Labor Day - Enjoy 25% Off Your Order. Use code: LABORDAY25
November 15, 2010 @ 06:49 PM
Smooth

Post: 42

Join Date: Jan 2009

Best? Iraq is a lot more structured these days, but wtf is up with Afghanistan? I know Obama wants to leave that god awful place, but he IS A PUSSY. His latest visit to Asia was a complete failure and China made him look like an idiot.


Iraq's govt will fall in 10 to 15 years and another Saddam will be born.

China did no such thing. China made Bush look like an idiot for borrowing trillions of future dollars while China was surpassing the US as the world's leading manufacture of goods.

The day you say something that is accurate I will let you know.
November 15, 2010 @ 06:51 PM
Smooth

Post: 42

Join Date: Jan 2009

From Christopher Hitchens article "A War to Be Proud Of"

"You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire." I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem."



"Antaeus was able to draw strength from the earth every time an antagonist wrestled him to the ground. A reverse mythology has been permitted to take hold in the present case, where bad news is deemed to be bad news only for regime-change. Anyone with the smallest knowledge of Iraq knows that its society and infrastructure and institutions have been appallingly maimed and beggared by three decades of war and fascism (and the "divide-and-rule" tactics by which Saddam maintained his own tribal minority of the Sunni minority in power). In logic and morality, one must therefore compare the current state of the country with the likely or probable state of it had Saddam and his sons been allowed to go on ruling.

At once, one sees that all the alternatives would have been infinitely worse, and would most likely have led to an implosion--as well as opportunistic invasions from Iran and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, on behalf of their respective interests or confessional clienteles. This would in turn have necessitated a more costly and bloody intervention by some kind of coalition, much too late and on even worse terms and conditions. This is the lesson of Bosnia and Rwanda yesterday, and of Darfur today. When I have made this point in public, I have never had anyone offer an answer to it. A broken Iraq was in our future no matter what, and was a responsibility (somewhat conditioned by our past blunders) that no decent person could shirk. The only unthinkable policy was one of abstention."



To ignore these facts one has to either lie to ones self or be completely delusional.

The article can be found:
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?page=1



Where are the facts? Quoting Christopher Hitchens' opinion is not fact. In fact quoting Christopher Hitchens' opinion is quoting BS.

Especially since the facts proved Hitchens was and is wrong on nearly every account.
November 15, 2010 @ 06:52 PM
Smooth

Post: 42

Join Date: Jan 2009

PS. Never quote anything from the Meekly Standard. It is a NEOCON propaganda rag.
November 15, 2010 @ 08:47 PM
kush1086

Post: 252

Join Date: May 2010

Where are the facts? Quoting Christopher Hitchens' opinion is not fact. In fact quoting Christopher Hitchens' opinion is quoting BS.

Especially since the facts proved Hitchens was and is wrong on nearly every account.


Hitchens is one of the great writers/journalists of our time, to protest the articles facts because it was in the weekly standard is beyond ridiculous. Everything in that article is factually accurate, we clearly see whom your allegiance lies with by the ignorant comments you have made.
November 15, 2010 @ 09:22 PM
icyice

Post: 66

Join Date: Jan 2010

so many retards
November 15, 2010 @ 11:12 PM
Ryon

Post: 2465

Join Date: May 2008

Location: 818

stop trying to predict the future faggots
November 15, 2010 @ 11:27 PM
blazingazn

Post: 230

Join Date: Sep 2010

i'm canadian we don't care aboot politics.
November 16, 2010 @ 02:41 AM
christianinri

Post: 52

Join Date: Mar 2010

With a majority of the country being liberal i'd say he has a chance but the gap will be a lot closer than the 2008 election.
November 16, 2010 @ 11:44 AM
mrscrouge

Post: 796

Join Date: Jun 2009

Location: Miami

Im not much into politics, but what I have noticed is that at least bush did what he thought was right. how his decisions affected our country is a different discussion. Obama so tries to please everyone that he doesnt end up doing anything at all. He sits around and talks all day long -__-
November 16, 2010 @ 01:01 PM
!OhYesHeDid!

Post: 2114

Join Date: Sep 2007

Location: New York City,By way...

First thing that must be noted is that Bush wasnt in control, Someone controlled him. From the looks of it, it seems Cheny was in charge of much of Washington during Bush's tenure.

Today Barack Obama aka Barry Soetero aka whatever he/it is. Is not in control either. He makes no desicions. Biden or one of his many advisors are more than likely to be pulling the strings.

However its pretty tough to say who runs the Illuminati/Columbian/Bavarion/Washington cesspit. Rest asure it is not the Executive Officer.


As for 2012, whoever the puppet masters want to bring in will be president. If you honestly believe your one little vote determines the presdient of the United States,be honest. Ask yourself right now, if your really qualified to choose a president? If the thing which you believe is the truthful answer is what I believe, NO.

So go figure what the heads in charge think of you and I. As they call us "Gyuam" and or "cattle".
November 16, 2010 @ 02:35 PM
BomberPro

Post: 170

Join Date: Oct 2010

Lol @ presidents saying shit and not doing any of it
November 16, 2010 @ 04:52 PM
BarryGoods

Post: 432

Join Date: Oct 2009

Location: http://www.proverse....

Politics is hard.

Obama got elected during one of the most shittiest times. It's not his fault but I don't think he'll get re elected cause nothing's changed.

People want to see things getting done. Nothings been getting done.

We still broke, we still in iraq, we still got mad taxes, and unemployment is a bitch.

P R O V E R S E | WWW.PROVERSE.COM | INSTAGRAM.COM/PROVERSEGOODS | PPP

November 16, 2010 @ 04:59 PM
Mos

Post: 1135

Join Date: Nov 2010

Location: Coney Island

i hope he does
November 16, 2010 @ 05:28 PM
OmegaSvpreme

Post: 1283

Join Date: Dec 2008

Location: The Hyperion

hopefully not
November 16, 2010 @ 06:20 PM
XionGlydius

Post: 424

Join Date: Mar 2008

I love how bitchmade 90% of Americans are these days.
November 16, 2010 @ 07:44 PM
Constellations

Post: 3054

Join Date: Jan 2010

Location: LeBroward County, Fl...

With a majority of the country being liberal i'd say he has a chance but the gap will be a lot closer than the 2008 election.

wtf are you talking about. America has and to this day been a center-right nation

i think Obama will get reelected if the Reps dont have a more moderate candidate.

\X/

November 17, 2010 @ 08:08 AM
SantaDuJuan

Post: 740

Join Date: Mar 2008

Location: Brooklyn

Politics is hard.

Obama got elected during one of the most shittiest times. It's not his fault but I don't think he'll get re elected cause nothing's changed.

People want to see things getting done. Nothings been getting done.

We still broke, we still in iraq, we still got mad taxes, and unemployment is a bitch.


We're no longer in a recession, we are no longer in combat in Iraq, and taxes. We need more taxes IMO.


wtf are you talking about. America has and to this day been a center-right nation

i think Obama will get reelected if the Reps dont have a more moderate candidate.


America isn't a center right nation, our voting population is. Americans don't vote, specially liberals. It's a big problem of the democratic party. I think Obama will get re elected I mean shit, the Republicans don't have any candidate right now that I think could be Obama.
November 17, 2010 @ 08:53 AM
OmegaSvpreme

Post: 1283

Join Date: Dec 2008

Location: The Hyperion

wtf are you talking about. America has and to this day been a center-right nation

i think Obama will get reelected if the Reps dont have a more moderate candidate.


has, to this day, and will always be a conservative nation. Fuck the far left.
November 17, 2010 @ 11:52 AM
J Son

Post: 254

Join Date: Jul 2010

Location: Philly.

Bush put us into one of the worst economic holes since the great depression.

But I guess we all forgot about that.
November 17, 2010 @ 12:51 PM
kush1086

Post: 252

Join Date: May 2010

Bush put us into one of the worst economic holes since the great depression.

But I guess we all forgot about that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=player_embedded


The aggressive approach to enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) started under Bill Clinton in 1998 and the seemingly endless appetite for paper by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had turned massive amounts of bad loans into mortgage-backed securities to spread their cancer throughout the system. In 2004 a year after the Bush administration tried to tighten regulation and oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress was told yet again that disaster loomed. The Democratic response is instructive to seeing who really sat back and allowed this collapse to occur.
November 17, 2010 @ 01:32 PM
dead7

Post: 13351

Join Date: Mar 2010

Location: The Valley of Killa...

obama=taylor swift both recieved awards they do not deserve


Ya he is only the first black leader of the free world. We should wait and see if he makes anything of himself. suprisedsuprisedsuprisedsuprisedsuprisedsuprised
November 17, 2010 @ 01:45 PM
dead7

Post: 13351

Join Date: Mar 2010

Location: The Valley of Killa...

Obama is nothing more than the fall guy. Whoever was in office right now was gonna have a shitty term period. The small minded have a hard time grasping this concept, and must have a person/place/thing to lay blame on, its just the american way.

That said, his presidency has been "decent" for what he has been faced with. With an exception of the Health care bill (which was an epic fail). Oh and stating how much it would cost without stating how much it is projected to save is an old republican tactic that prays on the stupid.

If you are convinced [B]beyond a resonable doubt [/B]that he is the worst president ever. You know nothing of politics or history and are the GOP's target audience. You also have my sympathy.
November 17, 2010 @ 02:52 PM
THC_In_Me

Post: 170

Join Date: Jan 2009

bullshit. I think they were just making weaponry to protect themselves. how are other countries allowed to create and stock nuclear weapons, which are far more dangerous, but we cant let them have chemical weapons?


your ignorant as fuck
November 17, 2010 @ 02:55 PM
kush1086

Post: 252

Join Date: May 2010


That said, his presidency has been "decent" for what he has been faced with. With an exception of the Health care bill (which was an epic fail). Oh and stating how much it would cost without stating how much it is projected to save is an old republican tactic that prays on the stupid.


Forgive me for not being as optimistic as you but 90+% of the time the Government takes control of something and projects its going to "save" money it ends up costing a substantial amount more...

For example:

In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare - the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled - would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

The 1993 cost of Medicare's home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.

In 2000 Health Care Financing Administration director Nancy-Ann DeParle who now serves as the White House health "czar" estimated that the number of children enrolled in Medicaid would increase by 1 percent a year, rising from 22.6 million in 2000 to 23.8 million in 2005. In reality 29.9 million children or about 26 percent more than projected were enrolled in Medicaid in 2005 Mr. Smith said.
November 17, 2010 @ 03:58 PM
dead7

Post: 13351

Join Date: Mar 2010

Location: The Valley of Killa...

^ not gonna argue that. What im saying is you have to state the full plan for it to make sense and/or be factual.

For example: I have a plan(what doesnt matter) thats gonna cost $5,000 but will recoup $4,000. Saying omg im throwing away $5,000 is inaccurate, im only standing to lose $1,000.
^completely made up numbers

get what i mean?

before the flamers fly in, im not sayin the healthcare bill was good by any means. just want it kept in perspective and not slanted towards the right wing agenda. cool
November 17, 2010 @ 04:23 PM
Hobbes.

Post: 694

Join Date: Feb 2009

Location: Abq, NM

What I find funny is how not-liberal Obama really is. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that he is center-right if anything, yet the GOP paint him as this liberal white knight....

As a registered democrat, Obama is pretty far from my idea of a liberal (esp in his actions). An honest-to-God liberal would make the brains of the right wing melt. Which pretty much highlights my gripe with Obama: he isn't liberal enough for me. He also acts like a huge pussy and not like the leader he should be. Fuck bi-partisanship, the GOP jumped off that boat a long time ago. He needs to whip out that half-black dick of his and just jam his agenda down the throats of republicans, whose only goal currently is to filibuster and slow any progress.

Until he stops bending over backwards (health care bill) for the republicans, he won't be getting my vote in 2012...I just won't show up.
November 17, 2010 @ 04:25 PM
tonysteak

Post: 1231

Join Date: Apr 2009

Location: stankonia

your ignorant as fuck


stfu ♥♥♥♥♥. so are you for not giving a reason. you just wanted another post. and how are you going to call me ignorant and you can't even use the right form of "you're"?

What I find funny is how not-liberal Obama really is. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that he is center-right if anything, yet the GOP paint him as this liberal white knight....


this^ what people don't understand is that for a president to even stand a chance at winning an election, they have to be more centrist than anything. any president thats too liberal or too conservative will never win, because a majority of the voters are in between the two ideologies. people on one side will accuse obama of being socialist because he seems too liberal to a conservative, and people used to accuse mccain of being a nazi because he seemed too conservative to a liberal. in truth, they're not too far from each other on the issues; thats why they always give similar answers to questions in debates.

We're no longer in a recession, we are no longer in combat in Iraq, and taxes. We need more taxes IMO.


lol wat

www.twitter.com/tonysteak

November 17, 2010 @ 04:47 PM
kush1086

Post: 252

Join Date: May 2010

^ not gonna argue that. What im saying is you have to state the full plan for it to make sense and/or be factual.

For example: I have a plan(what doesnt matter) thats gonna cost $5,000 but will recoup $4,000. Saying omg im throwing away $5,000 is inaccurate, im only standing to lose $1,000.
^completely made up numbers

get what i mean?

before the flamers fly in, im not sayin the healthcare bill was good by any means. just want it kept in perspective and not slanted towards the right wing agenda. cool



It is basically impossible for the Government to actually calculate the cost of any program. The Government almost always underestimates the cost of a program. Weather the proposed program is put forth from Republicans or Democrats it doesn't matter, the program almost always exceeds the cost of what is projected. For party X to argue program X is going to cost the taxpayers X amount of dollars is a legit argument, there is no need to mention the "savings" because we all know when the government has control of a program there is almost always no savings. It is fair for party X to be able to do this if they use the low ball "projected" cost number put forth from the legislators of the proposed program(or even the the "non-partisan" cbo) because as I already stated program X is almost always going to end up costing a lot more than it could ever save. There is no need for the opposing party to mention the magical amount "saved" because almost always there inst going to be any amount saved.
November 17, 2010 @ 04:58 PM
dead7

Post: 13351

Join Date: Mar 2010

Location: The Valley of Killa...

It is basically impossible for the Government to actually calculate the cost of any program. The Government almost always underestimates the cost of a program. Weather the proposed program is put forth from Republicans or Democrats it doesn't matter, the program almost always exceeds the cost of what is projected. For party X to argue program X is going to cost the taxpayers X amount of dollars is a legit argument, there is no need to mention the "savings" because we all know when the government has control of a program there is almost always no savings. It is fair for party X to be able to do this if they use the low ball "projected" cost number put forth from the legislators of the proposed program(or even the the "non-partisan" cbo) because as I already stated program X is almost always going to end up costing a lot more than it could ever save. There is no need for the opposing party to mention the magical amount "saved" because almost always there inst going to be any amount saved.


well arn't you just the posterboy for optimism. lol

I can't debate the fact that our government will fail to recoup any of the money invested. But i will say it would be nice for us to be wrong about our government for once. smile

Please login first to reply.
Back To Top