The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 30    Average: 2.3/5]
74 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9814
Rating: 2.3
Category: Funny
Date: 07/20/11 08:26 AM

74 Responses to America`s Guy Is Awesome!

  1. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8306 posts
    July 19, 2011 at 10:40 pm
    Link: America`s Guy Is Awesome! - America, all your problems are solved now. He even knows the Internets!
  2. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1945 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 8:52 am
    Wow! We are just so lucky!
  3. Profile photo of simbha
    simbha Male 30-39
    412 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 8:53 am
    "Punch a robot in the face!"

    That`s my favorite part. JibJab does some good stuff. I`m looking forward to seeing their set during the next presidential campaigns.

  4. Profile photo of yoda141
    yoda141 Male 18-29
    266 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 8:55 am
    Is this video pro-obama or anti?
  5. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1095 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 8:56 am
    Most people don`t know that he fights pirates. That makes him a ninja.

    Although this debt ceiling thing I actually think the republicans are going to put the states into default just to get him out of office.
  6. Profile photo of Student_Law
    Student_Law Male 30-39
    1010 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 8:58 am
    As much as i love(d) JibJab, this is extremely old...

    The "In 2007" is my favourite. Also, they had Obama ride on a unicorn, saying "i`ll talk about change `til your deaf in the ears" i think was the best Obama satire :-)

  7. Profile photo of earthshone
    earthshone Male 18-29
    1688 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 9:01 am
    well he didnt really do ANY of that. didd-ee.
  8. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 9:20 am
    Failed to investigate crimes of the Bush administration regardless of their being sufficient evidence. Indefinite detention. No single payer or public option while medical insures still have legal monopolies. Expanded wars and illegally started a new war when we can`t even afford to educate our children. Extending the Patriot Act. Extending the Bush tax cuts.

    Obama lost any chance at my vote a long time ago. Unfortunately it looks like my only other choice would be a right wing nut job that is so crazy that it would make me think the Bush years weren`t all that bad.
  9. Profile photo of CaptainPabst
    CaptainPabst Male 18-29
    1250 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 9:59 am
    @NottaSpy - exactly. Just sucks we are playing the "which one is least worst" game.
  10. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 10:30 am
    illegally started a new war


    A constitutionally BS statement there.

    Nonetheless I don`t agree with that `new war` anyway.
  11. Profile photo of Lucky2u
    Lucky2u Male 18-29
    315 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 10:51 am
    This is I-A-B so i`m sure this will have been said... but... this is sooooooo old.
  12. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 10:51 am
    @Cajun - According to who`s constitution? NATO`s? The USA requires Congressional approval of military action within 30 days OR it MUST END within 90. Otherwise it is, in fact, unconstitutional. But don`t let facts stand in the way of you defending Obama...
  13. Profile photo of viperjason
    viperjason Male 18-29
    68 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
    yep, this sucked...but of course now I`m a racist for saying that.

  14. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 11:07 am
    @5Cats

    Art II Sec 1 USC trumps the War Powers act anyday. ALL PRESIDENTS since the inception of the latter have invoked this argument, and it is completely valid. If congress does not like this war it can cut defense funding via "power of the purse" (Art 1 Sec 8 USC). BTW I don`t agree with every decision Obama has made, I`ve had doubts about Obamacare for since it`s conception and I believe this war in Libya was a horrific miscalculation.
  15. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 11:11 am
    Art II Sec 1

    Did I write that?
    I meant Art II Sec 2 Clause 1.
    It reads something like this:
    "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
  16. Profile photo of MichaelBored
    MichaelBored Male 40-49
    206 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 11:13 am
    Whether or not you think the conflict in Libya is justified, it`s so adorable to see rightwingers get all righteous about illegal wars.
  17. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 11:15 am
    Oh "Art 1 Sec 7" is also part of the power of the purse.
  18. Profile photo of diylobotomy
    diylobotomy Male 18-29
    1832 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 11:19 am
    ...the f uck did i just watch?

    and do we really have to argue about it? oh wait, internet. my bad. continue.
  19. Profile photo of Swaywithme
    Swaywithme Female 18-29
    3696 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 11:26 am
    Dig it- Really well done.
  20. Profile photo of bacon_pie
    bacon_pie Male 30-39
    3061 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm
    lame.
  21. Profile photo of Winter_ICE_0
    Winter_ICE_0 Male 13-17
    976 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm
    "America`s Guy"?
  22. Profile photo of dude21862004
    dude21862004 Male 18-29
    768 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 12:37 pm
    Wait, is this for or against Obama?
  23. Profile photo of swaffire
    swaffire Male 18-29
    67 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 12:45 pm
    ... fcuk you jib jab
  24. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    This is like two years old now
  25. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm
    It`s all part of our quest to ... rid you of your money!
  26. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    @Cajun247, lol, that is the best you got?

    Article 1, section 8 gives only Congress the power to declare war. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President to declare war.

    The United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 defines "act of war". By this definition the President has ordered the U.S. to commit acts of war without authorization from Congress.

    The War Powers Act section 2c states: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities...

    So you are right, the Article 2 section 1 says the President is Commander in Chief. But the War Powers Act, which was signed into law by a President, defines when he gets to use that power. The conditions for that use of power have not been met. War was not declared, there was no statutory authorization, and Libya was not a national emergency.

    It is an illegal war.
  27. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm
    @Cajun247, what I think you miss is that when the Constitution says, "when called into the actual Service of the United States", it does not say that the President can call them into service. The Congress can call them into service at which time the President commands them.

    Art II Sec 1 USC trumps the War Powers act anyday.
    Only when a Federal court says that the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, which none have. The War Powers Act is a law until then. Since it is a law, if an act violates that, then that act is illegal by definition. That means that the war in Libya is illegal.

  28. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 2:49 pm
    @NottaSpy

    The clause is supposed to allow the president to "act with dispatch", for one simple reason. When a decision regarding national security needs to be made immediately, the President may indeed call into service every soldier available. That is something a large body of people are incapable of doing, nor is it clearly DESIGNED to do. After all their sole function IS debate.

    The War Powers Act is a law until then.

    Unfortunately it is up to the executive branch to decide which laws it shall enforce (hence the word `executive`), granted of course so long as the legislature is willing to force it`s hand. Since Congress isn`t very keen on enforcing it, the law has been practically moot since it`s inception.
  29. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm
    So not only is it unconstitutional (when a federal court decides as such, then essentially the law in question ALWAYS has been) it is completely unneccessary. Art I Sec 7 gives congress the power of the purse. If they don`t like the war in Libya, they can cut funding.
  30. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm
    All a declaration of war will essentially do is declare a nation as an enemy of the state. Meaning ANY person who gives aid and comfort to said foreign nation or soldier thereof can be charged and convicted as a traitor.
  31. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm
    "may indeed call into service every soldier available"



    Hmmm...
    Then again maybe the reserves haven`t been "called into service" yet.
  32. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:08 pm
    @Cajun247, yes it was designed to allow the President to act when there is a threat, but it was also in response to Vietnam. The War Powers Act does a pretty good job of defining when the President can act and it is clear that Libya does not come even close.

    Dude, you should never, ever practice law. Read Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. Pay attention to that part, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Unless you want to argue that the President can ignore the Constitution. Just because GWB took signing statements to a whole new level, does not mean that the President can pick and choose what laws to enforce. BTW, the Attorney General works for the people of the U.S., not the President. The AG is an officer of the Court and his duty is to the laws that Congress enacts.

  33. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    So not only is it unconstitutional (when a federal court decides as such, then essentially the law in question ALWAYS has been) it is completely unneccessary. Art I Sec 7 gives congress the power of the purse. If they don`t like the war in Libya, they can cut funding.
    Correct, but that doesn`t mean that the war is legal since Congress didn`t cut funding. It also does not mean that Congress authorized it. The funding is authorized through the treaty with NATO. But just because it is funded, does not mean the actions are authorized. Thus, still illegal.
  34. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:12 pm
    "may indeed call into service every soldier available"


    Okay I just did some research and this part of my statement is incorrect. Essentially, there are two distinct parts of the military: the reserve force and active force. Congressional approval is required for the use of the reserve force, but the President may call upon the active force at any time since their use has already been approved (or perhaps continuously pre-approved). Since the `active force` has deployed to three different countries none of them are illegal.

    Not that I approve of any of these wars mind you.
  35. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:13 pm
    All a declaration of war will essentially do is declare a nation as an enemy of the state. Meaning ANY person who gives aid and comfort to said foreign nation or soldier thereof can be charged and convicted as a traitor.
    Wrong, it also authorizes the President to act militarily. No declaration of war means that 1/3rd of the War Powers Act was not satisfied. The other 2 parts weren`t satisfied either, so it is illegal.
  36. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    already been approved (or perhaps continuously pre-approved)
    Wrong again. The approval for military action does not include Libya (or Pakistan for that matter). The war in Libya is illegal.
  37. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:19 pm
    [quote">want to argue that the President can ignore the Constitution[/quote">

    That`s not my point, he can only ignore certain laws passed by the legislature ONLY if he has a constitutionally valid reason to. Indeed almost every law in tabulated in the US Code he is indeed REQUIRED to enforce. The President is ALWAYS bound by the constitution as this case demonstrates.
  38. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    The judicial branch is the only branch that can interpret laws. You claim that the President can interpret a law so as to decide when it applies? You fail government 101. I defy you to show me when it says the President can NOT enforce a law. Read up on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
  39. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:25 pm
    Wrong, it also authorizes the President to act militarily.

    No, it is a formal recognition of a state of war between two nations, period.
  40. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm
    The approval for military action does not include Libya (or Pakistan for that matter).

    If that is the case then the president essentially has to wait for congress BEFORE he can take action against an insurrection.
  41. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:29 pm
    Correct, a declaration of war is "a formal recognition of a state of war between two nations". But you can`t say period.

    The War Powers Act states, "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

    Since the War Powers Act says that a declaration of war allows the President to act, it means that a declaration of war is more than just a formal state of affairs.
  42. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    You claim that the President can interpret a law so as to decide when it applies?

    As this example has already been repeated since the law`s inception. So far congress has not impeached any president who has violated the act (essentially every admin since).
  43. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:32 pm
    If that is the case then the president essentially has to wait for congress BEFORE he can take action against an insurrection.
    BINGO!
  44. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:32 pm
    are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization,

    Gee isn`t THIS essentially an interpretation of the constitution.
  45. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:32 pm
    That was entertaining
  46. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    As this example has already been repeated since the law`s inception. So far congress has not impeached any president who has violated the act (essentially every admin since).
    Good God this is getting repetitive. Just because he hasn`t been impeached, doesn`t mean it wasn`t illegal. Congress has its reason for not trying to impeach him, but it was still an illegal act. If I rob a bank, it is still illegal even if I haven`t been prosecuted.
  47. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    BINGO!


    Wow a contradiction. Part III of the War Powers Act clearly states in such a situation he doesn`t need approval. If that`s the case then essentially gives the potential enemy time to cause damage to our nation. But like I said if congress doesn`t like what the President is doing they can cut funding, ALL OF IT, at any time. They don`t need this law.
  48. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:39 pm
    Gee isn`t THIS essentially an interpretation of the constitution.
    No. It was passed by Congress, signed by the President. The Judicial branch can interpret the Constitution and say this violates it. As long as that hasn`t happened, it is not an interpretation but a official, legal definition of terms in the Constitution.
  49. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:39 pm
    If you want an example of a president NOT enforcing the law, look no further than president Lincoln during the Civil War. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus.
  50. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    Wow a contradiction. Part III of the War Powers Act clearly states in such a situation he doesn`t need approval. If that`s the case then essentially gives the potential enemy time to cause damage to our nation. But like I said if congress doesn`t like what the President is doing they can cut funding, ALL OF IT, at any time. They don`t need this law.
    Did you mean an insurrection here in the U.S.? Then the President has authority to act without waiting for Congress. If you mean an insurrection in Libya, then the President has to wait for Congress. The War Powers Act allows the President to act if our nations security is immediately threatened.
  51. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm
    If you want an example of a president NOT enforcing the law, look no further than president Lincoln during the Civil War. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus.
    Good, you`re catching on. Another example of an illegal act by a President that he got away with.
  52. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:43 pm
    It was passed by Congress, signed by the President



    Study your history, it was approved by an overridden veto. Actually wait we`re using to laws interchangeably. The former (1941) WAS approved by the president but was VERY different in purpose, the latter (1973 called a resolution BTW) the one I believe we`re referring to
  53. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:45 pm
    "to laws"?


    I meant two.
  54. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    Another example of an illegal act by a President that he got away with.


    Actually he later got congressional approval to do so.
  55. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:47 pm
    Study your history, it was approved by an overridden veto. Actually wait we`re using to laws interchangeably. The former (1941) WAS approved by the president but was VERY different in purpose, the latter (1973 called a resolution BTW) the one I believe we`re referring to
    OK. My mistake, but still a law. Point is that it is the law of the land. Does not matter that he has funding. Does not matter that he hasn`t been impeached. Does not matter that he commands the troops. What does matter is that the War in Libya violates the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, commonly referred to as "The War Powers Act".
  56. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 3:51 pm
    Actually he later got congressional approval to do so.
    Illegal at the time. The President could not know that Congress would approve it in the future. The Constitution gives Congress the power of suspending Habeus Corpus, not the President.
  57. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm
    What does matter is that the War in Libya violates the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, commonly referred to as "The War Powers Act".


    As for Art 1 Sec 8 here`s what your missing:

    There are "Armies" which the congress can "raise and support" which the President is the Commander-and-Chief of and can use at any time, then there are "Militias" which the congress can "call forth". The latter the congress is only required to "call forth".
  58. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    This is three years old.
  59. Profile photo of Trojan
    Trojan Male 18-29
    511 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 4:13 pm
    All politics aside, this video deserves this score because it`s soooooooo ollllllllld
  60. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    This fiscally conservative article pretty much tells you my point.
  61. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8306 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    > DrProfessor
    > This is three years old.

    Released: 06/19/09
    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals

    Obviously the `Doctor` and `Professor` don`t refer to a degree in Mathematics. So its 2 years old. At the time of release, it was satirical about future events and mildly funny, whereas now, looking with hindsight at Obama`s actual record, its hilarious. If you think a joke is funny once, you`re missing the point of humor.
  62. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 6:12 pm
    @Cajun247, that wasn`t your point. You`ve been arguing all along that it was legal. That link of yours is opinion as to why The War Powers Act is a bad law. I could give you links to opinion as to why Libya is bad policy. Both are irrelevant as to the legality of the war in Libya.

    BTW, I am against all three wars as well as the War Powers Act. I listed the illegal war in Libya as one of the reasons Obama lost my vote. It is really a three part reason:
    1) He has shown disregard for the law.
    2) We do not need to be inserting ourselves into another countries civil war.
    3) We cannot afford another war.
  63. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 6:46 pm
    @NottaSpy

    Then I`ll bring up this article as well. Friendly note: ignore the "The Myth that Vietnam was a Mistake" section, the part I find to be full of 5h17.
  64. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 7:01 pm
    Here is constitutional problem of the War Powers Resolution in a nutshell:
    Yet another clear observation that can be made about the War Powers Resolution is that several of its key provisions are flagrantly unconstitutional. The Constitution gives to Congress the power "to declare War," which was intended to be a veto or check against an adventurist President who might seek to take the nation from peace to war over some political or economic grievance or from a desire for personal fame and conquest. As an exception to the President`s general grant of the new nation`s "executive Power," the congressional check was to be construed narrowly. The Framers well understood the concept of "force short of war," and throughout our history presidents have deployed U.S. armed forces into harms way to protect
  65. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 7:01 pm
    cont...

    American citizens and their property, to enforce treaty obligations and rights, and to deter misconduct by other countries. Even if one concludes that Congress still has a check on large-scale, prolonged commitments of U.S. armed forces into hostilities, it does not follow that the power to declare war permits Congress to usurp the Commander-in-Chief power concerning military deployments that do not even arguably constitute the initiation of "war."
  66. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    @Cajun247, That is quite long and I`m pretty much done making my point. A cursory read seems to back up what I`ve been saying. Libya is illegal and the War Powers Act is a bad law. Not liking a law does not mean the President should break it. It may be unconstitutional, but so far nobody has challenged it.

    As far as the politics of Vietnam, I will be the first to admit that my education is weak on that subject. I grew up at the worst time to learn about Vietnam. I was too young at the time to know anything about politics. It was too new (and probably too controversial) for it to be included in the public school curriculum. My later education focused on military aspects, not political. I could discuss what Sun Tzu probably would have thought of the Tet offensive, but wow that would be way off topic.
  67. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    It may be unconstitutional, but so far nobody has challenged it.

    Except the President has albeit not in the expected manner. So far Congress has time and again unwilling (if not unable) to enforce it.
  68. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 10:46 pm
    Yep... BO is a real badass. Striking fear in the hearts of our enemies....

    Cartoons are great
  69. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    July 20, 2011 at 11:49 pm
    Cajun: The problem is Obama has tried to skate arounf the war powers act by saying that we aren`t at war and are only upholding NATO treaty obligations. Sorry, but that explanation just doesn`t fly.

    Not that I`m against action in Libya, but this half-assed way he`s going about it sucks balls.
  70. Profile photo of manorrd
    manorrd Male 30-39
    2372 posts
    July 21, 2011 at 12:17 am
    Poor America. *sniff*
  71. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    July 21, 2011 at 6:13 am
    Not that I`m against action in Libya

    I am because we unrealistically overestimated the capabilities of the Libyan rebels. If it`s going to take bombing an entire country to oblivion via guessing just to oust one dictator then our prestige on this planet is doomed in this century.
  72. Profile photo of Fleaman1797
    Fleaman1797 Male 18-29
    718 posts
    July 21, 2011 at 7:31 am
    He did all this? where was I when he did this stuff?
  73. Profile photo of DShephard
    DShephard Male 18-29
    1595 posts
    July 21, 2011 at 5:39 pm
    Guys, it`s all a joke.


    Relax.
  74. Profile photo of ScaryMeadow
    ScaryMeadow Female 18-29
    189 posts
    July 22, 2011 at 11:21 am
    This was made by Jib Jab before he became prez, wasn`t it?

Leave a Reply