Obama is a terrible leader but...

[ßringer]

Freelance at the moment, but it's really slow ever since the economy **** the bed. I had to quit my steady job a few months back, for the time being I'm splitting a place with my brother, so I don't have many bills to worry about at the moment. Doing the whole gaming, drinking, and exercise thing myself, actually. I highly recommend it.

[Grand Champ]

Freelance at the moment, but it's really slow ever since the economy **** the bed. I had to quit my steady job a few months back, for the time being I'm splitting a place with my brother, so I don't have many bills to worry about at the moment. Doing the whole gaming, drinking, and exercise thing myself, actually. I highly recommend it.

Shiiiiit, same here brotha I know how live like a spartan on a tight budget, that's no trouble really.

Any games you recommend?

[ßringer]

I can't really say right now based on actual experience, as my last 360 bit the dust on me 2 years ago, so I went 2 years playing only the retro **** I'm most known for kicking. Going without the 360 for that long lead to significant price drops on games, as well as a **** ton of new games being released while I was playing old stuff. So I've been picking up games I missed out on on the cheap from ebay, but I haven't gotten to play much of them yet, as I'm trying to finish off Oblivion since it was the last game I was playing before mine bit the dust.

Other than Oblivion, I picked up Skyrim, Arkham City, Dark Souls, Lost Odyssey, and Castlevania : Lords of Shadow.

If you like turn-based RPGs I'd recommend Lost Odyssey, it's so good I played through it 3 times when I owned it the first time. Ninja Gaiden III looks awesome, and II was pretty sick. I also really want to get my hands on Deus Ex : Human Revolution and Red Dead Redemption.

Of course, lots of upcoming release in the next few months look badass, like Resident Evil 6, Forza Motorsport 3, Borderlands 2, Sleeping Dogs, and Halo 4.

Sounds like we're going to be catching up at the same time.

[Grand Champ]

I can't really say right now based on actual experience, as my last 360 bit the dust on me 2 years ago, so I went 2 years playing only the retro **** I'm most known for kicking. Going without the 360 for that long lead to significant price drops on games, as well as a **** ton of new games being released while I was playing old stuff. So I've been picking up games I missed out on on the cheap from ebay, but I haven't gotten to play much of them yet, as I'm trying to finish off Oblivion since it was the last game I was playing before mine bit the dust.

Other than Oblivion, I picked up Skyrim, Arkham City, Dark Souls, Lost Odyssey, and Castlevania : Lords of Shadow.

If you like turn-based RPGs I'd recommend Lost Odyssey, it's so good I played through it 3 times when I owned it the first time. Ninja Gaiden III looks awesome, and II was pretty sick. I also really want to get my hands on Deus Ex : Human Revolution and Red Dead Redemption.

Of course, lots of upcoming release in the next few months look badass, like Resident Evil 6, Forza Motorsport 3, Borderlands 2, Sleeping Dogs, and Halo 4.

Sounds like we're going to be catching up at the same time.

Daaaaym... Catch you on the flip side

[BMWM3P]

Now I don't expect any of the few gun nuts on this website to actually respond to this post other than to perhaps insult me or post a video of some celebrity's thoughts on the issue, but hear me out as I tackle the three main points of argument that prop up the pro-gun crowd's position on gun rights : For hunting, for sports, and for defense against the Government/Law Enforcement agencies.

HUNTING

So you're a hunter, huh? There's nothing you love more than stalking silently through the woods with a high-caliber rifle, soaked in deer piss, hoping to attract a large game animal to kill for nourishment, right? Well that's all fine and good except that hunting for food isn't even necessary in modern society, it's a choice. It's the hunter's choice to hunt for food instead of doing what the rest of us do, by driving to the grocery store and buying your meat in nicely sealed, FDA-approved packages.

Having had the benefit of living in vastly populated metropolitan areas up north, as well as scarcely populated towns in the south I can honestly say that no hunter I've ever encountered relied solely on hunting as a means of supplying his family with sustenance. Typically those who hunt do it for one of three reasons : Because it is part of their 'culture', as a means of supplementary nutrition, or because it is sport, which I will cover later on.

The 'culture' argument is absolutely ******ed in any debate (on any topic) when the part of the culture you're holding so dearly to no longer has any valid application in a modern society, which hunting does not. The supplementary nutrition argument is also completely invalid because as previously stated - Hunting is a choice, just as eating meat in the first place is a choice. There are plenty of other ways of getting supplementary nutrition that also fit well with your 'culture' such as farming.

SPORT

This is hands down the easiest part of the argument to pick apart because the entire crux of that argument is based upon the idea that killing animals is somehow a rewarding activity for the participant. Those who hunt for sport typically do so for one of two reasons : Heritage, and population control. The heritage argument usually stems from lower-class white males who's family has a rich history of hunting animals for sport, and I can see how perhaps engaging in an activity your family has a long tradition of engaging in could somehow be rewarding, or bring you closer to your 'roots', but again, this is an outdated ideology in a modern, civilized society.

The population control argument is a bit different. These guys like to argue that if there were no hunting, wild deers, boars, and bears would be all over our roads, pissing and ****ting on our lawns, and turning the entire Country into a real life version of "Animal Planet". While often exaggerated quite a bit, the population control issue is the only real point of the pro-hunting crowd - Animal populations do need to be kept in check.

However, I wouldn't say relying on a bunch of backwoods, idiotic hillbilly drop-outs and factory workers to keep said populations in check is a smart idea. These are, afterall, the same people who drove multiple species to extinction, and continue to drive species closer and closer to the point of no return annually all in the name of 'sport'.

DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY

See previous posting.

Arguing that hunting and sport as the same thing, is ridiculous and shows your ignorance of guns. And for your information hunting is regulated that's why there are these things called hunting seasons and hunting permits which are used to keep things in balance. And to characterize hunters as only backwood hillbillies and factory workers shows your bias and ignore the fact that most of hunters out there make a ****load more money than you.

You are ignorantly or purposely ignoring the thousands of gun sports that exist not only in this country but worldwide. Pistols, rifles and shotguns are all used for olympic sport both summer and winter. There's also IDPA, USPSA, IPSC, 3gun, ect,ect,ect which are extremely popular and have millions of members. Gun sports are huge in this country and eclpse hunting by far.

And to whatever your tyranny argument will be or was, there's also this thing called crime which last time I checked is extemelly high specially in places like Chicago, Washing DC and New York city which boast the strictest gun controls laws in the nation.

[ßringer]

Did you even read my post? I didn't lump hunting and sport in the same category, I was touching on hunting for food, and then hunting for sport, not sport as in skeet shooting and competitive archery.

Funny that you would label me ignorant and say I was assuming in my characterization of hunters, then turn right around and in the same breath make an ignorant assumption about my income level.

The reason I didn't touch on competitive gun-related sports around the world is because I'm speaking about gun control in America. Derp.

[Jim Jeffries]

As for the culture bit, I can only hope that the untimely deaths of another 10,000+ American citizens this year will be as swift and painless as possible, all so that you can collect guns and shoot at paper targets, beer bottles, and clay discs in your spare time.

Mexico has basically a third of our population, but more gun homicides. And of course you cannot own any firearm in Mexico for any reason.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._homicides/194

1.) You can attempt to downplay and even laugh at the significance of appointing more openly gay officials to positions of power (I would expect nothing less of a diehard Conservative) but the importance of those moves signify significant social integration whether you want to believe it or not.

I believe in appointing the best person for the job, whether he/she be straight, gay, black, white, Asian, Native American, whatever.

2.) While the stimulus package was an economic failure, it did have some positive benefits in the money that was allotted for scientific research. Let's also not forget that Bush's stimulus package was also a failure, though an admittedly less expensive one.

Why does any discussion about Obama always involve Bush? Is he really so bad that you constantly have to compare him to possibly the worst president ever?

3.) I like the way you didn't touch on any of the other facts mentioned on the site

When I find blatantly nonfactual information in a source, I'm done wasting my time with it.

4.) There's no arguing the fact that the federal debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush, but there's also no arguing that that is due in large part to Bush-era tax cuts, and the wars he started in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You mean the tax cuts that Obama extended? The same ones he wants to extend right now? (well just over 80% of them anyway, revenue wise.)

5.) I'm not here to respond to an Ice T video, if you want to debate me on gun control

Why on earth would I want to debate gun control in an Obama thread of all places?

Now I don't expect any of the few gun nuts on this website to actually respond to this post

That's rather insulting, don't you think?

other than to perhaps insult me

Turn about is fair play, is it not?

or post a video of some celebrity's thoughts on the issue, but hear me out as I tackle the three main points of argument that prop up the pro-gun crowd's position on gun rights : For hunting, for sports, and for defense against the Government/Law Enforcement agencies.

I think you (perhaps intentionally) left out the most important reason that 47% of households own a gun. Protection.

The heritage argument usually stems from lower-class white males who's family has a rich history of hunting animals for sport

Hunting for sport in this country dates back to English Lords across the pond. And the droves of hunters (of all races) who come to this area every year to drop 100 bucks a day to hunt doves don't exactly fit your description. But I realize you were just trying to be insulting. Again.

However, I wouldn't say relying on a bunch of backwoods, idiotic hillbilly drop-outs and factory workers to keep said populations in check is a smart idea.

Why am I not surprised? Yet again.

And what can the President actually DO about creating jobs?

Perhaps cut some of the 1.75 trillion in annual regulation compliance costs. Maybe quit trying to raise taxes in an abysmal economy, with more consecutive months of unemployment above 8% than total months in the prior 60 years. The 21 taxes in Obamacare haven't exactly been helpful either. Or maybe stop borrowing 1.4 trillion annually, let small businesses have a crack at some of that.

That's the funny thing about uninformed hacks like yourself

I sense a pattern.

The private sector has continued to create jobs month after month

At a small fraction of the pace needed to keep up with immigration (about 1 million annually last time I checked) and other new people entering the work force in a growing population (minus retirees and disabled.) Speaking of disabled more people have applied for disability since Obama's been president than total jobs created.



http://news.investors.com/article/61...ama.htm?p=full

but economic progress has been slowed because the public sector is literally hemorrhaging.

Economic progress (interesting use of words) has little to do with the (mostly parasitic) public sector. State employment is down because most states are forced to balance their budgets; outrageous pensions and falling property values are a bad combination. Federal employment is up.

With a congress that's deadset against giving you funds to do ANYTHING (because they've made it their mission to try their best to ensure you're a one term President), how the hell is the President going to create more jobs?

Obama had a filibuster proof congress for his first two years, meaning he didn't need a single republican vote in the House or Senate. Unemployment went from 7.8 to 9.1%.

And this isn't me defending Obama

Of course not.

[MokMok]

Yes Obama inherited a mess. But what did he do?

The guy just went on and continued the policies of Bush and even intensified it.

This president blatantly said he doesn't need Congress approval to go to war. Isn't that line of thinking similar to Adolf Hitler and facism.

The economy is shot to pieces and at this rate it will take at least 10 years to recover with very hard consequences. It's even possible that once the collapse hits, we might see a repetition of what happened to the French revolution.

Don't you all ever wonder why the government is stacking 650 million bullets for the POLICE. It's because the government knows the things are inevitably going to go bust,

Romney I think is just a copycat of Obama, or at the very least the puppet of the same establishment which controls both parties.

[MokMok]

The biggest threat to a person's freedoms is their own government.

I couldn't remember who said this.