Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

[ore0]

For use only with Xbox 360® entertainment systems with “NTSC” designation. Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering,transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy protection is strictly prohibited.

Renting is illegal?

I feel so dirty...

 

[omgpwn666]

I knew this would have lots of pages, what's with gamers and politics? Damn!

 

[Prophet]

For use only with Xbox 360® entertainment systems with “NTSC” designation. Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering,transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy protection is strictly prohibited.

Renting is illegal?

I feel so dirty...

You should. You really should.

When you rent a game your not only exposing your system to that disc, you're exposing your system to all the systems that disc has been inside previously. Next thing you know you've got an STD and your system is red-ringing.

True Story.

 

[Rydian]

You are so busy looking for a legal loop-hole to justify your actionsNo, I'm not.
My topic since my first post in this thread has been that piracy is not theft.
I'm not saying it's not copyright infringement (which it is, I mentioned that), or that it's right (it's not), but it is not theft.

I was not aware that games started putting license info on the outside of the box, however it does not need to be viewed or agreed to before purchase. For a little precedent, take a look at the whole Sony/BMG/DRM fiasco. Part of the reason Sony got into so much trouble was that the software was installed before the user even viewed the EULA, let alone agreed to it.
QUOTE(http://w2.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/)It installs on the users' computers even if they click "no" on the EULA

 

[MelodieOctavia]

No moral justification for the "theft" of luxury items? Your argument rests upon the assumption that the masses hold the lion's share of purchasing power in the world economy today, and that the abuse of such power is 'immoral.' This would be a solid stance, were it not for the fact that it doesn't match present or even past situations. The economic failures can be traced directly to the very financial magnates who the current administration has bailed out, and allowed to rake in record bonuses topping previous years. The advent of DRM and similar measures for digital media attest to this reality. Why would the group with superior market control ask for such measures? Perhaps Halliburton and Ford's situations wasn't enough of an advance alert in this regard. No matter.

Ultimately, for the crimes of this wealthy milieu, their debts are forced onto the backs of the masses, and furthermore, their health care is being whored out to private insurance companies who almost give no guarantees of quality. Are these exploiters not "thieves" as you stated? Why then do you cast the masses into the same camp as they, when the so-called "balance of power" touted by the media is essentially an oxymoron? You seem to be arguing in favor of the oppressors, and in one fell swoop, hold their victims responsible since inevitably they resort to shadier means under such conditions.

Your argument is to "simply don't buy it," because the "fact remains you don't need to hear that new album or play that new game." Who are you to dictate such terms? Whether they "need" it or not is immaterial. Perhaps piracy cannot be justified, or "romanticized", as you say. Regardless, digital piracy has a source, and it lies in the incrementally increasing cost of a decent standard of living, which the masses don't get to decide. The perpetrators of this hypocrisy are to blame because they brazenly created the conditions for digital piracy. For you to simply tar-brush those who pirate only demonstrates how your interpretation doesn't go beyond that of a mole's spectacles.

This is essentially the romanticized delusion I alluded to earlier. You sir are not "fighting the good fight" in a battle of "us versus them". You are simply a pirate with a slightly more eloquent, but equally infantile justification for your actions. You argue that the system is corrupt. I can agree with you on that point. Where we part ways is in our proposed solutions. You seem to think that we can counter the corrupt system by becoming thieves. So to combat corruption we should partake in corrupt acts? Does that actually solve anything? What stops the system from justifying its own misdeeds in a similar manner as you? "Well consumers steal, why shouldn't corporations?" When you find yourself in the muck you cannot expect to clean yourself off by rolling around in it. If the system is corrupt then you disengage it. You do not buy the overpriced item. That is the only moral form of resistance.

I am puzzled by this line: Who are you to dictate such terms? Whether they "need" it or not is immaterial.

My previous point was simple; if we were to argue over the pirating of textbooks, then well founded points could be made. None the less the majority of the arguments here concern entertainment media. If an impoverished man steals a loaf of bread, the moral implications are complicated. If an impoverished man steals a video game to play, the moral implications are clear-cut. Neither hunger, nor poverty, nor the corruption of the system as a whole, are adequate justifications for stealing that which you do not essentially need. The last time I checked men did not subsist on games, movies or mp3s. These are luxuries by any standard.

But you seem fixated on finding a justification, so allow me to lend you a hand. A proper counter-point to my earlier post would look something like this: If the items we pirate are not basic necessities than the system should not try to convince us that they are. We should not be bombarded by advertisements for luxury items. If I cannot afford to buy an item and it is immoral to steal it, then at the very least companies should not be allowed to try to convince me otherwise. If companies are going to spend millions to indoctrinate us from an early age on the merits of "product X" as an essential component to living an adequate existence, then perhaps I am justified when in lieu of being able to afford the product I simply steal it. Or at least the company should bear some of responsibility, after all they are the ones who convinced me I needed the product to begin with. It's a simple point: I should not steal that which I do not need and companies should not intrusively market items to me that I do not need nor can I afford.

But this is a point far removed from those made thus far. This is a point for those who wish to fix the system, not simply cheat it.

Edit:

QUOTE(Prophet @ Jun 23 2010, 10:11 PM) and piracy is theft, right?

No.
If I take a $50 bill from some old lady, I have deprived her of $50, I have wronged her.
If I download an MP3 from somebody else through a P2P network, their MP3 is left alone. I have not deprived them of anything.

Do you really believe that?

Let's say you own a home and in this home there is an empty room that you do not use. Now let's say I decide to move into that room without your consent. When you saw me moving in you would likely object and I would quote your very own sentiment, “I have not deprived you of anything.” It's not like you were using the room anyway right?

*snip*

haha, a better analogy would be, I make an exact copy of your house, furniture and all and move into it. I have not deprived you of anything.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Mr. Prophet,

You state that you are a philosophy major and that since the legal system under which we live is to you a mere "premises." The issue of piracy is put forth as a "moral issue." Since groups of people are indeed committing piracy on a regular basis, you pose the question thus: "Is the piracy of non-essential goods right or wrong?" If that were really all there was to it, then the answer to your question would be an emphatic "yes." I could be wrong, but it seems as though your position is grounded in Immanuel Kant's "Categorical imperative." Under this system, the will and morality of the individual is considered wholly separate from his means, circumstances, and his miseries. Since the "victim" (in this case the media industries) cannot and could not possibly consent to an act such as piracy or "theft" as you call it, the pirate's action cannot be justified. As I saw on a website, "A thief's maxim, once generalized, would overturn the institution of property, but unless the institution of property exists, there can be no theft." Indeed, it seems that while you seem to acknowledge the "corrupt" past acts of the "victim," this context should immediately be divorced from the circumstance of the pirate, despite what they may be. The thing to consider is that the pirate stole, and since the act itself is reprehensible and thus they must acknowledge their "moral" choices, etc. I say again: In this context, the answer to your moral question is obvious. Unfortunately, when the thief's means, circumstances, and miseries are brought to the fore, such sectarian thinking can only be swept aside.

Despite what you claimed before, I was not trying to put forth an "infantile" defense of piracy. In fact I already said that perhaps there is no romanticizing the act. However, digital piracy has a cause within the historical context. An attempt to explain does not mean to condone. (Explaining terrorist acts on the US, for example, does not detract from their cruel and reactionary means but is understood when US foreign policy in the Middle East is taken into account.) But because the act of piracy cannot meet the moral requirements of Kant's method nor your own, you choose to don an alb and act as the high priest of digital morality, completely ignoring the acts of those in power, since it is much easier to identify and blame the actions of the disenfranchised masses. Given that the state is presently influential and borderline-invasive for US citizens, with its bailout of the wealthy elite and pursuit of an imperialist war--with the rising cost of living as well--how can the act of digital piracy possibly not be understood? The circumstances dictate an entirely different scenario from the one that you paint.

To quote Leon Trotsky's Their Morals and Ours (typical, I know):

"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in the evolution of social forms: the class struggle. Morality is one of the ideological functions in this struggle. The ruling class forces its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function of official morality. It pursues the idea of the “greatest possible happiness” not for the majority but for a small and ever diminishing minority. Such a regime could not have endured for even a week through force alone. It needs the cement of morality. The mixing of this cement constitutes the profession of the petty bourgeois theoretician, and moralists. They dabble in all colors of the rainbow but in the final instance remain apostles of slavery and submission."

I'm convinced that this paragraph alone exposes your social function and position. I could go on and quote him further in this regard...so I will.

"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in the evolution of social forms: the class struggle. Morality is one of the ideological functions in this struggle. The ruling class forces its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function of official morality."

Your philosophy and political dialectic are old and out of date, for they fail to take into account who holds the keys to the kingdom in contemporary society, and who has been consistently denied them throughout history. Only a petty philistine would consider the shackled African slave and his plantation-master social equals before a court of morality.

Edit: Word repetition.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

God you kids are so fucking boring. These "Is piracy moral?" arguments are just so generic. Two people slinging back and forth seeing who can use the cooler words and act like they have a bigger cock. Seriously, it's boring.

Let's get back to the topic on hand, which is Obama and his anti-piracy initiatives, alright? Christ no one wants to bother reading through walls of text for a stupid argument we've heard at least ten times before.

Or we can just lock this.

 

[Aeladya]

I don't mind so much that they want to stop piracy, I do mind that they want to prosecute someone for thinking about pirating something. Just because we Google something, doesn't mean we are going to do it. I've thought about pirating things, but later have changed my mind simply because of ADHD and have decided to buy it. If they're going to prosecute someone for pirating, they could at least wait until they start the download.

 

[monkat]

God you kids are so fucking boring. These "Is piracy moral?" arguments are just so generic. Two people slinging back and forth seeing who can use the cooler words and act like they have a bigger cock. Seriously, it's boring.

Let's get back to the topic on hand, which is Obama and his anti-piracy initiatives, alright? Christ no one wants to bother reading through walls of text for a stupid argument we've heard at least ten times before.

Or we can just lock this.

So the government / law (a codification of our morality) wanting to crack down on piracy doesn't concern the morality of piracy? People do argue about it like you said, and it has been done a million times before, but you finding it boring doesn't make a thread garbage. The world doesn't revolve around you, and no one is making you read this

. It is completely on-topic, and deals directly with Obama and his anti-piracy initiatives.

 

[Danny600kill]

God you kids are so fucking boring. These "Is piracy moral?" arguments are just so generic. Two people slinging back and forth seeing who can use the cooler words and act like they have a bigger cock. Seriously, it's boring.

Let's get back to the topic on hand, which is Obama and his anti-piracy initiatives, alright? Christ no one wants to bother reading through walls of text for a stupid argument we've heard at least ten times before.

Or we can just lock this.

So the government / law (a codification of our morality) wanting to crack down on piracy doesn't concern the morality of piracy? People do argue about it like you said, and it has been done a million times before, but you finding it boring doesn't make a thread garbage. The world doesn't revolve around you, and no one is making you read this

. It is completely on-topic, and deals directly with Obama and his anti-piracy initiatives.


QUOTE(The World @ Jun 25 2010, 12:56 AM)

I revolve around Guild McCommunist

anyways.... I actual agree with Guild, this argument may be relevent, but it is not needed as it has been discussed to many times. I'd rather get back to the point directly and stop like he said ''writing walls of texts'' about the morals of piracy

 

[Rydian]

I'm not going on about morals, but about how factually wrong what Biden said is. =D

 

[Midna]

God you kids are so fucking boring. These "Is piracy moral?" arguments are just so generic. Two people slinging back and forth seeing who can use the cooler words and act like they have a bigger cock. Seriously, it's boring.

Let's get back to the topic on hand, which is Obama and his anti-piracy initiatives, alright? Christ no one wants to bother reading through walls of text for a stupid argument we've heard at least ten times before.

Or we can just lock this.

QFT. I couldn't have bloody well put it better.

 

[Prophet]

Mr. Prophet,

You state that you are a philosophy major and that since the legal system under which we live is to you a mere "premises." The issue of piracy is put forth as a "moral issue." Since groups of people are indeed committing piracy on a regular basis, you pose the question thus: "Is the piracy of non-essential goods right or wrong?" If that were really all there was to it, then the answer to your question would be an emphatic "yes." I could be wrong, but it seems as though your position is grounded in Immanuel Kant's "Categorical imperative." Under this system, the will and morality of the individual is considered wholly separate from his means, circumstances, and his miseries. Since the "victim" (in this case the media industries) cannot and could not possibly consent to an act such as piracy or "theft" as you call it, the pirate's action cannot be justified. As I saw on a website, "A thief's maxim, once generalized, would overturn the institution of property, but unless the institution of property exists, there can be no theft." Indeed, it seems that while you seem to acknowledge the "corrupt" past acts of the "victim," this context should immediately be divorced from the circumstance of the pirate, despite what they may be. The thing to consider is that the pirate stole, and since the act itself is reprehensible and thus they must acknowledge their "moral" choices, etc. I say again: In this context, the answer to your moral question is obvious. Unfortunately, when the thief's means, circumstances, and miseries are brought to the fore, such sectarian thinking can only be swept aside.

I'm a Platonist. I believe that morality is an universal. Not one moral standard for you and another for me or one standard for them and another for us. Furthermore, I believe that when one engages in an immoral act they ultimately do themselves harm. You seem to be employing an, "if you can't beat them join them" logic. Corporations are immoral thieves, so let’s steal from them and become immoral thieves ourselves. Will this fix the current imbalance or simply lead to our own moral decay?

I would be more apt to form a more in-depth Platonic rebuttal to your assertions if it weren't for the fact that I refuse to even pretend the piracy of non-essential goods is an act of resistance in some grand class struggle. Can you imagine, "I pirated Mario Galaxy as an act of social resistance.” Who are we kidding?

When you trot out a class struggle theorem to explain the selfish and meager motivations of pirates you cheapen the theorem as a whole and pay disservice to the issues that actually do stem from class struggle.
QUOTE(danny600kill @ Jun 24 2010, 08:03 PM) anyways.... I actual agree with Guild, this argument may be relevent, but it is not needed as it has been discussed to many times. I'd rather get back to the point directly and stop like he said ''writing walls of texts'' about the morals of piracy

Yes. Lets return to the democrat vs republican arguments and sweeping statements about Obama’s ineptitude, because those arguments aren't wastes of time... Right. Or maybe we should just skip all further debate and simply resume the collective whining?

I'll begin: *GRRR* Socialism. *GRUMBLE GRUMBLE* Sarah Palin. *BAW BAW* How will I survive in a world where I have to pay for games?

 

[TM2-Megatron]

I'm a Platonist. I believe that morality is an universal.

That's an incredibly dangerous and silly idea.

And if I may say, there's far too much ridiculous pontificating going on in this thread, and not nearly enough of anything else. At this point, who cares what it is; can someone just wheel these guys and their soapboxes outta here?

 

[heavyknight]

Before someone says something - I'm not defending piracy, I for one am a pirate, and I won't deny or make an excuse. (OSTs, Games, Movies, the typical things. Well, those things are what people pirate anyways.)
Just getting tired of these things. 'Law', 'law', 'law', to that, I say, lawl. Pass this bill and it's game over for the US. Maybe the government should actually insert a coin and try again. Obama -> Osama.

Also with the whole right and wrong, don't bother. It's right & wrong, not one or the other. Going to be egotistical and say, it's a fact. 'Two sides to a story'. Two sides to piracy. Or is that too much to comprehend. It's about the piracy law, not whether it's good or bad. Piracy can be good, is that shocking? We also know it's bad. Whatever. People these days.

On with my wall of text.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking depths of the internet, copyright protection attack-dog organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have long dreamed of the day when they would no longer have to pay for their own copyright enforcement. Now that dream is on the verge of coming true, thanks to the Obama administration. - <b>Meh, so they're going to use other people's money instead? What difference does it make, it's still wasted money. Put it towards something better....
Let me get this straight. Instead of using money for bigger prisons, because of the ever increasing crimes and children missing cases, or other such cases such as jobs, you're going to aim for something 'petty'? I thought the law is to protect citizens, not hurt them.</b>

He states, "This is theft, clear and simple. It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."
<b>What? You're comparing digital stuff with physical violence? Why would he just smash it? You'd think he'll be unarmed? What he's doing has a possibility of someone's death. This is 2010, not 2001.
Where I live, a lot of things happen. I hear gunshots from time to time, as well as see flowers on the side of roads, meaning someone has died. Don't bother comparing random violence with harmless internet actions. It's not like you're doing things to help this neighborhood. I'm not saying my neighborhood is the worst. There are much worse, lawless areas. Sadly, not many people can do anything about it. (I get touchy on the subject of life.)</b>

According to the Obama administration,<b> the RIAA, and MPAA</b>, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad. Without such a crackdown, <b>businesses will go bankrupt</b> the coalition argues. <b>Biden</b> states, "<b>Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy.</b>"
<b>1 - Seriously? The RIAA and MPAA pull random crap out of their ass, and with the things below such as the judge having connections to such organizations, you're going to listen to them? They're as one sided as a troll.
2 - Oh please, shovel-ware companies will go bankrupt because of such atrocities, music-based companies won't be as affected as badly. Guess what, downloads also show off popularity, popularity means it's good, meaning some of those downloaders will actually buy it! Shocking. PEOPLE BUY STUFF!? TOTALLY! OMG!!
3 - Seriously? We have a freaking oil spill with gallons by the millions, and you're talking about PIRACY hurting our ECONOMY? Not only is the spill affecting people, it's also ruining nature. Lack of care for US citizens, as usual.</b>

<i>(Look at Twilight. As much as I hate it, it is popular, and is making money. You're going to say that's hurting the economy?)</i>

Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is <b>virtually no evidence</b> for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy. -
<b>People like to try before they buy. Not to mention emulators, I tried the DS (well, more like I tried games for it)and, now I want to buy a DS. Of course, it's not limited to games. Bad songs? Not your style? Avoid buying that and buy something else. Not to mention the bolded part.</b>

Another noteworthy study from three years back notes that virtually every citizen violates intellectual property laws in some way on a daily basis. -
<b>This means everyone will be charged anyways. You're no better than pirates, you're just stealing money from people. Example of easy money : let's say 1 million people, at $1. Because the average person does not find $1 significant, they will give that $1. They have made 1 million dollars in no time at all.</b>

The White House press release was full of buzz phrases, but short on details. It did however indicate that the U.S. government may increasingly monitor filesharing networks and BitTorrent sites and assist media groups in their prosecution/threat letter efforts. It speaks of improved "law enforcement efforts at the Federal, state and local level."
<b>Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Yes, waste resources while staring at crap online. We already had idiots watching porn as the economy declined. Less law enforcement online, more law enforcement in reality.</b>

The biggest effort, though, will be devoted to cracking down on piracy websites in the U.S. and overseas. The administration was short on details of how exactly it would convince <b>piracy-loving nations like China</b> to change their ways, but it did say it would try to do so by "being as public as we possibly can" about infringement. <b>China - piracy is abundant because it makes money. Fake games, etc. Kind of no way to convince them, since well, it's money. Just like the above, US wants money, China wants money. </b>

The press release states, "As we shine the spotlight on foreign governments that have rogue actors doing illicit business within their borders, it's the government's responsibility to respond."

Such efforts have shown mild success. After lots of threats against the Swedish government by the U.S., the European Union nation finally tried admins with the nation's largest torrent site The Pirate Bay last year and found them guilty.<b> The trial was later exposed to be a perversion of the justice system, with the judge who gave the verdict have multiple ties to copyright protection organizations. The verdict -- $3M USD in damages and a year of hard prison time for the admins -- is currently being appealed.</b>

<b>All you did was show corruption, US. And abuse of sorts. The law isn't the law when it's one sided. False justice, ftw. Also, who are they giving $3M to? Someone will profit from this in the end. PROFIT, no justice. Also wasting money and resources by attacking TPB, so what is this $3M going to be for?
"Reimbursement for lost time"? And DAMAGE? That's laughable. My house was egged on one Halloween a few years ago and my brother's car was broken into as well. That's real damage. Those fags almost hit my mom once as well. Oh someone downloaded something illegally! It's damaging something! Reputation? Money? Not really. Is it too much to handle if I said it could have the opposite effect?</b>

The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year. The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement. It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk"). This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government. The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.
<b>1 - You can't guarantee if the software will be used for infringement or not. Aiming at the developers? It's the people's action that are illegal.
2 - Imminent offense? Lawl. Torrents are the biggest way to find things, from super rare releases to modern music. Because of that, people are able to, gasp, try before they buy! If you think they are, you're gonna' charge 'em? SMART MOVE. It's like Arizona's law, to an extent.
3 - DRM? If there weren't so many retarded ways of protection, then no one would need to bypass it.</b>

Ultimately, it should be interesting to see how <u>American <b>taxpayers</b></u> react to President <strike><u>Obama's</u></strike> <u>Osama's</u> decision to spend their money on efforts to prosecute them and try to choke out piracy at home and abroad, particularly when the <u>current evidence is <b>inconclusive</b> of its effects</u>. One thing's for sure, though. <u>Top politicians</u> on both sides of the aisle are firmly behind the music and movie industry anti-piracy and <u><b>money-collection</b> </u>efforts.
<i>I couldn't help but underline parts of this, because it just shows how much the 'President' is failing here.</i>

<b>Summary - Let's use our tax money on us to make us give out more money. 'Perversion' of the law, much? They're going on a bias of, piracy definitely hurts the economy and always has even though we have no proof of it!
Where's our freedom? Why the unjust actions? You're going to hurt consumers. YOU are going to HURT the ECONOMY. You're only making money for yourselves, not the industry.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Inb4 some one defends the US or says why am I still living here if I hate it so much, I'm sorry, unlike you, I'm not made of money, nor am I smart enough to learn a second language (tbh - I haven't actually tried to learn another language, because, well, high school is lacking. Oh hey, there's a subject to spend money on. And it'll actually matter, I know, surprising.) Seeing the world, from a world of sand to living in the heart of nature, but I digress.
Anti-US? Sure, why not. Say that after 'my' media is left alone. I could care less about the US if that happened. Games are like parents to me, they're not just mindless entertainment. Music supports me. Anime/movies/cartoons entertain me and teach me. I pirate and I buy.

Besides, I'm pretty sure import sites make more money by charging $80 for an item as opposed to it's 'actual' price in foreign places. GameStop has also been around for years. Rental stores such as Blockbuster, too. Oh, let's not forget about Gamefly and Netflix. Why buy when people can rent? All these companies make 'easy' money. (Which may involve hard work behind the scenes. It's not just one person and one dvd, when orders come in, and then when returns come in, etc.) They aren't going bankrupt any time soon. They provide some sources of media, so why don't you count them in?

-Sigh- the one thing that has gives interest in life that'll eventually get me in trouble with this redundant crap? Whatever, a risk I'm willing to take. If that many citizens are 'breaking' the 'law', then they can't arrest and charge all of us. I'm pretty sure if they tried that, they'd regret making such a dumb bill and wish they made one relating to prisons and all that crap. That or, Civil War 2. Ironically, if it does happen, someone will probably make Civil War 2 - The video game.

I just wish they'd stop doing stupid crap and focus on the country for once. Shoddy schools, people getting scammed so easily, crime here and there, you know, the usual.

 

[Midna]

AHHHHHHH.

If you're going to make your post so bloody long, PLEASE put them in spoiler tags so we sane people won't have to see.

 

[gameguy95]

Dang it, i just sold my nuke to those iranians

 

[TM2-Megatron]

Dang it, i just sold my nuke to those iranians

Watch out; the NSA might be busting down your door any minute now.

 

[Hop2089]

He should try to make profits off our eventual oil ocean we call the Gulf of Mexico, get rid of the oil, refine it, and sell it for government profit.

 

[riverchen]

^ so true!


Screw Obama