|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Not cute. Not at all.
I'm just doing exactly what you were doing, posting large blocks of content that I don't believe, with no link to my source and no original input of my own. Go look at post #1313. You post this .. this .. what is it? It's just filler, right? Not representative of your opinion, not traceable to anywhere... I could have just reposted your picture of the hand dryer with your handle 'shopped in over "your President". |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
You have captured perfectly Merc's tendency to post huge blocks of cut and paste with no formatting, and no personal comment, making the post both uninviting to attempt to read and impossible if you do try. I especially liked the part where you said "Suspendisse Socialist potenti." So true. Ad astra per asperum! |
Quote:
That was proven repeatedly false through factcheck, politico, PMSNBC, ABC, CBS, CBO, tw, NBC, CNN, FAUX and a host of others. There was a presidential speech, a special congressional investigation and even the FDA, CIA and OSHA looked into it repeatedly. Sheesh! I guess now you'll start telling us that Obama is a Kenyan again. (shakes head in disgust) |
@ Merc Damnant quodnon intelligunt. :p:
|
Quote:
|
Dinesh D'Sousa's anti-colonialism piece is a year old turd. The only reason it doesn't smell is that it's too old, and it's dried out and sitting on the sidewalk where people have avoided stepping in it and spreading the mess. D'Sousa took his pet theory and expanded it into book size. Along the way he misrepresented many Obama views. Many conservative pundits rejected the whole thing.
|
But UT, if the rhetoric supports someone's warped views, they'll pick the turd up off the sidewalk and polish it, then proceed to spread it around as "proof" of their position.
"I'm right!! See, this shiny turd proves it!" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
My mind is not made up about what you believe. My mind is a blank slate about what you believe; that is exactly my point. You posted hundreds of words with ZERO words of your own about your opinion. How can I know what you believe if you don't say what you believe. You asked "what, you didn't like my comment?" and my reply was (after I went back and looked for your comment, and found none) what comment.
I'm still waiting. |
Quote:
So far your comments are at least entertaining, on most things I post as of recent. |
A complete LIE! how can you fools vote for this scumbag?
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born: 4/4/36 Died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9 1/2 yrs old when it ended. Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: January 2,1935 Died: 3/2/87 at the age of 52. He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended. He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war. |
Bush told a much bigger lie.
|
Quote:
lie: noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. |
Quote:
Waiting.... |
|
Quote:
Then I check the link (if you give one) and the material is written by someone like "The Coalition to Disband the Evil Socialist Tea Party." :rolleyes: Meanwhile you refuse to read the information put out by the non partisan outfits like the Congressional Budget Office (damn Commies!), and when you do read a sentence or two, you think their report is evidence against Obama. Obama must be one incredibly powerful man. Every bad thing, no matter how large or how small, that happens anywhere in the world is due to Obama. To misquote Monster, "If it rains in Ann Arbor, it must be Obama's fault." Oh, I did like the cricket. |
Quote:
The facts you post above are true and correct. Let me ask you this though, why would you list Lolo Soetoro? Who is he? He's not Barack Obama's father, you name his father in the previous sentence. It's my guess that you listed him because he was a man in Barack Obama's life that served in the role of father. One man of a few who served in that role, including Stanley Dunham, Barack Obama's grandfather, who was the man in his life when Obama was about ten years old. His father "figure". I have a father. I have a stepfather. I frequently refer to each one as my "father", and I've never had a youtube callout for lying. But I'll make one if you'll post it and call me a liar. I would be HONORED to be in the same company as Barack Obama. Is this the best you can do? I think you're merely uninformed mercy, and not clumsy, pandering, proselytizing, believing or lying. A repentable sin of political speech. |
Quote:
I don't have proof that Bush lied. There's plenty of compelling evidence to suggest that he did. Plenty of evidence to suggest Blair did too. But clearly, I am not personally privy to the kinds of information streams that could answer to that. That doesn't mean he didn't lie. Why the 'waiting' by the way? I live in England, you numpty, I'd gone to bed. |
Clearly, given that I am an ordinary British citizen posting from Yorkshire and with no access to secret government documents of any kind, I am unable to offer 'proof'. But... plenty of people have made excellent cases for Bush having at best chosen to be deliberately blind to any facts that might get in the way of his invasding Iraq, and at worst knowingly stated falsehoods in the run up to that invasion.
Here's an interesting piece from George Mason University's History News Network, 2003. Before you say it, yes, I realise this is an opinion piece. But, the considerations the writer set out for his students are compelling in my opinion. Quote:
And here, is the list o statements made during the period in question: Quote:
|
Now. Taking all that into account, if we then look at the statements made by two prominent CIA advisors to the President who insist that their attempts to draw his attention to inconsistencies in the reports and their own intelligence which suggested that in fact there was no WMD programme in Iraq, what we see is President navigating the facts in a knowingly dishonest fashion, whilst always retaining the politically important 'plausible deniability'.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Plausible deniability is not good enough when it comes to casus belli.
But hey, you have fun painting Obama as a liar and a cheat. |
No one died when Obama lied. :)
But yeah, I think Obama's smarter than to spew easily discounted lies. I *know* he's an evil socialist and all, that's he's threatening our comfy lives, our security, but he's not stupid. :rolleyes: |
I said it before...
...Mr. Obama is a man of *mediocre intelligence who promotes *mediocre ideas.
At best: he's simply, currently, the shiniest, most visible, cog of the bunch. The 'real' threat is not Mr. Obama but the inertia he (knowingly? unknowingly?) serves: the bureaucratic, cultural, inertia that's been in play since before the first proto-human climbed down out of the tree and said, "This here ground is good!" (and then was promptly set upon by all the other, more timid, proto-humans for daring to think and do for him- or her-self). Mr. Obama (along with any other 'leader' you care to name) is simply a vehicle for, and tool in, the only real war, that being the war between the **'WE' and the 'I'. *The status quo, convention, cog-thinking, 'society' and 'community' over 'civilization', the reduction of 'one' to simple resource for 'many'. **All others are mere echoes, shadows, of this essential conflict which can be summed up in this question, 'Who owns 'me'?' |
A leader leads. Unless I'm a puppy, I don't have my very own designated leader. Our leader is to lead 'us' not 'me' or 'I' because, let's face it (and as hard as it is to believe) I'm NOT the only person on the face of the earth.
|
There is something approaching seven billion individuals on the Earth and not a 'WE' or 'US' anywhere to be found (except in the heads of folks who 'want' to be part of something bigger).
I'm not interested in being a component of 'WE', so, I don't need to be led. I understand lots of folks 'do' want (or need) to be led...great and fine...*just leave me out of it. *Which, of course, is a clear violation of how cogism works. Cogism demands the participation of every last man, woman, and child. Deviancy is discouraged and punished. |
Though it has little to do with President Obama, where do you place "society" on the scale from seven billion individuals and cogism, henry quirk?
|
Ants have *societies; human individuals (should, I think) engage in *civilization.
Don't know that I answered your question (directly, anyway). *shrug* *each one servicing all others. **the on-going, ill-defined, result of at least two individuals agreeing not to steal from one another, not to hurt/rape one another, not to kill one another, so that each can go and do something other than (constantly and overtly) self-defending al the time. |
WE will accomplish more than Henry Quirk singularly will.
|
@Dani: If you haven't already seen it, the PBS Frontline story Top Secret America (Premiere Date: 09/06/2011 - video|transcript) may help you further sort things out.
Here's an excerpt: "RICHARD CLARKE, White House Terrorism Advisor, 1998-01: So in the past, covert action was done by CIA. The President had to approve covert action and notify the Congress. Now a lot of what looks like the same sort of thing, covert action, is done by JSOC. Now they say when they do it, it’s not covert action. It’s a military operation. So the president does not by law have to approve every operation and the intelligence committees are not notified. NARRATOR: Then in Afghanistan, a story circulated that Rumsfeld wanted to use JSOC forces on a new battlefield, Iraq. GARY SCHROEN, CIA, 1970-02: You could see changes being made in the U.S. military staffing in Afghanistan, that the Green Beret units, the 5th Special Forces group for the most part were being pulled out to refit and get ready for Iraq. And it was clear that the kind of guys that I think a lot of us believed were essential U.S. military personnel with special operations capabilities were being pulled away. MICHAEL SCHEUER, Former CIA Officer: By 2002 in the springtime, it was almost taken for granted that we were going to go to war with Iraq. NARRATOR: The president needed a convincing reason for war with Saddam Hussein. George Tenet and the CIA said they had no evidence Saddam had helped al Qaeda, but Secretary Rumsfeld did. A secret unit at the Pentagon claimed it had found a connection. MELVIN GOODMAN, Fmr. CIA Officer: They needed an office that would produce the intelligence that the CIA wouldn’t produce. Rumsfeld said, “I can solve your problem,” and they created the Office of Special Plans. DANIEL BENJAMIN, Nat’l Security Council, 1994-99: So they’re going to do their own analysis. They’re going to show what the CIA’s been missing all along about the true relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. NARRATOR: They worked in a vault deep inside the Pentagon. They had what is known as “all source clearances”─ total access to intelligence information. F. MICHAEL MALOOF, Defense Dept., 1982-04: I went into the system, our classified system, to see what did we know about terrorist groups and their relationships, as well as their connection, associations with not only al Qaeda, but also with state sponsors. NARRATOR: The information was rarely vetted. Instead, it moved up the chain of command to the office of the vice president. MELVIN GOODMAN: And this became material that was then used, sort of in white paper-like fashion, to be leaked to journalists or to create links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. NARRATOR: It was delivered to the American public and the world. Vice Pres. DICK CHENEY: New information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq on the one hand and the al Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. NARRATOR: And they began relying on a new phrase, “weapons of mass destruction.” CONDOLEEZZA RICE, National Security Adviser: ─nuclear weapons, but we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. COLIN POWELL, Secretary of State: Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world. NEWSCASTER: A rapid series of 40 explosions lit up Baghdad in the early morning hours. NEWSCASTER: Military officials have been using the term “shock and awe” to describe the assault on Iraq. NARRATOR: By the spring of 2003, the U.S. had attacked Iraq." |
The very fact that we are STILL :repuke: discussing this 8 years on, means that it is a question upon which intelligent people can disagree.
|
@ Dana - that was some nice research there. I was espescially interested in Sabri's role. I had heard of him, but was only vaguely aware of his contribution to the Great Lie about Iraq.
If the US had been a less powerful country, there is not a doubt in my mind that Bush, not to mention his chief generals and cabinet members would have been tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague. And then there was the torture, but I digress. I mostly respond to Merc's posts because they give me an excuse to spend some time researching the current political scene and I REALLY want him to answer my question about how he squares his own ethics with the dismantling of the social safety net here in the US. I imagine he will respond to your excellent research by calling you the worst expletive in his vocabulary - a blank, blank LIBERAL! :eek: And of course, Obama as a leader rivals only Adolf Hitler in his misgovernment of the US. :rolleyes: |
It's God Damn fools.
God Damn's convention is to alway be capitalized. Don't know why I can't be a God Damn Fool. At least it 'feels' like a real title, something I could wear on a sash or have embroidered onto a jacket or (NOOOOOOOOOO) get a tattoo of. :lol: |
Solyndra
Quote:
Some video coverage from ABC here This could be rather damaging to the "different than the last guy" or the "transparent" administration. The timing isn't so good either. I wonder if this is simply one bad deal of many or if there is a trend. It seems there are a couple other solar companies who received stimulus money which failed a well. I applaud the administration for investing in renewable energies, but this instance looks more like a payback to a major campaign contributor. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Smoking gun? Please, don't insult me. I'm not looking for a smoking gun.
Quote:
Did you read where their price point was $3.00 when their actual cost was $6.00? Who the heck would invest in that business model? Quote:
Quote:
Seems like the emails suggest there may be something more to it. It's only day 2 ... |
So, I got curious about what all the excitement was about and Googled Kaiser. It would appear that he does indeed own a 35% share in the failed company. Kaiser is also like one of the 400 richest people in the country. His views seem to be fairly liberal despite this fact (take THAT, Merc!). Kaiser has indeed been a big supporter of both Obama and the Democratic Party. I have to say that this looks suspicious to me. Just one more example of a billionaire buying himself some influence.
However, according to Forbes, Kaiser’s heart seems to be in the right place: Quote:
So maybe Obama was playing a little game of “Gotcha!” with Wal-Mart. I imagine that if I had the patience to do the research, I could make as good a case for this as the one for Obama paying off Kaiser with a federal plum. Here’s what Wal Mart Watch.org had to say about the Walton family and their company. I have no idea how valid their statements are, but it certainly does add some spice to the mix. Reminds me of the old “Spy vs. Spy” in Mad Magazine: Quote:
http://walmartwatch.org/files/2011/0...iving_0602.pdf The more of this stuff I read, the more cynical I become. When are Americans going to wake up to the fact that we are a democracy in name only? The governance of this country would be better described as a plutocracy. |
I spent a little time on this as well. Here is what I found. From a rather partisan site, but the info corroborated what I saw elsewhere and was neatly organized.
Quote:
|
What partisan hyperbolic types forget to mention: nine of every ten innovative investments fail. One big one failed. So politics take cheapshots rather than look for the rare solution that actually succeeds.
Find the exception. Then hype it excessively using 'brainwashing by soundbyte' logic. Most investments in truly innovative technologies fail. Why do so many of those partisan sites forget the numbers? A political agenda. Subjective reasoning could even prove Saddam had WMDs. Rush Limbaugh selective reasoning is alive and well. |
Quote:
|
As if tw believes in things that sensible and well-advised people believe in anyway, as singularly incapable of politics as he is. He seems pointedly not to consider that the photovoltaic technology used by Solyndra is not anything radical nor too new. I don't think we can lay its failure at that door.
But, to the advancing of the discussion: Did 'W' Squander 9/11 Unity? |
Quote:
|
I believe there is a solid connection between the idea of "squandered" and the advice of "Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed."
The focus to the citizens of the nation was "business as usual" with the emphasis on business. It was not a call to focus out attention and energy and resources on a war effort, but to maintain a (what was an unsustainable) economic trajectory. Since we hadn't yet run out of bigger fools, this worked for a while longer. Yeah. He did squander our unity. |
More and more of this is showing up in more and more of the media. It makes "O in 2012" writers less and less and less credible as thinkers.
It's also been pointed out that such unity would have been in any case transitory. My unity with W's kind of ideas was of course not squandered, but then too I am not prejudiced against Republicans like some thoughtless people are. |
Quote:
|
If there were more and more and more of the really thoughtful people and less and less and less of the mindless sheep-thinkers we'd have more and more and more wealth and more and more security and more and more dog-fearing real citizens would have more and more freedom to exercise their abilities of which they have more and more of. Consequently, there would be less and less of the losers and less and less of the stupid and less and less of the lesser types who more and more threaten to turn this country into more and more of a socialist regime and less and less of a moral upstanding land where more and more of the decent folks can live in less and less fear of the lesser among us.
Is that it? |
More or less.
|
Yep, that's it in a nut's hell.
|
UG, you're wrong. There is not more of anything like what you linked to in sane, reasonable conversations. If this is typical of the kind of material you expose yourself to, then it could be true, but you have sadly confused cause and effect. This is the "kool-aid" people talk about. Stop putting it into your system. Dilute it with more, much more of (practically any) other stuff. I listen to Fox radio programming regularly and I do hear talk like this "Why is Obama destroying the economy?!" and other ridiculous crap like that.
You can talk yourself into believing, and this is a great way to do it. I think you are already well along this path. But you will have to travel this path to delusion alone, I will only watch you from an increasing distance as you fade into irrelevancy. Your intellect will be missed, but not the ill you bent it toward. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
speaking of bottom lines--the clip you posted where you claim Obama lied, I'm still waiting for your response. Well?
|
thought so.
|
|
roflmao!
|
Anyone but Obama in 2012...
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.