The best place to be a Jew was in the Middle East!

Well, that's not quite true - an uneasy peace over Jerusalem might have been a better way to put it, but all three religions around there (Christians, Jews and Muslims) have been squabbling over Jerusalem for thousands of years.

This is a popular fallacy. If you look at history Muslims and Jews historically have gotten along fairly well.
* When Muhammed was being persecuted by his own ppl the Jews of Medina provided him with protection.
* The Qu'ran refers to Jews and Christians as "People of the Book".
* Islam allows Jews and Christians to freely practice after paying a Dhimi (sort of tax).
* When Muhammed said only one religion should live in the holy land of Mecca and Medina Jews were paid for their property and given time and lands North of present day Saudi Arabia to relocate...rather than exterminated.

If you look at history, European Christians are the ones who are responsible for the sectarian violence in the Middle East. During the Crusades they slaughtered Muslim, Jew and non-Roman Christian with equal vigor.

It wasn't until the French and English during and following WWI caused the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and plunged the region into chaos with secret treaties promising the same thing to different tribes.

One of the things I don't like is when Europeans get on here and talk call our actions "Imperialistic" and how they consider us to be Cowboys...when most of the problems in the world have been caused by European imperial and colonial competitions. Y'all on that side of the pond broke it...then destroyed each other in WWI & WWII and decided to pull-out of your colonies and did nothing as they collapsed. I just think Europeans don't have as high a horse to sit-on when it comes to foreign policy as they think.

3) Generals: I wouldn't be too quick with the Dr. Strangelove stereotype of modern American generals. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has taken a significant toll on the US military.

And yet, Obama says that it was worth the cost in both money and blood in his "victory" speech.

Difference is...you're talking about Obama not the Generals. I don't think the generals want to invade any more countries.

4) Lybia: Really? No American influence? Really? Without NATO airstrikes the Lybian rebels would've had their asses handed to them. I've seen footage of them firing rocket launchers behind them because they didn't know which way to point the things.

Why not? They were good enough to overthrow the president of Egypt in the Arab Spring, why not in Libya? I think that NATO merely sped it up.

Egypt: popular, non-violent protest movement. Lybia: violent revolution. Two totally different situations.

They had no discipline of fire, often shooting at nothing and wasting what little ammo they had.

Sorry, are we talking about American or Libyan troops here? Oh, it was the Libyans, because you can afford tons and tons of ammunition, ...

My main point was they were rag-tag and probably couldn't have won w/o NATO intervention in the air.

As for ill will towards Washington...the weapons we sent are alread ending up in Iranian and al-Qaida hands.

It's not our fault that you sell them to these people directly. All money is the same, no?

That's my point...I don't think Lybia was worth the investment nor the risk to our pilots and any spec ops who may or may not have been in country. I don't think the primary movers in Lybia (or the rest of the 'Arab Spring') are interested in instituting modern democracy. Instead I think they're probably more interested in setting-up Islamic states based in something akin to Sha'ria law a la Taliban Afghanistan or Iran.

Huntsman keeps his friends close and his enemies even closer. Which of those two is friend and which is foe? Could that change if he were to gain the nomination? I really don't know...

Okay. I wasn't quite sure what your point was. Thanks for clarifying!

At 12/27/11 02:33 PM, OzoneGhost wrote: Obama is going to kill us all soon god help us.

If you weren't panicking under Bush, there's no point in panicking now. Obama is just another puppet in an unbroken line of puppets going all the way back to Reagan. (We skipped about six years of the puppet show under Ford and Carter -- that unfortunate fiasco with Agnew and then Nixon left quite a mess for the powers behind the throne, but they recovered in 1980.) If you're worried about anything, don't worry about "socialism." Worry about our trade policies. Worry about deregulation and welfare for the rich. Worry about the complete gutting of economic protectionism. Worry about your job being shipped to some country where the average person makes less than $2,000 a year.

That's what's killing us, along with the Drug War and playing Global Police, and it sure didn't start under Obummer.

To be honest I wouldn't trust obama even if my life depende on it you know hitler gave great speeches too...

At 12/27/11 03:51 PM, OzoneGhost wrote: To be honest I wouldn't trust obama even if my life depende on it you know hitler gave great speeches too...

Then all I can suggest is, put working on your Newgrounds level aside and visit a library.

At 12/27/11 04:00 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 12/27/11 03:51 PM, OzoneGhost wrote: To be honest I wouldn't trust obama even if my life depende on it you know hitler gave great speeches too...

Then all I can suggest is, put working on your Newgrounds level aside and visit a library.

umm maybe you're right

At 12/27/11 04:06 PM, OzoneGhost wrote: umm maybe you're right

Sorry, I guess I was being kinda rude. You seem like a decent sort. Believe me, I wasn't singling you out. I've just noticed an inversely proportional relationship between the levels of Newgrounds users and their knowledge of... well, pretty much anything except games and popular culture. It ain't just you, bud!

At 12/27/11 04:11 PM, marchohare wrote: Sorry, I guess I was being kinda rude. You seem like a decent sort. Believe me, I wasn't singling you out. I've just noticed an inversely proportional relationship between the levels of Newgrounds users and their knowledge of

lmao I wasn't being serious but yeah its all good.

No...And he won't win. He passed the NDAA and that's reason enough that he won't win.

With the approval rating he has, I'd think it's more likely that spontaneous pianos would fall on me than Obama getting reelected.

Compared to all the other candidates, yes. Hell, as disappointed as I am with the guy, I'd take him over any of the other candidates. I doubt any of them will beat him, though. If I actually thought any of them could win, and it came down to it, I'd vote for Obama.

As it stands right now, though, I'm not going to vote at all this election, because I don't like any of them. Not a single one. In fact, if any one of those candidates became president, I'd leave this country immediately, and hope to god that some natural disaster wiped them out.

On the other hand:

I think he's done as well as he possibly could, seeing as he inherited the presidency from Bush.(or as I like to call him: Nixon Jr.) He killed Osama(which was likely to happen anyways, as there's been talks about killing Osama since Clinton's administration), he brought our troops home, he did not raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour, he did not do a lot of what he promised, but right now I think he's the most qualified candidate for the job.

So, yea, Obama for president 2012.

At 1/13/12 07:48 PM, WallofYawn wrote: On the other hand:

I think he's done as well as he possibly could, seeing as he inherited the presidency from Bush.(or as I like to call him: Nixon Jr.) He killed Osama(which was likely to happen anyways, as there's been talks about killing Osama since Clinton's administration), he brought our troops home, he did not raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour, he did not do a lot of what he promised, but right now I think he's the most qualified candidate for the job.

* What he "inherited" from Bush was a ticking time bomb that Bush inherited from Clinton. Clinton is the one who de-regulated FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC to allow lenders to sell adjustible rate mortgages (ARMs) to people who had bad credit. This was done on the basis of over-inflated stats that minorities were getting the shaft. Oh...btw Obama in his role of "community organizing lawyer" served on the plantiff's team in lawsuits against lenders who refused loans to less than well qualified minority borrowers...thereby contributing to Clinton's decision to de-regulate FANNIE and FREDDIE. I agree, Bush did nothing to fix the problem...but Obama, Clinton and House Democrats are all just as much to blame as Bush for the 2008 financial meltdown.

* Like you said, killing UBL (what the CIA calls Usama bin-Laden) was going to happen anyway. Clinton could've done it a couple of times...but he didn't consider him to be that big of a threat. But the intel that eventually led us to him was collected under Bush using techniques Obama opposed. So if Obama had run and won in 2004 instead of Bush...UBL would probably still be alive.

* The troop draw down is following the timeline Bush set in place in the final year of his presidency. So don't think the troops coming home are because of Obama's actions...rather its his inaction to either reduce or extend the timeframe.

* Qualifications: after 3 years as Prez he STILL doesn't know how to govern. I mean for the first two years of his presidency he a super-majority in the House. In the Senate he had a fillibuster proof majority for about a year...and even after Ted Kennedy died...the Dems still had a larger Senate majority than Bush did at any point in his presidency. And yet...Obama still couldn't get things done. EVEN WHEN THE REPUBLICANS HAD NO POWER TO SAY NO!!!! In 1995 Clinton tried the same tactics of fighting Congressional Republicans and "shut-down" government...twice. It was a political loser for BOTH sides. Clinton learned from these mistakes (and Newt Gingrich as Speaker) and started "triangulating" his policies towards the center. Obama still hasn't learned this. In fact he fired his Chief of Staff in favor of someone with more ideological purity...so expect Obama to bring us to the brink of "government shutdown" from now until the election in a selfish bid to run against Congress instead of his opponent.

So, yea, Obama for president 2012.

No...no Obama for president 2012 unless you like incompetence that makes Bush look like a brilliant, effective Chief Executive of the US.

i facepalm at the fact that people aren't realizing Obama couldn't get shit done because you ignorant fucks elected tea party people who do nothing but turn america into an anarchy

At 1/15/12 07:53 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 1/15/12 07:48 PM, CritcalOne wrote: i facepalm at the fact that people aren't realizing Obama couldn't get shit done because you ignorant fucks elected tea party people who do nothing but turn america into an anarchy

or it might have something to do with his complete lack of leadership.

Or perhaps it's slightly more nuanced and includes both of those factors.

At 1/15/12 07:48 PM, CritcalOne wrote: i facepalm at the fact that people aren't realizing Obama couldn't get shit done because you ignorant fucks elected tea party people who do nothing but turn america into an anarchy

And I face palm at the fact that you don't know that for up to 66% of his presidency to this point: he had a Democratic supermajority in the US House of Reps and his first year he had a fillibuster proof-Democratic majority in the US Senate, and then he still had a sizable majority (and when Sen Brown was elected; they still had a 58% majority.)

In other words: Obama is so inept at governing that he couldn't get shit done WITH his own party fully in power!

At 1/15/12 08:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: Or perhaps it's slightly more nuanced and includes both of those factors.

I think the lack of leadership is the MAJOR factor. I mean if he can't be effective with his own party holding huge majorities in both Congressional Houses for his first two years as president...why would he do better with a opposition House?

Face it...the Dems thought they were electing someone far more capable than he really was. The hype covered up the vast short-comings of the man.

I don't get anyone on here. Obama did so much DESPITE not having a congress fully in power.

Gays are now allowed to serve in the military. THAT'S A BIG DEAL!

The U.S now has a federal mandate for healthcare (pending Supreme Court decision). Whether you agree with the actual law is not the concern. IT'S A BIG SOMETHING!

Osama bin Ladin is dead. THAT'S HUGE!

Getting out of Iraq. BIG!

The recession is over and the recovery seems to be working now. ENORMOUS!

According to Politifact, he has outnumbered his promises kept vs. promises broken 3 to 1. Which means that the overwhelming majority of his presidential campaign in 2008 wasn't based on lofty promises that he could not keep, but on lofty promises he's been fighting for and has been able to accomplished.

I'm not saying the sun's shining out of his ass, because he has failed at ending partisanship in Washington, but it's frankly ridiculous to say he hasn't brought many of the changes he proposed in '08 to fruition.

That's why I'm giving him four more years.