Be a Supporter!

Obama: Deserve re-election?

  • 6,413 Views
  • 130 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 22nd, 2012 @ 01:06 AM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote:
I don't doubt that. But in reality, market prices are driven by the market. It's extremely rare that government action, even heavy government action, has any substantial effect on market prices.

The markets react to what's going on. They base futures directly off of the value of the dollar, inflation. political instability, securement of supply. Taxes, regulations, subsidies. It's all government action, direct or indirect. Some affect oil, some gasoline prices. Obama tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve obviously wouldn't affect global oil prices, but announcing a plan to get oil from oil sands/shale in a cheaper and more environmentally friendly method, with plans to kick research into gear ASAP would definitely affect oil prices.

Too attenuated to make your point. Better example? Oil refining productivity in the US is lowered by 5% and gas prices raise by close to 80 cents in three months.

I throw in silly examples all the time, if I stick around a bit more, you'll grow accustomed to them. I'm not sure what your point is. Oil shot up, domestic demand went down, excess domestic supply was shipped overseas.

Let's examine the price. By me I'd say around 60 cents, but let's use 80 cents. Looking back 3 months on that chart, crude oil was trading at 85. Now it's 109. The standard oil barrel is 42 gallons. 24 bucks spread over 42 gallons is an increase of 57 cents per gallon. It's close to my observations, but 23 cents short of yours. Low competition and station gouging? Again I'm not sure what your point is. I think we're arguing over whether the government can significantly affect oil prices.

I know the oil companies didn't decide to gouge us. There's likely some gouging going on (see how prices are quick to rise and extremely slow to fall), but that has been for quite a while. I understand that two things control the price of more than antyhing else: International supply, and Domestic Capacity to refine and ship. The cause of the most recent spike is a result of recent changes in the latter, not of anything that Obama has done.

And Obama, as the leader of the free world's response.

But green energy is the long term solution. Oil will run out. It's only a matter of time. I know we have a good deal of time, but when it's gone it's gone. Oil isn't just used in gas either. How many things do we use that are made of plastic? We need to find some other renewable way to replace oil for no other purpose than our energy and national security in the future and for the sake of our economy. Once oil is gone the world economy will not only hurt, it will likely dissolve completely. Frankly, we Americans do need to get used to more expensive energy, because that will be the way of the future once the oil tit has been suckled dry.

I'm for nuclear energy. My concern is whether green alternatives can become cheap, efficient, or even real. 50 years might go bye before we get a car that can run on a battery, have a range of 300 miles, and plugging it in wouldn't cost more to recharge in electricity bills than it would filling up at a gas station, even with 4 dollar a gallon fuel.

The reason I only bring it up is because before it spiked no one was saying anything about how Obama is doing bad because of gas prices. I am contesting that Obama has really had anything to do with the recent jump because it is specifically that jump that the Republican candidates are blaming him for.

We elect people to handle international crisis well. Foreign policy and the economy are typically issues 1 and 2. Obama faced a test, and I don't think he succeeded immediately. Since it's still a current event, time will tell whether Obama can get Iran to abandon it's nuclear program through his own or the world's actions, and get Iran to supply the world with more oil. So far, he has not met the voter's expectations, fairly or unfairly, and is suffering in his approval ratings.

Here, if the federal government doesn't significantly affect the price we pay at the pump, why is gas 8-10 bucks in Europe while it's 4 bucks here?


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 22nd, 2012 @ 09:15 AM Reply

At 7 hours ago, n64kid wrote: The markets react to what's going on. They base futures directly off of the value of the dollar, inflation. political instability, securement of supply. Taxes, regulations, subsidies. It's all government action, direct or indirect. Some affect oil, some gasoline prices.

Here's one thing we need to clear up. How far are you taking "indirect"? You would have to take it quite far to convince me that the government is having a major effect on day to day, week to week, or month to month prices. I definitely won't doubt that certain things the government can do will effect the prices, but these are relatively few and far betwee, and you named one thing that could do it. However, I don't believe the market reacts to the government as much as you claim it does. There are so many variable, especially is something so international as oil, the unless the US government really worked at it, would have a hard time affecting any significant (greater than a percentage point) change in the market price.

to get oil from oil sands/shale in a cheaper and more environmentally friendly

Ha! An oxymoron if I ever heard one.


I throw in silly examples all the time, if I stick around a bit more, you'll grow accustomed to them. I'm not sure what your point is. Oil shot up, domestic demand went down, excess domestic supply was shipped overseas.

That explains the sift from $1.25 a gallon to today's general $4. I am merely talking about the last three months. The US shut down 5% of its refining capacity thus making the same amount of automotive gas more expensive to produce. This was a recent even which has had a very significant effect on recent prices.

Let's examine the price. By me I'd say around 60 cents, but let's use 80 cents. Looking back 3 months on that chart, crude oil was trading at 85. Now it's 109. The standard oil barrel is 42 gallons. 24 bucks spread over 42 gallons is an increase of 57 cents per gallon. It's close to my observations, but 23 cents short of yours. Low competition and station gouging? Again I'm not sure what your point is. I think we're arguing over whether the government can significantly affect oil prices.

I was actually guessing based on my somewhat fuzzy memory of what Portland Oregon gas prices were in Janurary (around $3.20, but could have been $3.40) compared to what they are now $4.

How ever I do think we're two ships passing in the night here. I get the feeling you are talking as a whole, whereas my main focus is the recent jump in prices.

And Obama, as the leader of the free world's response.

What could he do? Force Exxon to build more domestic refineries?

I'm for nuclear energy. My concern is whether green alternatives can become cheap, efficient, or even real. 50 years might go bye before we get a car that can run on a battery, have a range of 300 miles, and plugging it in wouldn't cost more to recharge in electricity bills than it would filling up at a gas station, even with 4 dollar a gallon fuel.

Sounds fine with me. However, I think our goal now should be finding something that is merely twice as expensive as oil, and then working on producing that in suchb a scale that the economies of scale could reduce the price a bit. Aiming for anything less is just wishful thinking an may end up in us scrapping very good alternatives based on what is relatively a very small jump in price.

We elect people to handle international crisis well. Foreign policy and the economy are typically issues 1 and 2. Obama faced a test, and I don't think he succeeded immediately.

I have a beef with this sort of sentiment. There is way too much of this "Obama did it wrong" being shot around blindly (whether that be intentional or just a lack of investigation). Well, what would you have him do? What options with dealing Iran could he have done that would have resulted in better poutcome than we have now? It's easy to say you don't like something, but not so easy to replace with a better alternative.


Here, if the federal government doesn't significantly affect the price we pay at the pump, why is gas 8-10 bucks in Europe while it's 4 bucks here?

I'm not going to deny that massive subsidies can have a serious effect on prices (though I'd say 50% of the difference between Europe and the US is cost differences). I am saying that in reality (Cause no President would eliminate ALL oil subsidies) the President doesn't have very much effect on market prices of both oil and gas.

Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 23rd, 2012 @ 01:28 AM Reply

At 34 minutes ago, Austerity wrote:
he's an affirmative action president

For fuck's sake, how are people still saying backwards ass uncivilized shit like this.


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052

He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
Greggg586
Greggg586
  • Member since: Sep. 27, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 23rd, 2012 @ 04:01 PM Reply

I think Obama is the hope for change, and we should stick with him. In addition to that, we also aloud, the officially worst president in the United States 2 terms, so then why shouldn't we let some 1 who is better then Bush have a second chance also. If we don't, then it shows that we prefer to be abused and taken advantage of just like a woman in a abusing relationship who just can't enough beatings to change her mind.


KEEPIN It REAL Like HOLIFIELD, RAW like STAR WAR, CLEAN like Mr. CLEAN, MEAN Like Mr. T, SWEET Like SWEET TEA, I BRING THE BOOM shakalaka! Da Kool Kids Go Here

naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 23rd, 2012 @ 10:01 PM Reply

Although I'm not too savvy on politics myself, and by no means consider myself to be one of the top 12 economic linguistic zeniths of this forum, I'm going to go ahead and throw my hat into the ring with this one. Barrack Obama may not be a Ronald Reagan but the biases I see here are simply ridiculous.

A worrying number of people in this thread seem to be forgetting that we just emerged out of the terminal end of the recession that was caused by something completely unrelated to Obama's presidency, that were just climbing out of now DURING Obama's presidency. I was waiting for someone to at least hint at this but oh well.
Barrack Obama (or at least his presidential term) is the literal equivelent to Bush in terms of job creation.

You could argue that Obama care failed (and indeed it would be very hard to argue the inverse I'll admit), but be aware that the full law hasn't been enacted yet, and besides some nitpicks here or there I've heard no alternatives. The cost of living has been rising before Obama care and will continue to muscle it's way up regardless of whether it's repealed or not.

I literally see no downside with taxing the aristocratic 1% more than the less fortunate 99% for the sake of better equalization and sturdier middle class. Nor do I see a problem with more government regulation, in fact it's the lack of governmental regulation that's gotten us into this economic crisis in the first place. The mass number of stocks being knowingly sold to people who can't make up the difference by greedy unregulated markets.


BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 25th, 2012 @ 11:07 AM Reply

At 3/23/12 10:01 PM, naronic wrote: A worrying number of people in this thread seem to be forgetting that we just emerged out of the terminal end of the recession that was caused by something completely unrelated to Obama's presidency, that were just climbing out of now DURING Obama's presidency

;;;;
While you may not have a problem with taxing the 1%...the one percent seem to have a problem with it...or at least those politicians that received large 'donations' to their campaign funds do...or so it seems.
But one must remember Obama has sanctioned this type of good work...is 'good ' the right term ?
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/20123199552 3614214.html
Becasue the new laws are in place ,,,& Obama signed them into law.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

1-800-CockJoke
1-800-CockJoke
  • Member since: Feb. 3, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Melancholy
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 3rd, 2012 @ 09:04 PM Reply

At 3/23/12 12:53 AM, Austerity wrote:
I predict Obama has roughly a 1.8% chance of getting re-elected.

Who's going to beat him? The Republican Party is defeating itself with this brutal primary battle. None of the serious contenders have a CHANCE of coming hear Obama in November. There's no one strong enough that everyone can rally behind.

Mark my words: Obama is going to be in the White House as the sitting President come next February.


BBS Signature
Bolo
Bolo
  • Member since: Nov. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 48
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 4th, 2012 @ 03:26 AM Reply

At 3/23/12 12:53 AM, Austerity wrote: I predict Obama has roughly a 1.8% chance of getting re-elected.

lmao, that's gotta be a joke.


BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 4th, 2012 @ 12:15 PM Reply

At 3/23/12 10:01 PM, naronic wrote: I literally see no downside with taxing the aristocratic 1% more than the less fortunate 99% for the sake of better equalization and sturdier middle class. Nor do I see a problem with more government regulation, in fact it's the lack of governmental regulation that's gotten us into this economic crisis in the first place. The mass number of stocks being knowingly sold to people who can't make up the difference by greedy unregulated markets.

I see a problem with it considering that taxing people who are better off is not equalization, it's redistribution. Also, what is so great about economic equalization? Our wealth gap may be huge, and we can compare it to other places that have had smaller that failed because of it, but our standard of living is much higher when comparing . I hate to use Republican talking points, but what do you really think will happen if they get taxed more? They're going to cut employees, send jobs elsewhere, or have less money to spend on luxury things. The rich are a bunch of assholes. They are going to maximize their dollar at the end of the day. Until people are willing to also say "Yeah, you can raise my taxes too" I find them to be completely selfish considering that their solutions always involve others paying more so they can reap the benefits. Besides, a major problem of ours is that we spend too much, not that we don't generate enough. While yes, raising those taxes can help ease the deficit, but that will indirectly impact other areas, and it ultimately comes down to eliminating the tax loopholes that people are so fond of and the most important part, cut spending by do much. That goes for everything.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 5th, 2012 @ 11:33 AM Reply

At 3/23/12 04:01 PM, Greggg586 wrote: I think Obama is the hope for change,

funny. real funny. Given the decisions he's made in the last 4 years, I'm amazed the masses haven't risen up against him. He's thrown himself into many a mess in which he really has no business being in. Remember back in 2009 when the big bad evil white cop arrested a black professor? he should have kept his mouth shut, but no, he had to wade in and call the cop stupid for doing his job. This among other things, and now he jumps into the Trayvon Martin thing saying that if he has a son he would look like Trayvon. Seriously?

OF course, there are other huge blunders he has made in the national and global spotlight, like sending Gordon Brown a set of DVDs... DVDS! Freaking movies! that is something you get for your cousin that you see once a year that you really don't give a damn about! At least Bush gave em a pretty neat looking bomber jacket, which the media beat him in the face over, given it doesn't match up with the usual high class clothes he usually wears. did the media say anything about the dvds? hell no... at least, not in America.

Obama's latest blunder? opening his mouth on the supreme court case on the very bill he tried to pass. tried to sound tough about it, then when it actually gained a little attention he went wimpering back into the corner like a puppy who got his nose rubbed in his own feces.

and we should stick with him.

In addition to that, we also aloud, the officially worst president in the United States 2 terms,

Jimmy Carter only got 1 term. its also spelled "allowed" Not even the media could save such a weak president.

so then why shouldn't we let some 1 who is better then Bush have a second chance also.

Obama is arguably as bad, if not worse than Bush. but you won't hear the media say that, ever. Though I must admit, it would be interesting to see an alternate reality where John Kerry won the election and the market fell apart. It makes me wonder how the media would have handled it. I can only imagine the informational pretzel knot that would have been formed trying to keep the blame away from their chosen party.

However, since Bush, a non democrat was in office, it made the media's job easy, just blame Bush. Forget that the framework for this disaster was built before he even took office the first time, also, congress was warned of this well before it happened, but, well, see for yourself. Never let the truth get in the way of the vote farm.

If we don't, then it shows that we prefer to be abused and taken advantage of just like a woman in a abusing relationship who just can't enough beatings to change her mind.

or it shows that America isn't necessarily totally full of blind zombies that chant "hope and change". Some people can see the joker as a joker. Obama's huge "success" aka healthcare "reform" only came after months of intense congressional battle when they just barely got enough votes, despite having a huge huge majority. After that, Obama has yet to really fight for anything, and instead just sits there, making comments on things he has no business commenting on. when it came to taking advice from his generals on afghanistan, it took him, what 3 MONTHS to give them less than what they asked for? But I suppose he had to play politics there as well. Wouldn't have done to say, "you need it to win? you got it!" and pissed off his liberal cohorts.

I also love how he took credit for Iraq when the groundwork for the ending of the conflict was well in the works ans Gitmo? still open. good job. At least Obama wasn't dumb enough to release the gitmo prisoners... yet.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 5th, 2012 @ 12:08 PM Reply

At 4/5/12 11:33 AM, Korriken wrote: Remember back in 2009 when the big bad evil white cop arrested a black professor?

Crying over

OF course, there are other huge blunders he has made in the national and global spotlight, like sending Gordon Brown a set of DVDs... DVDS!

Spilled milk

Hell. If these are the worst you can come up with...


Obama's latest blunder? opening his mouth on the supreme court case on the very bill he tried to pass. tried to sound tough about it, then when it actually gained a little attention he went wimpering back into the corner like a puppy who got his nose rubbed in his own feces.

First off, read the entire quote. Second, he's a politician and what do politicians do? They whine about court decisions. If you want to see who is in the wrong here, don't look toward Washington, look South, right to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.


However, since Bush, a non democrat was in office, it made the media's job easy, just blame Bush. Forget that the framework for this disaster was built before he even took office the first time, also, congress was warned of this well before it happened, but, well, see for yourself. Never let the truth get in the way of the vote farm.

The economy was harldy Bush's only blemish, or even his biggest blemish.

I also love how he took credit for Iraq when the groundwork for the ending of the conflict was well in the works ans Gitmo? still open. good job. At least Obama wasn't dumb enough to release the gitmo prisoners... yet.

What do you care about this? You want it to still be open. Why are you bitching?

Conservatives today look gift horses in the mouth like crazy. Obama has giftwraped so much to the conservative states, yet they have denied it (to their citizens' expense) on ground of principle, even though petty prinicples aren't what Congress is supposed to act upon.

But I know how this will end. You will find anything wrong you can and blame it on Obama regardless of the truth or plausibility of the claim.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 5th, 2012 @ 02:54 PM Reply

At 4/5/12 12:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
OF course, there are other huge blunders he has made in the national and global spotlight, like sending Gordon Brown a set of DVDs... DVDS!
Spilled milk

perhaps, but he did make a major fool of himself. for someone who is supposed to be sooooo smart, you figure he would know to get something a little more.. symbolic.


Hell. If these are the worst you can come up with...

no not really, I could do better, but nothing immediately comes to mind given I don't follow his every move and record his every screw up.

First off, read the entire quote. Second, he's a politician and what do politicians do? They whine about court decisions. If you want to see who is in the wrong here, don't look toward Washington, look South, right to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

meh.

The economy was harldy Bush's only blemish, or even his biggest blemish.

thing is, Bush had little to do with it, the snowball was rolling before he even took office. the media just had a convenient scapegoat when it happened. the problem was even brought before congress, what did they do? they got butthurt that anyone would dare speak up about it.

What do you care about this? You want it to still be open. Why are you bitching?

point is, he talks big, but he's a weak leader. pathetically weak. and incompetent. He reminds me of a certain manager I once had to work under, just got out of college and landed a job as a manager. had no idea what he was doing.

But I know how this will end. You will find anything wrong you can and blame it on Obama regardless of the truth or plausibility of the claim.

just like people did with Bush, whats the difference? oh right, Bush isn't in the party you prefer.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 5th, 2012 @ 04:31 PM Reply

At 4/5/12 02:54 PM, Korriken wrote: perhaps, but he did make a major fool of himself. for someone who is supposed to be sooooo smart, you figure he would know to get something a little more.. symbolic.

First he's a talking suit and then you cherry pick a few times where he's screwed up and showed a human side that fit with your view and make this claim.

point is, he talks big, but he's a weak leader. pathetically weak. and incompetent. He reminds me of a certain manager I once had to work under, just got out of college and landed a job as a manager. had no idea what he was doing.

A leader can lead as far as the people he leads are willing to follow. For a certain group of politicians, that has not been a very long distance.

just like people did with Bush, whats the difference? oh right, Bush isn't in the party you prefer.

I know people did it with Bush, and many people, namely the ones who rail on how Bush was the worst president ever, still do it. However, that doesn't make it right or legitimate for you to do the same.

OPRI4NIK
OPRI4NIK
  • Member since: Mar. 16, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 6th, 2012 @ 10:49 AM Reply

An important reason for which you want to re-elect Obama, his views of the Russian-American relations. When the candidate of the Republican Party is trying to make Russia the enemy number one in American society.

TucoM
TucoM
  • Member since: May. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 6th, 2012 @ 11:34 AM Reply

Obama's reelection chances are tied to the economy and gas prices. No more, no less.


BBS Signature
BillroyandJonjon
BillroyandJonjon
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Animator
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 6th, 2012 @ 04:54 PM Reply

Obama has so far been a terrible president and if reelected will continue to bankrupt america and turn it further downwards, he is not electable but he might be put back into office because people think that the republicans are not going to be able to beat his wealth spreading socialist power. and he also might be able beat the republicans because he will argue on topics that are un-important that wont matter in economics and job wise like gay-marriage and abortion. those thing really need to be resolved later when we are not in a crisis but he want the republicans to look bad and wants the people to look away from him and the terrible things he has done and say that republicans want to limit your freedom although the man is a socialist and socialism limit ALL freedom.

he is not re-electable but he just might get away with it.


all my imaginary fans are so awesome, cant wait to get real ones <3

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 7th, 2012 @ 04:58 PM Reply

At 4/5/12 04:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/5/12 02:54 PM, Korriken wrote:
First he's a talking suit and then you cherry pick a few times where he's screwed up and showed a human side that fit with your view and make this claim.

human side? perhaps. me running in public wearing nothing but a plastic Batman mask might be considered showing my human side, but I still look like an idiot (and end up in prison for it)

A leader can lead as far as the people he leads are willing to follow. For a certain group of politicians, that has not been a very long distance.

that goes for both sides, depending on whether or not it's detrimental to their own political agenda.

I know people did it with Bush, and many people, namely the ones who rail on how Bush was the worst president ever, still do it. However, that doesn't make it right or legitimate for you to do the same.

turnabout is fair play. Also to add to that. General McChrystal asked for more soldiers for Afghanistan. what did he do? waited 3 months then sent a fraction of the troops. There is of course, this. which more or less got buried in the American Media, except for one or two mentions.

I'd love to add to that list but its time for me to go to work, I might compile a nice long list of dumb things he's done over the weekend.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Kimihro
Kimihro
  • Member since: Feb. 11, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 8th, 2012 @ 01:10 AM Reply

If there's any other promising candidate, than no.
I don't like Obama, but I don't dislike him either. As a President, he was given the wight of the previous' president's problems, but he hasn't alleviated them in ant significant way.
But this year's presidential candidates don't seem too promising either. To me, it all comes down to gay rights, because my parents are both gay and married (they're lesbians); if someone wants to repeal their rights as a married couple, then my family could lose the benefits we need to support six people in one house.
Not to push a "gay rights" argument, though, sorry; that's just what is boils down to for me. Anti, Don't care, or Pro.


Kimihro yourself.

Shaggytheclown17
Shaggytheclown17
  • Member since: Sep. 8, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 10th, 2012 @ 09:44 AM Reply

At 12/19/11 08:32 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: The only thing I know for certain is that Obama can't be re-elected, he's only meant for one term and one term only, some democrats need to come to realize that re-electing Obama will only do the American people even more harm then good, even Steave Jobs (CEO of Apple) said so himself.

That said, some Presidents are only meant for one term while others are re-elected for another, as I said once and I'll say again, Obama is one of those Presidents only meant for one term.

I agree, he may have done a couple somewhat good things but it seems like he has done quite a bit bad, i give him good marks for the fact that were all still alive so he didn't do horrible.


BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 10th, 2012 @ 12:09 PM Reply

At 4/6/12 10:49 AM, OPRI4NIK wrote: An important reason for which you want to re-elect Obama, his views of the Russian-American relations. When the candidate of the Republican Party is trying to make Russia the enemy number one in American society.

If you mean where Obama tells Medvedev that he can be "more flexible" on selling out our allies to the soviets and putting the kibosh on the missile defense system, then sure he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Russia isn't America's friend. throwing your gun down to appease the guy with a knife doesn't prevent you from being stabbed. Why do the Russians not like the missile defense system? simple. It doesn't play to their advantage. America should really look to the Chinese and Russians to see how politics are done instead of being crybaby bitches who bend over backwards to appease the enemy and special interest groups bent on weakening their nation. I'm not saying go communist, I'm saying to tell those who want to weaken the nation to go to hell, and do what needs to be done to ensure the survival of the nation.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Silverdust
Silverdust
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Art Lover
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 12th, 2012 @ 05:10 PM Reply

No, he does not deserve to be re-elected; but, out of the viable options we have, he's probably our best bet. I would rather have an intelligent leader who I disagree with than a nut job or blank canvas. Ron Paul would be a great choice if it weren't for some of his economic beliefs (I still think he is the best choice). But, personally I think Paul works better as a voice or word to the wise. I do not feel that he would be appropriate as President. However, I would never in my life vote for the hypocritical paper-cut-out that is Romney - and Gingrich is pure evil.

So I guess Obama is the best choice (unfortunately)? That doesn't mean I'll be voting for him. If Paul goes independent, then I'll vote for him if for nothing else but to keep the numbers on Romney down.


RussiaToday : Aljazeera : TEDTalks : io9
"We have the Bill of Rights; what we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." ~ Bill Maher

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 17th, 2012 @ 09:44 PM Reply

At 4/6/12 10:49 AM, OPRI4NIK wrote: An important reason for which you want to re-elect Obama, his views of the Russian-American relations. When the candidate of the Republican Party is trying to make Russia the enemy number one in American society.

The problem is I don't really think Obama is a deft captain of the ship of state. Russia is not interested, especially with Putin at the helm, in hearing about win-win economic scenarios. They are concerned with re-establishing lost Imperial territory. After all we're talking about a country that will kill hostages to get terrorists and in 2007 shut down Georgia (the country...not the US state) with cyber attacks before staging a military invasion.

I don't really believe that Moscow comes in peace.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 17th, 2012 @ 10:57 PM Reply

At 4/17/12 09:44 PM, TheMason wrote:
I don't really believe that Moscow comes in peace.

Of course they don't.They know Obama will bow to them when he can. if he DOES get reelected, Bush's ending approval rating will seem amazingly high compared to Obama's when he does leave office.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 20th, 2012 @ 12:48 PM Reply

At 4/17/12 10:57 PM, Korriken wrote:
At 4/17/12 09:44 PM, TheMason wrote:
I don't really believe that Moscow comes in peace.
Of course they don't.They know Obama will bow to them when he can. if he DOES get reelected, Bush's ending approval rating will seem amazingly high compared to Obama's when he does leave office.

Mmmm. Self gratifying felatio. If they are that low, it'll be due to republican obstructionism.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 20th, 2012 @ 01:22 PM Reply

At 4/20/12 12:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Mmmm. Self gratifying felatio. If they are that low, it'll be due to republican obstructionism.

"Republican obstructionism"...now that's a myth that qualifies as self-gratifying fellatio (along with a little prostate tweaking).

1) For the first two years of his administration Obama enjoyed a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress that made the Republican minority insignificant. During this time Obama spent all of his political capital with the moderate & conservative wings of the Democratic majority on stimulus and healthcare reform. From that point on until January 2011 he was incompetent in dealing with the various constituencies within his own party!

2) Since the Republicans took over the House in January 2011, following the 2010 election, congress has been unable to pass a budget...it's been held-up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Now I'm not going to say that Republicans are not gaming the system and holding some things up...but I'm not going to let you pretend that the Dems are innocent...or even significantly less responsible than the Republicans.

The myth of Republican obstructivism is just factually false.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 20th, 2012 @ 01:52 PM Reply

At 4/20/12 01:22 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 4/20/12 12:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Mmmm. Self gratifying felatio. If they are that low, it'll be due to republican obstructionism.
"Republican obstructionism"...now that's a myth that qualifies as self-gratifying fellatio (along with a little prostate tweaking).

Session with the most fillibuster in the history of the united states? This one. Who's been carrying them out? Republicans in the senate. What is a fillibuster? Obstruction. Therefor Republicans are obstructionists. QED

1) For the first two years of his administration Obama enjoyed a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress that made the Republican minority insignificant.

Which is a complete lie because the Democrats never had a solid 60 votes to overcome a fillibuster. When it appeared they did they still had to deal with conservative blue dogs and "independent" lieberman. Plus deaths and all that, they never had 60 votes when legislation came up for a vote. Without 60 votes you can't invoke cloture and the minority can filibuster any legislation they want to. Which they have.

Know the fuck what you're talking about.

2) Since the Republicans took over the House in January 2011, following the 2010 election, congress has been unable to pass a budget...it's been held-up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The republicans in the house haven't passed a single Obama budget since 2008. Instead they've opted to pass politically polar budgets that had no hope of passage at the expense of our nation and its economy. Most of their budgetary moves would have caused enconomic havoc (the kind that's been seen in Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, & Britain) due to austerity.

The myth of Republican obstructivism is just factually false.

Except when its true. Like, right now.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 20th, 2012 @ 11:11 PM Reply

At 4/20/12 01:52 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
At 4/20/12 01:22 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 4/20/12 12:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Mmmm. Self gratifying felatio. If they are that low, it'll be due to republican obstructionism.
"Republican obstructionism"...now that's a myth that qualifies as self-gratifying fellatio (along with a little prostate tweaking).
Session with the most fillibuster in the history of the united states? This one. Who's been carrying them out? Republicans in the senate. What is a fillibuster? Obstruction. Therefor Republicans are obstructionists. QED

Fact Check: According to the Senate'sSenate's own official history the Congress with the most cloture votes was: (drum roll please)
The 2006-2008 Congress. During those two years there were 139 cloture votes filed. 112 votes on said motions. 61 motions passed. Oh...and by the way this was a Democratically controlled Senate with a Republican White House.

The second most votes (and the Senate with the most motions passed):
The 2008-2010 Congress. During these two years there were 137 cloture votes filed. 91 votes on said motions. 63 motions passed. This was a Democratically controlled Senate with a Democratic White House.

And no for the current Congress; which is the most slim Dem majority yet:
82 motions.
48 votes.
26 motions passed.

Just as a comparison, how did the Republicans do under the previous Democrat president when they held majorities in both houses?
1995-1996
82 motions.
50 votes.
9 clotures invoked.

1997-1998
69 motions.
53 votes.
18 clotures invoked.

1999-2000
71 motions.
58 votes.
28 clotures invoked.

Hmm...it seems like when Republicans have either a majority or strong minority in the Senate the number of motions filed drops dramatically...along with how many clotures are actually invoked.

Now you may argue that the increase in cloture votes means an increase in fillibuster attempts. And you'd be wrong. Cloture is now (since 1975) a way for the Majority party to steamroll the minority and bring debate to a swift end...so it has more uses than its original intent when it was adopted in 1919. So it is not necessarily a reflection of how many filibusters there've been in this Congress, but rather a tool used to increase the flow of business.

Finally, since 2007 there has only been one filibuster.

So I'm sorry...but this "fact" is a manipulation of the data, definition and history.


1) For the first two years of his administration Obama enjoyed a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress that made the Republican minority insignificant.
Which is a complete lie because the Democrats never had a solid 60 votes to overcome a fillibuster. When it appeared they did they still had to deal with conservative blue dogs and "independent" lieberman. Plus deaths and all that, they never had 60 votes when legislation came up for a vote. Without 60 votes you can't invoke cloture and the minority can filibuster any legislation they want to. Which they have.

Umm...a complete lie?...no, not really no.

They had 57 Democrats and two independents that caucused with them...giving them 59 votes. So yeah...one shy officially of 60. However, the Senate is known as the "Upper Chamber" for good reason. For the most part they are less beholden to ideology and rigorous party controll than their House counterparts. Part of the reason for this is the simple fact that a Senator represents an entire state rather than a much smaller (most of the time) congressional district. Therefore, their votes have to have much broader appeal than a Representative. Therefore, aside from the Senate leadership a Senator has to be much more flexible and compromising with the other side.

Thus votes are more fluid. So a Northern Republican in favor of healthcare reform can easily break ranks and vote with the majority to invoke cloture. Likewise a Southern Democrat is more likely to side with the Republicans in a cloture vote over a piece of legislation that would be less popular in their more conservative state.

So again...this allegation of a lie is exposed to be either a falsehood or a lack of understanding.


Know the fuck what you're talking about.

Gum, honestly I respect you and enjoy posting against you. But I suggest that instead of telling me to know what the fuck I'm talking about...you get up and go tell it to the man in the mirror.


2) Since the Republicans took over the House in January 2011, following the 2010 election, congress has been unable to pass a budget...it's been held-up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The republicans in the house haven't passed a single Obama budget since 2008. Instead they've opted to pass politically polar budgets that had no hope of passage at the expense of our nation and its economy. Most of their budgetary moves would have caused enconomic havoc (the kind that's been seen in Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, & Britain) due to austerity.

Ummm...you do realize that in a republic that is not how it works...right? The president submits a budget to the Congress indirectly saying this is what he believes he's going to need to run the government. But then the people's true representative the House and (since 1913) the Senate take a look at the proposal and add their own inputs.

From there both side get together and hammer out a deal to get a budget where both sides win. Usually this involves leadership from 1600 Penn. Ave.

Unfortunately that has been lacking from this administration. Obama doesn't want to get involved with the day-to-day deal making that is necessary to get majorities out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. Instead he lets his party leadership in both Houses manage this on their own. So in this way as leader of the Democrats he is a total failure. If he was a Republican I wouldn't vote for him because he's pretty incompetent at the job of governing and being the titular party leader!

As for the Republican budget. Have you heard of quantitative easing? That's the shit between-the-wars-Germany and Zimbabwe did with disasterous results. We've built a house of cards built upon a Social Security surplus that is now rapidly disappearing. We've leveraged government spending not on internal/domestic revenue streams but borrowing from other countries. Our hearts are bigger than our heads and government involvement in healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid & Tricare) are increasing the cost of practicing medicine all the while sucking more money off the government tit.

The time has come for us to stop being big-hearted, naive and even selfish children and pull together as a society and act like responsible adults. This will involve some pain...but not as much as the European PIGS (and yes that's an actual acronymn for Portugal Italy Greece Spain) you mentioned.


The myth of Republican obstructivism is just factually false.
Except when its true. Like, right now.

Sorry Gum...it's not true and you myth: BUSTED.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 21st, 2012 @ 10:51 AM Reply

At 4/20/12 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Finally, since 2007 there has only been one filibuster.

So I'm sorry...but this "fact" is a manipulation of the data, definition and history.

If you'll allow me to pick one nit here. Filibusters don't really happen anymore. They are threatened, and the other side folds. It's more of a symbolic thing, now. One of the problems with the Dems, is that they haven't made the Reps actually DO the filibusters, rather than just back down once one is threatened.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Celx-Requin
Celx-Requin
  • Member since: May. 17, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Artist
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 26th, 2012 @ 10:00 AM Reply

* He has proven himself unable to govern. He promised up a post-partisan Washington...but instead we enter into the last year of his first term more divided than ever. Many of his supporters cling to the narrative that Republicans in Congress have been stoppping his initiatives at every turn. However when he entered office he had atmospheric approval ratings that stretched across the aisle but more importantly he had super-majorities in BOTH Houses of Congress. For the first two years of his administration the Republicans in no way could do anything to stop Democratic policies. The resistance he got...came from the moderates in his own party. If he could not lead when his own party was firmly in control of Congress...how can he do it with a divided legislature?

Political parties have always been cock-blocking each other, so this is a moot point, when Obama said he wanted a post-partisan Washington he obviously was pandering to both parties, knowing full well this wasn't going to be possible, all presidents have done this to some extent. Everybody knows a Post-partisan Washington is bullshit, the reality is a partisan government is the only form of government that really manages to make any significant changes.

Furthermore he was leading when his congress was in "full power", he just didn't feel the need to discuss with the public some of the more ballsier things he did, because I feel he knew that the people that needed to know would find out, and that's the thing I like about Obama, he's a pragmatist.

For example when the seal team 6 mission to kill Osama was a success, I think it was an intelligent decision not to release the photo's of Osamas corpse to the public, because that would have made a martyr out of an asshole. It would have been a popular thing to do, but it also would have been a stupid action because it would has just instigated more violence amongst extremists.

If you prefer take a more obscure example of his leadership on foreign issues, the successful pogrom he had preformed by the Navy Seals on the Somalian pirates that held the American cargo ship hostage, many people have never heard of that... It's because killing and military missions are unpopular, and have repercussions on the global stage, Obama understands this, which is why he prefers to keep things quiet, that's leadership... I should mention this occurred during his first three months of tenure.

Furthermore who do you want to lead the free world? Are there any other candidates you honestly see fit on the republican bench? Is it worth putting a new guy in place, when Obama has done a satisfactory job at WORST?


* He also has a very undistinguished foreign policy record. The relationships with our allies is no stronger than it was in '08. In fact they are very strained with our top three strongest allies: England, Israel and S. Korea. With our adversaries we are a joke (Russia, Iran). The only things he has in terms of success are things any president would have done: using the Navy SeALs to take out Somali pirates and Usama bin Laden. Now I'm not all that convinced that he'll be up to the challenge of working with a post-Jong Il N. Korea.

Well now this is flat out bullshit, I've been a member of the Canadian C-Circle club since I was legally eligible to join, I can tell you with Canadian politicians, and the general public Obama is a very well respected individual, are you insinuating that Canada isn't one of America's strongest allies?

I'm personally offended by this statement given so many of our troops died in a war supporting your country, Canada was one of the last countries to pull out of the war primarily because we understood it's importance. Stephen Harper extended the mission several times not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq which was an extremely unpopular decision, he did this because Canada was in solidarity with the end goal of eradicating a pernicious ideology. I would say Canada is Americas #1 ally, isn't that why Obama chose to visit our Country first?

As for Koreans, I spoke with a personal friend who follows Korean politics, and I've heard nothing but good things about Obama's perception in that region, he's extremely popular with the people there. I can't speak as to whether he's popular with government officials, but any government worth a flying fuck is run by it's people, so the fact he's a well liked individual is very good for Americas "soft power".

Any presidents relationship with your countries enemies will always be shit, if it's not it's because the president did something to make them fear the government, which of course means that course of action would be criticized in another manner.

Frankly I think North Koreas opinion of America doesn't matter, they aren't going to do shit, they make a tiny ruckus to draw attention so they can negotiate for food for their terribly malnourished people. So they aren't a real threat to America in the slightest, although I do sympathize for the people there and I think military action should be taken on them. You're not stupid, so I'm sure you can see that pre-emptive measures would have massive repercussions on South Korea, which is why we aren't able to act now. The North Korean issue is something no president has wanted to touch with a ten foot pole for a long time.


* Obamacare, his signature legacy-legislation, is a Frankenstein bill that he advocated and politiked for...but did not guide its provisions. What he ended up signing into law was a bill that had been cobbled together hap-hazardly. Now the Supreme Court may invalidate it's key provision: the individual mandate. Whatever your veiw on healthcare reform...he didn't lead. He didn't guide. He didn't write or support Democratic lawmakers.

I concur the health care bill could have been handled better, it was a start, but he failed to sell it to the public :(


Anyway, just thought I'd open a new discussion on the 2012 election.

Watch Shark Black HERE Watch CoolJaw HERE

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Apr. 26th, 2012 @ 06:35 PM Reply

At 4/26/12 10:00 AM, Celx-Requin wrote: Political parties have always been cock-blocking each other, so this is a moot point, ...

Umm...no.
1) Yes political parties compete with one another and there is frequent gridlock. A good example of this is the 1995 show-down between Bill Clinton and the Republicans in Congress. This show-down resulted in two government shut-downs. However, from that pissing contest both the president and congressional Republicans learned that this wasn't good public policy and learned the art of the deal and how to compromise with the other side.

Example 2: But sometimes a divided government or strong minority opposition is good for the sitting president. In the 1960s LBJ could NOT have passed his Great Society's civil rights initiatives withOUT Republicans See at this time the Democrats had a terrorist wing of their party: the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). So LBJ had to rely on the Republicans in Congress to pass civil rights bills.

So my point is: a president cannot be ideologically rigid nor can he be rigidly partisan in order to be successful. Obama has failed this test. His first chief of staff was Rham Emanual one of the toughest and staunchest Democratic partisans in the House. Now one of the primary jobs of a chief of staff is to be the president's chief lobbyist on the Hill. He helps the House and Senate leadership keep the party's member voting in line with the president's priorities...and makes deals with the opposition to get things passed. Thus far (with David Axelrod of the Chicago School of Politics succeeding Emanuel) Obama's point men have been the opposite of who a president seeking to reach across party lines would select.

So my point stands.


Furthermore he was leading when his congress was in "full power", he just didn't feel the need to discuss with the public some of the more ballsier things he did, because I feel he knew that the people that needed to know would find out, and that's the thing I like about Obama, he's a pragmatist.

No...that's not being a pragmatist. That's being the opposite of transparent (which he promised) and what a free society should expect from their elected leaders. This is actually one more reason to fire the guy in November.


For example when the seal team 6 mission to kill Osama was a success, I think it was an intelligent decision not to release the photo's of Osamas corpse to the public, because that would have made a martyr out of an asshole. It would have been a popular thing to do, but it also would have been a stupid action because it would has just instigated more violence amongst extremists.

Again...wrong. Speaking as someone who has studied terrorism academically and works in the antiterrorism field...releasing the pictures would not have significantly increased violence. In some ways it may have suppressed it.
1) By not releasing the pictures it allows conspiracy theorists to sell the lie that Usama is still alive and this is some sick CIA/DoD propaganda play.
2) It allows cognative dissonance to develope in the minds of the average extremists. If they see their charismatic hero laying dead...this larger than life dude who killed Soviet generals and took their AK-74s...suddenly they become untouchable.

So no I think Obama made the wrong call here.


If you prefer take a more obscure example of his leadership on foreign issues, the successful pogrom he had preformed by the Navy Seals on the Somalian pirates that held the American cargo ship hostage, many people have never heard of that... It's because killing and military missions are unpopular, and have repercussions on the global stage, Obama understands this, which is why he prefers to keep things quiet, that's leadership... I should mention this occurred during his first three months of tenure.

Again...totally wrong.
1) This is not obscure, maybe forgotten by the average voter by now. But the Maersk Alabama hijacking was front page news here in the US. And when the SeALs took them out...it was front page news. They didn't exactly try to hide it.
2) There was no blowback from this very publicized action. The reason is this was one of those cases where the military action was actually very popular.
3) It was an easy call to make because of its popular support and obvious legality.


Furthermore who do you want to lead the free world? Are there any other candidates you honestly see fit on the republican bench? Is it worth putting a new guy in place, when Obama has done a satisfactory job at WORST?

He has done a horrible job, he is a failure as a president. He lacks significant governing skills because he's an idealist and ideologue who wants to govern from an Ivory Tower unimpeded by the real world. So yeah I think president Romney will be head and shoulders above Obama as a president. Hell...Obama's ineptitude makes Bush look like Lincoln or Jefferson by comparison!


... are you insinuating that Canada isn't one of America's strongest allies?

I think Canada is one of our most important allies, yes. We share a border and many common social traits. However, I wouldn't say you're one of our strongest allies because you don't have much power projection.


I'm personally offended ...

Sounds like a personal problem.


As for Koreans, I spoke with a personal friend who follows Korean politics, and I've heard nothing but good things about Obama's perception in that region, he's extremely popular with the people there. I can't speak as to whether he's popular with government officials, but any government worth a flying fuck is run by it's people, so the fact he's a well liked individual is very good for Americas "soft power".

I am also very familiar with and follow Korean politics. And yes Obama is popular and well liked...but that doesn't mean he's effective. In some of our treaty negotiations with Seoul when he got personally involved...the treaties fell through. I don't give a shit how popular our president is...if he can't do his job. This isn't high school.


Any presidents relationship with your countries enemies will always be shit, if it's not it's because the president did something to make them fear the government, which of course means that course of action would be criticized in another manner.

This is why if the US elects a president further Left than Clinton he will always fail in the foreign policy arena. They just don't understand that the opinions of allies and adversaries matter much. In the international arena it is all about competition...it is a state of anarchy and no such thing as "international law" actually exists.

Instead they are blinded to the fact that "cooperation" is perceived as weakness and even our allies will seek to exploit this weakness and our adversaries will only be encouraged to act out more boldly.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature