Let's have that political discussion.

[Darwoth]

i love the "bush lied thousands died blar glar glar" morons, do you want to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gas like many euro countries?

do you know what that would do to the price of milk? an apple? a box of nails for your deck?

who gives a ***** whether the war was over oil or not, as far as i am concerned protecting our oil interests is a far more valid reason for war than "liberating the iraqi people"

[Thor]

i love the "bush lied thousands died blar glar glar" morons, do you want to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gas like many euro countries?

do you know what that would do to the price of milk? an apple? a box of nails for your deck?

who gives a ***** whether the war was over oil or not, as far as i am concerned protecting our oil interests is a far more valid reason for war than "liberating the iraqi people"

+10 Dollars per gallon here (1,7€ per liter) is definitely not funny.

[Darwoth]

yep, and in our country where all of the day to day supplies people need (especially food!) are shipped by truck freight thousands of miles across the country ***** like claeyt who are busy sitting in a tent and ***** in a bucket in a city park ***** about how nobody will pay their 30 thousand dollar student loan for their unemployable liberal arts degree would be the FIRST ones pissing and moaning that all of their other expenses have tripled.

[MagicManICT]

(charts)

I'm not even going to try to defend Obama's record, but what about Congress's role in all of this? After all, the worst congress in history was called the "Do Nothing Congress" because they couldn't get much anything done and the nation stagnated because of it. This congress is on a record pace of getting even less done, and in the middle of an extended recession. (Actually a depression by definition according to a few statements I've read by some economists. Who am I to argue with a professional?)

Also, what did some of these numbers look like under FDR? I'm sure some of those numbers were much worse under a president who is considered one of the greatest in the history of the US. Perspective is such a wonderful thing. Even if you can't call the Congresses serving during FDR and the Great Depression cooperative, they at least tried to get something done and backed up the President when the time came.

[MagicManICT]

who gives a ***** whether the war was over oil or not, as far as i am concerned protecting our oil interests is a far more valid reason for war than "liberating the iraqi people"

Because gas prices have gotten so much cheaper since the ousting of Saddam Hussein? Because the US and Canada don't have billions (or whatever that large number is) of barrels of oil trapped in tar sands and shale that were considered too expensive and dirty to tap until we started fighting these wars?

[Darwoth]

i am not going to waste my time playing the tit for tat game, simple fact is if we did not protect our oil interests the country would turn to **** overnight. thus the reason we deployed our military to go stand around in a 130 degree ***** all day and risk being blown up to keep the savages from cutting each others heads off and destabilizing the region to the point where oil cannot be produced.

the united states does not tap the reserves not because it is to expensive but rather because why tap our oil reserves when we can tap/buy those in the middle east and preserve our own? because you bleeding hearts think it is
"wrong"? should i just ignore the guy with 100 legacy humus in his shack and instead use min until i have nothing left to?

grow up.

you do realize that there were numerous attempts to open further drilling in alaska but it was fought tooth and nail by environmentalist liberals, those same liberals are now ***** that after they succeeded in making local drilling so over regulated to not be viable we now have to shoot people to protect the supply elsewhere.

furthermore i do not think the arabs that sell us said oil are complaining much about the fact they have been made so rich they are building indoor ski slopes in the middle of the desert, especially when the alternative would be that like their neighbors they would still be living in mud huts eating goats.

war has been about seizing and maintaining power since the dawn of time, still is. deal with it.

[Darwoth]

they at least tried to get something done and backed up the President when the time came.

"backing up the president" in this administration would mean the complete and utter disintegration of the american way of life, thats why.

[Ikpeip]

(charts)

I'm not even going to try to defend Obama's record, but what about Congress's role in all of this? After all, the worst congress in history was called the "Do Nothing Congress" because they couldn't get much anything done and the nation stagnated because of it. This congress is on a record pace of getting even less done, and in the middle of an extended recession. (Actually a depression by definition according to a few statements I've read by some economists. Who am I to argue with a professional?)

Also, what did some of these numbers look like under FDR? I'm sure some of those numbers were much worse under a president who is considered one of the greatest in the history of the US. Perspective is such a wonderful thing. Even if you can't call the Congresses serving during FDR and the Great Depression cooperative, they at least tried to get something done and backed up the President when the time came.

Some people have a very different consideration of FDR than you and your friends do. Assuming this thread is for the present, I'll leave it at that.

Trying to blame the current administration's failings on an uncooperative congress is not a serious argument. The federal government is divided into three branches as a safeguard - it is the duty of Congress to serve as a counterweight to the executive branch. You've been taught this in school. Obama's proposals have been to expand the government (and make it much more intrusive), without offering much in the way of addressing economic concerns. If Republicans believed in his solutions, they would vote for them. If they don't believe in them, they have a duty to "obstruct" them.

Everything in my post was backed up with either numbers, charts, and facts. Would you mind likewise providing some specifics for your claim? What are some specific proposals from Obama's administration that Congress obstructed? Can you convince me they should have been passed? Can you make a convincing argument that they would be beneficial for the country?

Related reading:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_myth_of_obamas_centrism_117898.html
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114206/republican-obstructionism-ideological-or-partisan
http://pjmedia.com/blog/harry-reid-obama-sell-myth-of-gop-obstructing-judicial-nominations/
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Myth-of-Republican-Obstructionism

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[Claeyt]

Wall of Text incoming:

Quit? Quit what? You mean I quit responding to your diarrhea of the mouth? Do you think I quit the game because I could not handle being crushed by your irrefutable Marxist logic, just as multiple players supposedly "rage quit" after reading about Jorb's political beliefs? Also feeling the need to prove the point by sending me PMs where you wrote both players quit many weeks after Jorb's post? After you made a (somewhat) conciliatory post, I decided to leave it at that.

Haven't heard from you in a while. Thought you quit.

A couple of points:
1) Your political beliefs, which you aligned to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, are not mainstream. They are far to the left of President Obama.
2) Your consistent misrepresentation of my arguments is "borderline" slander. The argument was over whether IQ was determined primarily by genetics or by environment. You brought up race in nearly every post, and I ignored it to the best of my ability. As to violence, I only made two assertions. One, men are genetically more prone to violence than women. I offered the example of male chimpanzees (our closest relatives) being far more violent than female chimps. It is not only culture that determines that men commit 75%-90% of the violent crime in every country. That you implied disagreement with this is mind blowing. Two, I stated it is not proven that genetics play no role in propensity to violence. If you argued that culture and environment play a more important role than genetics, I probably would agree (I am not nearly as familiar with the relevant evidence here, so can't say for sure.) It is even possible that genetics play no role whatsoever (I doubt it,) but it is not proven. But that is how you argue- you make statements as though they are objective fact when they are indeed either highly subjective or simply objectively false.

You referenced 'The Bell Curve' and defended it's flawed analysis and research concerning race and intelligence. I simply stated that your ideas about race, genetics and intelligence are wrong and borderline racist. You can tip-toe around the argument all you want but you're siding with Darwoth's and the white right wing parties of Europe and America when you try and defend the idea that racial superiotity is a factor in either intelligence, violence or culture.

Reagan led us into multiple wars including Grenada, Iran, and also bombing Libya. His soft Libyan campaign led to solidifying Quadafi in power for the next 30 years.

Objectively false on two counts. The US did not go to war in Iran under Reagan. Do you mean they armed and encouraged Saddam Hussein to go to war with Iran? If that's what you meant, why didn't you say so? Quadafi did not stay in power for another 30 years. The US bombed Libya in 1986, and Quadafi was killed in 2011. That's about 25 years. Sure, not that big a deal, but it simply illustrates your contempt for facts and accuracy. The subjective part, that bombing Libya probably strengthened Quadafi internally, I would agree with though.

Okay, 25 years then.

The mistaken Iraqi attack on a US naval vessel while defending against the Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti oil Tankers for their support of Hussein and the U.S. subsequent attack on all Iranian naval bases and offshore oil production facilities while also reflagging Kuwaiti oil tankers as US naval vessels is called 'The Tanker Wars' here in the U.S. It happened in 1987-88, and technically was an act of war with Iran.

This doesn't even mention Reagan's continued support and massive arms sales to Saddam Hussein while he was using chemical weapons to kill Iranians and Kurds. Insert picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein here.

Reagan illegally sold missiles to Iran and secretly funneled the money into several Central-American mercenary groups solely supported by the American Government to support right wing dictatorships throughout the region. These anit-leftist campaigns of Reagan killed over 200,000 people through out these countries.

Fairly close to being objectively false. The extent of Reagan's personal involvement in Iran Contra is up to historical debate. Your figure of it causing over 200,000 deaths, assumes there would have been no deaths if the US had not financed "anti-leftist campaigns," and exculpates the Central American leftists (along with Cuba and the Soviet Union,) of any responsibility. If you think these anti leftist had no popular domestic support, I suggest you take at a look at the elections after peace deals were signed. Notice, I am not defending the Contras as great defenders of liberty or something, merely pointing out that your representation is willfully inaccurate. For someone who accuses Larry Summers of being "simplistic"....

Currently the Sandinistas have been re-elected in Nicaragua. They were banned from running by the peace treaty immediately after the war ended.

As for El Salvador and the rest of Central America (Hell, let's throw in Chile and Argentina) who knows what would have happened if those right wing governments hadn't been supported by Reagan and the Republican Party.

As for Reagan's personal involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, he was the president of the United States of America. Are you really arguing that he didn't know about it?

Reagan had the largest growth in the American national debt in both the total amount in dollars and also as a % of GDP of any American President before or since. Number two is George W. Bush.

Objectively false on all counts. The easiest refutation is the debt when FDR left office. Sure, with WWII to fight, it makes sense that he would run up the debt, but again you make blanket statements that are simply not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ublic_debt

You're right, I should have said:

Reagan had the largest growth within the budgets that he signed and created of the American national debt in both the total amount in dollars and also as a % of GDP of any American President since WWII. Number two are the budgets that were created and signed by George W. Bush.

Reaganomics and free-trade has gutted 1/3 of the American Middle Class since 1980.

Marxist drivel, not supported by evidence. Reaganomics was far less radical than you have been led to believe- go google liberal Paul Krugman and Reaganomics for his take to see how over the top your statement is. As to free trade, I suggest you and all your Occupy friends sign up for an economics class at your local community college, before spouting nonsense. I am not going to explain it here, but suffice it to say that globalization, free(r) trade, and increased economic liberalism in the developing world, ie everything Occupy is against, have lifted over a billion people out of crushing third world poverty in the last 25 or so years. I suppose you don't care about these people though, because a lot of them are brown/yellow. You're a racist.

Free Trade without equal labor and workplace rights has destroyed the American working middle class. We've given most favored nation status to China which has none of those, and we're seeing the results of that free trade right now in this country and in much of Western Europe.

Reaganomics is very radical and does not work according to the CBO.

Labor force participation has declined under Obama because we've been in a massive recession.

Obama has only had one budget passed in his 4 and a half years in office. Bush's budget's accounted for some of that. Bush's deficit's were worse.

Are you seriously trying to blame Obama and not Bush for the Economy?

The Benghazi Incident is nothing compared to Bush's mistakes: The Iraq War, Katrina, CIA black sites and torture sites just to name a few.

Obama's foreign policy is fine. Bush alienated the world.

The IRS targeting was done by a Republican IRS director and have proven to be nothing. The right is using it as a political football even thought it's been proven to be nothing.

Our current health care system is an embarrassment and so much worse and more expensive than any other Western industrial nation that it's obscene. Obamacare is an imperfect fix to the problem that was developed by Right-wing think tanks. We have much more to do to fix the American healthcare system but Obamacare was a start.

Fast and Furious and the NSA breach of the 4th amendment all started under Bush. Fast and Furious fell apart after Obama was elected and was a giant ***** from Bush to Obama. The NSA spying on the American people and the people of the world did get worse under Obama. I've always stated that I do not support the President on this matter and that I believe that Snowden is a whistle blower who deserves our respect for what he's done for the 'Human Condition'. I've publicly talked to and written to my representatives. All of them voted for the recent FISA revamp and to reign in the Patriot Act, in fact I voted many times for the single Senator who voted against the Patriot Act in that historical 99-1 vote that created the Patriot Act. I've met him in person several times before and since and once worked for his campaign. I will continue to support candidates like him. I believe that the American government including Obama are going to change how the NSA works.

yep, and in our country where all of the day to day supplies people need (especially food!) are shipped by truck freight thousands of miles across the country ***** like claeyt who are busy sitting in a tent and ***** in a bucket in a city park ***** about how nobody will pay their 30 thousand dollar student loan for their unemployable liberal arts degree would be the FIRST ones pissing and moaning that all of their other expenses have tripled.

Most of the Country is over $4 a gallon here. People forget that America is an exporter of gasoline and will soon be importing less than half our oil. Between the Canadian Tar Sands and the North Dakota Shale find we now have access to the 2 largest new oil productions in the last 40 years. This doesn't even take into account any of the massive new natural gas finds. We don't need Alaskan oil right now. It's not an easy patch and never will be. European countries don't have access to any of this for the most part. They also tax their gasoline at a much higher rate than us. This is why it's more there.

i am not going to waste my time playing the tit for tat game, simple fact is if we did not protect our oil interests the country would turn to **** overnight. thus the reason we deployed our military to go stand around in a 130 degree ***** all day and risk being blown up to keep the savages from cutting each others heads off and destabilizing the region to the point where oil cannot be produced.

Yes, you are correct. We went to war in Iraq for oil. That is why we were misled into that massive failure by Bush and Cheney.

"backing up the president" in this administration would mean the complete and utter disintegration of the american way of life, thats why.

'The American Way of Life' as you believe it should be, with all it's white male leaders, right wing reaganonsense died a long time ago. Get over it. This 'American Way of Life' that exists now is multi-cultural, feminist, leftist and progressive. The only way your party can hold on to power is by trying to make it harder for poor people, college students and minorities to vote. The right wing of American politics has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. Get used to it.

[Darwoth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faU-lqGWgiM