And is it just me, or have the Republican candidates for this election and the 2008 election been complete clowns? I don't think I've seen elections be so black and white policy-wise before.
Good. I'm glad he won. And is it just me, or have the Republican candidates for this election an
The Republican and Democratic candidates are given preferential treatment by the media and the system, so that any other candidates simply don't have a chance. The other candidates are at best ignored or, if they seem to have a chance, are laughed at and mocked like H. Ross Perot was a few elections ago. This makes the system essentially a two-party system, and thus makes things more black and white, as I originally mentioned.
Though my original words "I'm glad he (Obama) won" were not clear. A better way of saying it would be "I'm glad Romney lost."
Which only strengthens my point. The Republican and Democratic candidates are given preferential
I can understand the sentiment against Romney. Though I believe they're both essentially the same candidate, Romney just seems like more of an asshole.
Paul actually had a pretty significant following, in spite of the media blackout on him. So when he started getting a little too popular, the Republican party changed the rules in the middle of the game, and committed outright fraud. Hopefully you're aware of all the staged votes, and the "Lost" votes. When the Republican convention voted to accept only Delegates who would support Romney unconditionally, they ignored their own grassroots support, and even specifically detained members of the process who would have provided opposition. At one point even leaving some in a bus circling the convention area, unable to get to it in time for the vote.
Frankly, the Republican Party deserved to lose this election for all the shit they pulled to get Romney the nomination. I just hope that their grassroots support has enough good sense to abandon that sinking ship.
I'm still waiting to see if Gary Johnson's votes turn up again. At one point during the election coverage, he suddenly lost over 10,000 votes in Virginia without any explanation. I'm still not sure if it was just a momentary glitch, or outright fraud. Goode and Stein also lost votes during that point.
I can understand the sentiment against Romney. Though I believe they're both essentially the same c
I'd be willing to say that those ten thousand lost votes were because of fraud. The system is definitely trying to lead the U.S. into a place that its people really don't want to go. I think the last time a president actually did something to change the course of the nation, that president was John F. Kennedy. And we all know what happened to him.
I'd be willing to say that those ten thousand lost votes were because of fraud. The system is defin
I certainly have to say, I'd have thought much more seriously about the GOP this cycle if they'd had Ron Paul as a more serious contender. What they did to him is a crime, both figuratively AND literally.
I certainly have to say, I'd have thought much more seriously about the GOP this cycle if they'd had
I'm going to make a bold prediction, and say that Obama will not in fact legalize marijuana. Nor will he make more than a token acknowledgment of his LGBT support in any substantive policy change. As well, he will continue to support foreign wars in practice, while pretending to resist them in his speeches.
Also, in case you didn't realize nearly half of Americans did not support Obama in the election. In layman's terms, that's a margin frequently referred to as "A Hair" And what it means in actuality is that nearly half of Americans have no president, if we're speaking strictly on voluntaristic terms. Yet they are still ruled by one. I'm pretty sure there's a word for type of government where you have to obey a ruler who you didn't elect. But to be fair, I doubt he's going to support those who did vote for him very much, either. He is, after all, a politician.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't support Romney, but for the same reasons why I didn't vote for Obama. So, I don't really see any practical difference between them. Except that I'm once more going to have to put up with all my Democrat leaning friends being intolerable for the next 4 years.
Because the fact that he has a D next to his name apparently forgives all the Drone attacks, NDAA, Drug Raids. and Bailouts.
Out of curiosity, did you support Obama because you genuinely think he's doing an excellent job, or because you're just plain terrified of Romney?
I'm going to make a bold prediction, and say that Obama will not in fact legalize marijuana. Nor wi
Fortunately, the ideas of what he's going to do that so many talked about are not the reason I voted for him. He's had great difficulties in doing the great things he had planned in some cases, and may have flat out lied in others, but what politicians don't?
The bailouts were regrettable, but not in their practice for me. I would have done the same thing for the banks, with the minor edition of regulation on how the business will operate until the banks have paid these monies back. This would have included throwing out those ridiculous bonuses for the boards of these banks. This wouldn't have fixed everything, of course, but it would have let these bankers know I'm serious.
Personally, if it weren't the fact that several banks were failing at once, I'd have let them fail and let FDIC catch those who ultimately would have lost everything if not for it. But with that being the case, something had to be done.
The drone attacks are something that has left a sour taste in my mouth, but I guess you'd have to lump me in the same group as Bush supporters who disliked the CIA torture facilities when they came to light, but refused to stand up when others called it what it was...a war crime and violation of international law. At least Barack isn't violating international law with what he's doing, it's just a moral grey area that he's doing it, even within the group of his supporters.
Drug raids are a funny thing to bring up, seeing as he's the head of the executive branch, the branch that enforces our laws and protects our nation. So, you're going to bring up his raids on facilities that, while legal in their own states, are still illegal AND prosecutable on the federal level. Really, bringing up something as a negative when, regardless of state laws, he's still doing his job by authorizing those? I may be pro legalization for marijuana, I'm not faulting the man for following the laws of our land. It's kinda his job.
The NDAA, however, IS something that truly troubled me when it came up. The original Senate version of the bill was full of potential abuses in presidential power. Efforts were made to try and shore section 1021, which was section 1031 at the time, but was rejected by the Senate. And guess what, I remembered that when I went to the polls and voted for my Senators.
I will not hold it against the president for signing it after a few provisions WERE made, because he explained why he was signing it when he did, doing so because the military budget NEEDED to be authorized, regardless of the feelings he had about some of the language still in the Authorization Act. And you know what, he's kept to that. I don't recall hearing about American citizens being detained indefinitely for supposed acts or links to terror, have you?
However, what I do see is that congress is currently working on NDAA 2013. While still a ways off from where it needs to be, it IS starting the efforts to close up the problems seen in NDAA 2012. With the campaigns and elections over, I'm looking to see what Obama does with the efforts being made right now before I make my decision on what type of person he is for signing NDAA 2012 into law.
As for your suggestion that because the minority of Americans didn't vote for, but still must follow, the President-elect is some sort of dictatorship, well, welcome to a representative republic. We can't all have our guy win.
Honestly, I'm only going to bring this up so that you see how desperate your attack on the numbers seems. Bush 2000 LOST the popular vote and barely squeaked through in the electoral college. The pop vote was a 48.4 to 47.9 Gore's favor. Sounds to me that "a hair" more of the American public didn't want Bush in office, but he got in.
Bush 2004 won the electoral college and the popular vote, 286-251 and 50.7-48.3 respectively. By your definition, that was a "hair" too, but were we living in some dictatorship at the time?
Continued in 2
Fortunately, the ideas of what he's going to do that so many talked about are not the reason I voted
I didn't like the guy, sure, but I didn't feel oppressed or scared to speak against him.
Obama 2008 wasn't anywhere as close either of the previous two, but I get the feeling you might end up calling that one the same thing because McCain scored mid-forties in the popular vote, while being absolutely trashed in the electoral college.
And this year. Damn, that was a close one. But barely closer than George W Bush's 2004 re-election bid.
By your standards on just under half of American's not voting for a guy that won, and what type of system of government that makes this, then you're going to have to acknowledge that the only election of the last 12 years where it wasn't that close, or even stolen by the electoral college, was Obama's bid in 2012.
How about we just put this to bed with the simple matter of "The majority of Americans DID vote for Obama, regardless of how tight the margin was, and were in the right places to assure that win in the electoral college."? Sound about fair there?
This all comes down to why I supported Obama in the first place though.
First, I'd like to mention how insulting I find it that you automatically assume I'm a single issue, Democrat voter because I was happy Obama won. For your information, I make myself as educated on the candidates as I can and am in fact one of the Independents that either side needed to convince to pull this one out. The GOP didn't do it this time, and man, were they close to it too. Unfortunately, they backed the wrong horse and couldn't get me to saddle up on it.
This brings us to the second point here, why did I think Mitt Romney was the wrong horse for the GOP to back. I could state examples of him constantly "flip flopping" to court whatever demographic he was going for, but everyone has heard that one far too often. As a minor issue, that's not even much of a reason to base my opinion solely on.
Could be his obvious contempt for the average American citizen? Well, that's one thing that turned me off of him, but it's not the only reason.
What really got me was that he was a cookie cutter version of Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry, but in a prettier wrapper. He is right wing and feels he has not only the moral obligation but the RIGHT to tell me and others how we can and should live our lives. That's something I can't stand for, even if you happen to have a "plan" to fix our country economically.
You want to fix the economy, that's great, I'd love to see it, but not at the cost of denial of basic civil rights for ALL citizens. This goes from who you can marry to who owns and controls your very body, and he was trying to tell me that it was everyone else. Sorry, but I own my body and mind, and I'M the one who determines what I do, think, and feel.
You may notice I mention the mind and thinking in there. While I disliked him after securing the nomination, I seriously didn't think him the type that would have been up for "thought crime" legislation. That was until the third presidential debate. He said something that solidified my position against him. He mentioned going and prosecuting Ahmadinejad for SAYING that Iran and it's Arab friends should wipe Israel and the Jews off the map.
I find that sort of speech reprehensible, as would the vast majority of Americans, but it's SPEECH. He thinks it should be done, says it should be done, but he's NOT DONE IT. Romney mentioning we should go in there to prosecute him for simply saying the most ass backwards and revolting things someone could say is counter to our nation's founding principles.
And this gave me a glimpse into something that I already had a good feeling was going on in Romney's mind. He doesn't give a shit about the people of our nation OR what she was built upon.
Concluded in 3
2 I didn't like the guy, sure, but I didn't feel oppressed or scared to speak against him. Obama 2
He didn't get my vote for that very reason. Obama isn't perfect, but he's not rolling back the clock on civil rights and he's saying, essentially, that he'd wipe his ass on our Constitution to START ANOTHER FOREIGN WAR.
I hope this answered your question for why I voted Obama rather than Romney, regardless of the "errors" Obama made in his first term.
3 He didn't get my vote for that very reason. Obama isn't perfect, but he's not rolling back the c
That's a lot to go over, but I would foremost like to dispel the belief that I supported Bush or Gore. I'm not quoting the numbers of the win because I think that if it have been a victory by a margin of 20% or more it would have suddenly been alright. I'm mentioning them because hopefully it will help people realize exactly how large of a demographic can be seen as a minority, and how many people's opinions can be considered irrelevant. If a room is full of 100 people, and 51 people in the room vote to rob and kill the other 49, is it justified?
I'm concerned that in an age of information and rapid communication, it can be excused to have an antiquated system, in which the minority are represented in the government by those they did not elect. It doesn't matter if that minority is 49% or 1%.
That Obama is "Obeying the Law" while perpetuating the drug war is no excuse. I make a distinction between just and unjust laws. Following an Unjust law, is still morally wrong, even if it is the law. Just like how I believe it was morally wrong for the Northern States to deliver runaway slaves back into the South, even though it was the law at the time. Obama could very easily sign an executive order, refusing to finance the drug war, and even if his decision were somehow overruled, I would at least have some modicum of respect for him.
At best, his support of the NDAA is like saying that he only agreed to shoot you in the leg, because he couldn't get the money to provide you aspirin otherwise. And at worst, it demonstrates his perpetuation of the Military Industrial Complex.
Obama could have very easily said, "No, I'm not going to sign this." More of congress had a vested interest in funneling money to the Military than stripping us of our rights, some form of budget would definitely have passed, even if he had done a line item Veto. If you honestly expect a standoff to end with no money going to the Military Industrial Complex, then I honestly don't know what to say to you.
Even if it cannot be demonstrated that the NDAA has been used on US citizens, that anyone in the government believes that such a thing would be acceptable is unsettling. And if the NDAA is used to indefinitely detain a US citizen, as long as the government practices discretion, there is a distinct possibility that no one would ever even know.
If there are so very few legitimate situations in which the NDAA would be justified in being used, why do they even need it? It looks like something like this could very easily be carried out by the typical government Black Ops forces, and kept hushed up. That they are doing this, isn't because it's necessary in order to perform these activities. I believe it's because they want the people to grow accustomed to these human rights violations as a normal part of life. They want people to factor them in as an acceptable compromise. They want all of us to look at what they're doing to our Rights, and say, "It could be worse." Rather than realizing that none of this had to happen.
I'm afraid people have been setting their standards incredibly low, because they want to see a small victory, even when there's nothing to celebrate. Please, we can do better.
Also, if you believe that some form of Bailout had to happen, please look at Iceland and how they're doing right now. When the Banksters came knocking for money, the people said "Fuck off!" and now their economy is actually improving.
But you won't hear about that on the mainstream news, of course.
That's a lot to go over, but I would foremost like to dispel the belief that I supported Bush or Go
First, no assumption was made, so no beliefs either, that you supported Gore or Bush in that election. I think you completely missed the point as far as that was concerned.
Second, your use of extreme examples, such as the majority voting to rob the minority, is silly at best and shows an ignorance for American principles and law. Wonder why gay rights is such a big issue right now? Because it's set forth in how this country functions that the majority can no rule by law to oppress the minority. This is something that the Republican party and a not so small number of it's members have forgotten.
While I agree that proportional representative rule would be a preferential system, that is not the system we currently have. Instead of bitching about who won or lost and how bad candidate X is, perhaps you should focus your attentions on changing the system.
Your distinction between just and unjust laws, I'll happily say, isn't flawed. Unfortunately, your perspective is. You're coming at this way of thinking as a civilian citizen and that's not a luxury the president has. While a citizen, he is also the head of the Executive Branch of government, and if you recall from school, that is the branch of government that ENFORCES the laws set down by the people's representatives.
In effect, Obama is a cop, but not just any cop. He's the top law enforcement officer in this country. And as long as he wears that "badge", he can do no more than campaign and vote against laws he doesn't agree with. Unjust laws may suck, but he has to enforce them, as is his duty, because the laws are not UNLAWFUL. Unjust does not inherently mean unlawful. If you'd like to find out if a law is unlawful, it's rather simple, and the same process the president would use. A cursory look at the US Constitution will let you know.
As for the NDAA, well, you seem to be sitting on both sides of the fence. In one effect, you abhor it for the seemingly limitless powers it could hand the Executive Branch of government in detaining individuals, yet propose a solution to signing it would have been to file an executive order against it, which unto itself would have been an abuse of presidential powers, to overrule congressional representatives. In both cases, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, because you're going to have people screaming about abuse of presidential power.
As for your talks about the Military Industrial Complex needing it's money, and would have forced some changes in the NDAA, well, let's see the examples put forth by the party in opposition on other financial matters. The Republicans blocked our fiscal budget multiple times because it's not exactly what they wanted. This caused us to lose our AAA rating and made Obama look like he wasn't trying hard enough, when history shows, he tried his ass off to reach compromise.
The Republicans stalled until the last freaking minute on price increases for the USPS, simply to make the president look bad.
You don't think the Republicans, the champions of the US military (or so they'd like to think) wouldn't have stalled as long as they could to make it look as if the President didn't care about getting the military it's much needed funding? If you don't think they would have, then you haven't been paying much attention to the present GOP.
Continued in 2
First, no assumption was made, so no beliefs either, that you supported Gore or Bush in that electio
Before I let you continue with what's bordering on conspiracy theory, perhaps you should see what's being done with NDAA 2013. No part of the NDAA holds over from year to year, unless directly stated in the next year's NDAA. And while it's not as far along as I'd personally like it in denouncing the powers authorized in NDAA 2012, 2013 is making steps in the right direction to protect our freedoms. If they were using 2012 to remove our rights, then why would they seemingly be listening to how upset the American people are and not carrying over those sections from 2012, much less writing it in such a way that, with a few rewrites in committee, will not be upheld in NDAA 2013.
Doesn't sound much like a cloak and dagger government, working actively to curtail our rights in front of our faces. In fact, it actually looks like a government that was becoming complacent with the American public waking the fuck up and starting to become fearful of our power like they should be.
As for why it may have been needed, honestly, that's up to interpretation. Personally, after seeing what went down as it was being written, it seems as if someone in Senate wanted the president to have more powers, others didn't, but not enough. Simple mistake that the people of our great nation fixed with their outrage.
As for the victory and it's size, that's up for interpretation as well. I'm not going to be moved, as a citizen of this nation, closer to living in a country that's ruled by Christian ideals that I do not share rather than the secular one which was founded. While it's not a choice I would make unless in the direst of circumstances, we won't be told that abortion is completely off the table as an option for unwanted pregnancy. My gay friends can now have more hope that something will be done to acknowledge them as people AND citizens of this great nation. I would consider just these things a great victory, however I won't place my opinion down here as if they are fact. That's not something I'm willing to do with opinions, only facts are facts.
The example of Iceland, while a powerful one and one people should pay attention to, is a tiny bit flawed in one respect. If Iceland had said fuck off, then it's economy failed, there would have been ways to rescue it. If the American people had said fuck off in the situation we were in and we'd failed, who'd have been there to catch us? Sometimes, you have to take two bad decisions, weigh them, find out which one is the worse possibility, and then go with the other. That's all part of making decisions, particularly ones that are going to be unpopular no matter what.
While examples are nice, examples can't tell you what will happen for certain if YOU make that same decision.
In conclusion, and in response to your second comment, I do find it rather insulting that you say that as if I don't know anything BEYOND that they happened. You'll find, if you actually cared to see, that I'm rather more knowledgeable than the average American as far as matters of national policy are concerned, because I actually care.
2. Before I let you continue with what's bordering on conspiracy theory, perhaps you should see wha
First off, Taxes are form of theft, so my point stands, majority rule is being used to determine what is legally acceptable, even when it is morally wrong. As well, majority rule is used to determine if it is legally acceptable to murder thousands of innocent people in other countries. It is even used to determine if it is acceptable to murder people in the US, via the drafting of laws, and the indictment of people for crimes which carry the death penalty. It is sometimes regarded as acceptable for police to kill people who are suspected of violating drug laws, regardless of whether anyone's life or safety is at stake.
Second, my comment on Obama using an Executive Order was in regards to the Drug War, not NDAA. He would need no such order to deal with NDAA. He could have simply not signed it. Also, I would rather have a Cop who violates the laws set forth by the Police, in order to uphold the laws which protect the civilians, then one who upholds the Laws set forth by the Police which Prey on the civilians he is sworn to protect. The Moral man discards Political Law where it violates Natural Law. And even when dismissing that, there were avenues he could have used to obstruct these unjust rulings, which were within his legal authority to do. Yet he didn't use them.
No, I'm not saying he should have seized what would amount to dictatorial power to overthrow the unjust laws of the land. I'm saying he should have used the checks and balances already granted him to become an unmoving obstacle to their attempts to perpetuate and expand those unjust laws. At best, as it stands, he was a squeaky cog, but a cog nonetheless.
And if what you're claiming is true, and that the Republicans would have delayed as much as possible just to make him look bad. Well, so what? He can look bad. That shouldn't matter. If he's more afraid of looking bad, than of perpetuating the destruction of Natural Rights, then I don't think he should have that position. And when the public were made aware of what passing that budget entailed, hopefully they would have the sense and decency to applaud his courage in refusing to sign it. Because the rights of Americans are not defended by the strength of our armies but by the strength of our character.
And for the fact that so many politicians are saying that NDAA is bad, and that it was a mistake, hopefully you understand they want to get elected again. Would they vote for it again? Probably, but they don't want you to know that. It's a scam. They publicly proclaim something repugnant, while quietly endorsing it behind closed doors.
Our representatives are "seemingly Listening to how upset the American people are" Because that's how they get elected.
And I am doing what I can to change the broken system, by trying to illuminate how very broken it is. What do you propose I do?
First off, Taxes are form of theft, so my point stands, majority rule is being used to determine wha
The machine has people on the Left and Right fighting each other, trying to get the government to side with them on issues which the government should have no authority to dictate. All with the common purpose of expanding central power. There are battles now, for the Federal Government to define Marriage. The religious do this, thinking that it will protect their interest, but all it's really doing is providing the precedent for Government to make rulings on the legal definitions of a Religious status.
This is not a thing which the Government should have any authority to do, one way or the other. It is a word defined uniquely by every religion, and belongs to all religions who practice it. Be they orthodox, or progressive. If one church does not want you married, go to another which does. It should be as simple as that. But government has people on both sides begging the for a broad sweeping judgement, which will encompass everything.
I don't believe any church which wants to provide the service to same sex marriage should be denied that right, nor do I believe any church which refuses to, should be forced to provide it. That is the foundation of religious freedom.
But people are so fixated on having Big Brother around to call the shots, and defend their interests, they don't understand what they're giving up. They're surrendering Individual Rights to Collective Authority.
The machine has people on the Left and Right fighting each other, trying to get the government to si
Your first sentence is where I leave you. If you don't feel you should have to pay your fair share into making this country what it is, then I have nothing left to say to you, as it would be utterly pointless,
Your first sentence is where I leave you. If you don't feel you should have to pay your fair share
Let me use an example. Do you believe that if someone buys you a drink you are obligated to give them a blowjob?
Also, "Fair Share" implies that someone knows what that 'Fair Share is. And to believe that the only way that the underprivileged, and impoverished will receive any kind of aid is for others to be robbed without their permission to pay for it, is the same as saying there is too little legitimate charity and altruism in the human race to provide for these people. If there honestly isn't enough compassion in the human race to provide for those less fortunate them themselves, then we, as a people, are doomed.
Do you believe that the average person is so horrible, that they would need to be coerced into being charitable by a bully who bombs funerals in other countries?
So you believe in institutionalized theft? Let me use an example. Do you believe that if someone b
You think you are being Robin Hood. Stealing from the crooked rich to pay for the downtrodden, but those who profit the most from taxes are always the wealthy.
Yes, there are cruel, manipulative, and ruthless people, with far more money then they can reasonably need, in all of their lifetimes. But there are also people who gained wealth legitimately, through honest work, and no one is entitled to profit from someone else's labor. The moral foundations of this is one reason why slavery is wrong.
That I despise taxes isn't because I hate the poor. In fact, I'm poor. I just want the right to decide where my money goes, and what it pays for. Let me pay for my own roads, build my own hospitals, found my own schools, with my own money. And if I need more than myself to do that, then let it be those who would choose to do so voluntarily. Part of the reason why there is so much political conflict is because people are being taxed to pay for things they find morally objectionable.
Wouldn't you prefer if not a single dollar you earned was ever spent to blow up a third world village, or to imprison someone for smoking marijuana?
The legitimacy of taxes is built on the foundation that everyone profits from what they provide, but it is criminal because no one is given a choice on the matter. If they work or live in the US, they must pay taxes. And if they try to provide for themselves some of the services which are normally provided by the government, they can be charged and imprisoned. This is not a legitimate trade, this is a monopoly of thugs.
You think you are being Robin Hood. Stealing from the crooked rich to pay for the downtrodden, but
Ok, I gave you a reasonable chance to step back and go on with your day. I do not want to continue this discussion with someone who holds a philosophy that, in my experience, won't even end in an agreement to disagree.
I suggest you drop it, as I have, and go on with your day or I'm going to have to block you from my page.
Ok, I gave you a reasonable chance to step back and go on with your day. I do not want to continue
Okay, I won't say anymore. I hope this hasn't upset you to much, but when someone looks at my opinions with incredulity, I feel compelled to defend them. Later.
Okay, I won't say anymore. I hope this hasn't upset you to much, but when someone looks at my opini
And to answer your most basic question, no, I don't think I do want to pay for what this country has become. A cesspool of ignorance, intolerance, and bigotry, ruled by liars, thieves, and thugs. Where the government feels it's more entitled to my money than I am, and where people are led by fear, and prejudice, to participate in the murder and enslavement of their fellow man.
A country where it is seen as immoral to not want to be stolen from, spied on, or told what you can't do with your own body. Where those who would defend themselves are viewed as more dangerous than those who assault and kidnap others for a living. Where selecting the lesser of two evils is thought of as a moral victory.
No, I think I would be happier to not be responsible for all that.
And to answer your most basic question, *no*, I don't think I do want to pay for what this country
And in regards to Iceland's decision not being viable for the US. What do you propose we do instead? Rely on the same crooks and thieves who got us into this mess to try and get us back out again? What stake do they have in that, if they make money regardless of whether or not they succeed?
Not to mention that what got us into this mess to begin with was fraud, theft, and imperialism. And those things aren't going to change as long as we keep trusting the same institution which has grown to profit on them.
I would rather fail, having stood against thieves and frauds, then stand beside them, shaking their hands and patting them on the back.
And you claim that the US lost it's AAA rating because of the delays in the budget? No, it's because our money is worthless. It's because we're in so much debt, and devaluing our currency so fast, that US bonds are no longer seen as a secure investment. A Country buys US bonds, and it gets paid back in inflated currency that's worth 90 cents on the dollar. The government has long relied on the success of the private sector to provide the real growth to keep debt at bay, and now that growth isn't happening. So to solve its debts, it's printing money faster and faster. The Bonds are being paid for numerically, but not in actual value. And investors realize this.
And in regards to Iceland's decision not being viable for the US. What do you propose we do instead
