Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest 2smart4u

Our liberal network news protecting Obama.

39 posts in this topic

As a former Marine Lt. I can assure you the POTUS does not direct military operations. Because of the sensitive nature of the operation I'm sure Obama was informed what the plan was and who was to carry it out. But if you think Obama was directing the operation while he was rolling Easter eggs on the south lawn, you need to cut back on the Kool-Aid.

I had to laugh when I read these Loonies thought that a former community leader with NO military experience or knowledge was somehow "directing operations" in the gulf. It's clear the Loonies have never served a day in the services. There's no question the senor naval officer in the gulf area was calling the shots and it was his tactical plan to bring in the Seals. I'm sure the white house was kept up to speed on the events but no more than that.

With Obama's disasterious performance so far on the economy, the navy doesn't need him sticking his nose in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a former Marine Lt. I can assure you the POTUS does not direct military operations. Because of the sensitive nature of the operation I'm sure Obama was informed what the plan was and who was to carry it out. But if you think Obama was directing the operation while he was rolling Easter eggs on the south lawn, you need to cut back on the Kool-Aid.

The operation took place on Sunday, the Easter Egg Roll was on Monday. Would you like some more Kool Aid Lt. Asshole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a former Marine Lt. I can assure you the POTUS does not direct military operations. Because of the sensitive nature of the operation I'm sure Obama was informed what the plan was and who was to carry it out. But if you think Obama was directing the operation while he was rolling Easter eggs on the south lawn, you need to cut back on the Kool-Aid.

Chronic liar that you are, we should believe you learned this cowering unde your desk in a rear area somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had to laugh when I read these Loonies thought that a former community leader with NO military experience or knowledge was somehow "directing operations" in the gulf. It's clear the Loonies have never served a day in the services. There's no question the senor naval officer in the gulf area was calling the shots and it was his tactical plan to bring in the Seals. I'm sure the white house was kept up to speed on the events but no more than that.

With Obama's disasterious performance so far on the economy, the navy doesn't need him sticking his nose in.

Except no one said that. The fact is, if the mission had gone south we know that your side would be blaming Obama's authorizing it in the first place. The mission was ran by the military, but only with Obama's permission.

You conveniently point out one way in which Obama is far better than Bush-Bush overruled the military planners and decided to turn over Iraq to a civilian-run clusterfrack far too early-directly leading to thousands of dead Americans and Iraqis and utterly eliminating the possibility of the Iraq War being a net positive for us. The military plan predicted exactly what would happen, but Bush put ideologues in charge instead. Obama actually let the military do the job right and it just burns you up.

So how exactly has Obama's performance on the economy been "disasterious?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except no one said that. The fact is, if the mission had gone south we know that your side would be blaming Obama's authorizing it in the first place. The mission was ran by the military, but only with Obama's permission.

You conveniently point out one way in which Obama is far better than Bush-Bush overruled the military planners and decided to turn over Iraq to a civilian-run clusterfrack far too early-directly leading to thousands of dead Americans and Iraqis and utterly eliminating the possibility of the Iraq War being a net positive for us. The military plan predicted exactly what would happen, but Bush put ideologues in charge instead. Obama actually let the military do the job right and it just burns you up.

So how exactly has Obama's performance on the economy been "disasterious?"

Four Trillion (4,000,000,000,000) and counting; The amount of money Obama has borrowed from your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to finance his socialist agenda. Only a committed Kool-Aid swigging leftist would not be outraged by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The operation took place on Sunday, the Easter Egg Roll was on Monday. Would you like some more Kool Aid Lt. Asshole?

If assholes could fly he would be a rocket ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Four Trillion (4,000,000,000,000) and counting; The amount of money Obama has borrowed from your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to finance his socialist agenda. Only a committed Kool-Aid swigging leftist would not be outraged by that.

Dear Stupid,

1. It's not four trillion dollars borrowed.

2. The purpose of the economic stimulus was to avoid total collapse of the world's economy. If you would prefer that to future debt, then you're not very bright.

3. If Bush and the Republicans hadn't squandered the surplus for a tax give-away to the rich, deregulated everything, ignored the crushing need to attend to infrastructure, energy and health care (all the things you call socialist) and spent nearly one trillion dollars on a completely unnecessary war, we wouldn't have this problem.

Let's review history. Bush and the Republicans caused the problem with a little help from Clinton and the Democrats. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are now trying to fix it. The Republicans have nothing to offer but "no."

Those are the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Stupid,

1. It's not four trillion dollars borrowed.

2. The purpose of the economic stimulus was to avoid total collapse of the world's economy. If you would prefer that to future debt, then you're not very bright.

3. If Bush and the Republicans hadn't squandered the surplus for a tax give-away to the rich, deregulated everything, ignored the crushing need to attend to infrastructure, energy and health care (all the things you call socialist) and spent nearly one trillion dollars on a completely unnecessary war, we wouldn't have this problem.

Let's review history. Bush and the Republicans caused the problem with a little help from Clinton and the Democrats. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are now trying to fix it. The Republicans have nothing to offer but "no."

Those are the facts.

umm, yeah...maybe you should get your facts right, because democrats were in power in congress before the republicans took over...saying they gave just alittle help is way understating their role, this whole thing started with liberal democrats putting pressure on banks to give loans to people to buy houses who had no business in buying them. You are the same people who think throwing money at a situation solves the problem. Look at the Newark school district, its one of the richest school districts as far as money in the state, and yet its a disaster as far as school scores and education advancement. Washington D.C. is another prime example. i love how you people blame bush for the Iraq war when , if you knew anything about law, would know a president can't go to war alone, your democratic congress voted for the war too, Hillary clinton was one of them. So saying its all president Bush is insane. Get over it, and saying because money was spent on a war, we can just go ahead and spend money on garbage programs tailored to congressmen and womens personal home projects is also insane.

If you charged 5 grand on your credit card, and owed that money, would you go out and spend another 5 grand because , you already owe 5grand so i guess i should just owe 10grand.? thats what your rationale is for obama spending money left and right.

And I am far from rich, and under Bush my taxes went down, so I dont know what country you have been living in that "only the rich" got tax breaks. Its simple math that if you pay more money in taxes, if there is a tax cut your gonna get more back then people who haven't paid as much in taxes..

Guess what, i have health care, i dont want my taxes going to you or anyone else so you can have health care....Get a job and get your own, i shouldn't have to foot the bill, and guess what else, i pay my mortgage on time, can you imagine that? i actually pay it on time...WOW what a concept, why should i have to pay your mortgage because you didn't read the fine print? its amazing...Stop giving my money to people who don't deserve it, stop bailing out these companies who are ran like garbage. let them fail just like my business would if i ran it into the ground.

If you want everyone to have healthcare, then YOU can pay for it, I will fully support you if thats what you want to do , but not financially, if i dont believe in what you do, i shouldn't have to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
umm, yeah...maybe you should get your facts right, because democrats were in power in congress before the republicans took over...saying they gave just alittle help is way understating their role, this whole thing started with liberal democrats putting pressure on banks to give loans to people to buy houses who had no business in buying them. You are the same people who think throwing money at a situation solves the problem. Look at the Newark school district, its one of the richest school districts as far as money in the state, and yet its a disaster as far as school scores and education advancement. Washington D.C. is another prime example. i love how you people blame bush for the Iraq war when , if you knew anything about law, would know a president can't go to war alone, your democratic congress voted for the war too, Hillary clinton was one of them. So saying its all president Bush is insane. Get over it, and saying because money was spent on a war, we can just go ahead and spend money on garbage programs tailored to congressmen and womens personal home projects is also insane.

If you charged 5 grand on your credit card, and owed that money, would you go out and spend another 5 grand because , you already owe 5grand so i guess i should just owe 10grand.? thats what your rationale is for obama spending money left and right.

And I am far from rich, and under Bush my taxes went down, so I dont know what country you have been living in that "only the rich" got tax breaks. Its simple math that if you pay more money in taxes, if there is a tax cut your gonna get more back then people who haven't paid as much in taxes..

Guess what, i have health care, i dont want my taxes going to you or anyone else so you can have health care....Get a job and get your own, i shouldn't have to foot the bill, and guess what else, i pay my mortgage on time, can you imagine that? i actually pay it on time...WOW what a concept, why should i have to pay your mortgage because you didn't read the fine print? its amazing...Stop giving my money to people who don't deserve it, stop bailing out these companies who are ran like garbage. let them fail just like my business would if i ran it into the ground.

If you want everyone to have healthcare, then YOU can pay for it, I will fully support you if thats what you want to do , but not financially, if i dont believe in what you do, i shouldn't have to pay.

Here are some facts.

1. From 1995 until 2007, the Democrats never controlled Congress. From 2001 until 2007, the Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. From 2007 until 2009, Democrats controlled Congress but not with big enough majorities to pass any legislation because (a) it would have been filibustered in the Senate and (B) even if it had passed, Bush would have vetoed it.

2. The mortgage crisis is only a part of the problem. Both parties were complicit in that. You completely ignore how Bush rewrote the rules for the financial institutions and deregulated every market he could. Repeal of Glass-Steagall took place under Clinton and shame on him and the Democrats for supporting it, along with all the Republicans. The only members of Congress to oppose that were the liberal Democrats. If we had listened to them, we wouldn't be in this mess. But the bigger issue is that anti-governmentalism caused these problems. That was the problem with the mortgage crisis (too little regulation) and pretty much everything else.

3. Of course your taxes went down under Bush. The country borrowed against its future to turn millionaires into billionaires. I can put more money in the bank, too, if I borrow it, but in the end that’s not doing me any good. It’s an especially bad idea when the cuts are used to increase the wealth of the richest few. This much income disparity is not good. It causes problems every time. Why do you so-called conservatives constantly ignore this essential point?

4. I do blame Bush for the Iraqi war. He requested it, cooked the intelligence to justify it and took credit for it as his baby – until it went sour. The war was unanimously supported by the Republicans, who acted as though disagreement was un-American; that behavior is what was un-American. The only members of Congress to oppose it were Democrats.

5. Of course students don’t do well in Newark. Have you seen where these kids are growing up?

6. I got news for you, you’re already paying for other people’s health care. You’re just paying it through emergency rooms and operating rooms after people are really sick. You would pay less if we had a decent health care system that gave preventive care.

As unfair as it may seem, you are not better off paying less tax and letting millions of people fall behind. That ends up costing more money in increased crime, health care costs and reduced productivity. In other countries where they don’t have our cowboy attitude, they also don’t have many of our problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some facts.

1. From 1995 until 2007, the Democrats never controlled Congress. From 2001 until 2007, the Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. From 2007 until 2009, Democrats controlled Congress but not with big enough majorities to pass any legislation because (a) it would have been filibustered in the Senate and (B) even if it had passed, Bush would have vetoed it.

2. The mortgage crisis is only a part of the problem. Both parties were complicit in that. You completely ignore how Bush rewrote the rules for the financial institutions and deregulated every market he could. Repeal of Glass-Steagall took place under Clinton and shame on him and the Democrats for supporting it, along with all the Republicans. The only members of Congress to oppose that were the liberal Democrats. If we had listened to them, we wouldn't be in this mess. But the bigger issue is that anti-governmentalism caused these problems. That was the problem with the mortgage crisis (too little regulation) and pretty much everything else.

3. Of course your taxes went down under Bush. The country borrowed against its future to turn millionaires into billionaires. I can put more money in the bank, too, if I borrow it, but in the end that’s not doing me any good. It’s an especially bad idea when the cuts are used to increase the wealth of the richest few. This much income disparity is not good. It causes problems every time. Why do you so-called conservatives constantly ignore this essential point?

4. I do blame Bush for the Iraqi war. He requested it, cooked the intelligence to justify it and took credit for it as his baby – until it went sour. The war was unanimously supported by the Republicans, who acted as though disagreement was un-American; that behavior is what was un-American. The only members of Congress to oppose it were Democrats.

5. Of course students don’t do well in Newark. Have you seen where these kids are growing up?

6. I got news for you, you’re already paying for other people’s health care. You’re just paying it through emergency rooms and operating rooms after people are really sick. You would pay less if we had a decent health care system that gave preventive care.

As unfair as it may seem, you are not better off paying less tax and letting millions of people fall behind. That ends up costing more money in increased crime, health care costs and reduced productivity. In other countries where they don’t have our cowboy attitude, they also don’t have many of our problems.

that post was basically one big excuse...lol...

According to you, democrats didn't pass any legislation in congress because "they would probably have been vetoed" Probably ? thats what your basing your argument on, the fact that something might have happend? so your giving them a pass, if they did try and if that did happen it would be a valid excuse, not probably could have happend..that makes no sense.

You are blaming newarks schools sucking because of the way Newark is? are you serious, So liberals thought on the matter is throw more money into the school system, cause that will solve all their problems. You can have the best computers and books in teh world, if the kids don't show up to cllass and the parents dont care, nothing will change. So its the peoples of newarks fault, its not some over all conspiracy that you liberals say, "oh its not their fault, its the environment they grew up in" give me a break..

according to you, george bush, covertly went into iraq, gathered fake intelligence, convinced all the military personel about it, then congress. Again, are you serious? democrats voted for the war too, look at the voting record. Almost all of them voted for it. In one sentence you say they didn't vote for it, and in the other you say they voted for it, but only because they would be called names if they didn't..

Here is the best point yet, you admit taxes went down under bush, then because (according to you) rich people got richer, causing a larger income gap between the richest people and the poorest people, this causes a problem? what problem is that? If im making 75,000 a year and i get a tax reduction, what the hell do i care if a guy making 1 million a year also gets a tax reduction..your argument makes no sense at all. you use words like income disparity, thats what america was founded on, GET A CLUE, this is not socialism and not communism, haven't you picked up a history book before? those societies fail every time. Because we have a recession, you liberals think capatilism is a failure. give me a break, you can plot ups and downs on every economic growth graph. your feelings that EVERYONE should have the same stuff is the reason for our housing crisis. And you can't even argue that fact..because its fact not some opinion.

And then the liberal icing on the cake and I quote you "The country borrowed against its future" ...Did you not see what Obama has done over the past two months? END of story.. I blame all the politicans for the mess right now, you liberals blame george bush..lol..You think giving people free stuff will keep them from commiting crime. Drive past the projects where people are paying nothing to live in and what do you see? you see lexuses with chrome rims, you see satalite dishes in every single window coming out of the projects..So dont even give me that crap...Its called go get a job and pay your bills, not let everyone else pay them for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Stupid,

1. It's not four trillion dollars borrowed.

2. The purpose of the economic stimulus was to avoid total collapse of the world's economy. If you would prefer that to future debt, then you're not very bright.

3. If Bush and the Republicans hadn't squandered the surplus for a tax give-away to the rich, deregulated everything, ignored the crushing need to attend to infrastructure, energy and health care (all the things you call socialist) and spent nearly one trillion dollars on a completely unnecessary war, we wouldn't have this problem.

Let's review history. Bush and the Republicans caused the problem with a little help from Clinton and the Democrats. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are now trying to fix it. The Republicans have nothing to offer but "no."

Those are the facts.

The problem with your "facts" is you get them from dailykos, moveon, huffington, MSNBC and NBC. The "fact" is they are all nothing more than far left propaganda machines feeding Kool-Aid to the Loonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that post was basically one big excuse...lol...

No it wasn't. You just didn't agree with it. Watch while I rip you apart shred by shred.

According to you, democrats didn't pass any legislation in congress because "they would probably have been vetoed" Probably ? thats what your basing your argument on, the fact that something might have happend? so your giving them a pass, if they did try and if that did happen it would be a valid excuse, not probably could have happend..that makes no sense.

They didn't have the votes. That's a fact. And it's not just "might have." Everyone knew that Bush wasn't going to sign a bill that would have spent money on energy R&D. It's not like these guys keep their positions a secret.

You are blaming newarks schools sucking because of the way Newark is? are you serious, So liberals thought on the matter is throw more money into the school system, cause that will solve all their problems. You can have the best computers and books in teh world, if the kids don't show up to cllass and the parents dont care, nothing will change. So its the peoples of newarks fault, its not some over all conspiracy that you liberals say, "oh its not their fault, its the environment they grew up in" give me a break..

I'm completely serious. You admitted it yourself. The two bolded statements are in direct contradiction to each other. Liberalism isn't the problem. The problem is that you're too stupid to understand an argument, even your own.

according to you, george bush, covertly went into iraq, gathered fake intelligence, convinced all the military personel about it, then congress. Again, are you serious? democrats voted for the war too, look at the voting record. Almost all of them voted for it.

In the first place, I never suggested that Bush went to war covertly. I suggest you look up the word because obviously you don't know what it means. I certainly didn't use it. I said he cooked the intelligence, not that he kept the run-up to the war a secret.

I did look at the voting record. Now you try it. The only members of Congress who voted against the war were Democrats. In the House, most of the Democrats (126 out of 209) voted against it. If House Democrats had decided the outcome, the resolution would have failed. In the Senate, 21 Democrats voted against it and only 1 Republican. What I said was that the Republicans unanimously voted for the war. In the House it was 215-6 and in the Senate it was 48-1. Technically that's not quite unanimous, but it's very close. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution] You can play all the stupid partisan games you want, but when you say "almost all of them voted for it," meaning the Democrats, that's just not true.

In one sentence you say they didn't vote for it, and in the other you say they voted for it, but only because they would be called names if they didn't..

That's not what I said. When I said that people were called names, I was referring to the American people. Besides, most the people who voted against the war were called names. It was vile.

Here is the best point yet, you admit taxes went down under bush, then because (according to you) rich people got richer, causing a larger income gap between the richest people and the poorest people, this causes a problem? what problem is that? If im making 75,000 a year and i get a tax reduction, what the hell do i care if a guy making 1 million a year also gets a tax reduction..your argument makes no sense at all. you use words like income disparity, thats what america was founded on, GET A CLUE, this is not socialism and not communism, haven't you picked up a history book before? those societies fail every time. Because we have a recession, you liberals think capatilism is a failure. give me a break, you can plot ups and downs on every economic growth graph. your feelings that EVERYONE should have the same stuff is the reason for our housing crisis. And you can't even argue that fact..because its fact not some opinion.

The problem with this discussion is that you don't understand economics or history. When the top 1% and the top 5% of the people control an excessive share of the wealth, that means that too much of the country's purchasing power isn't purchasing anything. The point of a vibrant middle class, in addition to the fact that the people in it do well, is that without a strong middle class a nation's economy can't thrive. The problem with Bush's tax cuts is that they weren't necessary and we didn't use them to invest in anything. Think about your own family finances: it's OK to incur debt if it's for something you really need, but you don't do it just to have a lot of money on hand. That's irresponsible - but that's what Bush did.

Of course the rich are going to have their taxes cut along with everyone else, but if the result is a debt for no reason and in addition the tax cut makes billionaires out of millionaires, even though they're not adding anything of value to the economy, then it's a bad idea. That is also what Bush did. He rewarded people who weren't doing anything except transferring money from one pocket to another. If you want a country based on productivity and the work ethic, then you can't do that - but we did it.

We're not just talking about millionaires, the issue is billionaires. It's OK to have some income disparity - you're right, that's essential in a capitalist system - but if you have too much disparity, that means the system is about to break down. If you've ever played the board game Monopoly, you see what happens when one or two players gain control over too much: everyone else becomes powerless. When that happens, the game quickly spins out of control. When you take most of the players out of the game, in real life that means people are suffering. That's an extreme version of what just happened, and it also happened in the 1920s, causing the Great Depression. If you don't understand that history, then you should study it instead of trying to argue something you don't understand.

And then the liberal icing on the cake and I quote you "The country borrowed against its future" ...Did you not see what Obama has done over the past two months? END of story.. I blame all the politicans for the mess right now, you liberals blame george bush..lol..You think giving people free stuff will keep them from commiting crime. Drive past the projects where people are paying nothing to live in and what do you see? you see lexuses with chrome rims, you see satalite dishes in every single window coming out of the projects..So dont even give me that crap...Its called go get a job and pay your bills, not let everyone else pay them for you.

You think you know everything, but you don't know much at all. What Obama has done is (1) ensure that the financial system doesn't completely collapse and (2) begin investing in infrastructure, health care, education and (I think most important) energy. Of course we have to borrow money against the future, but we will make up for it by re-building the economy with new infrastructure, better health care, better education and new energy sources so we won't have to ship our money overseas. It's called investing.

By contrast, Bush just borrowed money. He didn't invest in anything except his rich friends. and you cheered while he forced you to subsidize it, you moron. He gave you a few hundred bucks and you were too stupid to realize that he was pulling thousands out of your other pocket.

You see, that's not a difficult distinction to understand. If you borrow money to finance your education so you can earn more money later, that's an investment. If you borrow money just so you can have more money on hand in the short term, that's not an investment. It's stupid. We were stupid. We elected George Bush and people like you helped cause this problem because he threw a few hundred dollars at you so you wouldn't complain that he was making his friends filthy rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2009 at 10:41 PM, Guest 2smart4u said:

I notice none of the network news channels or the NY Slimes showed Obama bowing to the Saudi prince. Nothing like the POTUS behaving subservient to a two-bit Saudi prince. I thought he was going to kneel and kiss his hand, what an embarrassment to America.

I'm dying here.  what say you "2 smart" about the snowflake in chief bowing and curtsying to the Muslim terrorist. How stupid must you feel ? Haha karma bit your dumb azz 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:01 PM, Guest Guest said:

I'm dying here.  what say you "2 smart" about the snowflake in chief bowing and curtsying to the Muslim terrorist. How stupid must you feel ? Haha karma bit your dumb azz 

 

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:01 PM, Guest Guest said:

I'm dying here.  what say you "2 smart" about the snowflake in chief bowing and curtsying to the Muslim terrorist. How stupid must you feel ? Haha karma bit your dumb azz 

You need to get rid of the rabbit ears and get cable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0