Obama Announces Re-election Bid
 

Thank goodness Obama has decided to run for re-election. I don't know how many wars/conflicts we might be in if we didn't a Nobel Peace Prize recepient at the helm. Plus, he has done miracles with the economy. Why has even been able to hold fuel costs down. The national average was a whopping $1.79 a gallon in 2008. Think how high it would be now if it wasn't for his leadership.

TROLLRLY?

Oh no you did'nt.

I had expected to see stronger leadership from Obama than we've seen.

I think this is the Republicans opportunity to take or lose. But as mediocre as Obama has been. I will not vote for a Republican if they continue to be the party of hate and anti-ness.

You want me to vote republican? (I have in the past) Show up with a candidate who inspires, who proposes solutions (instead of shooting them down), and who isn't so obviously the pawn of business. Then you might get my vote.

What Obama has and hasn't done is less troubling to me still than Iraq, Afghanistan, & the Wall Street debacle.

If the Wall Street debacle includes the housing bubble/ bursting,then I agree 100%.

I'm glad he pulled us out Iraq. But wait, we have 50,000 troops still there with units scheduled from MS to re-deploy there this fall. At least he kept his promise of closing Gitmo, right?

What I heard: "Yeah, Bush really screwed up there. But Obama hasn't cleaned it up so well."

Let me say again, that if you're hoping to persuade people to the Republican side, throwing stones at the Dems is not going to do it. For me at least.

Especially if those stones are at least as bad on the Republican side.

Hey guys. This is piercehawkeye45 from a separate universe. I just wanted to stop on over to post this thread we have over there.

2008 gas $1.79? Maybe the last day of the year, or for one day of the year, but not for the whole year. Cite.

Sarge, I'm surprised that you support repubicans. You are a vet, you work for the government, and you're going to retire some day. Look at New Jersey and Ohio - republicans want to set your standard of living back 40 years. In Camden, NJ, almost half of the police force and firefighters were laid off, due to cost cutting by the repubican governor. The repubicans want to cut government spending: VA benefits, Social Security, Medicare - they are trying to buttfuck you in the mouth.

Why do you hate yourself?

2008 gas prices? :lol2:

I think it's more manly to be a pub. You don't get that wimpy bleeding heart label so much. :rolleyes:

yeh but...

"I plot three values of EIRe for comparison in figure 4:

* EIRe, petro: petroleum only—these are values calculated from (4) as displayed in figure 1.
* EIRe, NG: natural gas only—these are values calculated from (5) as displayed in figure 1.
* EIRe, P&G: petroleum and natural gas—to more effectively compare EIRe of O&G to the EROIO&G calculated by Cleveland (2005), I create a combined EIRe for petroleum ( ~ oil) and natural gas. These data are calculated by dividing the sum of the numerators of (4) and (5) by the sum of the denominators of (4) and (5).

While the two EIRp, O&G measures vary substantially before 1980, they mostly converge by the mid-1980s driven by increased incorporation of NG into the economy as a substitute for oil (e.g. for electricity) and deregulation of NG prices. From 1954 to 1972, the EIRp, oil measured approximately midway between the two EROIO&G measures as the two EROIO&G values appear to represent approximate upper and lower limits for EIRp, oil during the dates for which both measures are calculated. During this time the Texas Railroad Commission (TRC) was setting oil production limits and prorationing oil production in Texas. Thus, it is possible that the value of EIRp, oil between the EROI indicators is evidence that the TRC was effective at setting the oil price to balance supply and demand in a forward-looking manner—as long as US production could easily outpace demand before US peak oil production in 1970.

After 1985 there is little difference between the EIRp, O&G values in figure 3. Additionally, beginning in 1998, all EIRp measures for oil and NG dropped quickly through 2008, and only the values of the early 1980s are lower. The EIRp, gasoline is expectedly lower than the EIRp measures for oil and NG as delivered gasoline is the end of the supply chain before consumption in consumer vehicles. The EIRp, gasoline peaked at 10.8 in 1998 and had a low of 3.6 in 1980. In 2008 EIRp, gasoline = 5.5, a value surpassed for all other years since 1985. For statistically comparing EROIO&G to the two EIRp, O&G calculations, there are only six overlapping years (N = 6) of calculations (1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997) due to data limitation from the US government (Cleveland 2005). However, calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient shows that there is high correlation between EROIO&G including direct and indirect energy inputs with the EIRp, O&G weighted by the percentage of GDP spent on petroleum and NG (r = 0.93), the EIRp, O&G weighted by the energy consumed of petroleum and NG (r = 0.93), and EIRp, oil (r = 0.84). The first two correlations at r = 0.93 are statistically significant at the p = 0.005 level (i.e. less than 0.5% chance that the values are not correlated), and r = 0.84 is significant at the p = 0.025 level. Because both EIR and EROI are wholly or partly derived from economic rather than pure energy data, the correlation test indicates only that EROI and EIR capture the same changes in energy and economic phenomena rather than one value or the other is more correct."

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/5...ll/6407205.jpg


<Head spinning>


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...ts/fotw517.jpg

And don't forget he closed Gitmo!

He decreased the deficit, and he put us all back to work! Wait, sorry the unemployment rate is still above 9%..... my bad.

Spexxvet - Of course I'm a Republican! The majoity of troops I serve with are ardent Republicans who strongly support the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm a veteran law enforcement officer and you sure don't find many liberals in this profession who have worked street level enforcement. I'm a gun collector and hunter. Those don't exactly jeehaw with liberal idealogy. I'm from Mississippi and liberal democrats don't seem to do well down here.

So as a "God-fearing Christian", who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and risked his life to uphold the law, why would you expect me to be anything but a Republican?

Because their goal is to buttfuck you in the mouth.

God has nothing to do with it Sarge. However, guns have much to do with it. Liberals hate the Second Amendment.

hey mercy....

*I* am a Liberal, and I'll tell you what *I* hate: useless, overbroad generalizations that do nothing but fuel prejudice and masquerade as understanding. Like, say, :
I refuse to believe you believe that. And yet, you repeat it. I do not hate the Second Amendment. Don't exacerbate our serious problems by perpetuating misinformation.

Why am I answering in the politics section? I dunno...I hate politics. Anyhoo....I don't like Obama, and I don't like McCain. My point, I don't see anyone who's a good leader for the country at the moment. It's not if he's a Republican or a Democrat but is he strong enough to lead and help our country. I have nothing to propose so I'll shut up now and quietly leave the politics forum. :p:

Griff for Pres! Cellarity Party!

Well, I have always been fascinated by the end of empires. ;)

fuck obama.

he rose too fast in the political arena to handle being president. he cannot do the job. bullshit gets you to the top but actions keep you there.

'splain, please.

he rose in Illinois very quickly. he said the right things to the people. basically what people wanted to hear, you know the routine, promise this promise that then don't follow through. typical politician. then he kept on saying what people wanted to hear. now, granted i didn't get to vote against him, and i would have, because of my hiatus from society. but i am able to vote now. i just believe that he hasn't done a very good job as president and believe he will be a one termer. he has done nothing but help gas prices rise for example. cancelling permits and leases like they're going out of style. among other things. i don't expect everyone to accept my views but i sure won't change mine. he sucks. plain and simple. bush wasn't hardly any better. hell i wish we could go back to the clinton era.

The quote of the week about the other side, from one of their own, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson:
The man tells it like it is!

No worries about that ass-hole Obama, you already laid the ground work....

Republicans will make US 'Third World' nation: Obama


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110415...20110415045805

Rahm "it up your arse" Emanuel is doing the same thing now... winning friends and influencing the people.... He told everyone what they wanted to hear to get elected.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...Bad-Press.html

By and large it is quite a true statement. Why would you believe otherwise? Because you are an exception to that rule?????

So you are the exception. Look at only from a legislative point of view and see how many politicians on the Left of center support restrictive gun control. I don't see how you could make such a silly statement.

Given our history in Presidential Politics I think it will get much uglier then he thinks....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...cond_term.html

Jeebus, mercy. I consider you smarter than that. Think about what you're saying. If the threshold is "silly", then your statement wins. "Liberals hate the Second Amendment". My point is that when bumper sticker sized labels are used in place of real dialog, no understanding is possible. And when you repeat such nonsense, you opt out of the conversation.

A closed mouth may gather no foot, but a closed mind gathers no knowledge.

V, frankly if you're going to take that attitude and not immediately improve simply everyone's understanding of the liberal mind vis-à-vis the Second, you'll deserve some pretty rough handling. Do you recognize that you are not helping -- only grousing?

I'd have a much better idea you esteem the Second Amendment if I saw you taking up the cudgels in its defense and its propagation, to convert minds away from the criminal, genocidal way. So there's the gauntlet I toss: do it or STFU it. If it's important enough, you won't care about how much attitude I'm giving you, right?

Now, where might plthijinx get that idea, do you suppose? Might it be, for one of ten thousand instances, the lifetime's work of Senator Charles Schumer, called a liberal by, well, how many? Just about everybody short of lefthanded Latvian bisexuals? The man betrays his own religion and perhaps the memory of certain distant relatives even, by his lifetime championing of you-can't-have-guns (but the State can), that essential precondition for a genocide.

New Yorkers born and raised have an education problem: they do not live under the full exercise of all the civil rights their countrymen have, and this skews them. Most never have, not having been born in the year of the Sullivan Law's enactment, 1911. At least, they could leave NYC if they wanted to have all the rights the lion's share of the country enjoys.

I think the legislative records of most liberals would show that they are closer to the mainstream than to the alleged position you ascribe to them. In fact, their "legislative point of view" being that reasonable restrictions, like those in the Brady Law, are not an infringement of Second Amendment rights and that Second Amendment rights are not absolute, a position that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court on several occasions, most recently by the current conservative court.

There are extremists on the far left who would go further than those reasonable and legal restrictions just as there are extremists on the right who would ignore the First Amendment establishment clause.

But sweeping generalizations about liberals or conservatives are just another example of extremism at work and cant be supported by the facts.

These are not sweeping generalizations. It is observation of objective voting data based on party affiliation. You can find the data at both the NRA and Gun Owners of America websites if you care to look. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment only the Second. Again, the "Sweeping generalizations about liberals" and Second Amendment Rights are fact, not extremism, no matter how you or your alter-ego cowardly incarnation wants to make it.

UG--by your statements you have identified yourself time and time again as an extremist on the right, to borrow F&B's terminology. As such, I'm unable to have a regular conversation with you on subjects such as these. Please note, it is your extremism, not your ideology that makes mutual understanding impossible. You have proven yourself deaf to normal tones of voice.

For example, in matters of my own opinion, such as my esteem for the second amendment, *I* know better than you do. Yet, despite evidence that you've read my clear statement, you disbelieve me. Then, with the most insulting and prejudicial language you challenge me to "convince you" or shut the fuck up. Well, buddy, you can stop listening to me anytime now, that's as close to shutting up you'll ever be able to impose upon me.

I have neither the desire, nor the interest, nor the ability to change your mind. It is closed, nothing new can enter it. Your belief is not a measure of the truth of anything.

As for my point, F&B absolutely got it. Generalizations are useful in proportion to their specificity. Ideas small enough to fit on a bumper sticker are usually not big enough to build a bridge of understanding.

"Liberals hate the second amendment" is a sweeping generalization.

Sweeping generalizations are useless as a means of understanding.

Persisting in the use of sweeping generalizations is to avoid attempting to understand.

I can not, and will not attempt to reach understanding with anyone who would avoid that shared effort.

As long as you believe I hate the second amendment, we have nothing to talk about. I will leave you in peace and ignorance.

As I stated, these are not sweeping generalizations, but an observation of objective voting data based on party affiliation.

Can you point to voting data where most liberals in Congress voted to ban the personal possession of firearms?

Or are you suggesting that anyone who voted for the Brady Act or even the assault weapon ban legislation, both of which have never challenged as unconstitutional, hates the Second Amendment?

Sweeping generalizations about liberals or conservatives based on a rigid and narrow position of an advocacy group (NRA), a position not supported by federal judiciary, are just another example of extremism at work and cant be supported by the facts.

The web is filled with the congressional voting records, look them up.

The Brady Bill was passed during an overwhelmingly majority of Liberal Dems in Congress, it was nothing more than an ugly gun ban. It was a complete failure and thankfully overturned.

The Brady bill simply requires background checks, waiting periods, etc. with overwhelming public support. Hardly an ugly gun ban.

I misses that it was overturned. Please cite.

if you are claiming that a majority of liberals in Congress have voted to ban the possession of firearms by lawful citizens, please cite that as well.

Looks like Obama is a big supporter of gun rights and the Second Amendment,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_836138.html

Pretty well footnoted:

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: `Common Sense Regulation` On Gun Owners` Rights," ABC News` "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama`s Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck...n_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates` gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioio...n_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/b..._on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ur...aw-enforcement.)

15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bara...un_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.

16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.

17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.

18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.

Wait. has Obama ever voted for a federal law that would ban the personal possession of firearms by lawful citizens.

Nope.

The fact is that the NRA doesnt like the Brady Law (which, bwt, was never overturned and has widespread support well beyond the far left), so if you support the Brady Law, then according to the NRA and you, you hate the Second Amendment.

Supporting a background check is hating the Second Amendment?

A bit of stretch, dont you think?

[quote=Fair&Balanced;724335]The Brady bill simply requires background checks, waiting periods, etc. with overwhelming public support. Hardly an ugly gun ban. What they have done is to vote to restrict the full rights of the Second Amendment by chipping away at the elements of the Amendment.

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/

Nice try. He can't get it passed and he knows it. So they use other means to make guns un-obtainable. You deny this?

It's not about the NRA or background checks, which most people have come to accept and I support. But that does not imply support for the Brady Bill.

You need to do more research.

I am still trying to understand how the Brady background check, which is the guts of the bill, means hating the Second Amendment.

What part of the law dont you like or implies hating the Second Amendment?

This from one who said it was overturned?

One section was overturned, requiring the states to do the background checks (on 10th amendment grounds, not Second Amendment) and which became irrelevant a year later when the NICS was implemented.

I told you I miss stated it. Maybe you didn't read it.
So you deny that Obama and the majority of liberals in Congress want to chip away at the Second Amendment because they know that they could never get at repealed in toto?

I didn't say Brady background check, you did.

Ugly gun ban which restricts firearm ownership.

I am actually very close to the position of conservative Justice Scalia, based on his majority opinion to overturn the DC gun bun. I thought DC went too far, violated the Constitution and supported the decision. But I also agree with this part of Scalia's opinion:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...eller#Decision

I think if you look objectively, this is where you will find most liberals and moderates in Congress, based on their voting records. And most Americans as well.

I do not. Could you please cite where the majority of liberal Democrats did not support legislative action which impeded or further restricted gun rights?

Most Americans may be another issue, but we were not talking about that were we?

The only opinions that Scalia has been clear about is that he believes that some gun control can survive the courts, although he is not clear about what that may or may not be. We will see.

Is it just me, or has gun control as a topic of legislation really faded away since Brady?

I would, but there is no (zero, nada) legislation in the last 10 years where a majority of liberal Democrats supported legislative action to further restrict gun rights. In fact, as a result of lack of support among Democrats, there is no legislation that even got out committee. Perhaps, with the exception of the renewal of the assault weapon ban that Bush said he supported and in which the original ban was not challenged as unconstitutional.

Unless of course you have a cite that would prove me wrong.

The only laws that even made it out of committee (and passed) in recent years was the NICS Improvement Act to improve the instant check system. Passed by voice vote and Bush signed into law.

It has, I think more so because when Obama made his voice known about what he thinks about gun owners in general, and the backlash that followed, he realized he was going to lose votes from rural Demoncrative voters, ala Deer Hunting for Jesus voters. With other pressing concerns since him taking office he just has not gotten to it yet. All the more reason it is imperative that he become a One Term President. But the undercurrent and plans to alter gun rights in this country is an undercurrent that has not gone un-noticed by those of us who are committed to their preservations. Great question...

Ok, so you didn't look at a single link I posted. I get your schtick now...

Tell us again why you ignore that Brady was not renewed in toto?

As stated previously I have no problem with the background check provisions.

What schtick?

There was no Democratic or liberal majority voting in favor of any restrictions on gun ownership.

Again you fail to follow the links I have posted. I am done with your cowardliness to address the issues at hand. Enjoy your conversation.

Ah.

So you still cant point to legislative record that would demonstrate factually that liberals in Congress would restrict gun ownership.

Its been fun.

Why didn't you follow any of my links again? Please explain?

Show me one of your links that had factual information on voting records and we can discuss it.