Wow, the Wall Street banksters strike back

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Sshhhh... you're just going to confuse people. Obama went through extraordinary lengths, to seal his transcripts by Executive Order, as one of the first (if not first) action of his presidency.

Untrue.

1. The first executive order was that nobody from the executive branch can accept gifts from lobbyists.

2. As he had never signed an executive order sealing his transcript, I can only assume that you mean his second executive order. It actually did nothing of the sort. It limited the ability of former presidents to seal their records. It actually revokes Bush EO 13233.

Lastly, KG, an Executive Order can only direct actions by the Executive Branch. It cannot direct a private institution what to do. This myth you're perpetuating is just that - a myth.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Untrue.

1. The first executive order was that nobody from the executive branch can accept gifts from lobbyists.

2. As he had never signed an executive order sealing his transcript, I can only assume that you mean his second executive order. It actually did nothing of the sort. It limited the ability of former presidents to seal their records. It actually revokes Bush EO 13233.

Lastly, KG, an Executive Order can only direct actions by the Executive Branch. It cannot direct a private institution what to do. This myth you're perpetuating is just that - a myth.

You mean like the other myth - that he has spent $1.4 million concealing his papers. Where would he have gotten that kind of money to throw away. Assange would have leaked them anyway.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

(1) Yet the left was incensed when Bush removed Saddam Hussein, who was many times as brutal. In fact, there were world wide demonstrations and rioting in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power. George Bush was labeled a "terrorist", "war criminal", and "mass murderer". Are you willing to apply these same labels to Barrack Hussein Obama?

You're argument is quite interesting.

(2) Really? How about ideas of mass redistribution of wealth? Do they not exist or are they not of a "socialist" theme?

The Iraq war had nothing to do with removing Saddam Hussein from power. Bush had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq. It was Dick Cheney. Why do I say this. Well the neo-con desire to invade Iraq, a second time, dates back to the late 90's. Ever hear of PNAC? http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Read through this and you might get a better insight into the neo-con philosophy of governing the world using military strength. By the way, "W" was never a member of PNAC Dick Cheney was.

Iraq was a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq did not support Al-Qaihda or the Taliban. I don't give a damn how bad of a guy Saddam was, we had no business invading Iraq. The neo-cons lied this country into a devastating 10 year war. Ask Colin Powell who presented all the bullshit "evidence" to invade Iraq to the UN. He is not very happy about that today.

Why is Libya different? That is easy to answer. There is an active civil war in the country because the rebels wanted Gaddafi out of power. Gaddafi was a terrorist and supported terrorism. Libya officially admitted to the Lockerbie/ Pan-Am bombing that killed many innocent people including many Americans. Who can forget the West Berlin night club bombing that killed three American soldiers. Barrack Hussein Obama saw an opportunity to take out a terrorist and he did it without the loss of a single American life.

Now, onto the subject of the "mass redistribution of wealth". This is what it really looks like. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485 It seems we have been living under a socialist government since 1979. The Republicans have used social engineering in the form of massive tax cuts to move wealth up to the top income earners.

A German industrialist was asked if he minded paying the high taxes in Germany. His answer was no. His reasoning, "I don't want to be a wealthy man living in a poor country."

Wealthy capitalist in the US are beginning to see the light. Warren Buffet does, "there is class warfare in this country and my side is winning". He realizes that once the number of desperate poor folks get big enough here the pitch forks and guillotines are going to come out.

Have a great day, it is 50*F here and pouring rain. I am going to find a nice dry building to work in today.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

The Iraq war had nothing to do with removing Saddam Hussein from power. Bush had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq. It was Dick Cheney. Why do I say this. Well the neo-con desire to invade Iraq, a second time, dates back to the late 90's. Ever hear of PNAC? http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Read through this and you might get a better insight into the neo-con philosophy of governing the world using military strength. By the way, "W" was never a member of PNAC Dick Cheney was.

Iraq was a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq did not support Al-Qaihda or the Taliban. I don't give a damn how bad of a guy Saddam was, we had no business invading Iraq. The neo-cons lied this country into a devastating 10 year war. Ask Colin Powell who presented all the bullshit "evidence" to invade Iraq to the UN. He is not very happy about that today.



Now, onto the subject of the "mass redistribution of wealth". This is what it really looks like. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485 It seems we have been living under a socialist government since 1979. The Republicans have used social engineering in the form of massive tax cuts to move wealth up to the top income earners.

Ohhh wow!! Interesting, and so misguided.....

(1) "Bush had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq..." George Bush wasn't the President of the United States? He did not give the marching orders to the U.S. Military? I guess his masters, the leaders of the NWO, in that secret bunker somewhere, did.

(2) "...better insight into the neo-con philosophy of governing the world using military strength." "neo-con philosophy"... LOL. Tell me, what was the philosophy of Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, and so many others through history. Are they all "neo-cons" as their primary philosophy involved world domination through military strength? Or is it only confined to a small number of convenient "whipping boys"?

(3) "I don't give a damn how bad of a guy Saddam was, we had no business invading Iraq. The neo-cons lied this country into a devastating 10 year war. Ask Colin Powell who presented all the bullshit "evidence" to invade Iraq to the UN."

Really? and yet... "Why is Libya different? That is easy to answer.... because the rebels wanted Gaddafi out of power." So what are you saying... That there was on active resistance in Iraq against Saddam Hussein and he was universally beloved by his population? I guess that is why Saddam Hussein gassed his own people with VX, to show his devotion to them.

"The neo-cons lied.." really... yet Congress, including most Democrats, voted for it. How can George Bush be so stupid, such an idiot, yet such a brilliant mastermind at the same time. How is it possible that this man who liberals claim has the intellect of an amoeba can devise such a fiendish plan that fools all the brilliant Democrats to vote his way? Then he got a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do his bidding. Not only that, he manipulated the clandestine intelligence agencies of FIFTY nations or more, including Russia (at that time still the SOVIET UNION), PRC, United Kingdom, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, France, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others.... I can hardly contain my laughter.

Then another lovely caveat to: "Why is Libya different? So George Bush (a Republican), that imbecile behind the NWO with an IQ of 35, is evil for bombing and removing a dictator (Saddam Hussein) who has gassed his own people with VX nerve gas and killed his countrymen by the millions. Yet Barrack Hussein Obama (a Democrat), and without question the most brilliant mind the planet has ever produced, is a hero for bombing and deposing another dictator, one who has never gassed his own people, and never killed 1% as many as Hussein..... just because "the rebels wanted Gaddafi out of power."....

I'm a "rebel" and I want "Big-Ears" Obama deposed... So what are you saying? If I were to ask President Islam Karmov of Uzbekistan to remove him it would be justified by whatever means necessary? Does this mean that I don't have to wait till the 2012 election to celebrate?

(4) "It seems we have been living under a socialist government since 1979. The Republicans have used social engineering in the form of massive tax cuts to move wealth up to the top income earners."

Really... Do you actually know what a definition of a "socialist government" is? "The Republicans used social engineering", since "1979" even... I guess Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama are now Republicans. If they were not, why did they not reverse the course of this "modified" socialism, in the nearly 11 years of their reign? How about Jimmy Carter, since he was in office until January 1981?

Then by your definition, Obama is trying to take the country back to a path of... ummm, true capitalism?

[simi]

I got the coffee on... would someone like to wake up and smell some?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by simi

I got the coffee on... would someone like to wake up and smell some?

It's gotta smell better than some of the stuff being thrown against the wall to see if it will stick.

Regards,

D-Ray

[simi]

Yep D... and that's why I've been running around the room with the Febreze too. I'm not gonna scrub the walls..

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by simi

Yep D... and that's why I've been running around the room with the Febreze too. I'm not gonna scrub the walls..

Hope they are wearing latex gloves.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Ohhh wow!! Interesting, and so misguided.....

To deny that the Iraq misadventure was anything other that a grand experiment by the NeoCons to reorder the Mideast through a domino theory emanating from Iraq is to deny the blatantly obvious (but to you, painful) truth. There is plenty of evidence to support this notion (read up on the Downing St. memos) and none to refute it.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by finnbow

To deny that the Iraq misadventure was anything other that a grand experiment by the NeoCons to reorder the Mideast through a domino theory emanating from Iraq is to deny the blatantly obvious (but to you, painful) truth. There is plenty of evidence to support this notion (read up on the Downing St. memos) and none to refute it.

You know I'm not a fan of the Iraq War... One can write a lot, and one can discount, in the words of Al Gore, "inconvenient truths".