Iraq Civil War = Global Recession?


Iraq oil

Global oil prices spike whenever excess global crude production capacity falls below 2 to 3 million barrels per day. The possibility that Iraqi oil supplies (3.3 million barrels per day) could be disrupted by its unfolding civil war has already pushed up the prices of West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI) and Brent North Sea oil. Dramatic oil price increases are associated with global economic slowdowns. So some analysts worry that further disruption in Iraq could drive prices above $120 per barrel and tip the world economy into recession. Yo-yoing Libyan oil production is also not helping to calm petroleum markets. Looking further into the future, political turmoil in other oil-producing countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela, and South Sudan does not bode well for oil price stability.

Oil costing more than $120 per barrel would likely boost gasoline prices in the U.S. above $4 per gallon. Currently, U.S. gasoline prices are near a six-year seasonal high of $3.686 per gallon.

NEXT: Nick Gillespie on the Great Ebook War Between Amazon and Hachette

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Drill, drill, drill.

    1. But that won’t bring new oil online for 10 years!

      (said by every progtard for the last several decades)

    2. We’re drilling like crazy according to rig counts (up 300% since 2009).

      1. What about refineries?

        1. The last grassroots refinery in the US was built in the mid-70s. Dozens have been shut down since then.

      2. Overall drilling activity is fairly strong, but the rotary rig count is not up 300%. The Baker Hughes rotary rig count in 2009 averaged 1089; the 2014 average is 1810.

        Much of that drilling activity is outside of the federal purview. A better indicator of the federal influence on drilling is activity in the Gulf of Mexico in particular. In 2006, there were an average of 86 rigs operating in the GOM; the 2014 average is 54.

        Source: Baker Hughes

  2. Forget Iraq. The next global recession was already getting.set up in China, Europe, and the U.S.

    But it will give Krugman and the like a convenient scapegoat.

    1. I thought the negative growth in GDP was because global warming made us have a bad winter?

      1. Durable goods, capex, PMI, all up in q2 according to Bloomberg.

        Too bad we won’t enter that recession you so desperately want.

        At least this year.

        1. All up 8% aren’t they?

        2. And yet the economy contracted 1%.

          Of course that’s after they waited a month to revise the numbers from +0.1% downwards.


    1. Needz moar CHRISTFAG and peanuts.

      1. The peanuts are in the poop.

  4. Some impacts of higher oil prices:
    1. Give Putin a chubby.
    2. Allow the Chavista gang in Venuzela to buy a couple ship loads of toilet paper.
    3. Allow those awful teathuglicans and dirty canadians to yammer on about the pipeline.

  5. The price of oil going up wouldn’t be such a big deal, if we had a President who was committed to letting the US and Canada fully exploit their reserves. Sadly, we don’t seem to have that.

    The economy has been through oil shocks before and is a lot more resilient to them than it was in 1973. The country is a lot more efficient than it was then and thanks for fracking we produce a lot more oil domestically than we did then.

    I think it would take the price going higher than $120 a barell to really bring on a recession. The other thing is that while Iraq produces a lot of oil, it is hardly the world’s only or even largest supplier. What we found out in the 1970s is that supply and demand works. The price going up sucks at first but eventually people get too tempted by the price and the supply returns to normal.

    The only X factor in that is the growing threat of the Green Religion. Countries can only use the temptation of higher prices to produce more if governments will allow them. And that only happens if the government ignores the Green fanatics, which in Europe and the US is increasingly difficult to do.

    1. So the correct response to the likely increasing volatility of the oil market is to continue to entrench ourselves in it and reject any attempt to buffer against it (not to mention reduce the destruction of the environment). You’re such smart capitalist heroes, for sure!

      1. I’d hardly call the government’s squandering of taxpayer money on crony green energy a buffer, Tony.

        1. And I’d hardly call government massively subsidizing fossil fuel energy an aspect of a properly functioning energy market. Of course you’re probably going to tell me that all the pollution it’s allowed to create at absolutely no cost is all a lie and a conspiracy.

          1. Exxon paid $1.3 billion in federal income taxes in 2010. If a subsidy is money taken by the government from one party and given to another, how is Big Oil subsided? Seems that they’re the ones doing the subsidizing with that huge tax bill.

            1. Oil’s true cost includes the costs imposed by the pollution it causes. Nobody is being required to pay for that. That is a subsidy in every way.

              1. That is a subsidy in every way.

                Only in the imagination of those who follow Owlgor, the high priest of the AGW doomsday cult.

                1. How do you even make it out the door without injuring yourself? Do you even get out? All of climate science is a conspiracy cult for Al Gore! Such an original and useful contribution to an energy policy conversation.

                    1. Sorry bub, but your faith that AGW will destroy the planet if your god government doesn’t intervene precisely fits the definition of a doomsday cult. And just like other doomsday cultists, when predictions don’t come true and when goalposts keep moving, you take it all in stride. I just wish you guys would drink some cyanide laced Flavor Aid and get it over with.

              2. CO2 is not pollution Tony, it’s what plants need to survive. Why do you hate the plants Tony? Why?

                1. That is almost directly from the script of Idiocracy, I think. We need water to survive. So there’s no such thing as too much water, right?

                  Facts: There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the last 800,000 years. May 2014 was the hottest May ever recorded. We are going to continue breaking records month after month, and you guys are going to continue pretending that denying scientific facts is a legitimate thing for adults to do.

          2. I’m actually for alternative forms of energy. The problem I have is with the government funneling money to cronies in the name of green energy. It’s a classic public choice problem.

            While I do believe that alternatives like wind and solar will continue to improve technologically, I highly doubt they will ever come within a mile of “liberating” us from fossil fuels.

            And the vast, vast majority of people are willing to pay the cost (increased pollution) of having cheap, reliable fossil fuels. Of course, technological advancement has also been happening in the fossil fuels arena, so they pollute much less than they used to.

            1. Of course they’re willing to pay the cost–they don’t feel it yet. That’s why we call it an externality. That it happens to be the world’s most obvious way in which free-market economics fails doesn’t make it go away.

              Talk of cronies is laughable. There is no more politically connected industry than oil. It’s hard to imagine a cost too high to transition to clean energy considering the alternative. I don’t see why anyone should give a shit if the money goes to the worst mustache-twirling corporate welfare queens so long as it works.

              1. People do recognize the environmental harm fossil fuels can cause. They’re just willing to pay that price for an otherwise more affordable and comfortable living.

                Sounds like that externality is accounted for.

                1. No they don’t. Even those who do understand the harm tend to bury their heads in the sand. It’s human nature. We’re not equipped to deal with long-term consequences over short-term interests, on the whole. People obviously do not want the consequences of climate change. Even if people in advanced countries were so completely psychopathic as to say cheap energy now is worth the destruction of the biosphere later, people in poorer countries who will suffer first and worse aren’t even getting the cheap energy, and that’s not justifiable in any way. What a bizarre comment.

                  1. Considering the limits of climate science in the causation category, your petty histrionics are not worth sacrificing the future wealth and wellbeing of my children. And the main causes of catastrophe in developing countries is government violating people’s property rights, not advanced-country energy consumption, you nitwit.

                    But your preferred policies surely would keep the poor of the world poor. All in the name of you smugly sticking it to your political enemies.

                    1. But your preferred policies surely would keep the poor of the world poor. All in the name of you smugly sticking it to your political enemies.

                      Equality is what matters. Better for everyone to be equally poor than for there to be rich people to envy.

                      The Iron Lady nails it.

                    2. Inequality in wealth is a great injustice, but not in the way leftists think.

                      I’m talking about the kind that makes it very difficult for the average person to make a living while the politically-connected get rich.

                    3. Every time it’s been proposed that we stop damaging the environment, capitalists claim it will ruin the economy and make us all poor, and that has never happened. You are poorly informed about the risks of climate change, apparently, but more than that you are overestimating the risks of clean energy. What do these bad risk assessments–in opposite directions–entail? Why let’s burn more oil of course! The solution to every energy question.

                    4. Yeah, trying to drastically alter people’s production and consumption patterns using government force surely won’t make us poorer.

                    5. Yeah, trying to drastically alter people’s production and consumption patterns using government force surely won’t make us poorer.

                      He said “poor” not “poorer.” We certainly are poorer than we would be if power plants didn’t have to spend billions of dollars on scrubbers. But because we’re not “poor” Tony claims a rhetorical victory.

                    6. Every time it’s been proposed that the President shovel hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to companies owned by his largest fundraising bundlers, free marketers cry fowl.

              2. Actually, there is one industry that is demonstrably more politically connected than oil: the ag industry. The oil industry fought ethanol mandates tooth-and-nail, and the ag industry won.

        2. But green energy has good intentions while Big Oil cares only for profits!

      2. Can we get a positive, unqualified statement from you supporting more fission plants for electrical generation?

        1. Yes, and for the hundredth time.

          Does it count as a qualification to say that while my supporting nuclear does not make me a hypocrite since I’m OK with taking whatever steps are necessary to end reliance on fossil fuels, it does make you guys hypocrites considering nuclear can’t exist without government subsidy?

          Is this just a culture thing with you guys? Like you don’t like solar because it’s what those dirty hippies like? And nuclear is good because it’s manly or something? Or do you really just have Cato-approved industries so far up your asses you can’t even feel it?

          1. Since you would have to cover and entire western state with solar panels to power a single large city, solar sucks.

            By the way Mr. Greeny, what’s the environmental impact of covering an entire state with plastic panels?

            1. Less than continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere unchecked by a factor of a million or so?

              1. “or so…”

                Very exact science, there, bub.

      3. Exploiting our available domestic supplies and those of nearby and stable and friendly Canada is cushioning us against such shocks. Paying billions to friends of Obama on worthless green energy schemes that do nothing but make us more vulnerable to price shocks because they weaken our ability to produce our own energy, not so much.

        In one sense you are right. If we just would let people like you make us poor enough, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about these things. People living in third world poverty, don’t worry too much about the price of gas. And indeed, when people like you have finally gotten us to living at such a low level that we don’t have reliable electricity and can’t afford a car or the basic necessities of life like Air Conditioning, we won’t be as effected by price shocks.

        1. We are destroying life on earth, John. Air conditioning is beside the point. The longer people in power believe the stupid whiny pissy-pants big oil fellating ostrich-like bullshit you do, the less of a chance you’ll have air conditioning. You want your grandkids to have air conditioning, get behind clean energy.

          1. The capital-intensive solar and wind projects certainly don’t harm the environment, considering how much land they require.

          2. We are destroying life on earth…


            1. Tony and his ilk know what the right amount of production and consumption is.

              Just give them more control over the world economy, and they’ll get it just right. They promise!

            2. It’s a doomsday cult. Capitalists are destroying the planet. The only thing that can save us is god government.

            3. Citation needed for destroying life on Earth.

              I thought the population was still growing. Which narrative are we on?

              1. The population growing IS what’s destroying life on earth. We need to purge ourselves of the lower masses (anyone that doesn’t agree with Tony, especially poor people). Only then will we be able to start the healing of Mother Gaia.

          3. Yep, this is a total doomsday reaction. Life on Earth is being destroyed! Air conditioning will no longer exist in 2 generations!

          4. *We are destroying life on earth, John*

            The Earth tries to kill each and every one of us each and every day.

            The Earth deserves what’s coming to it, I say.

  6. U.S. Q1 growth was 0.1%. Recession may be here already.

    1. I wouldn’t blame it on an oil shock. If the country goes into recession, the oil shock will be at most the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It will go into recession because Obama’s policies have so weakened it that it couldn’t handle an oil shock.

      1. Exactly, we have no cushion to absorb an oil shock. We’re fucked.

      2. What Obama policies would those be?

        1. Destroying the health care system for one. Allowing EPA to go after cheap energy. Taxing and spending the likes of which have never been seen. Destroying the rule of law via a weaponized IRS and DOJ. The usual things that weaken an economy.

          Since you are an economic illiterate, you of course will never understand this. The resulting suffering and misery will just be bad luck for Obama and will have no relationship to his policies.

          1. You’re the economic dunce, John.

            Coal is hurting due to cheap natgas. The ACA added to GDP in Q1. The other shit you cough up is irrelevant or a lie (highest tax rate ever).

            1. National debt doubled since the lightworker came into office.

            2. Increased government spending (you know, that part of the GDP that keeps going relatively up) has to come from somewhere demfag.

          2. Thanks, I was looking for the mindless barking simian response.

            This ODS thing has gone to both an epidemic and self-parody level.

            1. Tony you are an economic illiterate. So it is not surprising you wouldn’t understand an economic explanation.

              You are not just retarded and deranged like Shreek is. But you are profoundly ignorant and stupid about these sorts of issues. So ignorant in fact, it is really impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. For you everything is about your emotional attachment to the Democratic Party and to big government socialism. Any facts or analysis that interferes with that is just not something you are prepared to understand must less intelligently respond to.

              I would love to enlighten you on the economic perils of creating uncertainty in labor costs and allowing the government to occupy a huge chunk of the economy. But you are just not emotionally ready to listen to such things and likely won’t be for the foreseeable future. I have hope that at some point in the future reality will hit you in the face so hard you will be. You are not as I said retarded and deranged the way shreek is. But I can’t say when that moment will be. It is certainly not now but I hope it will be soon.

              1. All you said amounted entirely to Obama is destroying the world! You didn’t explain how, and the numbers contradict you on healthcare and you’re lying about taxes and spending. Now you’re saying you can’t explain how Obama personally is destroying the economy because I’m not emotionally ready. I think I’m quite prepared for John’s patented brand of moronic substanceless ODS bullshit, thank you. I’ve been here a while.

                1. Considering you come on here pissing and moaning about Republicans destroying the world…

                2. No Tony, I said Obama is destroying the American economy. And the unemployment rate, labor participation rate, inflation rate and growth rate back my contention up.

                  His policies are proundly harmful and wrong headed. They are causing untold misery to millions of people and are depriving an entire generation of the ability to live even as well as their parents. I really wish he were intelligent enough to learn from his mistakes and stop. But sadly, he doesn’t seem to be. Worse, I honestly don’t think he cares. I don’t think he really likes the country at large or cares very much that his policies are harming them.

                  1. But Congress, which controls economic policy, is held by Republicans. To what extent are they to blame? It seems likely that doing absolutely nothing in the wake of a great depression-level economic crisis might contribute to a stagnant economy. But then that would implicate Republicans, and we can’t have that no matter how much sense it makes.

                    1. I guess the all those executive branch agencies have no power whatsoever over the economy.

                    2. But Congress, which controls economic policy, is held by Republicans.

                      No. It’s the alphabet soup executive agencies that issue the economy destroying regulations, not Congress.

                    3. The Senate that won’t pass or vote on a budget is held by Team Red?

                    4. That Congress that was controlled for two fucking years by the Democrats? That Congress that decided it was more important to force people to buy health insurance than “do something”*?

                      *SLD of course they didn’t need to do anything except get out of the way.

                      God damn you are one retarded partisan sock monkey.

                  2. I really wish he were intelligent enough to learn from his mistakes and stop. But sadly, he doesn’t seem to be. Worse, I honestly don’t think he cares.

                    Sometimes I think it’s by design. It’s not fair that America is rich and free compared to the rest of the world. So rather than have the rest of the world be richer and freer, he’s taking the US down. That’s what egalitarianism is all about. The lowest common denominator.

                  3. *I don’t think he really likes the country at large or cares very much that his policies are harming them.*

                    Of course he doesn’t–the Left’s plan is for us all to huddle in giant concrete towers in the center of giant mega-cities, cowering in the dark while eating sprouts, waiting for our dole check to arrive.

                3. Labor participation rate at all time highs.

                  U6 remaining stubbornly high.

                  U3 only decreasing due to dropouts of the labor participation rate and still stubbornly high in spite of being 5 years out of recession.

                4. “All you said amounted entirely to Obama is destroying the world!”

                  Why are we engaging with this fucking idiot again?

              2. If reality ever hit Tony in the face, he’d call the cops and ask them to shoot it.

    2. And the low growth despite inflationary monetary policy and huge fiscal deficits.

      Sounds like stagflation.

      1. Yes. And that is exactly what we got the last time we tried huge government spending, easy money, and heavy regulation. Everything that people like Obama and his brain dead minions like Tony advocate was completely discredited in the 1970s. Sadly, liberals never learn no matter how dramatic their failure.

    3. Q1 was initially -.1% revised down to -1.0%.

      The data is incredibly mixed. Anyone who claims to know what GDP will come in at for Q2 is a bloviating retard.

    4. A recession is usually ‘defined’ as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP ‘growth.’

      Your redefinition does not comprise proof of a ‘recession.’

  7. The other thing is that while Iraq produces a lot of oil, it is hardly the world’s only or even largest supplier.

    Don’t the other OPEC nations increase their output as a result of a crisis in one of their members? Despite the popular notion, OPEC likes price stability.

    1. Yes. And they also understand that if the price gets too high, people respond by being less dependent on their oil. So OPEC doesn’t want prices to be too high because it hurts them in the long run.

  8. Holy shit, I just saw that the Beckerhead finally admitted liberals were right about the clusterfuck in Iraq.

    Glenn Beck: ‘Liberals, You Were Right,’ We Should Never Have Gone into Iraq
    3 hours ago | 104 views | 0 0 comments | 0 0 recommendations | email to a friend | print
    Glenn Beck led off his radio show on Tuesday morning with a stirring monologue about all the ways he believes the left and right can come together to “heal” America. As part of that, Beck suggested that perhaps all Americans can come together to recognize the blunder that was invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 ? an act that he now regrets having supported.

    Read more: The Gilmer Mirror – Glenn Beck Liberals You Were Right We Should Never Have Gone into Iraq

    1. There are about 3 commenters here that were pro Iraq war, so STFU.

    2. This site was definitely anti-war unlike Presidential Candidate John Kerry that you voted for, 2 time Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton that you will vote for in 2016 and half the Team Blue congressional delegation.

      1. But, but, they were lied to!

        \Team Blue shill

    3. But you’ll continue to attack him as some mindless GOP shill?

    4. But, Glenn Beck is crazy and can’t be trusted. The DNC told me, so it must be true.

  9. Would you expect a similar spike in gold given a shock to oil? Or given a recession threat?

  10. Currently, U.S. gasoline prices are near a six-year seasonal high of $3.686 per gallon.

    Where the fuck do you live that gas is so cheap?

    1. Here in Georgia unleaded regular is about $3.50 with taxes.

      1. I saw $3.45 here in Montana.

    2. 3.44 in NJ (and full-service, bitches).

    3. It was down to $3.41 here in Dallas last week.

  11. No question that high oil prices are a drag on the economy, but let’s try to keep things in perspective–or we could put ourselves in danger of looking like the Peak Oil people the last time oil prices spiked…

    Expectations of a slowdown tend to drive oil prices down, and although oil prices spiked from 2007-2008, I don’t know anybody worth listening to that attributes the last recession to the spike in oil prices.

    If anything, oil prices during the last recession seemed to be a lagging indicator.

  12. So some analysts worry that further disruption in Iraq could drive prices above $120 per barrel and tip the world economy into recession.

    Pretty funny considering that we’re still in the middle of a global depression.

  13. I will say this: high oil prices definitely still have political consequences.

    Check out this graph showing presidential approval vs. gas prices:…..-pains.php

    Presidential approval ratings still clearly track spikes in gas prices–and Obama is by no means immune.

    1. If gas prices go through the roof, people are going to be very angry. Moreover, they are not going to want to listen to Obama bloviating about Global Warming and green energy and how high energy prices are good for them. Obama seems to be completely tone deaf these days. I have no doubt that oil reaching $200 a barrel would not get him to stop bloviating about global warming and singing the praises of expensive energy and by implication national poverty.

      In short, it would be a political disaster for the Democrats. They would be faced with a President who is telling the entire country to go fuck themselves and be happy to pay for high gas and would have no way to do anything about it. You can’t run for election as a Democrat on a “I hate the Democratic President too” platform. If the voters are voting to do something about Obama, they will vote Republican.

      1. “Obama seems to be completely tone deaf these days.”

        He’s not running for election anymore.

        After the midterms, Obama’s taking the gloves off.

        People are going to hate him.

        1. He’s already taken the mask off, so I suppose the gloves are next.

      2. “They would be faced with a President who is telling the entire country to go fuck themselves and be happy to pay for high gas and would have no way to do anything about it.”

        And the party “faithful” are faithful to him personally, for the most part.

        I think it’s sort of gonna be like Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party.

        What’s the Moonies without their Reverend Moon?

        1. I don’t think they are so faithful to him. Sure, there are real dead enders who have so much personally invested in Obama they can never abandon him. But that I don’t think includes many members of Congress or professional Democratic Politicians. You get into politics for the perks and the power not to die a martyrs death for a cult of personality.

          The Democrats in Congress will not abandon Obmaa easily because they know doing so would split the party and create all kinds of bad feelings. They will however abandon him the moment the political calculations indicate that staying with him is worse than abandoning him. We are starting to approach that point. And we certainly will approach it if there is another big terrorist attack, or the economy really goes down or if gas prices explode.

          The Republicans only abandoned Nixon when public opinion left them no choice. The Democrats are no different. No way are they going to go down with Obama.

          1. “I don’t think they are so faithful to him. Sure, there are real dead enders who have so much personally invested in Obama they can never abandon him. But that I don’t think includes many members of Congress or professional Democratic Politicians.”

            I was talking about the voters.

            I think the voters (like Tony) are into Obama personally. Once he’s gone, it’s going to be a bit like the Moonies without the Reverend Moon.

            Watch Tony. He’s pretty indicative of what I’m talking about.

            His universal constant is Obama = Correct. It doesn’t matter what the issue is. It just matters that whatever it is Obama does (or doesn’t do) is the correct thing–and everything and everyone else is wrong.

            Watch, whatever Obama does or doesn’t do in Iraq–it’ll be a success for Obama and to whatever extent there are failures, it’ll all be someone else’s fault. That kind of cultish devotion isn’t transferable to other Democrats. Once he’s gone, there won’t be much of a cult anymore.

            It’ll be back to business as usual.

            1. A certain percentage of the voters wont’. A good number of people never abandoned Nixon. But that percentage isn’t high enough to save the Democrats.

              A lot of people on here fool themselves into thinking every person or even most people who voted for Obama are brain dead fanatics like Tony. That is not true. Of the 51% of the country that showed up and voted for Obama in 12, maybe 25% or 30% are the type of hopeless morons that Tony and Shreek are. The other 20% are just low information voters who don’t much attention and get their news from the MSM. Those people have a totally different view of Obama than you or I do. They think of Obama as a nice guy and a centrist. Even now those people are starting to realize that Obama is well meaning but incompetent. Those people are low information but they are not brain dead fanatics like Tony. Those people will turn on Obama in a heartbeat if reality ever hits them upside the head. And gas going through the roof and Obama not caring is reality hitting them upside the head.

              Obama needs more than just the Tonys of the world defending the indefensible. He needs the soft Democrats to support him and the self proclaimed independents to at least not hate him. He is quickly losing both of those.

              1. “Of the 51% of the country that showed up and voted for Obama in 12, maybe 25% or 30% are the type of hopeless morons that Tony and Shreek are.”

                That’s a huge percentage!

                That’s ten percentage points.

                Obama’s policies are all very similar to Bush’s, but when Bush did it, it was wildly unpopular with the Shrike/Tony nexus. They won’t have that advantage anymore.

                Hell, like I said, Tony supported Obama, when Obama was just as much for using the government to discriminate against gay people as any other politician–and Tony is gay! You’re not going to get that kind of self-conflicted behavior from people anymore once Obama is gone.

                Can you imagine enthusiastically supporting someone who’s quite specific about wanting to use the government to discriminate against John?

                When the people who will do that–with enthusiasm–no longer have Obama to fixate on? We’re in a different ball game if that’s some 10-15% of the Democrats’ support like you say.

                1. That is a big percentage Ken, but it is not enough to win an election outside of Berkley and the upper East Side of Manhattan. If supporting Obama means leaving the Democratic Party with the support of the 30% of the country that is frothing at the mouth progs, the Democratic Party won’t support Obama.

                  And even Nixon still had something like 24% approval when he left office. There is a core group of people who will always support a President no matter what. That group is not large enough to save him though.

                  You are right that there is a significant portion of the country who are like Tony and just gone. But there are not enough of those people to support a major party alone. The Democrats depend on fooling a large number of other people into believing they really are not like Tony. Obama is ending that charade and will thus have to go.

                  1. I think you’re misunderstanding Ken’s point. He’s saying LOSING that percentage is a huge problem for the Democrats, not that having it is enough to win an election.

              2. You literally don’t care if the human species goes extinct as long as Republicans win the next midterm election.

                1. Would prefer the orderly dissolution of the federal government and a return to power for the states to decide how to live their own lives instead of top down solutions from a tyrant.
                  Humans are pretty durable, i doubt we go extinct because democrat lite gets elected it literally make no sense that you insist that repubs and dems are 2 different parties when establishment repubs are party line democrats in all their policies and voting, you have so many factions in the house right now under the guise of a 2 party system.
                  we do not support establishment repubs, we support libertarians, just because the socialists hate freedom and thus have no liberty lovers on their side of the fence does not mean that i wouldn’t vote for a democrat if he was for freedom and liberty and had a record to prove it its just that typically the republicans have a higher chance of yeilding a favorable policy where as dems almost unilaterally are establishment pawns with a very small 1% minority that actually is liberty conscious and you see stories about them here all the fucking time.
                  what im trying to ask is…

  14. Jesus Christ! Trillions of dollars spent. Tens of thousands of lives extinguished. The threat of terrorism is at an all time high — so high that there’s talk of cooperating with Iran. All this, all this, and now you tell me I’m going to be paying more for gas?!?!?!?!? Will someone please give me Bill Kristol’s phone number so I can ask him why the hell we invaded Iraq?

    1. *why the hell we invaded Iraq?*

      We conquered Iraq so that we’d have some place to park a ton of military force that bordered every other miscreant nation-state in the region.

      The plan would have worked swimmingly, too, if Obama hadn’t screwed up the SOFA negotiations.

  15. $3.90 in CNY fucking taxes

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.