The Upside of an Obama Whitehouse

[quote]Odogg wrote:
Obama is the Lebron of politics. Let’s hope he plays in the big leagues like him! At least McLame and that Moran from Wasilla can go back to being regular Joe’s. hahahaha[/quote]

Can we trade him? Maybe we can trade him to Ireland straight up for the folks who realized the genius of cutting the corporate income tax over there.

He said “Moran.”

Anyways. Can’t think of an upside, sorry.

[quote]Floortom wrote:
CRA loans were so miniscule in magnitude and actually had a lower default rate than non-CRA loans. These are the indisputable facts and have been posted here numerous times before. This was not the fault of the republicans or democrats–it was the fault of bankers with awful risk management practices. The American banking system has turned into a joke.

LOL@ you simple and moronic partisan hacks who need to blame “them” (the clique that you dont belong to).[/quote]

you are completely wrong about CRA’s impact on this mess. we have been through this several times on this forum. you obviously have no understanding of the situation, basic economics, the business cycle, and no capacity to use logic and reason.

You ever here the phrase “don’t hate the player, hate the game”?

[quote]SSC wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
SSC wrote:
jawara wrote:
BO is a gun grabber that scares the shit out of me.

Higher taxes arent going to fix anything either. If anything they will makes things worse.

You DO know that the Second Amendment was only ever made so American citizens could protect themselves from British forces in the 1700’s, right? To say that the Amendment has lost all of its true meaning and merit is a huge understatement. I hope we see some gun reformation laws and all of their lobbyist supporters (see: NRA) squirm in their seats.

Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

What an absolutely ignorant fucking statement. Good grief.

EDIT: I just seen that you’re listed as being from Michigan. What an embarrassment to the rest of us Michiganders. I’m betting you’re from the Detroit area, that would explain your douchebaggery a little.

Don’t worry, I’m not even going to fuck with politics, and you won’t see me respond to any further inquiries about my post. I’m no politcal expert, nor do I wish to be, so I won’t even bother.

Plus I’d rather bow out now than listen to a bunch of right-wing conservative crybabies bitch and whine about things THAT THEY CAN’T DO SHIT ABOUT. You guys had eight wonderfully successful years, great job. It’s almost over though, so get over it.

Oh, and with your political ideologies, I’d guess you were from fucking Indiana, you shit-talking internet fuck. Ooh, I can wag my dick too. And no, I’m not from the fucking east side.[/quote]

You haven’t spent much time here. Most of the people you probably consider right-wing conservative cry babies are Libertarians. Most here are not happy with republicans either. Most of the intellegent poster on this forum have allegence only to the constitution and ideals this country was founded on. You won’t find much love for the republican party here.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
You haven’t spent much time here. Most of the people you probably consider right-wing conservative cry babies are Libertarians. Most here are not happy with republicans either. Most of the intelligent poster on this forum have allegiance only to the constitution and ideals this country was founded on. You won’t find much love for the republican party here.[/quote]

cough
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/treatment_of_bush_is_a_disgrace

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
<<< Finally the era of gradualism is over and the masks are going to come off. The USA has voted for statism and it is going to get exactly what it voted for at a juncture in history where it will very quickly be impossible to hide the cost of those votes >>>[/quote]

This is what I’ve been saying this whole time with my only wish being that the devout nanny state faithful simply cease and desist their pointless campaign of denial.

This guy hit it on the head. The statist Obama has been elected in the foundationally non statist USA. Why is this so tough on people. If you don’t like this country and want to transform it into a collectivist utopia just say so and we can talk like grown ups, but please already with the idiotic attempt to define historic America in Obamanite terms.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
SSC wrote:
Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

And knives. And rope. And cars (actually, a LOT more with cars). And their bare hands. And round house kicks. And shovels. And baseball bats. And poisons. And pillows.

Really, you can stop me at any time…

[/quote]

I just wanted to add rocks. These are common yet lethal according to stone age records. Carry on.

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
SSC wrote:
Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

And knives. And rope. And cars (actually, a LOT more with cars). And their bare hands. And round house kicks. And shovels. And baseball bats. And poisons. And pillows.

Really, you can stop me at any time…

I just wanted to add rocks. These are common yet lethal according to stone age records. Carry on.[/quote]

The US murder rate in 1993 was 9.93 per 100,000. Of these, 7.07 per 100,000 are due to guns. 39% of homes had guns. In France, the homicide rate was only 1.12 deaths per 100,000. Guns are more commonly lethal than rocks. Feel free to finder newer numbers, they will probably show a similar trend. It a lot harder for most people to kill with rocks, bare hands, round house kicks, etc.

I am not advocating revoking the 2nd Amendment, but I am pointing out that we are paying for this right with tens of thousands of homicides every year.

data from 3 Patterns of Firearm-Related Violence | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |The National Academies Press

[quote]SSC wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
SSC wrote:
jawara wrote:
BO is a gun grabber that scares the shit out of me.

Higher taxes arent going to fix anything either. If anything they will makes things worse.

You DO know that the Second Amendment was only ever made so American citizens could protect themselves from British forces in the 1700’s, right? To say that the Amendment has lost all of its true meaning and merit is a huge understatement. I hope we see some gun reformation laws and all of their lobbyist supporters (see: NRA) squirm in their seats.

Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

What an absolutely ignorant fucking statement. Good grief.

EDIT: I just seen that you’re listed as being from Michigan. What an embarrassment to the rest of us Michiganders. I’m betting you’re from the Detroit area, that would explain your douchebaggery a little.

Don’t worry, I’m not even going to fuck with politics, and you won’t see me respond to any further inquiries about my post. I’m no politcal expert, nor do I wish to be, so I won’t even bother.

Plus I’d rather bow out now than listen to a bunch of right-wing conservative crybabies bitch and whine about things THAT THEY CAN’T DO SHIT ABOUT. You guys had eight wonderfully successful years, great job. It’s almost over though, so get over it.

Oh, and with your political ideologies, I’d guess you were from fucking Indiana, you shit-talking internet fuck. Ooh, I can wag my dick too. And no, I’m not from the fucking east side.[/quote]

You seem upset that I called you out on your ignorance; oh well, I just call 'em as I see 'em. Based on your response, I’d say I struck a nerve didn’t I sparky. Re read my post, apply a little reading comprehension, and you will arrive at the fact that I simply called out your ignorance, and never really delved into the arena of “dick wagging”.

Now run along and read up on your secind amendment rights. It’d do you a world of good.

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
SSC wrote:
Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

And knives. And rope. And cars (actually, a LOT more with cars). And their bare hands. And round house kicks. And shovels. And baseball bats. And poisons. And pillows.

Really, you can stop me at any time…

I just wanted to add rocks. These are common yet lethal according to stone age records. Carry on.

The US murder rate in 1993 was 9.93 per 100,000. Of these, 7.07 per 100,000 are due to guns. 39% of homes had guns. In France, the homicide rate was only 1.12 deaths per 100,000. Guns are more commonly lethal than rocks. Feel free to finder newer numbers, they will probably show a similar trend. It a lot harder for most people to kill with rocks, bare hands, round house kicks, etc.

I am not advocating revoking the 2nd Amendment, but I am pointing out that we are paying for this right with tens of thousands of homicides every year.

data from 3 Patterns of Firearm-Related Violence | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |The National Academies Press

[/quote]

The elimination of guns won’t necessarily mean homicides will go down. There are a lot of murders done with knives, baseball bats, pipes, hit and runs, choked to death, getting beaten to death with bare hands isn’t unheard of at all and wouldn’t be as hard as you think, rocks or any solid object would kill someone easy too. Weapons of any kind are only as dangerous as the wielder.

[quote]SSC wrote:
jawara wrote:
BO is a gun grabber that scares the shit out of me.

Higher taxes arent going to fix anything either. If anything they will makes things worse.

You DO know that the Second Amendment was only ever made so American citizens could protect themselves from British forces in the 1700’s, right? To say that the Amendment has lost all of its true meaning and merit is a huge understatement. I hope we see some gun reformation laws and all of their lobbyist supporters (see: NRA) squirm in their seats.

Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.[/quote]

You are an idiot. The 2nd amendment was also so people could defend themselves because there were vast wilderness areas and no police. The Supreme court in Heller ruled that one of the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment was so people could defend themselves.

With the economy hitting hard times crime is going to go up, the last thing we need now is gun control. Gun control will cause a blood bath.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
SSC wrote:
jawara wrote:
BO is a gun grabber that scares the shit out of me.

Higher taxes arent going to fix anything either. If anything they will makes things worse.

You DO know that the Second Amendment was only ever made so American citizens could protect themselves from British forces in the 1700’s, right? To say that the Amendment has lost all of its true meaning and merit is a huge understatement. I hope we see some gun reformation laws and all of their lobbyist supporters (see: NRA) squirm in their seats.

Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

What an absolutely ignorant fucking statement. Good grief.

EDIT: I just seen that you’re listed as being from Michigan. What an embarrassment to the rest of us Michiganders. I’m betting you’re from the Detroit area, that would explain your douchebaggery a little.

[/quote]

He doesn’t live south of 8 mile that is for sure. He probably lives in Birmingham where the cops usually have nothing to do but right speeding tickets and will immediately respond in force to 911 calls and not leave you hanging like the Detroit cops.

[quote]SSC wrote:
jawara wrote:
BO is a gun grabber that scares the shit out of me.

Higher taxes arent going to fix anything either. If anything they will makes things worse.

You DO know that the Second Amendment was only ever made so American citizens could protect themselves from British forces in the 1700’s, right? To say that the Amendment has lost all of its true meaning and merit is a huge understatement. I hope we see some gun reformation laws and all of their lobbyist supporters (see: NRA) squirm in their seats.

Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.[/quote]

This is straight from the United States Constitution:
(you know, the country I assume you reside and enjoy the freedoms it has to offer)

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If you don’t know what infringed means, it means “to violate, transgress, encroach, trespass”.

I don’t see anything that states that this was ALL about protecting us from the British. As you probably noticed this amendment was ratified in 1791, ten years after General Cornwallis surrendered (not personally) to General Washington at Yorktown, October 19th, 1781. The treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, bringing the offical end to the war. As you can see this had nothing to do with the British, seeing as the war was already over.

But you DO know that the right to bear arms wasn’t actually our idea, it was actually from the English. It goes way back, several centuries back, before firearms of course. But the protestant colonists did have the right to bear firearms under the English Bill of Rights 1689:

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.”

Of course this would, as we know, backfire on the British nearly a hundred years later. Now if this right were to be taken away, then what would stop them from taking away or from “changing” some of the other bill of rights? Here you can read up on the constitution from this site or find your own resources to learn it and start reading up on some history. It’s always good to learn something new.

[quote]vroom wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:

Explain to me how pushing lending to unqualified borrowers is the Republicans’ fault.

That is nowhere near the whole story… and Bush had eight years to do something about it… if he had thought it was a problem![/quote]

It was the democrats who pushed all the loans to low income borrowers that caused the mortgage meltdown. Barney Frank and Acorn were the primary culprits driving this. Obama was a lawyer for acorn who sued to get those high risk loans out there.

Obama is going to compound the problems if he follows through on his campaign pledges.

Obama says he is going to help the economy by giving tax breaks to new businesses. Most new businesses fail in their first year. He is going to be giving breaks to people who probably won’t be in business for more than a year at the expense of businesses that have survived the first year.

It’s a bad move, he needs to help existing small businesses survive.

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
SSC wrote:
Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

And knives. And rope. And cars (actually, a LOT more with cars). And their bare hands. And round house kicks. And shovels. And baseball bats. And poisons. And pillows.

Really, you can stop me at any time…

I just wanted to add rocks. These are common yet lethal according to stone age records. Carry on.

The US murder rate in 1993 was 9.93 per 100,000. Of these, 7.07 per 100,000 are due to guns. 39% of homes had guns. In France, the homicide rate was only 1.12 deaths per 100,000. Guns are more commonly lethal than rocks. Feel free to finder newer numbers, they will probably show a similar trend. It a lot harder for most people to kill with rocks, bare hands, round house kicks, etc.

I am not advocating revoking the 2nd Amendment, but I am pointing out that we are paying for this right with tens of thousands of homicides every year.

data from 3 Patterns of Firearm-Related Violence | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |The National Academies Press

[/quote]

Those statistics are over fifteen years old. The latest figure I have seen is 5.9 per 100,000. Murder rates in some of the those other countries have gone way up since they brought in gun control.

It is amazing just how ignorant of the realities of the American inner city many Americans are. Half of Americas total murders is black on black violence.

Blacks are 7 times more likely to be murdered than whites. White communities are not suffering those high murder rates. Even middle class black communities don’t have such high murder rates. The muder rate amongst whites is not much different from France.

It is poor people in the ghetto fighting over drug turf that is responsible for most of Americas murders. The war on drugs is what is causing this not gun ownership.

If gun ownership really was the problem then murder rates would be high all across the country and they are not. But if you go into the crack neighborhoods they are. Why? Because the war on drugs is being fought there and war means casualties of war.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You seem upset that I called you out on your ignorance; oh well, I just call 'em as I see 'em. Based on your response, I’d say I struck a nerve didn’t I sparky. Re read my post, apply a little reading comprehension, and you will arrive at the fact that I simply called out your ignorance, and never really delved into the arena of “dick wagging”.

Now run along and read up on your secind amendment rights. It’d do you a world of good.[/quote]

No, I “seem” upset because I actually tried to take a shot in politics, and three internet tough guys like you that all in a row basically pointed and said “Hey, you’re a fucking dumbass!” I guess it never really dawned on any of you to take the time to explain why I was wrong, because looking like an internet badass is way more fun than discussing where my information went wrong. I guess that’s just some crazy Marxist human philosophy I have though - Helping others when they’re not knowledgeable! I bet the thought never even went through your thick fucking skull to address where I went wrong, because shitting on my people is much more productive, right? Whatever gets you off at the end of t he day though, dude. I guess I just don’t understand when people went from being humanitarians to being jackasses constantly. It’s people like you that keep me from trying to learn more about politics.

And responding to you and Sifu: It’s a bit comical you keep trying to pinpoint where I’m from in MI, yet none of you will even come out and say where you’re from. Internet toughguyism prevails again.

And p.s. - If all you do is post on a Political forum, why the fuck are you on a bodybuilding website?

[quote]jayski wrote:
This is straight from the United States Constitution:
(you know, the country I assume you reside and enjoy the freedoms it has to offer)

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If you don’t know what infringed means, it means “to violate, transgress, encroach, trespass”.

I don’t see anything that states that this was ALL about protecting us from the British. As you probably noticed this amendment was ratified in 1791, ten years after General Cornwallis surrendered (not personally) to General Washington at Yorktown, October 19th, 1781. The treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, bringing the offical end to the war. As you can see this had nothing to do with the British, seeing as the war was already over.

But you DO know that the right to bear arms wasn’t actually our idea, it was actually from the English. It goes way back, several centuries back, before firearms of course. But the protestant colonists did have the right to bear firearms under the English Bill of Rights 1689:

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.”

Of course this would, as we know, backfire on the British nearly a hundred years later. Now if this right were to be taken away, then what would stop them from taking away or from “changing” some of the other bill of rights? Here you can read up on the constitution from this site or find your own resources to learn it and start reading up on some history. It’s always good to learn something new.

http://usconstitution.net/const.html[/quote]

Hey, I appreciate the info. Although my information was definitely wrong, (a swing and a miss for No Child Left Behind!) I was more trying to point out the fact that the second amendment IS outdated and essentially unaltered due to essentially the strongest lobbyist presence in the country.

Although I in no way think the actual right to own a gun should be revoked, I think it’s a bit silly that people claim to feel unsafe enough to own a gun, because you can a stroll through Texas and every third ornery bastard down there is packing heat on them. That makes me feel really comfortable.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
SSC wrote:
Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

And knives. And rope. And cars (actually, a LOT more with cars). And their bare hands. And round house kicks. And shovels. And baseball bats. And poisons. And pillows.

Really, you can stop me at any time…[/quote]

When the government bans pillows, then only the criminals will have pillows.

[quote]dhickey wrote:

You haven’t spent much time here. Most of the people you probably consider right-wing conservative cry babies are Libertarians. Most here are not happy with republicans either. Most of the intellegent poster on this forum have allegence only to the constitution and ideals this country was founded on. You won’t find much love for the republican party here.[/quote]

Cha-ching.

I only supported McCain because his presidency would only be about half as bad as Obama’s is going to be. (And actually I didn’t even vote for McCain.)

If taxes are still raised, it will only deepen the recession, and slow the recovery. When taxes go up, people take actions that reduce the tax implications. Such as tax exempt bonds, and keeping profits on paper.

As tax burdens lighten, people are less likely to take actions to avoid taxes. So this is one of the reasons tax revenue jumped when Bush cut taxes.

Now if he gets his programs through, we will see the national debt skyrocket, making people remember the Bush years as a frugal time.

The might spin it to make it look like the cause was Bush. (Just like they are now.) But the results are going to be a big shift to the right.

I think it will be very unlikely that Obama gets re-elected.

[quote]vroom wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:

Explain to me how pushing lending to unqualified borrowers is the Republicans’ fault.

That is nowhere near the whole story… and Bush had eight years to do something about it… if he had thought it was a problem![/quote]

Gimme a break Vroom. You obviously have not read up on this situation…Bush and the Republicans do not get a pass either. There are deregulatory efforts they supported that contributed as well as bipartisian regulatory efforts.

But the Republicans DID try to stop the Democrat push to lend to unqualified borrowers. And they were unsuccessful. Democrats unfortunately prevailed on this isssue.