TheJoe03: Plus you have no idea what you're talking about, socialism is something this country already does (mixed economy, duh) and something I support as long as it is mixed with a free market system (like every western nation has). I'm more left than right on economic issues anyway, so stop talking out of your ass you partisan dude (wanted to say hack or idiot, but I've never had no issues with your other comments on this site, especially the sports tab).

I might've confused you with that other guy, but I still take issue with your position that there are some sort of shadow entities in the government that are telling Obama not to change anything. That's treading into RON PAUL territory and hence why I made the reference about the reptilians.

cameroncrazy1984: You assume? Come on. You can't be assuming that there is corruption at the highest levels of government without any actual evidence.

You said that people are telling Obama not to change anything, and I want to know who that is and what they're saying. Is that so hard to do?

Dude, just stop it, you are grasping at straws. I'm done, you keep moving the goalposts, you are a walking fallacy. Want to throw another strawman out? How about calling me a tea bagger or something else that makes no sense.

/talking to the one idiot that thinks the government does not contain corruption or is ruled by special interests, what a joke. go to bed.

cameroncrazy1984: I might've confused you with that other guy, but I still take issue with your position that there are some sort of shadow entities in the government that are telling Obama not to change anything. That's treading into RON PAUL territory and hence why I made the reference about the reptilians.

The Democratic elite, the DEA, the FDA, the military, and Wall Street are not shadow entities, they run our govt pretty openly if you haven't noticed. Keep thinking everything is honky dory while Romney and Obama getting millions from anonymous sources in order to get elected. That's just the tip of the damn ice berg. What planet do you live on?

Those were just the examples I already stated, they certainly aren't the only entities that run our nation and influence our leaders.

TheJoe03: Dude, just stop it, you are grasping at straws. I'm done, you keep moving the goalposts, you are a walking fallacy. Want to throw another strawman out? How about calling me a tea bagger or something else that makes no sense.

Interesting. You make accusations such as "they're telling Obama not to change Washington" and yet you:

A) can't name a single specific person doing so and

B) Can't name a single instance of Obama himself following said advice

and yet I'M the fallacy.

You are an idiot, which is good to know since you didn't seem like such a tool in the past. I named plenty of specific interests that prevent Obama from making changes in things like the war on drugs, the war in Afghanistan, and the power of lobbyists. How about trying to disprove those things instead of moving the goalposts. How in denial are you, it seems strange, especially from a so-called liberal. I'm almost embarrassed.

TheJoe03: You are an idiot, which is good to know since you didn't seem like such a tool in the past. I named plenty of specific interests that prevent Obama from making changes in things like the war on drugs, the war in Afghanistan, and the power of lobbyists. How about trying to disprove those things instead of moving the goalposts. How in denial are you, it seems strange, especially from a so-called liberal. I'm almost embarrassed.

So far all you've done is name government agencies that are under the control of the Executive branch, which Obama is (shockingly) the head of.

What changes would Obama have made in Afghanistan that he didn't name in his campaign website in 2007, actually? You are aware that he pledged to ramp that war up, right? I mean, you wouldn't be making accusations without knowing the facts, would you?

cameroncrazy1984: What changes would Obama have made in Afghanistan that he didn't name in his campaign website in 2007, actually? You are aware that he pledged to ramp that war up, right? I mean, you wouldn't be making accusations without knowing the facts, would you?

Ooh, maybe he was in on it from when he was a Senator! I mean, the Congress is a US Government entity! He was in on the conspiracy from the beginning!

THE STRINGS ARE UNRAVELING!

cameroncrazy1984: So far all you've done is name government agencies that are under the control of the Executive branch, which Obama is (shockingly) the head of.

What changes would Obama have made in Afghanistan that he didn't name in his campaign website in 2007, actually? You are aware that he pledged to ramp that war up, right? I mean, you wouldn't be making accusations without knowing the facts, would you?

LOL, since he is head of those agencies, he can directly change them if he wanted to but he doesn't because he is another politician. I also named Wall Street, which has his balls in a vice grip. Don't tell me that a person who gets millions of dollar from Wall St and the banks would be at all influenced!

Also, did the whole point of the war in Afghanistan change after Osama died or not? Was that not the reason people like Obama (and myself) wanted to ramp that war up, because we were going after the guy responsible for 9/11? Don't tell me you are just distorting the truth to protect your party's leader!

cameroncrazy1984: Ooh, maybe he was in on it from when he was a Senator! I mean, the Congress is a US Government entity! He was in on the conspiracy from the beginning!

THE STRINGS ARE UNRAVELING!

None of what you just said has anything to do with anything, you clown.

TheJoe03: LOL, since he is head of those agencies, he can directly change them if he wanted to but he doesn't because he is another politician. I also named Wall Street, which has his balls in a vice grip. Don't tell me that a person who gets millions of dollar from Wall St and the banks would be at all influenced!

That's a mighty fine insinuation you have there. Are you saying the Buffett Rule is something that Wall Street supports, then?

TheJoe03: Also, did the whole point of the war in Afghanistan change after Osama died or not? Was that not the reason people like Obama (and myself) wanted to ramp that war up, because we were going after the guy responsible for 9/11? Don't tell me you are just distorting the truth to protect your party's leader!

I'm not aware of any point in time that Obama said we would withdraw from Afghanistan after the death of bin Laden. Perhaps you could point me to it?

And you thought that was your best point, I bet, some irrelevant nonsense aimed at painting me as something I am not.

cameroncrazy1984: That's a mighty fine insinuation you have there. Are you saying the Buffett Rule is something that Wall Street supports, then?

Or maybe the financial reform bill that he championed? Was that something that Wall Street supported? I mean, after all, he wouldn't be doing those two things if they didn't support them, right?

TheJoe03: And you thought that was your best point, I bet, some irrelevant nonsense aimed at painting me as something I am not.

I am rather enjoying watching you box at shadows. It's quite amusing.

Still looking for that time Obama said he would leave Afghanistan after the death of bin Laden? It might take you awhile.

Maybe you're feverishly Googling for anybody on Wall Street besides Warren Buffett that supports the Buffett Rule.

Maybe you're feverishly googling for anybody on Wall Street that supported financial reform or the Credit CARD act.

That could explain why you're taking so long to reply.

cameroncrazy1984: That's a mighty fine insinuation you have there. Are you saying the Buffett Rule is something that Wall Street supports, then?

So why do they keep giving him so much cash? I feel that a rule that will probably never pass isn't enough for them to drop their support for him. I think the trillion dollars they got satisfied them, as well as the lack of commitment in bringing down all the white collar criminals that almost destroyed our economy.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm not aware of any point in time that Obama said we would withdraw from Afghanistan after the death of bin Laden. Perhaps you could point me to it?

Was that not the Democratic talking point? Why are we in Iraq when the guy who was responsible for 9/11 was based on Afghanistan. Do you actually remember why we went to Afghanistan, or is your brain incapable of remembering major points in American history?

cameroncrazy1984: Maybe you're feverishly Googling for anybody on Wall Street besides Warren Buffett that supports the Buffett Rule.

Believe me I'm not. I took that long to reply because I was writing a response to your ignorant bullshiat.

TheJoe03: So why do they keep giving him so much cash? I feel that a rule that will probably never pass isn't enough for them to drop their support for him. I think the trillion dollars they got satisfied them, as well as the lack of commitment in bringing down all the white collar criminals that almost destroyed our economy.

Ah, I see. Obama's only doing things to LOOK like he's not supporting Wall Street, just so he can keep the donations flowing in.

Man, you just pulled the curtain down on a whole lotta conspiracy!

TheJoe03: Was that not the Democratic talking point? Why are we in Iraq when the guy who was responsible for 9/11 was based on Afghanistan. Do you actually remember why we went to Afghanistan, or is your brain incapable of remembering major points in American history?

Um. The war wasn't against a guy. We went there with intention of dismantling his operation.

cameroncrazy1984: Ah, I see. Obama's only doing things to LOOK like he's not supporting Wall Street, just so he can keep the donations flowing in.

Man, you just pulled the curtain down on a whole lotta conspiracy!

HE gave them a trillion dollars and has yet to go after all the illegal bullshiat Wall Street and the banks did. Are you claiming that the donations aren't flowing in?

TheJoe03: Was that not the Democratic talking point? Why are we in Iraq when the guy who was responsible for 9/11 was based on Afghanistan. Do you actually remember why we went to Afghanistan, or is your brain incapable of remembering major points in American history?

I 100% remember why we went in. We're talking about getting out. A decade after we went in, they have very little to do with each other.

And at any rate, you still have yet to prove that Obama changed his mind about Afghanistan based on those evil corrupt government institutions.

Lenny_da_Hog: Um. The war wasn't against a guy. We went there with intention of dismantling his operation.

So we need to occupy Afghanistan to do that? Why not go to war with every country Islamic terrorists live in, that sounds fun as hell.

TheJoe03: HE gave them a trillion dollars and has yet to go after all the illegal bullshiat Wall Street and the banks did. Are you claiming that the donations aren't flowing in?

Whose signature is on TARP? Is it Obama's?

TheJoe03: Lenny_da_Hog: Um. The war wasn't against a guy. We went there with intention of dismantling his operation.

So we need to occupy Afghanistan to do that? Why not go to war with every country Islamic terrorists live in, that sounds fun as hell.

You seem to believe that the US is the only country that is fighting Al Qaeda at the moment.

Fluorescent Testicle: you've fallen deep into tinfoil territory.

How? Saying special interests run our govt is not a conspiracy or entering tin foil territory, you guys just can't handle someone who isn't a conservative moron that goes against Obama. To be honest, I still might have to vote for the guy just because Romney is the epitome of the shiat I'm talking about.

TheJoe03: Lenny_da_Hog: Um. The war wasn't against a guy. We went there with intention of dismantling his operation.

So we need to occupy Afghanistan to do that? Why not go to war with every country Islamic terrorists live in, that sounds fun as hell.

Considering the organization was strongest in Afghanistan, it kind of makes sense to do it there. I mean, we could fight Al Qaeda from Central Park over by that nice aviary, but I don't think it would be as effective.

cameroncrazy1984: You seem to believe that the US is the only country that is fighting Al Qaeda at the moment.

So you think we should continue to occupy Afghanistan? Really? For what? Can we not just used special ops and drone strikes to do such things? Why can't we treat Afghanistan like we do the other nations that are fighting terrorism, by supporting them but not OCCUPYING them.

Lenny_da_Hog: Considering the organization was strongest in Afghanistan, it kind of makes sense to do it there. I mean, we could fight Al Qaeda from Central Park over by that nice aviary, but I don't think it would be as effective.

It is strongest in Pakistan, as well as places like Somalia and Saudi Arabia, none of which are being occupied by the US.

TheJoe03: So you think we should continue to occupy Afghanistan? Really? For what? Can we not just used special ops and drone strikes to do such things? Why can't we treat Afghanistan like we do the other nations that are fighting terrorism, by supporting them but not OCCUPYING them.

They don't have a functioning government at the moment. That would allow Al Qaeda and the Taliban a chance to rebuild and drone strikes aren't enough to prevent that until we know the Afghans can handle it on their own.

And none of this has anything to do with your original assertion.

cameroncrazy1984: They don't have a functioning government at the moment. That would allow Al Qaeda and the Taliban a chance to rebuild and drone strikes aren't enough to prevent that until we know the Afghans can handle it on their own.

And none of this has anything to do with your original assertion.

When are they ever going to have a strong govt, no matter when we leave the Taliban will swoop in. We could leave tomorrow or in 2022, and the result will be the same.

As for the relevance of what I'm saying, I only respond based on what others are saying.

Hmm, I almost forgot about Guantanamo Bay, another Bush policy Obama didn't change, oh and the Patriot Act.

TheJoe03: Lenny_da_Hog: Considering the organization was strongest in Afghanistan, it kind of makes sense to do it there. I mean, we could fight Al Qaeda from Central Park over by that nice aviary, but I don't think it would be as effective.

It is strongest in Pakistan, as well as places like Somalia and Saudi Arabia, none of which are being occupied by the US.

Pretty clever, there, changing my WAS to your IS.

We've been attacking them for over ten years in Afghanistan. We haven't been attacking Pakistan nearly as much.

Lenny_da_Hog: Pretty clever, there, changing my WAS to your IS.

We've been attacking them for over ten years in Afghanistan. We haven't been attacking Pakistan nearly as much.

Was is hardly relevant right now since we live in the present and the question is why are we STILL in Afghanistan. So please tell me, why are we there and what is the goal. We killed Osama, crippled Al Qauda, toppled the Taliban, and installed a "democratic" government.

This whole argument proves my point as well, I've got liberal partisans that are so in love with Obama that they are defending the war in Afghanistan and the war on drugs and the corrupt lobbyist culture in DC and all of that. My mind is blown.

TheJoe03: This whole argument proves my point as well, I've got liberal partisans that are so in love with Obama that they are defending the war in Afghanistan and the war on drugs and the corrupt lobbyist culture in DC and all of that. My mind is blown.

Wait. Voting for Obama because he said in 2007 that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan, and then defending him when he is doing just that makes us "partisans"?

Put down the pipe, man. Seriously.

cameroncrazy1984: Wait. Voting for Obama because he said in 2007 that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan, and then defending him when he is doing just that makes us "partisans"?

Put down the pipe, man. Seriously.

That's not all you're defending and you still have failed to explain why we are still in Afghanistan in the first place. The fact you support the war in Afghanistan right now is your problem, I'm letting you know that I think the war is pointless and a major downside of Obama's policies, IMO.

TheJoe03: Lenny_da_Hog: Pretty clever, there, changing my WAS to your IS.

We've been attacking them for over ten years in Afghanistan. We haven't been attacking Pakistan nearly as much.

Was is hardly relevant right now since we live in the present and the question is why are we STILL in Afghanistan. So please tell me, why are we there and what is the goal. We killed Osama, crippled Al Qauda, toppled the Taliban, and installed a "democratic" government.

Holy Crap! We took over Afghanistan's government and installed a new one?

I saw we did that in Iraq, but holy cow! This is great news! I guess they'll be dropping the "Islamic Republic" part of their name for the sake of religious freedom now!

TheJoe03: That's not all you're defending and you still have failed to explain why we are still in Afghanistan in the first place. The fact you support the war in Afghanistan right now is your problem, I'm letting you know that I think the war is pointless and a major downside of Obama's policies, IMO.

Great, you have an opinion. Your opinion does not change the fact that Obama has always supported escalating the war in Afghanistan. And I have given you the reason that we are still there, you're just too farking high to read it.

I just think as liberals I think Obama should be held accountable for actions that go against what we believe in (or at least what I believe in). You are going through hoops to give the guy a pass for his not so stellar decisions and lack of major reform or change, and I'm not with that. So I'll drop it, Obama is a disappointment to me (and that is my own personal opinion) but the best option since we have no real options in a two party system. That's it, peace.

Lenny_da_Hog: Holy Crap! We took over Afghanistan's government and installed a new one?

I saw we did that in Iraq, but holy cow! This is great news! I guess they'll be dropping the "Islamic Republic" part of their name for the sake of religious freedom now

Forget it, man. He's gone off the deep end.

cameroncrazy1984: Great, you have an opinion. Your opinion does not change the fact that Obama has always supported escalating the war in Afghanistan. And I have given you the reason that we are still there, you're just too farking high to read it.Lenny_da_Hog: Holy Crap! We took over Afghanistan's government and installed a new one?

We went into their nation, toppled their govt and then helped support a new government. We are also occupying their country. I can't believe you even said that.

TheJoe03: I just think as liberals I think Obama should be held accountable for actions that go against what we believe in (or at least what I believe in). You are going through hoops to give the guy a pass for his not so stellar decisions and lack of major reform or change

What do you call the ACA?

TheJoe03: cameroncrazy1984: Great, you have an opinion. Your opinion does not change the fact that Obama has always supported escalating the war in Afghanistan. And I have given you the reason that we are still there, you're just too farking high to read it.Lenny_da_Hog: Holy Crap! We took over Afghanistan's government and installed a new one?

We went into their nation, toppled their govt and then helped support a new government. We are also occupying their country. I can't believe you even said that.

I didn't.

Also, "helping support a duly elected government" is not the same as "installing"

cameroncrazy1984: What do you call the ACA?

Read the next to last comment I wrote, I'm not going to spend my entire night arguing about this, I honestly don't think what I said was all that crazy but whatever. It helps your argument to claim such things, I know that, but I'm going to watch some cartoons right now so let this argument be.

Regarding the healthcare issue, it was a good attempt but even in that the influence of special interests was so obvious. Private health insurance companies getting taxpayer money? The should either go all in with a health care system or let it be. Half assed, as far as I'm concerned. Please don't get on me for thinking that, it isn't a crazy ass opinion either, and like I said I am done arguing.

TheJoe03: cameroncrazy1984: What do you call the ACA?

Read the next to last comment I wrote, I'm not going to spend my entire night arguing about this, I honestly don't think what I said was all that crazy but whatever. It helps your argument to claim such things, I know that, but I'm going to watch some cartoons right now so let this argument be.

Regarding the healthcare issue, it was a good attempt but even in that the influence of special interests was so obvious. Private health insurance companies getting taxpayer money? The should either go all in with a health care system or let it be. Half assed, as far as I'm concerned. Please don't get on me for thinking that, it isn't a crazy ass opinion either, and like I said I am done arguing.

Oh, I see. It doesn't count because you don't like it.

shadow9d9: You are what is wrong with political debate in this country. You make up the political persuasion of your opponent and declare it as fact.

I'm pretty sure cameroncrazy is liberal, I read the politics tab a lot and I've seen his posts...AHH I swore I was done. But yeah, Obama is middle right, and you have a point about assumptions, so sorry about that part of my rants.