OBAMA Does anyone really believe a word he says anymore?

[frigidweirdo]

What part of the definition of a weapon do you not understand? A weapon, by definition, is any device used to injure, defeat, or destroy living beings, structures, or systems, and Agent Orange did not qualify under that definition.

You did get it half right. Agent Orange was a powerful mixture of chemical defoliants used by U.S. military forces during the Vietnam War to eliminate forest cover for North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops, as well as crops that might be used to feed them.

I guess this is why the US has continued to use this chemical in warfare then. Oh, wait, it stopped in 1970 or 1971. Why is that?

Oh, perhaps it was because it was killing people, destroying their land so they couldn't actually eat food, your definition includes "structures", as if the land isn't worthy of being something similar.

It's like making a definition so you can do bad things by not including something.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How do you defend yourself with a nuke? Seriously, Dude...you REALLY think Iran wants to defend itself with nuclear weapons? Or that Iraq wanted to defend itself with nuclear weapons? Just how naive are you?

Yellowcake isn't a nuke. Yellowcake is used to make nukes.

Ever heard of MAD? That was using nukes defensively.

Also, countries fear being invaded by the US, you have to wonder why when the US has only invaded more countries than any other country in the last 15 years.

Having nukes is seen as a massive deterrent for the US. No US govt is going to send in troops when they could be instantly wiped out. The invasion of Iraq was allowed because Iraq's army is weak.

Iran also wants nukes to stop the US trying to invade. The US people believe that the US is targeting Iran because of its nuclear program, however Iran wants the program to protect itself because it knows the US is after its oil.

If you look at these two

List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by proven oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see the difference?

Oil Production.
1) Russia which is 8th on the list of proven reserves.
2) Saudi Arabia 2nd and friendly with the US.
3) USA which is 12th on the list of reserves.

The US sees that Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela etc are not pumping out as much as they could and they want more to come out to decrease prices.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your first statement is pure bullshit. Has absolutely nothing to do with anything except your hatred of Bush.

Er.... no, i didn't particularly like Bush, he was a maniac who went to war for oil. Then so did Obama. In fact I don't particularly like the US govt, nor the govts of other countries like the UK, China, France etc etc etc.
That's what govts and politicians are. They often do things that makes it easy for people to hate.

However you're putting me in the "you love democrats no matter what and hate republicans no matter what" category. It seems this is the default for people to slap each other with. But, I'm not in this category.

Secondly, Saudi Arabia runs OPEC. This is because it is the largest supplier in the global distribution of oil from OPEC. Iraq's production was a drop in the bucket, compared to almost all the other OPEC countries. The price manipulation, at the time of the Iraq War, was sought by the OPEC nations as the price per barrel had plummeted and their cutting back production was the way that they used to raise prices. The HYPE of the cut off of Iraq oil, by the war, although negligible, raised the price on commodity markets, and at the pump. After it was seen that the loss of Iraq oil did NOTHING to production (Saudi Arabia picked up whatever slack Iraq had been) the price subsided again.

It wasn't about oil, That's historically proven.

Saudi Arabia doesn't run OPEC.

In fact in 1999 when Chavez was elected democratically to be leader of Venezuela, he went to OPEC and said they should cut production to increase prices.

Chavez Tells OPEC to Use Politics, Curb `Imperialism' (Update1) - Bloomberg

"Chavez Tells OPEC to Use Politics, Curb `Imperialism' "

Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices

"Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices" November 2000

"One man is responsible for the trebling the price of crude oil in the past 18 months. Not only that, he is a leftist opponent of globalisation and a bosom friend of Fidel Castro (with whom he played baseball and sang a duet for the TV cameras recently). As such, he deserves a place in the pantheon of demons alongside Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Molosevic. But far from being demonised, his name is barely mentioned in the media here."

Oh, the right seemed to have a problem with him, alongside "leftist" Saddam, as if Saddam was a leftist. He increased oil prices because of what I said. You can read that article if you like.

BBC NEWS | Business | Chavez warning opens Opec summit

"Chavez warning opens Opec summit"

""If the United States was mad enough to attack Iran or aggress Venezuela again the price of a barrel of oil could reach $150 or even $200," he said."

Why would Chavez think the US was going to invade Iran? Oh yeah, OPEC member which doesn't like the US, Iraq went, Libya went, Venezuela went for 4 days, and Iran......... hasn't gone.

 

[Vigilante]

Your first statement is pure bullshit. Has absolutely nothing to do with anything except your hatred of Bush.

Er.... no, i didn't particularly like Bush, he was a maniac who went to war for oil. Then so did Obama. In fact I don't particularly like the US govt, nor the govts of other countries like the UK, China, France etc etc etc.
That's what govts and politicians are. They often do things that makes it easy for people to hate.

However you're putting me in the "you love democrats no matter what and hate republicans no matter what" category. It seems this is the default for people to slap each other with. But, I'm not in this category.

Secondly, Saudi Arabia runs OPEC. This is because it is the largest supplier in the global distribution of oil from OPEC. Iraq's production was a drop in the bucket, compared to almost all the other OPEC countries. The price manipulation, at the time of the Iraq War, was sought by the OPEC nations as the price per barrel had plummeted and their cutting back production was the way that they used to raise prices. The HYPE of the cut off of Iraq oil, by the war, although negligible, raised the price on commodity markets, and at the pump. After it was seen that the loss of Iraq oil did NOTHING to production (Saudi Arabia picked up whatever slack Iraq had been) the price subsided again.

It wasn't about oil, That's historically proven.

Saudi Arabia doesn't run OPEC.

In fact in 1999 when Chavez was elected democratically to be leader of Venezuela, he went to OPEC and said they should cut production to increase prices.

Chavez Tells OPEC to Use Politics, Curb `Imperialism' (Update1) - Bloomberg

"Chavez Tells OPEC to Use Politics, Curb `Imperialism' "

Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices

"Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices" November 2000

"One man is responsible for the trebling the price of crude oil in the past 18 months. Not only that, he is a leftist opponent of globalisation and a bosom friend of Fidel Castro (with whom he played baseball and sang a duet for the TV cameras recently). As such, he deserves a place in the pantheon of demons alongside Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Molosevic. But far from being demonised, his name is barely mentioned in the media here."

Oh, the right seemed to have a problem with him, alongside "leftist" Saddam, as if Saddam was a leftist. He increased oil prices because of what I said. You can read that article if you like.

BBC NEWS | Business | Chavez warning opens Opec summit

"Chavez warning opens Opec summit"

""If the United States was mad enough to attack Iran or aggress Venezuela again the price of a barrel of oil could reach $150 or even $200," he said."

Why would Chavez think the US was going to invade Iran? Oh yeah, OPEC member which doesn't like the US, Iraq went, Libya went, Venezuela went for 4 days, and Iran......... hasn't gone.

Chavez DIED Dec. 2012! ....WE have an excess of oil that we are now EXPORTING

For the past twenty plus years, Americans have been told that gas prices at the pump continue to rise because we have to import most of our oil from other countries. Being the trusting and gullible people we are, we believed them until more recently.

Over the past ten years, prices at the pumps have hit record highs. Again they tried to tell us it was because of the price of oil overseas. When the public started to wise up, they changed their story to the political volatility in the Middle East and speculative buying of oil. At the same time, the major oil companies were reporting record profits and that only served to infuriate the American public.


Today, we learned that for the first time since 1949, that fuels (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel) have become this countries number one export? That’s right, we are now exporting more oil than we are importing. And yet we are still being told that the price of oil overseas and the volatility of the Middle East continue to control the prices at the pump.

You would think that if we were producing that much oil in the United States that we would keep it here in our own country, but that’s not the case. There is nothing official that requires US oil companies to supply US needs first. As it turns out, it is more profitable for US oil companies to sell their fuels to other countries than it is to sell it to US consumers.


The price of gasoline and the increased concern for the environment has led auto makers to start producing more gas efficient cars and trucks. This has supposedly reduced the demand on domestic oil. At the same time the oil refineries have contracted while international demand has increased. Due to the laws of supply and demand, it becomes more profitable for the oil companies to sell overseas, causing US oil supplies to drop which in turn causes domestic prices at the pump to increase.

So as you hear reports about the need for the Keystone XL pipeline, along with the processes of extracting oil from oil sands and fracking to get oil from shale, ask yourself how much of this oil will remain here in the US and how much of it is going to other countries. Will these increase oil supplies serve to make the US less dependent on foreign oil or will they only serve to increase the profits of the big oil companies?

And believe it or not, many energy experts say that if the companies are forced to keep more of the domestic oil here in the US that it would actually increase prices at the pump rather than bring them down. Concerning the future prices at the pumps, one expert said that refiners are satisfied with the demand and export balance and that the prices in 2012 are all going to depend on the price of crude oil prices since the US demand is still declining and the refined supply seems adequate, at least to the oil companies.

America Exporting More Fuel than Importing but Gas Prices Still High

 

[Londoner]

mistake.... . . . . . .

 

[frigidweirdo]

Chavez DIED Dec. 2012! ....WE have an excess of oil that we are now EXPORTING

For the past twenty plus years, Americans have been told that gas prices at the pump continue to rise because we have to import most of our oil from other countries. Being the trusting and gullible people we are, we believed them until more recently.

Over the past ten years, prices at the pumps have hit record highs. Again they tried to tell us it was because of the price of oil overseas. When the public started to wise up, they changed their story to the political volatility in the Middle East and speculative buying of oil. At the same time, the major oil companies were reporting record profits and that only served to infuriate the American public.


Today, we learned that for the first time since 1949, that fuels (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel) have become this countries number one export? That’s right, we are now exporting more oil than we are importing. And yet we are still being told that the price of oil overseas and the volatility of the Middle East continue to control the prices at the pump.

You would think that if we were producing that much oil in the United States that we would keep it here in our own country, but that’s not the case. There is nothing official that requires US oil companies to supply US needs first. As it turns out, it is more profitable for US oil companies to sell their fuels to other countries than it is to sell it to US consumers.


The price of gasoline and the increased concern for the environment has led auto makers to start producing more gas efficient cars and trucks. This has supposedly reduced the demand on domestic oil. At the same time the oil refineries have contracted while international demand has increased. Due to the laws of supply and demand, it becomes more profitable for the oil companies to sell overseas, causing US oil supplies to drop which in turn causes domestic prices at the pump to increase.

So as you hear reports about the need for the Keystone XL pipeline, along with the processes of extracting oil from oil sands and fracking to get oil from shale, ask yourself how much of this oil will remain here in the US and how much of it is going to other countries. Will these increase oil supplies serve to make the US less dependent on foreign oil or will they only serve to increase the profits of the big oil companies?

And believe it or not, many energy experts say that if the companies are forced to keep more of the domestic oil here in the US that it would actually increase prices at the pump rather than bring them down. Concerning the future prices at the pumps, one expert said that refiners are satisfied with the demand and export balance and that the prices in 2012 are all going to depend on the price of crude oil prices since the US demand is still declining and the refined supply seems adequate, at least to the oil companies.

America Exporting More Fuel than Importing but Gas Prices Still High

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how this effects US foreign policy in the future. Also how much this damages the Republicans who often use war as a tool for getting people in their place.

Certainly it is harder now for the US govt to convince people to go to war in Iran over oil.

 

[Londoner]

Bush & the Republicans - Debt Ceiling Increases

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion.

McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion.

McConnell, Boehner, Kyle, and Cantor vote “yea”

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion.

McConnell, Boehner, Kyle, and Cantor vote “yea”

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion.

McConnell, Boehner, Kyle, and Cantor vote “yea”

(Psst: if you ******* people didn't spend so much, we'd take you seriously)

 

[Vigilante]

Chavez DIED Dec. 2012! ....WE have an excess of oil that we are now EXPORTING

For the past twenty plus years, Americans have been told that gas prices at the pump continue to rise because we have to import most of our oil from other countries. Being the trusting and gullible people we are, we believed them until more recently.

Over the past ten years, prices at the pumps have hit record highs. Again they tried to tell us it was because of the price of oil overseas. When the public started to wise up, they changed their story to the political volatility in the Middle East and speculative buying of oil. At the same time, the major oil companies were reporting record profits and that only served to infuriate the American public.


Today, we learned that for the first time since 1949, that fuels (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel) have become this countries number one export? That’s right, we are now exporting more oil than we are importing. And yet we are still being told that the price of oil overseas and the volatility of the Middle East continue to control the prices at the pump.

You would think that if we were producing that much oil in the United States that we would keep it here in our own country, but that’s not the case. There is nothing official that requires US oil companies to supply US needs first. As it turns out, it is more profitable for US oil companies to sell their fuels to other countries than it is to sell it to US consumers.


The price of gasoline and the increased concern for the environment has led auto makers to start producing more gas efficient cars and trucks. This has supposedly reduced the demand on domestic oil. At the same time the oil refineries have contracted while international demand has increased. Due to the laws of supply and demand, it becomes more profitable for the oil companies to sell overseas, causing US oil supplies to drop which in turn causes domestic prices at the pump to increase.

So as you hear reports about the need for the Keystone XL pipeline, along with the processes of extracting oil from oil sands and fracking to get oil from shale, ask yourself how much of this oil will remain here in the US and how much of it is going to other countries. Will these increase oil supplies serve to make the US less dependent on foreign oil or will they only serve to increase the profits of the big oil companies?

And believe it or not, many energy experts say that if the companies are forced to keep more of the domestic oil here in the US that it would actually increase prices at the pump rather than bring them down. Concerning the future prices at the pumps, one expert said that refiners are satisfied with the demand and export balance and that the prices in 2012 are all going to depend on the price of crude oil prices since the US demand is still declining and the refined supply seems adequate, at least to the oil companies.

America Exporting More Fuel than Importing but Gas Prices Still High

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how this effects US foreign policy in the future. Also how much this damages the Republicans who often use war as a tool for getting people in their place.

Certainly it is harder now for the US govt to convince people to go to war in Iran over oil.

Why in the world would we want Iranian oil when we have a SURPLUS?

 

[Londoner]

I mean seriously the guy has lied to the American people so many times I have lost count.
He has more scandals under his belt than all the presidents combined and has put us in more debt than all of the previous presidents.

You really have to be brain dead at this point to think anything he does is going to benefit the American People.

This implies that there was a time when you actually believed him. But the truth is, Obama has been your sworn enemy since he won the Democratic nomination in 2008. Had Hillary won, you would say the same thing about her. And what about Bill Clinton? You never believed one word he said either.

But you did believe Ronald Reagan, who sold weapons to Iran behind our backs. And you did believe George Bush, who changed the justification for the Iraq War daily. The guy failed to protect the eastern seaboard, and he his policies detonated a bomb over the housing market and economy.

FYI: I didn't believe Obama from the day he started with that Hope garbage. He sounded like a typical politician, all of whom claim that they are going to change Washington but, instead, they just cater to big business and the neoliberal globalization that has destroyed the American worker. Difference between us is that you (and the Republicans on this board) actually trust your party leaders.

You people think that government isn't competent enough to run a laundromat, but then you trusted Bush to rebuild whole Arab nations and set-up a massive Constitution-shredding surveillance apparatus. And when he got caught illegally wiretapping the communications of American citizens, you looked the other way. When he got caught suspending Habeas Corpus, you looked the other way. And when he spent more than any Republican President EVER, you looked the other way. And when he made the greatest expansion to our entitlement system in our nation's history, (with Medicare Part "D"), you looked the other way. Point is: you have no credibility, and its partly because you are a slave to media sources which are never critical of a sitting Republican President.

So... our problem isn't that the Dems trust government . . . because the Dems admit it. Our problem is that Republican voters trust government, which is evident whenever you control the White House.

Your party controlled the White House, Senate and House for six ******* years, and you consistently raised the debt limit. And FOX News never said a word. (And you want us to take you seriously when you complain about debt?)

We don't believe you anymore because you are a slave to the Republican Party. We need you to control your own leaders, not be a cheerleader. Once you clean up your own house you can start casting stones.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why in the world would we want Iranian oil when we have a SURPLUS?

It's not about the US wanting Iranian oil. It's about the US wanting Iran to produce more oil to reduce oil prices.

Why the US would want lower oil prices when it can sell oil for higher is probably because the US is the highest consumer of oil in the world. So it costs the US economy more when oil prices are higher.

 

[S.J.]

Bush & the Republicans - Debt Ceiling Increases

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion.

McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion.

McConnell, Boehner, Kyle, and Cantor vote “yea”

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion.

McConnell, Boehner, Kyle, and Cantor vote “yea”

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion.

McConnell, Boehner, Kyle, and Cantor vote “yea”

(Psst: if you ******* people didn't spend so much, we'd take you seriously)

And Obama voted AGAINST debt increases when they were Bush's.

 

[bluesman]

Good Lord! Dumb is everywhere on the left!

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334#.U0fiT9-etc8

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aunacceptable sourceid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

Your SNOPES tale is also MISLEADING as they answer the question "The removal of yellow cake uranium from Iraq in 2008 proved that Saddam Hussein had been trying to start Iraq's nuclear program" PROVES that yellow cake WAS IN IRAQ!!! We haven't stated, nor can anyone tell what Saddam was planning to do with it! He's DEAD and unable to tell us what his plans were for it. If you can CHANNEL Saddam, from wherever he is, please do, and get his statement notarized for proof!

So Snopes is wrong. The bipartisan senate intelligence committee was wrong. Rumsfeld lied. I know that when a person becomes an ideologue then they don't need for things to make sense; they just accept them because it fits with their cause. It sure is weird that a bi-partisan senate intelligence committee came to the conclusion that the American public was mislead. Do you have any sort of reasoning that will explain why the Republicans on that committee went along with the findings? There has to be some sort of explanation.

Here is what they said in their press release:

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses..."


"...The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:



Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.



Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.



Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.



Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.



Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.


Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed..."



Why did they say all that stuff?

 

[Vigilante]

Why in the world would we want Iranian oil when we have a SURPLUS?

It's not about the US wanting Iranian oil. It's about the US wanting Iran to produce more oil to reduce oil prices.

Why the US would want lower oil prices when it can sell oil for higher is probably because the US is the highest consumer of oil in the world. So it costs the US economy more when oil prices are higher.

Iran Talks Potential Nuclear-Oil Swap with Russia

 

[frigidweirdo]

Iran Talks Potential Nuclear-Oil Swap with Russia

So Iran wants nuclear weapons. The US has nuclear weapons.

 

[Vigilante]

Iran Talks Potential Nuclear-Oil Swap with Russia

So Iran wants nuclear weapons. The US has nuclear weapons.

It's trade for a 1.5 Billion nuclear reactor...do you read what's posted?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's trade for a 1.5 Billion nuclear reactor...do you read what's posted?

Nope, I don't read sources with no opinion from the person who is using a source to try and make a point.

So, it's a nuclear reactor. So what? The US has nuclear weapons, so what? The US has even used them to kill lots of people.

 

[Londoner]

Iran Talks Potential Nuclear-Oil Swap with Russia

So Iran wants nuclear weapons. The US has nuclear weapons.

Exactly. Washington doesn't run the world.

FYI: If Hussein had nuclear weapons or the capacity to project force past his own camel, he would still be alive.

North Korea was labeled a part of the Axis of Evil, and they had nuclear weapons, and Bush did nothing to them. The message was clear: having nuclear weapons is a form of protection. Iran is acting rationally. If global oil supplies are as limited as Chaney was claiming in early 2001, than any nation sitting on top of a large oil field is well aware that they may become a victim of a global resource war. Lefty's may not want to spill blood for oil, but they don't understand that life is a jungle and Superpowers are the lions. Nature is a *****.

 

[Vigilante]

It's trade for a 1.5 Billion nuclear reactor...do you read what's posted?

Nope, I don't read sources with no opinion from the person who is using a source to try and make a point.

So, it's a nuclear reactor. So what? The US has nuclear weapons, so what? The US has even used them to kill lots of people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's really rather simple, you present evidence to back yourself up. Evidence on its own doesn't do anything. I shouldn't have to click on a source unless I actually want to see what you claim is true.

 

[Smilebong]

I mean seriously the guy has lied to the American people so many times I have lost count.
He has more scandals under his belt than all the presidents combined and has put us in more debt than all of the previous presidents.

You really have to be brain dead at this point to think anything he does is going to benefit the American People.

True statements.