Obama's purge of top military brass...

[Bubblehead1980]

Support him or not, anyone looking at this fairly has to find it mighty suspicious that obama has "fired" 9 Generals and Admirals now.Why? No real explanations aside from some vague accusations that sound like nothing more than arbitrary reasons to rid the military of those who do not support him.Dismissing the Admiral who refused to stand down when they gave the idiotic order not to defend Benghazi ? I hear North Korea's "leader" has been purging his military as well. Should be outrage over this, of course our half braindead population remains silent.Close national parks or have food stamps threatened, oh plenty of uproar.SMH:/\\!!

[Cybermat47]

Umm... link?

[TarJak]

Umm... link?

CT?

[Tribesman]

Umm... link?
Try Rush and Jones.


CT?
What, Limbaugh and Alex? never

[Betonov]

Force retiring generals is not a purge.


THIS is a purge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

[Jimbuna]

Do you have a link or a source for what you are claiming?

[Oberon]

Didn't take him long to start up again... :haha:

[Tribesman]

Do you have a link or a source for what you are claiming?
Do you need a link? the admiral who "refused to stand down" his airgroups for the relief of Benghazi was apparently at the time in the far east having a few problems with the discipline of his men on shore leave in the brothels of Thailand.
Now I know in flight refuelling has made great advances and jets can fly quite fast, but.....:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

Do you need a link?
Yes, and now we apparently need two. It's a poster's job to provide links for his claims.

[Platapus]

That was almost clever the way he tried to show a comparison between Obama and KJU.

Smooth and subtle. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Was Hillary forced retired after Benghazi or did she go on her own volition?

[Platapus]

Was Hillary forced retired after Benghazi or did she go on her own volition?

At that level of government there is probably little difference and is hard to tell.

[mapuc]

Google is your friend

it was in the redflagnews(the article is about 10 hours old)

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/7-high-ranking-military-officers-fired-by-obama-1st-time-in-us-history-video

I'm not to blame. I have only found the article I can't say if it is true or not.

Markus

[Tribesman]

Yes, and now we apparently need two. It's a poster's job to provide links for his claims.
Apparently I suggested two sources.

[Oberon]

Google is your friend

it was in the redflagnews(the article is about 10 hours old)

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/7-high-ranking-military-officers-fired-by-obama-1st-time-in-us-history-video

I'm not to blame. I have only found the article I can't say if it is true or not.

Markus

Judging by its completely unbiased attitude towards American politics, I'd take it with a truckload of salt.


EDIT: Suggest that this be rolled into the conspiracy theory thread.

[Tribesman]

Google is your friend

it was in the redflagnews(the article is about 10 hours old)

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/7-high-ranking-military-officers-fired-by-obama-1st-time-in-us-history-video

I'm not to blame. I have only found the article I can't say if it is true or not.

Markus
I like the comments, CAPLOCK works there too.
Its better for a laugh on the real wingnut conspiracy sites though as you can get some real frothing at the mouth coverage there

[Sailor Steve]

Apparently I suggested two sources.
1. "Suggested" is not providing links.

2. Your "suggestions" tell exactly nothing - not even where to look. "Broad hints" would be more accurate, and not in the least helpful.

[Jimbuna]

Here's a link to two....Maj Gen Michael Carey and Adm Giardina:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24499310

[Tribesman]

1. "Suggested" is not providing links.

2. Your "suggestions" tell exactly nothing - not even where to look. "Broad hints" would be more accurate, and not in the least helpful.
That's a matter of opinion.
I think the mere mention of the two sources tell you exactly everything about the validity of the initial claim being made.
You can't say that people are unfamiliar with the sources or the conspiracy nonsense they peddle given the frequency with which it is posted on this forum.

[Sailor Steve]

That's a matter of opinion.
I think the mere mention of the two sources tell you exactly everything about the validity of the initial claim being made.
You can't say that people are unfamiliar with the sources or the conspiracy nonsense they peddle given the frequency with which it is posted on this forum.
Really? What two sources does Do you need a link? the admiral who "refused to stand down" his airgroups for the relief of Benghazi was apparently at the time in the far east having a few problems with the discipline of his men on shore leave in the brothels of Thailand.
Now I know in flight refuelling has made great advances and jets can fly quite fast, but.....:rotfl2:
mention?

[Ducimus]

Judging by its completely unbiased attitude towards American politics, I'd take it with a truckload of salt.


EDIT: Suggest that this be rolled into the conspiracy theory thread.

Every name listed would have to be verfied. Personally, im not inclined to google 9 seperate names.

[Armistead]

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo49/faolbushcraft/Misc/popcorn-1.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/faolbushcraft/media/Misc/popcorn-1.gif.html)

[Oberon]

Every name listed would have to be verfied. Personally, im not inclined to google 9 seperate names.

Oh, I dare say that the gentlemen involved have most likely have been either relieved of command or have stood down, but the reasoning behind it is what lumps this thread into the conspiracy basket. For example,Vice-Admiral Giardina was due to a criminal investigation into gambling.
Furthermore, the extremely subtle (!) comparison between the President and Kim Jong-un is a grasp worthy of Alex Jones and the FEMA death camp crowd.

So, into the conspiracy bin I say.

[Platapus]

Here's a link to two....Maj Gen Michael Carey and Adm Giardina:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24499310

Sounds like these two flag officers were relieved due to cause. I am glad the military is holding their flag officers accountable. It takes a lot to get one relieved.

[Stealhead]

Yeah the one chump was in charge of all US nuclear forces and he got caught trying to use counterfeit chips at a casino.That calls his integrity into serious question which is why he was relived of command.

[Bilge_Rat]

Obama is a master politician. He is turning America into a socialist dictatorship without anyone catching on to his devious plot. Thank God Bubbles is there to make us see the light. :arrgh!:

[Cybermat47]

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo49/faolbushcraft/Misc/popcorn-1.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/faolbushcraft/media/Misc/popcorn-1.gif.html)

Before I thought those were two Roman Senators. Now I see it's popcorn :doh:

[Oberon]

Before I thought those were two Roman Senators. Now I see it's popcorn :doh:

Unless they're two Roman senators eating popcorn? :hmmm:

[Bubblehead1980]

Try Rush and Jones.



What, Limbaugh and Alex? never

No.Get a life

[Oberon]

No.Get a life

http://narwhaler.com/original/68/9/bonza-yarn-mate-cool-story-bro-689tH9.jpg

[Bubblehead1980]

I will never understand why so many give the government the benefit of the doubt, especially this administration as it has shown that it can not be trusted.ABC news reported about the two Marine Generals in Afghanistan being relieved, their reason for doing so was vague and suspect.Stanley McChrystal did nothing wrong but made off the record comments talking about how the admin had no clue, and they don't.Fired he was, and promptly.Why? Not for failure to perform his duty, simply because he bruised very fragile egos in the admin.

David Petraeus? Sounds like admin put the NSA on him.Hacking of emails etc? Wonder why? Perhaps he had the balls to stand up to obama and his people.They can't just fire them, so they search for a way to discredit him.Weak one anyways, ooh he had an affrair, grow up.

The dismissal of the Admiral sounds highly suspect and even if he gambles, so what? Should not lose his career over it.


Yes, this is a purge.Perhaps not a Stalin take them out back and shoot them style purge but this is way purges happen in america right now.Find something to discredit them in the media, push them out.Wonder who is replacing them? Now doubt spineless butt kissing types.They probably fit the bill of "Captain Hanks" from Men of Honor, that is what comes to mind.Pencil Pushing yes men with no guts.

There are other less publicized dismissals but read it is 9 thus far.Yes, a purge and given they all made it so far in careers without any problems, awful suspect they are suddenly not up to standard.

[Oberon]

http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/citation-needed.jpg

[eddie]

Getting the truth and nothing but the truth from your nutjob know it all buddy Alan Keyes, Bubbles!?!:haha:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes

[Sailor Steve]

Stanley McChrystal did nothing wrong but made off the record comments talking about how the admin had no clue, and they don't.Fired he was, and promptly.Why? Not for failure to perform his duty, simply because he bruised very fragile egos in the admin.
You apparently have no clue how the military operates. Try reading the rulebook all military personnel, and especially officers, have to live by. McChrystal could have been a lot more than fired. According to the law he was let off lightly, being allowed to resign.
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
-Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 888
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/888


David Petraeus? Sounds like admin put the NSA on him.Hacking of emails etc? Wonder why? Perhaps he had the balls to stand up to obama and his people.They can't just fire them, so they search for a way to discredit him.Weak one anyways, ooh he had an affrair, grow up.
Or perhaps his girlfriend was sending threatening emails to another friend of his, and it was about to blow up into a major scandal, with the Director of the CIA right in the middle. Resigning may have saved his future.

The dismissal of the Admiral sounds highly suspect and even if he gambles, so what? Should not lose his career over it.
First, he was not dismissed except from his post, pending investigation. Second, it wasn't because he was gambling, it was because he was allegedly using $1500 in counterfeit chips. If found guilty expect him to go to jail, or at the least to be drummed out of the Navy. If found not guilty expect him to be reinstated with an apology.

All it takes is the tiniest bit of research.

[razark]

All it takes is the tiniest bit of research.
If nothing else, his posting history demonstrates that he does the tiniest bit of research possible.

The problem is that if the research doesn't line up with what he already believes, he tosses it out.

[Bubblehead1980]

You apparently have no clue how the military operates. Try reading the rulebook all military personnel, and especially officers, have to live by. McChrystal could have been a lot more than fired. According to the law he was let off lightly, being allowed to resign.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/888



Or perhaps his girlfriend was sending threatening emails to another friend of his, and it was about to blow up into a major scandal, with the Director of the CIA right in the middle. Resigning may have saved his future.


First, he was not dismissed except from his post, pending investigation. Second, it wasn't because he was gambling, it was because he was allegedly using $1500 in counterfeit chips. If found guilty expect him to go to jail, or at the least to be drummed out of the Navy. If found not guilty expect him to be reinstated with an apology.

All it takes is the tiniest bit of research.

There you go with the condescending tone, I am aware of the official explanations and them using the rules, which are honestly absolute bs.Obama should have been a man about it, took it as hey, the guy who actually knows about military operations is saying our plans are junk but instead, he just booted him out.McCrystal was purged out because obama did not like him, he used the "rules" as an excuse.

Resigning may have saved Petraeus's future but to me, it sounds like he was purged out, most likely for disagreeing with obama and company.There is a very obvious pattern with this admin.

I had read it was for gambling.Hmm well if that is actually true, his mistake.However, the timing just seems to coincidental.Perhaps the Admiral was not a "team" player and they used this to try and purge him.I mean, he is out of his post.Wonder what yes man they are replacing him with.


Just something obviously is going on for them to be throwing out high ranking military people left and right like this.They are smart enough to at least try to give the appearance of a "legitimate" reason. I could be wrong but that is the unfortunate part, this admin has been so dishonest from day 1, it is difficult to ever trust them on anything.I want to sometimes, I don't want to believe some things that are pretty obvious but can not turn away from the truth.

[Bubblehead1980]

If nothing else, his posting history demonstrates that he does the tiniest bit of research possible.

The problem is that if the research doesn't line up with what he already believes, he tosses it out.


Nice semi veiled insult.Why don't you offer a response instead of an insult? I just explained in response to Steve's post.I would appreciate it if you stop insulting me.

[Cybermat47]

I'm Jesse Ventura, and this is conspiracy theory!

[razark]

Nice semi veiled insult.Why don't you offer a response instead of an insult?
It's not an insult. It's an accurate description of your style. You throw out accusations, provide no evidence for your arguments, and complain that everyone that disagrees with you is part of either some vast conspiracy to turn America communist, or a horde of blind idiots.

But to answer your question:
Because I've asked you questions in several threads, and I'm still waiting for you to put forward some evidence that does not consist of "it's so obvious" or a cut-and-paste of conspiracy thinking. I have no faith that you can present an argument in a reasoned manner. You refuse to discuss issues or even consider that you might be wrong. It is the same as arguing with a brick wall. Every thread you start is filled with you declaring that you are absolutely infallible, so there's no point in a response. You won't listen anyway.

[Stealhead]

Nice semi veiled insult.Why don't you offer a response instead of an insult? I just explained in response to Steve's post.I would appreciate it if you stop insulting me.



You do not get to ask someone not to insult you while you blatantly insult others in the exact same thread.Treat people how you want to be treated if you cant take what you dish out that is your problem.Beyond that what razark said was not an insult it perfectly describes your pattern of behavior.

[CaptainHaplo]

I had read it was for gambling.Hmm well if that is actually true, his mistake.However, the timing just seems to coincidental.Perhaps the Admiral was not a "team" player and they used this to try and purge him.I mean, he is out of his post.Wonder what yes man they are replacing him with.

First of all - the guy has a gambling PROBLEM. Given both his post (as the #2 nuke guy) and his access to sensitive information, he presents a significant risk to national security. The "timing" is he got busted and the problem came to light.

Next your claim of "what yes man are they replacing him with" - shows you don't have a clear idea of how the military works. Unlike cabinet position, judgeships, diplomatic positions, etc - the administration doesn't appoint people to specific positions inside the military (with the exception of the JCS). For example, someone without the background can't just "run" the Naval Nuke program....

Thirdly - where are your sources? Are you sure it was 9 "flag" rank officers? Maybe it was 20. Or 50? You state something and expect people to accept it as truth - without documentation. That isn't how it works - and you know it.

Finally a series of questions has to be answered. How many senior level military officers have retired/resigned/been forced out during the Obama administration? How does that compare to the same number of years of the Bush Administration, or the Clinton or Reagan comparable years?

Until you offer an apples at apples comparison WITH documentation to back up your argument - its hard to take you seriously. Given my own negative view of the current administration, it is easy to just "latch on" and condemn - but to do so is irresponsible. Show me the documentation.

Otherwise you could just claim Obama is really an illegal alien - as in from Proxima Centauri who landed here and is paving the way for the aliens to invade the planet. He has gutted NASA and stopped our shuttle program and its replacement because if launching like we used to - we would see the alien battle fleet and could prepare. He has ordered all the national parks closed because everyone knows that to see into space you do better to get away from civilization - and by keeping people out of the parks he keeps them from setting up telescopes and seeing the alien menace. He isn't worried about his "legacy" because he knows the alien overlords will just eat us all anyway. Obamacare is nothing more than a way for the aliens to have access to everyone's medical records so that they can determine which people they want to cultivate DNA from for cloning slave labor, food and breeding. The NSA spying on citizens is really nothing more than the aliens making sure that if they are discovered, they can pinpoint whoever knows and get them before the information spreads. That is why they had to infiltrate all the google and yahoo and facebook servers.

See - without documentation - one could claim anything......

[Cybermat47]

Otherwise you could just claim Obama is really an illegal alien - as in from Proxima Centauri who landed here and is paving the way for the aliens to invade the planet. He has gutted NASA and stopped our shuttle program and its replacement because if launching like we used to - we would see the alien battle fleet and could prepare. He has ordered all the national parks closed because everyone knows that to see into space you do better to get away from civilization - and by keeping people out of the parks he keeps them from setting up telescopes and seeing the alien menace. He isn't worried about his "legacy" because he knows the alien overlords will just eat us all anyway. Obamacare is nothing more than a way for the aliens to have access to everyone's medical records so that they can determine which people they want to cultivate DNA from for cloning slave labor, food and breeding. The NSA spying on citizens is really nothing more than the aliens making sure that if they are discovered, they can pinpoint whoever knows and get them before the information spreads. That is why they had to infiltrate all the google and yahoo and facebook servers.


That's actually more convincing than the OP!

[Tribesman]

No.Get a life
Really? Then provide a source that isn't them or which doesn't link directly to their crazy conspiracy theories.
There are other sources running it without links to those two crazies, but unfortunately for you they manage the incredible feat of being even funnier than those two fruitcakes.:rotfl2:

[TarJak]

Same old same old Bubbles. If you plan to troll do it with some credible evidence. At least it makes it challenging. You not researching really makes you an easy target. CT thread for this one I reckon. But that might highlight the abandoned arguments when you come unstuck on your own words again.

Nothing you're saying has a shred of evidence behind it and therefore its about as sensible as the 4 word story thread. At least that has a narrative that ties together somewhat more than your repetitive attempts to wake up the rest of the world to the evils of Democratic Presidents.

[Oberon]

http://imageshack.us/a/img818/5863/rcvs.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNEFEveCbEs

[Tchocky]

Back on the GT merry go round.

Didn't we used to have a better class of argument around here? Or do I misremember..

[Sailor Steve]

There you go with the condescending tone, I am aware of the official explanations and them using the rules, which are honestly absolute bs.Obama should have been a man about it, took it as hey, the guy who actually knows about military operations is saying our plans are junk but instead, he just booted him out.McCrystal was purged out because obama did not like him, he used the "rules" as an excuse.
Only condescending because in my estimation this time you truly deserve it. The UCMJ is the law the military lives by. It's not a suggestion, or a helpful hint. It is the law. I would think you of all people would know this, if your claims of legal education are true. No, an officer does not fault his Commander-In-Chief, especially not in public. If you don't understand that then you need more than just condescension. You need an education.

Resigning may have saved Petraeus's future but to me, it sounds like he was purged out, most likely for disagreeing with obama and company.There is a very obvious pattern with this admin.
Possibly. It's also possible that you're seeing exactly what you want to see, based on your pre-existing bias.

I had read it was for gambling.Hmm well if that is actually true, his mistake.However, the timing just seems to coincidental.Perhaps the Admiral was not a "team" player and they used this to try and purge him.I mean, he is out of his post.Wonder what yes man they are replacing him with.
Again what you believe is possible. It's possible the man was even framed. It's also possible he was playing with the wrong crowd. It's also possible he's guilty as charged. An investigation should bring it out. From your remaining words it's obvious that you are having trouble looking at any of this from an unbiased standpoint, which is something you need when dealing with the law or with debate.

Just something obviously is going on for them to be throwing out high ranking military people left and right like this.
Not necessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

They are smart enough to at least try to give the appearance of a "legitimate" reason. I could be wrong but that is the unfortunate part, this admin has been so dishonest from day 1, it is difficult to ever trust them on anything.I want to sometimes, I don't want to believe some things that are pretty obvious but can not turn away from the truth.

Maybe this belongs in the new 'Advice' thread, but I'll give it here anyway: Try to find out the truth. Never assume you already know it.

[em2nought]

Not necessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


Can't we just blame the "gay" enlisted guy in turret number two? :har:

[eddie]

Steve, this is where Bubbles gets his unbiased truth from, just another goofy blogger!

http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2013/05/obama-purging-military-to-prevent-coup.html

[Ducimus]

Ok, I know I'm not exactly the most stellar poster on the forum, but I just have to point out how this thread was doomed from the get go.

To bubblehead, lets go through this by the numbers:

Problem 1.
No citation, or supporting links from a recognized and credible news source. examples being nytimes, cnn, foxnews, bbc, huffington post, latimes, etc etc. I think everyone knows that all media has a spin, but unless the major news networks have picked up on it, it's probably not a credible story. If your source is not both recognized and credible, expect mockery and funny pictures. Additionally, a second supporting link that is also both recognizeable and credible bolsters your post.

There is a case for 3rd party news outlets that provide official links and cites official sources. However, if it plays "connect the dots" too much, and is not articulate, clear, and rational, it will also be dismissed.

Shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, are right out. Never use them for sources. If your trying to convince anyone of anything, don't use them.


problem 2.
Post title. " Obama's purge of top military brass.".
Use something less accusatory. A good tactic if accusatory language must be used, is to craft the post title as a question. Example: Is Obama trying to purge the top military brass? This does two things:
a.) You are avoiding stating something as fact.
b.) You reserve for yourself plausible deniability.

Problem 3.
Never state anything as fact. Rather, give the supporting evidence, and ask a question instead. Choose your words carefully and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Once you state something as fact, you claim ownership of any rhetoric or falsities in your supporting evidence - real or perceived. This discredits you for the entire duration of the thread. Too many threads, and well...... :shifty:

Problem 4.
Be very careful when stating your opinion or take on something. Only do so when the supporting evidence is overwhelming.

Problem 5.
Avoid rhetoric or rhetorical language as much as possible. Using jingoistic buzzwords only removes you from a position of neutrality, which in turn only discredits you if your trying convince people of something. If of course your not trying to convince anyone of anything, then vent away.

Problem 6.
Learn to wordsmith. Always maintain plausible deniablity and a way out if possible.



I should be a politician when i grow up. :88)
And yes, I know I do not always do these things myself.




Support him or not, anyone looking at this fairly has to find it mighty suspicious that obama has "fired" 9 Generals and Admirals now.Why? No real explanations aside from some vague accusations that sound like nothing more than arbitrary reasons to rid the military of those who do not support him.Dismissing the Admiral who refused to stand down when they gave the idiotic order not to defend Benghazi ? I hear North Korea's "leader" has been purging his military as well. Should be outrage over this, of course our half braindead population remains silent.Close national parks or have food stamps threatened, oh plenty of uproar.SMH:/\\!!

[Tribesman]

Steve, this is where Bubbles gets his unbiased truth from, just another goofy blogger!

http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2013/05/obama-purging-military-to-prevent-coup.html
that sites big on the CAPSLOCK.
I do like.........


OBAMA IS A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD UNDERCOVER AGENT. THE FACTS EXPOSE HIM (http://john-gaultier.blogspot.ie/2013/09/obama-is-muslim-brotherhood-undercover.html)



Obama has Never been a Democrat: He is a Undercover MUSLIM MOLE:rotfl2:

[mapuc]

Here's another Thought I have

If we had Internet, when Abraham Lincoln was the President what would be the conspirators accusations on him.

That he was some undercover....

Markus

[Tchocky]

Ducimus, good points all.

[TarJak]

Ducimus, good points all.

+1.

One other piece of advice is to not abandon your threads when your arguments are proven to be false. At least man up and admit you can be wrong mistaken or otherwise incorrect. Unless of course that was your intent from the start. But that would be trolling wouldn't it?

[Jimbuna]

Nice semi veiled insult.Why don't you offer a response instead of an insult? I just explained in response to Steve's post.I would appreciate it if you stop insulting me.

I'm not so sure this is the case actually.

Not one to take sides but you really need to post some sources/links to back up what you are posting.......'put up or shut up' one might say.

Take another read of my PM....I consider my time to be of some value to myself at least.

[Oberon]

Here's another Thought I have

If we had Internet, when Abraham Lincoln was the President what would be the conspirators accusations on him.

That he was some undercover....

Markus

Undercover British agent. :O:

[Mr Quatro]

Oh, I dare say that the gentlemen involved have most likely have been either relieved of command or have stood down, but the reasoning behind it is what lumps this thread into the conspiracy basket.

For example,Vice-Admiral Giardina was due to a criminal investigation into gambling.

Furthermore, the extremely subtle (!) comparison between the President and Kim Jong-un is a grasp worthy of Alex Jones and the FEMA death camp crowd.

So, into the conspiracy bin I say.

That was my first thought on what this was all about ... plus another one just mentioned for undisclosed reasons and relieved of his nuclear weapons decisions ... I think he was US Airforce and of course the first one was USN.

Bubblehead 1980 we do have a life ... look what you have generated three pages of nonsense, because of your prejudices against President Obama.

A better subject would've been about all of the commanders relieved this year of duty and that was in just the USN from all kinds of reason
that President Obama didn't have anything to do with.

Link:
25 Navy commanders dismissed - Stripes - Independent U.S. … (http://www.stripes.com/25-navy-commanders-dismissed-1.202123)

www.stripes.com/25-navy-commanders-dismissed-1.202123
It was a brutal year for U.S. Navy commanding officers,
who saw 25 of their own get pink slips in 2012. Many of the commanders were fired for personal misconduct ...

[Oberon]

Personally I'd say it has more to do with this:

http://www.terratrc.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Dollar.jpg

Than this:

http://benswann.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/121204_barack_obama_ap_605.jpg

[mapuc]

Do understand that not every opponent to Obama drag some weird conspiracy page to their help.

I have some American friends and they don't like obama, but they use mainstream media and stuff from the .gov when they are arguing something about Obama and his politics

I have never seen these using redflagnews or other suspicious Internet pages

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Personally I'd say it has more to do with this:

Than this:

I'd say neither one. The US military, the navy in particular, is very conscious of how it looks to the outside world, and willing to relieve any officer who does not perform to the highest standards. If a ship is involved in a collision, it is the Commander's fault, even if he was asleep in his bunk at the time. In this tradition we follow the Royal Navy as a long-standing example.

[Tribesman]

If we had Internet, when Abraham Lincoln was the President what would be the conspirators accusations on him.

That he was some undercover....

NWO. todays secret UN army has black helicopters. Lincoln had a black hat, its the advances in technology you see.
Abraham had a stealth stovepipe which probably contained a stealth mobile telegraph mast which sent out mind altering morse to unsuspecting patriots.

[mapuc]

NWO. todays secret UN army has black helicopters. Lincoln had a black hat, its the advances in technology you see.
Abraham had a stealth stovepipe which probably contained a stealth mobile telegraph mast which sent out mind altering morse to unsuspecting patriots.


:har::har: That was hilarious

[eddie]

I'd say neither one. The US military, the navy in particular, is very conscious of how it looks to the outside world, and willing to relieve any officer who does not perform to the highest standards. If a ship is involved in a collision, it is the Commander's fault, even if he was asleep in his bunk at the time. In this tradition we follow the Royal Navy as a long-standing example.

Wouldn't you say Steve, that a lot of the decisions to remove someone from his command, might need the approval of the Sec of the Army, Sec of the Navy , Sec of the Air Force etc? I wonder if the JCS have anything to do with these type of command decisions concerning personnel?

[Stealhead]

Wouldn't you say Steve, that a lot of the decisions to remove someone from his command, might need the approval of the Sec of the Army, Sec of the Navy , Sec of the Air Force etc? I wonder if the JCS have anything to do with these type of command decisions concerning personnel?


Depends on the situation but if a military member violates the UCMJ and is found guilty in that case it is the JAG that has the power and they are not appointed by the President.Such things are not under the realm of responsibility of the JCS.JCS serve as military advisers to the President this would be in the area of defense not personal so no to your question.

An officer can loose his or her commission by failing to meet and follow the standards of behavior(which are known to all) as well again this is an action performed by the military not the President nor his administration.It is just that simple nearly every single flag officer that has been relived of command post WWII it was for this reason otherwise they where directly courts marshaled for something.

Again you guys need to do some reading on how the military operates it is very different from the civilian world.

[Bubblehead1980]

I do not recall ever saying a thing about black helicopters or obama being an actual muslim.I believe obama is an atheist(as I am), religion is a tool for him as it is for many politicians.However, he does have unusually strong ties and feelings for the muslim world due to his background.Nothing wrong with being one of the "good" muslims, they do exist, but it would definitely be a conflict of interest to be the US president and a muslim.Really, his islamic sympathies comes pretty close at times to compromising his judgement at times.Supporting the muslim brotherhood for example? Then he does things like allegedly allowing bin laden to be killed(I find that episode suspect, never showed pictures, videos of his body etc, then quick burial, excuse was islamic tradition? Proving this to the American people definitely outweighs islamic tradition) and drone strikes, so obviously it does not cloud his judgement to the extreme point but it does enough, with issues such as Israel and the naivete being showing towards Iran right now. Again, I hate to not trust my government and president on even most basic things, but they have abused everyone's

What some mock as conspiracy is more of a political long game than anything, which the left is great at.They might not what they want when they want it, but they will fester a while until they can. I just find it suspicious that suddenly these high ranking officers are having all these problems and being dismissed.One or two, maybe when for myself and many, it sets alarms off. I probably would not worry as much if it were another president but barry has shown a tendency to do some dirty, unconstitutional, things so his government has to be watched more than normal.

Really, the whole point was this is highly suspect and not sure how anyone other than a blind supporter could not be troubled by this. I hope some of them step forward soon and tell the story.

[Stealhead]

Right.So every other person that posted in this thread is a blind supporter.:yep:

I see the light now you have saved me from logic.

I have not wanted to say anything until now but over the past few months microwave beamed thoughts have bombarded my brain.At first I thought perhaps I was in need
of psychotropic medication.Now I realize that Obama is sending these beams into my brain.Thanks to you though they no longer work and now I can see and am no longer blind.

I can not wait until Obama leaves office and nothing happens what will you come up with then?:hmmm:

I think honestly that you post these threads purely for the attention that they get and that you truly do not actually believe most of this nonsense that you post.

Disliking a politician is one thing but the things you talk about I have a very hard time believing that a reasonably thinking person could possibly believe them.

[Sailor Steve]

I do not recall ever saying a thing about black helicopters or obama being an actual muslim.
They were, as Rush would say, illustrating absurdity with absurdity.

Supporting the muslim brotherhood for example?
You're changing the subject. You still haven't shown a bit of evidence that these disciplinary actions are anything other than what they seem to be.

I just find it suspicious that suddenly these high ranking officers are having all these problems and being dismissed.One or two, maybe when for myself and many, it sets alarms off.
This is because you already believe it, and want to believe it. Anything that happens in the upper echelons must be the doing of the president. He is already evil, so of course he's behind all this. Not all prejudice is racial.

I probably would not worry as much if it were another president but barry has shown a tendency to do some dirty, unconstitutional, things so his government has to be watched more than normal.
You admit your bias, and how it controls your every thought, and you again try to condemn with insulting dimunitives. You also still haven't shown any evidence for your claims.

Really, the whole point was this is highly suspect and not sure how anyone other than a blind supporter could not be troubled by this. I hope some of them step forward soon and tell the story.
And again you say that anyone who disagrees with you must be a "blind supporter". You can't even talk about this without trying to shape it to fit your own emotional outlook. I'm still waiting for you to address any political topic without prior bias and prejudice.

[TarJak]

Same old same old. You'll be waiting for a long time I suspect Steve. Bubbles previous shows he is either incapable or unwilling to provide any cogent argument to support his theories.

[Bubblehead1980]

Right.So every other person that posted in this thread is a blind supporter.:yep:

I see the light now you have saved me from logic.

I have not wanted to say anything until now but over the past few months microwave beamed thoughts have bombarded my brain.At first I thought perhaps I was in need
of psychotropic medication.Now I realize that Obama is sending these beams into my brain.Thanks to you though they no longer work and now I can see and am no longer blind.

I can not wait until Obama leaves office and nothing happens what will you come up with then?:hmmm:

I think honestly that you post these threads purely for the attention that they get and that you truly do not actually believe most of this nonsense that you post.

Disliking a politician is one thing but the things you talk about I have a very hard time believing that a reasonably thinking person could possibly believe them.

I hope that I am wrong, I hope he is a lame duck for the rest of his term, leaves office peacefully and is remembered as a disgrace like jimmy carter.I have explained myself a million times, you and few of your cohorts disagree, so you deflect with sarcasm etc. Really though, I hope I am wrong, for all of our sakes.

My "bias" aside, how can anyone, given the dishonesty of the government in general, especially the current one, not find this suspect that he dismisses so many high ranking officers? When I say "blind", I mean it seems so many are blind to who this guy is.I was open to him and liked him back in 2008 until I read his book, Wright, Ayers etc came out.Then, he won so I gave him a chance, the funding of stem cells, I liked that.Then he went into liberal idiotville with the stimulus, his supreme court appointments(racist like Sotomayor) etc etc and over time, his actions have confirmed that personal and ideological picture I had of him based on his book and other research.I reserved judgement for a long time, but he is exactly what I thought he is. I absolutely believe this and for attention? That is absurd.I enjoy the discussion on here, as others do, which is why we all post yes ? Stop with the personal attacks.

Please, tell me why I should trust this government? Not find the dismissal of the high ranking officers suspect? I should believe them because they said one had gambling issues? I should believe them because they said the two marine generals failed to provide adequate protection? Sounds like total bs to me. The McChrystal episode stands out the most, shows how they operate.

[Sailor Steve]

Please, tell me why I should trust this government?
You shouldn't. You should never trust anyone with power. On the other hand it was the same Republicans here in Utah who had bumper stickers reading "I love my country. I don't trust the government" who supported the Patriot Act. People trust the government for the wrong reasons. Sometimes they also distrust the government for the wrong reasons.

Not find the dismissal of the high ranking officers suspect? I should believe them because they said one had gambling issues?
"They" didn't "say". The man is under investigation for a very real charge. He may not be guilty. He may indeed be guilty. We don't know. That's up to the investigators to prove and a military tribunal to decide. Once again you're basing your belief or disbelief not on the facts in evidence, but on your predetermined bias. That's not good law, it's not good debate and it's not good judgement. You believe first, claim second and examine later, if at all.

I should believe them because they said the two marine generals failed to provide adequate protection? Sounds like total bs to me. The McChrystal episode stands out the most, shows how they operate.
One more time. McChrystal violated the UCMJ, the "bible" the military lives by. That you keep trying to make it about "they" shows that you don't understand the law at all, at least military law. You habitually accuse "them" of operating on their emotions rather than facts, but that is precisely what you are doing in the McChrystal case. That you keep making this same claim over and over again shows that your personal feelings about Obama override any chance that you will actually think about this with logic and reason. Your emotions are your guiding light here, and you keep refusing to see that.

[Tribesman]

I do not recall ever saying a thing about black helicopters or obama being an actual muslim.
Black helicopters are a staple of the NWO, Obamas secret army of Nazi dentists, UN army coming to take the gunz and FEMA death camps conspiracies.
Him being an actual muslim is a staple rant by those who write BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
If these are regular themes/CTs you post about and it is the language you use about these conspiracies then the associated views which comes from those sources is apt.

[TarJak]

I'm sure that there are several people who agree that BO is a bad President but the way you approach the subject puts people off because many of the threads you start come from a position of of such vitriolic hate. Combine that with using some very suspect sources and poorly researched arguments means that many who agree won't support your outbursts and those that don't will take the piss out of you.

I could care less about BO and whomever your mob vote dor but I enjoy jumping all over a poor argument if nothing else but to get the level of discussion up to something that resembles cogent thought.

[Bilge_Rat]

http://imageshack.us/a/img198/8341/bo9y.png

[Onkel Neal]

Umm... link?

CT?

Try Rush and Jones.



What, Limbaugh and Alex? never

Force retiring generals is not a purge.


THIS is a purge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

Do you have a link or a source for what you are claiming?

Didn't take him long to start up again... :haha:


Why not, he has plenty of subscribers.

[Oberon]

Why not, he has plenty of subscribers.

We should have a thread for him, something apt for his theories on Obama...something like...oh, I don't know...a conspiracy theory thread, where threads like this could be merged... *hint*

[mapuc]

I really want to believe him. However I can't find anything about Obama had fired 9 generals in the mainstream media.

I know that there are generals or other officers that gets fired now and then, but 9 generals at once? That should have made some kind of headlines, or??

Markus

[Armistead]

Why not, he has plenty of subscribers.

Yep, got to give him credit for most active threads...:yeah:

[Stealhead]

Retirement(military) is designed to create 'flow' of personnel. These guys, all in other news articles, needed to go with the flow...more rapidly...and ain't sufferin' financially, can shop at the commissary, and of course being 'officers and gentlemen' (counterfeit poker chips and groping notwithstanding) are perpetually subject to recall at the pleasure of the commander-in-chief. Today, Patton would have been recalled for the slapping incident but had the grace to die at the top of his game. :/\\!!:doh::Kaleun_Wink:

Anyway might as well talk about Patton.

Well Patton did get into some very hot water over that slapping incident and later explained that he believed in the old Nordic Valhalla and that he was trying to save the troops souls from missing out because they had left the battle.Which was his way of saying that he was wrong to have done it and that it was a lapse in judgment.

I am not sure if dying in a hospital bed after being injured in a car accident is what I call dying gracefully.Patton did however demand that the man who was driving the truck that hit his vehicle not be punished in any way (even though the guy had been intoxicated) his reasoning was he did not want to ruin the mans life for one mistake.

The mystery with Patton is what he would have done after the war.He had no interest in politics though he did know much about other officers who did have ambitions .The thing I often wonder is would he have reveled to the public what he knew.I think he would have said nothing.I do wonder though the Soviets surely feared him and what effect would he have had on the immediate post war years 46~50.

[Stealhead]

Bingo -and his regard for his men- right up to the end. But they go in threes; Genghis Khan: thrown against his saddle bow rupturing an internal organ during the annual Mongol training hunt, and a slow death; William the Conqueror: thrown where the mail skirt of his Hauberk parted, against his wrought-iron saddle bow as the horse shied from a burning ember, rupturing two external organs, causing gangrene and a slow death; and Patton thrown against the roof of his vehical where a previously broken 3rd vertebra gave way and a slow death. Ironically three of the greatest cavalry commanders in history, done in by their respective mounts, still in their military careers, and in the same age bracket! :hmmm: As they were all commanders of great armies, the 'Lord of Hosts' has a wicked sense of humor...(I should know):Kaleun_Salivating:

Patton lead from the front which is why most men who served under him respected him not necessarily liked mind you but respected him.Rommel was the same way of course all though certainly less eccentric.Thing is this kind of officer usually dies long before reaching flag officer ranks.Charles XII had the same style even went right into the fray sometimes that was back when Sweden was an aggressive nation.He took a Russian musket ball to the foot once and the crazy fool stayed on his horse and kept riding for three hours.

[mapuc]

Just for your information

Patton is one of my favorite generals under WWII.

Markus

[Armistead]

Ya' left out the incomparable Gustavus Adolphus at Lutzen doing his own scout, until he ran into ruthless Croatian Imperialist in the smoky fog...fatally(they even killed his unarmed page-a boy). Sweden won the battle but went home-war over: no king no cause: unlike William at Hastings who had to remove his helmet to dispel the rumor of his death and keep the troops motivated for that all-day brawl.( hey we speak English!:up:) The Mongol's culture didn't require 'lead from the front' as did the western macho 'God's will' mob-who lost to the Mongols at Mohacs in Hungary.:salute:Ps: did u catch my post on Sharps & the Seventh in the firearm thread? George A. was perhaps the luckiest 'lead from the fronter' of them all:down:

Show-off....

[Stealhead]

.:salute:Ps: did u catch my post on Sharps & the Seventh in the firearm thread? George A. was perhaps the luckiest 'lead from the fronter' of them all:down:

I did.

[Stealhead]

Just for your information

Patton is one of my favorite generals under WWII.

Markus


One interesting thing is that every great general makes at least one very bad error in judgment.Patton his big foul up was the attempted rescue of his son in law who was a POW in a German camp not to far behind German lines.Well the mission failed and the rescue unit was all killed or captured and son in law was not liberated until the war ended.

The thing with all of this was that it was a rash reaction on Patton's part and based on the known disposition of the enemy in that sector the Germans where very strong there.

Look at Zhukov his blunder was Operation Mars around Rzhev it failed and cost many lives but he did learn from it.

Patton made his blunder after he had already proven himself of course and his was also a much smaller unit of manpower involved.

[Armistead]

High praise from Caesar! :O::yep::rock:or...'Et tu Brute'?:dead::hmph::huh:


All praise, even though you didn't vote for me...

[Bubblehead1980]

I really want to believe him. However I can't find anything about Obama had fired 9 generals in the mainstream media.

I know that there are generals or other officers that gets fired now and then, but 9 generals at once? That should have made some kind of headlines, or??

Markus

Wait, I did not mean nine at once, I meant over time, recently he has fired 5 or 6 from what can tell in a short time span.Fired the Admiral and General Ham who refused to stand down during the Benghazi attack, two Marine Generals in Afghanistan for "failing to protect" the forces, which sounds like DC garbage to me. Then the Admiral over the "poker chips" thing .McCrystal and Petraeus were gone for nothing more than politics.

[TarJak]

I'd say Pattons biggest blunder was ordering POWs to be killed rather than taken into captivity. That and his subsequent statements about the order led directly to his being stood down as commander of the 3rd Army.

[Oberon]

Might it not also have had to do with his recommend and implementation of NAZI party members to restore local municipal governments?

To be fair, he wouldn't have been the only one. When South Korea was liberated from the Japanese, the Japanese got most of the admin work because they knew the area better than the Americans did, so for most of the Japanese it was just a case of changing employers. Naturally this did not go down well with the Koreans...

[Bubblehead1980]

Steve, where art thou? The thread has been hijacked...:arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

Might it not also have had to do with his recommend and implementation of NAZI party members to restore local municipal governments?
Look at the situation. All levels of government both local and national were run by the party, same with everyday services, everything from garbage and post to rail, telephones, police and hospitals were run by the party faithful.
It was a one party dictatorship, the only available local staff in the jobs were linked to the party.
Now look at a similar situation with Iraq, everything was run by the one party dictatorship, once all those were instantly removed on "liberation" because they were Ba'ath everything rapidly went to pieces.
The two situations have major differences though. WW2 wasn't done on the "cheap", when they entered Germany they had plenty of their own staff ready for the jobs which they knew would need doing, they actually had a plan for how to run the occupation

[TarJak]

Wait, I did not mean nine at once, I meant over time, recently he has fired 5 or 6 from what can tell in a short time span.Fired the Admiral and General Ham who refused to stand down during the Benghazi attack, two Marine Generals in Afghanistan for "failing to protect" the forces, which sounds like DC garbage to me. Then the Admiral over the "poker chips" thing .McCrystal and Petraeus were gone for nothing more than politics.

As already pointed out McChrystals case was a simple case of his breaking regulations.

Saying Patreus was sacked is not correct. Whether the investigation was political is moot. It may not have thrown up anything. What's still missing is the evidence of a Stalinist style purge. All you can say for sure is that during BOs presidency there have been 9 flag rank officers that have either screwed up or been moved on due to some cause. How does that compare to other presidencies?

Re Patton his comments that the USA UK and Germany should clobber Russia probably didn't help either.

[Sailor Steve]

Steve, where art thou? The thread has been hijacked...:arrgh!:
How many times do I have to tell you? It wasn't about the thread going off course, it was about you spreading your personal hate and calling it fact. It wasn't about who did it, it was about you making a fight out of it when asked to stop. As for calling me out just to make a point, there is nothing stopping you from asking people to keep your thread on topic. If they give you an argument I'll back you on it. Your wording here sounds more like game-playing than a sincere effort to put the thread on track.

Since you brought it up, I notice you're still insisting that McChrystal's suspension is over "poker chips". I pointed out that the UCMJ is the law the military lives by. You keep conveniently ignoring that. It was hardly "nothing more than politics."

[razark]

Posts in thread: 9
Sources provided: 0, aside from "I read his book"
Other posters' requests for sources: 9
Other posters suggestions of sources: 6

This is why your thread has gone off topic. You throw biased statements out, and then complain when people ask you to back them up. You insult everyone that doesn't think like you and complain that you are being insulted. Exactly what have you done to move this discussion forward?

[vienna]

I find it a bit odd no one has brought up the "revolving door" existing during the Bush administration: it seemeed every time a commanding General in either the Afghanistan or Iraq theaters brought up the lack of adequate equipment (e.g., 'hillbilly humvees', no flak jackets, etc.), non-responsivness of the civilian leadership (Sec. of Defense, White House), or the lack of sufficient troop strength to fully perform objectives, they were very, very soon shown the door. It is one thing to sack a commander for cause such as moral terpitude, or other misbehavior, but an entirely different matter to sack a commander who was trying to do his duty while being undermined by the the political needs of a bumbling administration. Where was the outrage when Cheney/Bush were sullying the otherwise solid reputation of commanders for really no other reason than they, the commanders chose to speak up in the best interests of their men, their mission, and, ultimately, their country?...

Talk about a double standard...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

I find it a bit odd no one has brought up the "revolving door" existing during the Bush administration: it seemeed every time a commanding General in either the Afghanistan or Iraq theaters brought up the lack of adequate equipment (e.g., 'hillbilly humvees', no flak jackets, etc.), non-responsivness of the civilian leadership (Sec. of Defense, White House), or the lack of sufficient troop strength to fully perform objectives, they were very, very soon shown the door. It is one thing to sack a commander for cause such as moral terpitude, or other misbehavior, but an entirely different matter to sack a commander who was trying to do his duty while being undermined by the the political needs of a bumbling administration. Where was the outrage when Cheney/Bush were sullying the otherwise solid reputation of commanders for really no other reason than they, the commanders chose to speak up in the best interests of their men, their mission, and, ultimately, their country?...

Talk about a double standard...


<O>


Nothing can do to change that, it was wrong then, wrong now.I will say the difference is Bush Admin were saving face after a major blunder of a war.The Obama Admin, there is something more to it.There are a lot of reports the new litmus test for Generals etc is "Would you give the order to your forces to fire on american citizens if ordered to?" Those who refuse to do so are shown the door quickly after. Of course they can not be fired for that or the public can not know that is why, so things have to be manufactured or they spy and wait for them to slip up, as human beings do.Now, none of this can be confirmed but given the nature of obama, his influences, contempt for the constitution and people etc it would not surprise me one bit.

Eventually, someone will be brave enough to step forward.Took a while for a Edward Snowden to come forward, but he did and eventually, perhaps one of these Generals or Admirals will speak out.

[AndyJWest]

There are a lot of reports the new litmus test for Generals etc is "Would you give the order to your forces to fire on american citizens if ordered to?" Those who refuse to do so are shown the door quickly after.

Prove it. With links to credible sources.

[TarJak]

I'd like to see how many reports of this litmus test there are and who besides CT believer's are reporting it.

I could say that I've heard numerous reports that giant planet eating star goats are approaching the Earth and will cause the destruction of the Earth when they arrive. But no one else will believe it without some form of evidence that there are more reports than those in my mind.

[Sailor Steve]

Now, none of this can be confirmed but given the nature of obama, his influences, contempt for the constitution and people etc it would not surprise me one bit.
So you admit that you're guessing, wishing and hoping.

[Bubblehead1980]

Prove it. With links to credible sources.


Credible is a subjective term anyways.A lot of people find Dianne Sawyer credible news reporter, yet many do no believe a word she says.Yes, reports have been on been on right leaning sites, does not mean it is not true, just can't be proven yet.Like I said, given obama's nature, predisposition to violating constitution etc, I find it likely. Did not say it was a fact(yet), but likely. Besides, it's pretty well established the "mainstream" media are on the side of obama.NBC/MSNBC should just be called the white house propaganda network so even if there was a video of obama admitting to this, not like it would get much play there.

Dr Jim Garrow, a nobel peace prize nominee apparently claimed a senior military leader told him this.Sounding the alarm perhaps? Can prove it right now? Apparently not, and if it was Bush I would probably doubt it, would not mesh with his personality but this absolutely fits obama is many ways, it's sad, funny, yet incredibly scary.Hopefully someone will speak out soon.

[Bubblehead1980]

So you admit that you're guessing, wishing and hoping.


NO, I hope it is not true but am saying if it is, I won't be shocked given obama's nature, it makes a lot of sense.Also, when Woodward and Bernstein were writing about Watergate in the Washington Post, many people and major newspapers didn't believe them due to their anonymous source. They were ridiculed etc for criticizing the president, but look who won.

[TarJak]

Besides, it's pretty well established the "mainstream" media are on the side of obama.NBC/MSNBC should just be called the white house propaganda network so even if there was a video of obama admitting to this, not like it would get much play there.

Cough FOX NEWS cough.

[Sailor Steve]

Like I said, given obama's nature, predisposition to violating constitution etc, I find it likely.
Given your continual harping on McChrystal and your careful avoidance of the fact I presented concerning the law, and given your inability to show even one shred of evidence, I would find it highly unlikely. You have been asked to show any facts at all several times, and every time you have failed to present anything resembling evidence. It's time for you to come up with something more concrete than what you would find likely.

[Sailor Steve]

NO, I hope it is not true but am saying if it is, I won't be shocked given obama's nature, it makes a lot of sense.
You say you hope it's not true, yet you do everything within your power to convince others that it is. The two don't jibe.

[Onkel Neal]

Steve, where art thou? The thread has been hijacked...:arrgh!::haha:

[Bubblehead1980]

Given you continual harping on McChrystal and your careful avoidance of the fact I presented concerning the law, and given your inability to show even one shred of evidence, I would find it highly unlikely. You have been asked to show any facts at all several times, and every time you have failed to present anything resembling evidence. It's time for you to come up with something more concrete than what you would find likely.


I do not care if McChrystal broke regs especially if it was private convo, not on the record and he made a remark.Steve, you will disagree with anything I say, so it is what its like.Just because can not prove something right at moment, does not make it not true.

I am sure if you really looked into obama and understood this "man", you would see how it fits.Like I just said, Woodward and Bernstein did not have proof initially, it later came out.Obama counts on people like you who unwisely given him the benefit of the doubt despite the pattern of behavior.Then again, that is part of the game, keep us fighting amongst ourselves, takes attention away from what his government is doing.

[Bubblehead1980]

:haha:

Glad you picked up on the bit of playful sarcasm lol

[TarJak]

I do not care if McChrystal broke regs especially if it was private convo, not on the record and he made a remark.Steve, you will disagree with anything I say, so it is what its like.Just because can not prove something right at moment, does not make it not true.

I am sure if you really looked into obama and understood this "man", you would see how it fits.Like I just said, Woodward and Bernstein did not have proof initially, it later came out.Obama counts on people like you who unwisely given him the benefit of the doubt despite the pattern of behavior.Then again, that is part of the game, keep us fighting amongst ourselves, takes attention away from what his government is doing.

As a law student you should be able to make a case for your argument. All you have is hate filled vitriolic opinion. Certainly not a case that is likely to convince anyone.

[Sailor Steve]

I do not care if McChrystal broke regs especially if it was private convo, not on the record and he made a remark.
So you do not care whether he broke the law or not? He was unjustly fired by Obama even if he did break the law? First, he hasn't been fired, just suspended pending investigation.

Steve, you will disagree with anything I say, so it is what its like.
Only when you ignore the facts in pursuit of your agenda. Say something that is accurate and I will agree with you.

Just because can not prove something right at moment, does not make it not true.
But I proved you absolutely wrong in this case. When are you going to figure that out?

I freely admitted to three posibilities, but all three involved the law in one form or another. I also showed how the law worked in this case. In spite of that you still keep going back to your same line of "Oh, he was kicked out for gambling." I patently showed that was not true, but you still keep running to it. Are you still claiming to be involved with the law? If so, how is it that the law in this case means nothing to you?

I am sure if you really looked into obama and understood this "man", you would see how it fits.Like I just said, Woodward and Bernstein did not have proof initially, it later came out.Obama counts on people like you who unwisely given him the benefit of the doubt despite the pattern of behavior.Then again, that is part of the game, keep us fighting amongst ourselves, takes attention away from what his government is doing.
I'm not giving him the benefit of anything. Nothing that is said or done on this forum will affect what Obama does or doesn't do, even if everyone here agreed with you. The issue here is that this is an open discussion forum, to a point. In a debate one must prove one's claims, or at least make an attempt to back them up. So far you haven't even tried. You claim that you are right, and when someone asks you to give evidence you turn around and say that even it you can't prove it now it still might be true. That isn't debate, it's mudslinging, hoping something will stick.

In the interest of real debate, I would challenge you to give any evidence at all. Or, as the saying goes, put up or shut up. A little honesty goes a long way.

[razark]

Already accomplished: Thou 'forgetteth' Ohio State-'Four Dead in Ohio'-Neal Young:hmmm:
Kent State, not Ohio State.

[Bubblehead1980]

So you do not care whether he broke the law or not? He was unjustly fired by Obama even if he did break the law? First, he hasn't been fired, just suspended pending investigation.


Only when you ignore the facts in pursuit of your agenda. Say something that is accurate and I will agree with you.


But I proved you absolutely wrong in this case. When are you going to figure that out?

I freely admitted to three posibilities, but all three involved the law in one form or another. I also showed how the law worked in this case. In spite of that you still keep going back to your same line of "Oh, he was kicked out for gambling." I patently showed that was not true, but you still keep running to it. Are you still claiming to be involved with the law? If so, how is it that the law in this case means nothing to you?


I'm not giving him the benefit of anything. Nothing that is said or done on this forum will affect what Obama does or doesn't do, even if everyone here agreed with you. The issue here is that this is an open discussion forum, to a point. In a debate one must prove one's claims, or at least make an attempt to back them up. So far you haven't even tried. You claim that you are right, and when someone asks you to give evidence you turn around and say that even it you can't prove it now it still might be true. That isn't debate, it's mudslinging, hoping something will stick.

In the interest of real debate, I would challenge you to give any evidence at all. Or, as the saying goes, put up or shut up. A little honesty goes a long way.


That is insulting, the whole "you claim" thing. Yes I am "involved" with the law, in my final year actually, thanks for asking.I regret mentioning it one time because perhaps I think outside the box? I don't believe everything I am told you doubt me, it is what it is, I have nothing to prove.Anyways, an unjust law is no law at all.Ever hear of that? Some laws are idiotic, unjust, ridiculous. I am saying that while McCrystal' may have violated the law, that was just obama's excuse.I read that the Admiral was out for gambling, later came out(you also pointed out) it was for poker chips? Gambling, while a generic description is accurate.Poker chips are involved in gambling yes? Again, you harp on little things to try and discredit me and I am frankly, sick of it.

The Admiral may be a gambler, may have had poker chips on him but again, going with obama, his nature, how he operates etc, this sounds like an excuse to get rid of someone who was likely in opposition to him.Exploiting the rules and laws for one's personal gain, to settle persona vendettas by the "elite" or those in power etc is not unheard of and again, given the nature of Barack Hussein Obama, it is highly likely.

The whole point of this was to raise the alarm, a lot of people were not even aware of these dismissals. The FACT is obama has fired 5 or 6 Generals and Admirals as of late, 9 overall that I could count.That is a lot of them who magically, all of sudden are incompetent, criminal etc yet they made it all the way through their careers without these troubles? One, maybe but suddenly the ranks are filled with incompetents and criminals?

All can say is I find it likely because it is obama and within his nature.Eventually, perhaps the truth will come out.I will gladly be wrong, hope I am very wrong but 99% sure am not, it just all fits.We shall see...

[Bubblehead1980]

Already accomplished: Thou 'forgetteth' Ohio State-'Four Dead in Ohio'-Neal Young:hmmm:


I did not forget but will admit I do not know a lot about that incident.I don't remember the order coming down from the white house though, some national guard soldiers who got pissed at a bunch of hippies and opened fire.Absolutely wrong but different situation than one that would involve obama ordering a general to open fire or a general who would be okay with that even without orders.That, if the stories are true, is what obama wants, generals who are okay with opening fire on us citizens under certain circumstances.

[TarJak]

That is insulting, the whole "you claim" thing. Yes I am "involved" with the law, in my final year actually, thanks for asking.I regret mentioning it one time because perhaps I think outside the box? I don't believe everything I am told you doubt me, it is what it is, I have nothing to prove.Anyways, an unjust law is no law at all.Ever hear of that? Some laws are idiotic, unjust, ridiculous. I am saying that while McCrystal' may have violated the law, that was just obama's excuse.I read that the Admiral was out for gambling, later came out(you also pointed out) it was for poker chips? Gambling, while a generic description is accurate.Poker chips are involved in gambling yes? Again, you harp on little things to try and discredit me and I am frankly, sick of it.

The Admiral may be a gambler, may have had poker chips on him but again, going with obama, his nature, how he operates etc, this sounds like an excuse to get rid of someone who was likely in opposition to him.Exploiting the rules and laws for one's personal gain, to settle persona vendettas by the "elite" or those in power etc is not unheard of and again, given the nature of Barack Hussein Obama, it is highly likely.

The whole point of this was to raise the alarm, a lot of people were not even aware of these dismissals. The FACT is obama has fired 5 or 6 Generals and Admirals as of late, 9 overall that I could count.That is a lot of them who magically, all of sudden are incompetent, criminal etc yet they made it all the way through their careers without these troubles? One, maybe but suddenly the ranks are filled with incompetents and criminals?

All can say is I find it likely because it is obama and within his nature.Eventually, perhaps the truth will come out.I will gladly be wrong, hope I am very wrong but 99% sure am not, it just all fits.We shall see...
Now you're just talking through your backside. You made the OP and the claims. You have to back it up with facts or back off. Otherwise all you are doing is insulting our intelligence.

Come with well reasoned argument and your reception will be different. Spout right wing or left wing claptrap and vitriolic hate and you're more likely to cop insult.

Like we've been saying from the start of the responses to this thread poop or get off the pot.

[Tribesman]

I do not care if McChrystal broke regs
Young man, when you next go to school can you tell your teacher that you want to make a case for unfair dismissal but have no interest in the contract of employment.
Report back if his reaction is to laugh in your face or if he just starts banging his head(or yours) against the desk.

I read that the Admiral was out for gambling, later came out(you also pointed out) it was for poker chips? Gambling, while a generic description is accurate.Poker chips are involved in gambling yes? Again, you harp on little things to try and discredit me and I am frankly, sick of it.

As an "expert" on law can you tell us what the crime is if poker chips are fake?

[periunder]

Support him or not, anyone looking at this fairly has to find it mighty suspicious that obama has "fired" 9 Generals and Admirals now.Why? No real explanations aside from some vague accusations that sound like nothing more than arbitrary reasons to rid the military of those who do not support him.Dismissing the Admiral who refused to stand down when they gave the idiotic order not to defend Benghazi ? I hear North Korea's "leader" has been purging his military as well. Should be outrage over this, of course our half braindead population remains silent.Close national parks or have food stamps threatened, oh plenty of uproar.SMH:/\\!!

A fatal flaw in our political system, making the president c-in-c. Although this prevents a military dictatorship, or military coup, it also prevents us from winning a war.

[Sailor Steve]

That is insulting, the whole "you claim" thing. Yes I am "involved" with the law, in my final year actually, thanks for asking.
Insulting or not, it looks fishy when someone in your position seems to know so little of it, and shows so little regard for it.

I regret mentioning it one time because perhaps I think outside the box? I don't believe everything I am told you doubt me, it is what it is, I have nothing to prove.
Au contrere. You started this thread talking about how Obama is purging the top military brass, "firing" nine top officers, with no explanation. Several people have repeatedly shown you that there was indeed good cause. That you disagree is fine, but you continually refuse to show any real evidence, and have now admitted that there is none. All that said, you continue to fall back on the same exact statements, still with no proof. All of this is of course possible, but you seem uninterested in discussing the options, only in proclaiming your pet theory to be correct.

Anyways, an unjust law is no law at all.Ever hear of that? Some laws are idiotic, unjust, ridiculous.
Yes, I have. Are you saying that the UCMJ is unjust? The military lives by different rules. Officers are held to a higher standard. Not only do they swear to uphold the Constitution, but also to fully support their Commander-In-Chief. Secondly, does the fact that you find any law unjust give you free reign to ignore it. Are you going to stand up in court and tell the judge that your speeding ticket should be thrown out because the 65 mph limit is unjust? The man was apparently caught cheating. I say "apparently" because I don't know that the investigation is over. He may yet be found not guilty. That said, the charge is very real and you calling it "unjust" doesn't make it so.

I am saying that while McCrystal' may have violated the law, that was just obama's excuse.I read that the Admiral was out for gambling, later came out(you also pointed out) it was for poker chips? Gambling, while a generic description is accurate.Poker chips are involved in gambling yes? Again, you harp on little things to try and discredit me and I am frankly, sick of it.
The difference is not little at all. You dismissed the case out-of-hand as "being fired for gambling". I pointed out that gambling is not a crime (well, it is where I live but that's another story), and he wasn't dismissed for gambling. He is under investigation for using counterfeit chips, which if true is indeed a crime. Now do you see the difference? Gambling is not a crime. Cheating certainly is.

I'm not trying to discredit you. I don't care about you one way or the other. What I (and some others) are trying to do is show you the flaws in your argument, such as it is.

The Admiral may be a gambler, may have had poker chips on him but again, going with obama, his nature, how he operates etc, this sounds like an excuse to get rid of someone who was likely in opposition to him.
Only to someone who already hates him. Again, having poker chips on him is not the charge. Having counterfeit chips is the charge. The man is accused of cheating. The UCMJ doesn't allow for that. It's an internal matter. Can you show that Obama has anything to do with it at all?

Exploiting the rules and laws for one's personal gain, to settle persona vendettas by the "elite" or those in power etc is not unheard of and again, given the nature of Barack Hussein Obama, it is highly likely.
And? Can you show any connection at all? If not, then it is highly unlikely, other than in your personal desire to prove Obama the root of all evil. You keep coming back to your pet beliefs. How about a little evidence for a change?

The whole point of this was to raise the alarm, a lot of people were not even aware of these dismissals. The FACT is obama has fired 5 or 6 Generals and Admirals as of late, 9 overall that I could count.That is a lot of them who magically, all of sudden are incompetent, criminal etc yet they made it all the way through their careers without these troubles? One, maybe but suddenly the ranks are filled with incompetents and criminals?
How many of them were actually fired by the President? You still have refused to respond to requests for evidence. So far no one has seen anything but your own claims and those of unquestionably biased sources. Please show the facts of each "firing" and show that the President was even indirectly responsible. Once you've bothered to do that we can examine each case on its own merits and see where it leads.

All can say is I find it likely because it is obama and within his nature.Eventually, perhaps the truth will come out.I will gladly be wrong, hope I am very wrong but 99% sure am not, it just all fits.We shall see...
I understand. You believe of Obama because of his "nature". Not a problem. Anything is possible, and you could be right. On the other hand if you're going to actually debate a topic you need to show facts to back up your arguments. So far you haven't bothered. Also, you once again say you hope you are wrong. I can't argue with what's in your mind, but your manner of arguing this would indicate that you very much want to be right, and very much want Barack HUSSEEEEEEIN Obama to be the evil hobgoblin you claim him to be. Maybe he is, but you haven't shown it yet.

[Oberon]

http://www.otf2.com/wiki/images/c/c6/Hutz2.jpg

[Tribesman]

Defrauding an innkeeper for openers and Embezzlement (no statute of limitation) and felony-theft (depending on the amount of chips) and copywrite infringement-casino logo (a federal offense).
Wow, those sound kinda like real crimes.
I wonder why bubbles failed to notice that little detail?

[vienna]

I will say the difference is Bush Admin were saving face after a major blunder of a war


This from the guy who has done nothing but defend the Bush administration's conduct of the wars and the Iraq War in particular...

I'm not sure, but I sense a strong drop in temperature in formerly hot places and the existence of porcine aviation...


http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/resources/images/1858127.jpg?type=articlePortrait



http://www.natureartists.com/art/creative_process/resized/267_When%20Pigs%20Fly%203.jpg




<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Wow, those sound kinda like real crimes.
I wonder why bubbles failed to notice that little detail?


I never said they were not crimes.I said the real issue is to me it appears obama is using legal remedies to purge high ranking officers who disagree with him or if the rumors about the new litmus tests is true, give the answer he does not like.

Something that really aggravates me about some of my detractors on this forum is that because I hold contempt for many of the laws, I somehow do not know them, how things work etc? get real. Some laws are idiotic, ridiculous, or just outright unjust .Laws are passed by men, often time idiotic men(and women ) that have no idea what they are doing or if they do, it is for some nefarious purpose.Yes, I believe our system overall, I value it but I question it constantly, especially in modern america as the weight of the law is abused to fit the agenda of certain "evil" forces. A prime example is the blatant intellectual dishonesty shown by chief justice roberts in the obamacare decision.Roberts knows mandated fine is a penalty, a fine, not a tax, it defies the definition of what a tax is.However, he twisted things to fit his decision which is wrong.Great as our constitution is, it is open to manipulation by such unethical men and as are other laws.

Yes, can not prove right now that obama is purging generals based on their failure of their litmus test but a nobel peace prize nominee as I mentioned said a high ranking military officer told him of this.I believe it to be likely based on some extensive research of Barack Hussein Obama.The man's words, his actions, association, ideology, etc it all adds up.I could be wrong, hope I am but highly doubt it.

[razark]

For the sake of argument, let's take as true that the military is being purged of some officers based on "Would you give the order to your forces to fire on American citizens if ordered to?".

How do you explain the fact that only 9 flag officers have said "No" and been fired? Why is there no covert recording from any one of these, or any other officers? Do you truly believe that any American president could get away with asking military officers of their willingness to shoot citizens, and that not one man has the integrity to stand up, tell the people what is happening, and be willing to go to jail or worse?

Or could it be possible that the reason there is no proof to show is that there is nothing to show proof of?

[TarJak]

I never said they were not crimes.I said the real issue is to me it appears obama is using legal remedies to purge high ranking officers who disagree with him or if the rumors about the new litmus tests is true, give the answer he does not like.

Something that really aggravates me about some of my detractors on this forum is that because I hold contempt for many of the laws, I somehow do not know them, how things work etc? get real. Some laws are idiotic, ridiculous, or just outright unjust .
So embezzlement or fraud is okay because that law is insane or wrong? Can I gamble with your money then?


Yes, can not prove right now that obama is purging generals based on their failure of their litmus test but a nobel peace prize nominee as I mentioned said a high ranking military officer told him of this.I believe it to be likely based on some extensive research of Barack Hussein Obama.The man's words, his actions, association, ideology, etc it all adds up.I could be wrong, hope I am but highly doubt it.
So one guy said someone told him something. And our Nobel prize winner supports which camp?

Which words, actions, association, ideology etc. exactly shows Obama's likely to have asked this of his generals? Where is the smoking gun of cause and effect? There are a lot of claims that BO has over stepped the mark on the constitution, however if that were true, then someone surely would be challenging these decisions in the Supreme court where constitutional cases are heard are they not. Or is he so clever that he's over stepping the constitution but making it look to that he's not? You can't have it both ways Bubbles. He's either clearly committed an over reach with his legislation or not. If he has then why isn't it being challenged? Most likely because it isn't happening anywhere but in the loony right's minds.

[Tribesman]

Like I said: first year law students! Which pub in Galway any how; after this thread i'm a little dry mate!:Kaleun_Cheers:
Hughes for the pint, Tig Coili for the music:Kaleun_Cheers:

[Tribesman]

Since bubbles is still flailing away with more stuff instead of rethinking his claims in the complete absence of anything apart from hearsay of hearsay of hearsay which we can safely deduct he heard about on some loony blog.
Lets try this word game.
Roberts knows mandated fine is a penalty, a fine, not a tax, it defies the definition of what a tax is.
Run through the definitions of tax bubbles.
Post again when you have swallowed your words.

[TarJak]

Since bubbles is still flailing away with more stuff instead of rethinking his claims in the complete absence of anything apart from hearsay of hearsay of hearsay which we can safely deduct he heard about on some loony blog.
Lets try this word game.

Run through the definitions of tax bubbles.
Post again when you have swallowed your words.

I think we should also examine Dr. Garrows history of claims:

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/10/explosive-radio-interview-dr-jim-garrow-admitted-lifelong-cia-agent-says-obama-ordered-hits-on-andrew-breitbart-and-author-tom-clancy-2456648.html

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=13046

http://www.westernjournalism.com/author/drjgarrow/

https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/duped-hysterical-obama-hoax-shows-zionist-trail/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

Aaaaaaand the real kicker:
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/45036

Doctor? :hmmm: Doesn't look like it. other than from a box top "university" of theology.

Nobel nominee? We'll know in about 2060 when the 2010 nominations are released, but he claims someone told him he was on the list of nominees which conveniently is kept secret for 50 years after nominations are made. BTW that's secret even from the nominees. BTW anyone including Bubbles could be nominated, but it doesn't mean they've got a snowballs chance in Hell of winning one.

His "charity" is not registered as such and looks like a funding front for his Chinese child trafficking racket.

Certainly not a reliable witness for the prosecution your honour.

[Bilge_Rat]

http://imageshack.us/a/img19/5704/dibt.jpg

[Tribesman]

Now you are just rubbing salt into his well flayed hide Tarjak.
That's naughty:rotfl2:

[AndyJWest]

So, after all this nonsense, it turns out that Bubblehead isn't even claiming to have any verifiable evidence that any of this is true - but he thinks it is true because it fits in with all the other things he imagines that Obama is doing but doesn't have any evidence for either...

[Tchocky]

This thread just got sad.

I mean good work, TarJak.

[Sailor Steve]

I never said they were not crimes.I said the real issue is to me it appears obama is using legal remedies to purge high ranking officers who disagree with him or if the rumors about the new litmus tests is true, give the answer he does not like.
Have any of the men removed from their posts said anything similar? You say it "appears to you" that this is so. Based on what evidence?

Something that really aggravates me about some of my detractors on this forum is that because I hold contempt for many of the laws, I somehow do not know them, how things work etc? get real.
How real? Despite fact that the charges made against Admiral McChrystal are criminal in nature you think they are unjust? You haven't been very specific about your objections to these laws. At first you dismissed the accusation as being only "for gambling". When shown that the charge of using counterfeit chips was more than just "for gambling", you tried to equate "gambling" and "poker chips" with the intent of dismissing the charge as minor. Using counterfeit poker chips is no different than using counterfeit money. Are you saying that that law deserves your contempt? Several people have been careful to point out flaws in your arguments. Rather than answer any of those points you talk about "your detractors". Everyone is still waiting for you to show any real evidence for what you claim. So far you have none.

Some laws are idiotic, ridiculous, or just outright unjust .Laws are passed by men, often time idiotic men(and women ) that have no idea what they are doing or if they do, it is for some nefarious purpose.
Again you try to dismiss the McChrystal charge, not by showing that he is innocent (which may still turn out to be the case) but by making vague claims about "some laws". Please be specific and show how laws against counterfeiting poker chips is idiotic, ridiculous or just outright unjust. Please show how the UCMJ's rule on officers criticizing their CinC are idiotic, ridiculous or just outright unjust. I'm not being a detractor at all, at least not to you personally. Your arguments, on the other hand, in my estimation deserve detraction. You've shown nothing concrete at all, yet you still insist your claims are true. They may well be, but you need to show something here.

[Mr Quatro]

How can you guys be mad at the same man that starts a thread about: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=208393&page=4

Your favorite Star Trek movie?

He does get to you doesn't he, but look at it this way he is a reason to make sure that you are right when you counter point his claims with links. If he reads them or not I do not know, but I get a kick out of watching the horse and pony show he produces.

Without bubblehead you wouldn't have anyone to bash now would you?

You should be ashamed of yourselves :oops: and apologize to him for causing so much humor in your daily lives :yep:

Keep up the good work bubblehead just check to make sure your right next time that's all they are asking. They just want a better sparing partner :D

[Bilge_Rat]

OhOh...smoking gun...:/\\!!


http://imageshack.us/a/img209/5638/wwyl.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

How can you guys be mad at the same man that starts a thread about...Your favorite Star Trek movie?
He also has started several good threads in the SH4 forums, and contributed to many others.

He does get to you doesn't he
Me? Not at all, nor am I mad at him. I also have nothing against him. I will debate any topic I have an interest in. In this case I take exception to someone claiming that what he says is the truth yet not being able to back it up even a little bit. Personal opinion is not fact, and believing something is not the same as knowing it.

[Mr Quatro]

OhOh...smoking gun...:/\\!!


http://imageshack.us/a/img209/5638/wwyl.jpg

or we really sure that President Obama is from Chicago?

He can fool most people in a New York minute :woot:

[mapuc]

How can you guys be mad at the same man that starts a thread about: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=208393&page=4

Your favorite Star Trek movie?

He does get to you doesn't he, but look at it this way he is a reason to make sure that you are right when you counter point his claims with links. If he reads them or not I do not know, but I get a kick out of watching the horse and pony show he produces.

Without bubblehead you wouldn't have anyone to bash now would you?

You should be ashamed of yourselves :oops: and apologize to him for causing so much humor in your daily lives :yep:

Keep up the good work bubblehead just check to make sure your right next time that's all they are asking. They just want a better sparing partner :D

Sir. what's so wonderful about GT, is that in some of the threads we almost rip each others head of and in some we are great friends sharing the same interest.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

On the contrary....GT is useful because it keeps a lot of rubbish from spilling over into other areas of the forum.

[Dread Knot]

On the contrary....GT is useful because it keeps a lot of rubbish from spilling over into other areas of the forum.

The GT Collection Pond? If you want to play bring your Hazmat suit.

http://assets1.bigthink.com/system/idea_thumbnails/50771/headline/shutterstock_138003188.jpg?1369165846

[Jimbuna]

Tig Coili would be grand and then the Crane, the Roisin Dubh, Salt House or King's Head! oop's back on thread or we'll be 'sacked too'!:haha:

Your pencilled in for a hanging I here :03:

[Jimbuna]

The GT Collection Pond? If you want to play bring your Hazmat suit.

http://assets1.bigthink.com/system/idea_thumbnails/50771/headline/shutterstock_138003188.jpg?1369165846


I find this helps me quite a bit

http://www.saynotocrack.com/img/fart_in_wetsuit.jpg

[TarJak]

How can you guys be mad at the same man that starts a thread about: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=208393&page=4

Your favorite Star Trek movie?

He does get to you doesn't he, but look at it this way he is a reason to make sure that you are right when you counter point his claims with links. If he reads them or not I do not know, but I get a kick out of watching the horse and pony show he produces.

Without bubblehead you wouldn't have anyone to bash now would you?

You should be ashamed of yourselves :oops: and apologize to him for causing so much humor in your daily lives :yep:

Keep up the good work bubblehead just check to make sure your right next time that's all they are asking. They just want a better sparing partner :D
Not mad at him at. I'm here for the entertainment value. Bubbles making wild claims is just someone taking an extreme view and voicing it as is his right as long as it's within the rules of the house.

I've no shame in pointing out that his claims are baseless and from dubious sources. Particularly as his claims left unchallenged may influence the thinking of some who may not be willing to investigate them for flaws of reasoning or source for themselves.

[Tribesman]

Tig Coili would be grand and then the Crane, the Roisin Dubh, Salt House or King's Head! oop's back on thread or we'll be 'sacked too'!:haha:
No no no:nope:
You start well, but you want the Crane at the end of the journey, plus it would be rude to walk past Murphys without stopping.

[Betonov]

If I'm ever in Ireland I'll be using this thread as a guide.

[periunder]

No no no:nope:
You start well, but you want the Crane at the end of the journey, plus it would be rude to walk past Murphys without stopping.

Wrong.
:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[periunder]

Since bubbles is still flailing away with more stuff instead of rethinking his claims in the complete absence of anything apart from hearsay of hearsay of hearsay which we can safely deduct he heard about on some loony blog.
Lets try this word game.

Run through the definitions of tax bubbles.
Post again when you have swallowed your words.

You know so little.
:har:

[Tribesman]

Wrong.
:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

You know so little.
:har:

Let me guess, you are yet another reincarnation of one of the keelhauled muppets.

[Oberon]

Let me guess, you are yet another reincarnation of one of the keelhauled muppets.

My money is on:

http://z32.wikispaces.com/file/view/0802_impp_05_z%2Bturbonetics%2Bwastegate.jpg/210020796/0802_impp_05_z%2Bturbonetics%2Bwastegate.jpg

[eddie]

This should be good, I'm putting my money on Tribesman this time,lol

[Oberon]

This should be good, I'm putting my money on Tribesman this time,lol

The luck of the Irish :03:

[Bubblehead1980]

How can you guys be mad at the same man that starts a thread about: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=208393&page=4

Your favorite Star Trek movie?

He does get to you doesn't he, but look at it this way he is a reason to make sure that you are right when you counter point his claims with links. If he reads them or not I do not know, but I get a kick out of watching the horse and pony show he produces.

Without bubblehead you wouldn't have anyone to bash now would you?

You should be ashamed of yourselves :oops: and apologize to him for causing so much humor in your daily lives :yep:

Keep up the good work bubblehead just check to make sure your right next time that's all they are asking. They just want a better sparing partner :D

lol I do get under their skin and it does amuse me, I love aggravating liberals.Should see me in class, I make their heads nearly explode but manage to get more respect there from opponents.Perhaps because it's a different environment, I take it more seriously who knows. Rarely but on occasion they get under my skin here but I don't hold grudges and maybe once I have went to a personal level, unlike a few on here but it is what it is. I know that I am right about much of what I say and have admitted here, technically it can't be proven right now but it is highly suspect that he is having to dismiss so many high ranking officers, that was the whole point.I would be inclined to not believe it if this was a rumor going around about Bush but obama? Yes? Not because I dislike him, but because after much research since 2008, based on his actions etc, can reasonably assume this is true.I hope it's not but it is likely due to the nature of obama.

I don't mind if they are against me, I have supporters on here, not exactly vocal as my detractors but it is fine.I can't blame there, there are certain ones in uh "authority" positions on here who will have them on their blacklist if they do, so I get it. I carry the banner here, I carry it at school and in life, always have.Best part is I have always been a conservative since I was in my teens, when I really started to pay attention.I remember in high school, I was always the conservative, everyone else was liberal because they think that is what they are supposed to be, had so many heated discussions in class, with friends.The same in college, but there more on my side there.Law School has been the same as well, out numbered but many more waking up each day.The best part though, are life long friends who were left of Lenin lol, now as we are in mid to late 20's, they are or have woken up.Best is when they admit that I was right.Sometimes, validation comes years later but staying true to your principles, fighting the good fight, and staying the course, victory will come.

The best is I was much maligned for being so vocal about my opposition to obama in 2008, before and after he was elected.I was called racist, unfair, told to give him a chance etc by many but I did not let it bother me because after looking into him, I could tell he was nothing about a disaster waiting to happen, a very dangerous one.

I was vocal about my opposition to obamacare, because it is just an idiotic piece of legislation but was told oh give it a chance.Well , both obama and his "healthcare" law are proven to be a disaster.Name one good, successful thing he has done? Okay, he lifted the ban on stem cell research by the federal government, awesome, makes sense.Bin Laden is supposedly dead, but they never bothered to show us a picture of his dead body, that whol episode was a bit suspect and I am sorry, but islamic law is no excuse, the right of the people to know he is dead for sure, comes first or should, but not with Barry O in office.

Bottom line, I enjoy this forum and am patient, I can wait to be proven right.I hope I am wrong about certain things, because it would be just terrible for this country but there are things I KNOW that I am correct about and no amount of insults etc will change that.I have the constitution and the spirit, very essence of my country and what it is supposed to be on my side, we have lost our way for now but things will turn around eventually.I may be 50 years old before we find our way again, but we will and hopefully lessons will be learned.The US survived Jimmy Carter, we can survive Barry Obama and make a comeback.

[Bubblehead1980]

Since bubbles is still flailing away with more stuff instead of rethinking his claims in the complete absence of anything apart from hearsay of hearsay of hearsay which we can safely deduct he heard about on some loony blog.
Lets try this word game.

Run through the definitions of tax bubbles.
Post again when you have swallowed your words.

Sure, it is hearsay right now but based on how obama is, it fits, I bet you have not done near the research I have on obama because you are a supporter, a blind one it seems.

Swallowed my words, oh my friend, never.

Calling the mandate in obamacare a tax is stretching it. A tax is imposed directly or indirectly on income, property, purchases, licenses(which would be more of a fee but some make it a tax) etc "Taxing" someone for not purchasing insurance? lol that makes no sense.That is a fine or penalty and anyone being honest can will admit that.I buy a car, there are taxes to pay.I get a speeding ticket, that is a fine/penalty, not a tax lol. Robert's knew this and was going to rule against obamacare based on this until for whatever reason, he changed his mind and tried to explain it away as a tax, so could justify his decision since congress does have the power to impose taxes.The intellectual dishonesty is just staggering and makes me angry when I think about it.I hope one day the truth about why he changed his vote will come out, hopefully sooner than later, that man does not belong on the bench.

[Oberon]

Sure, it is hearsay right now but based on how obama is, it fits, I bet you have not done near the research I have

:har::har::har::har:

If you have done so much research, why are you so completely and utterly unable to back up the original claims you made at the start of this thread with anything resembling convincing evidence? :rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

Should see me in class, I make their heads nearly explode but manage to get more respect there from opponents.Perhaps because it's a different environment, I take it more seriously who knows.
Or perhaps they don't know enough to ask you to substantiate your claims.

I know that I am right about much of what I say and have admitted here, technically it can't be proven right now but it is highly suspect that he is having to dismiss so many high ranking officers, that was the whole point.
1. If it can't be proven then how do you "know" you're right? As I said earlier, there is a gap between believing something and knowing it.

2. Most of your "detractors", as you put it, have been showing, with solid evidence, that many of the "firings" were not done by the President at all, but actually have legitimate causes.

I would be inclined to not believe it if this was a rumor going around about Bush but obama? Yes? Not because I dislike him, but because after much research since 2008, based on his actions etc, can reasonably assume this is true.I hope it's not but it is likely due to the nature of obama.
Based on the fact that many of these actions had little or nothing to do with the President, how can you make the association that it is "likely"?

I don't mind if they are against me, I have supporters on here, not exactly vocal as my detractors but it is fine.I can't blame there, there are certain ones in uh "authority" positions on here who will have them on their blacklist if they do, so I get it.
Okay, I have to call your bluff on this one, especially since you made this sly reference to me. You said the same thing to me privately and I told you that it was patently untrue, that no one ever gets into trouble just for supporting someone.

So here is my public challenge to you and offer to them: Anyone who supports Bubblehead privately on this, please step forward and speak up. Nothing will be done, publically or privately. As long as you stick to the rules and keep it civil the very worst that will happen is that people will argue with you as well. Who knows - maybe you'll be able to frame a better argument than he does and actually show some evidence. Now that I've said that here, you can be sure that Neal will hold me to that standard. Please don't hide, Bubblehead needs all the support he can get.

What you're still not getting is that there are many here who have been opposed to Obama and his ideas and ideals from the start. Where we disagree is when you make these wild claims about making himself emperor, FEMA camps and purges, all with little or no evidence. You make real conservatives look bad. You make anyone who doesn't like Obama look bad. Some people have even joked that you're really a closet liberal, doing this on purpose. I don't believe that for a minute, but I can see why some would say that. That you can't see it is your biggest problem here. Here you aren't arguing with young students who have lots of ideas but no experience. Here you are trying to convince people who have seen the world, seen what people and governments can do and how it's done; some of whom have been watching the world for decades. Yes, that makes some of us cynical. It also makes us careful.

When someone asks you for proof, saying "I don't have any, but I know I'm right" only makes you look sad. If you're going to make a claim and are asked for evidence, show it. If you don't have any, don't make the claim. The very first post following your opener was from a 13-year-old, asking you for a link. You never responded.

I strongly suggest that you reread Razark's comments in post #99. The reason you have "detractors" here has nothing to do with your politics or beliefs. It has only to do with your penchant for making wild claims and never backing them up. If you learned how to discuss real problems with reason and logic you might find that there are more who agree with you than you think. Yes, I believe Obama is bad for the country, and in general I don't like liberal principles. On the other hand I'm willing to discuss these things honestly, and to face the concept that I might be wrong. You, on the other hand, show all the hallmarks of what I call the "True Believer", never actually discussing anything, just making accusations and when asked to back them up repeating them in a different form. I'm still waiting for a single reasoned argument from you. Just one.

[u crank]

I carry the banner here, I carry it at school and in life, always have.Best part is I have always been a conservative since I was in my teens, when I really started to pay attention.I remember in high school, I was always the conservative, everyone else was liberal because they think that is what they are supposed to be, ..

I think that is your problem. You are incredibly biased in your opinions to the point where if the truth jumped up and bit you, you wouldn't know it. I would probably have 'conservative values', what ever that means, but I and many others are willing to listen to other options. You don't seem to be and it's almost like you've been indoctrinated. And so we get...

I know that I am right about much of what I say and have admitted here, technically it can't be proven right now but ...

but there are things I KNOW that I am correct about and no amount of insults etc will change that.

and so on and so on. And without even an attempt to prove it.

The US survived Jimmy Carter, we can survive Barry Obama and make a comeback.

There are some people who would say that the US survived Nixon, Reagan and Bush Jr. Is it possible that they are mistaken? Or can only one side be completely right?

[Tribesman]

I bet you have not done near the research I have on obama because you are a supporter
You would be very skint very quick if you made silly bets like that:rotfl2:

Swallowed my words, oh my friend, never.

In that case young man, be good and maybe santa will bring you a dictionary for Christmas so you can learn something.

Calling the mandate in obamacare a tax is stretching it.
Read the nonsense claim you made.

lol I do get under their skin and it does amuse me, I love aggravating liberals.
You really don't get it do you, just like yubba the people you annoy are the ones who want to moan about Obama, your nonsense just makes their position look silly by association.
Its how things work, but I think you know that and thats why you wouldn't link to that fruitcake you used as a source for the ridiculous claim you started this topic with.
Unfortunately for you the crazy loon was easily found and Tarjak made your current nonsense look far worse than your usual conspiracy trash.

[Bubblehead1980]

I think that is your problem. You are incredibly biased in your opinions to the point where if the truth jumped up and bit you, you wouldn't know it. I would probably have 'conservative values', what ever that means, but I and many others are willing to listen to other options. You don't seem to be and it's almost like you've been indoctrinated. And so we get...





and so on and so on. And without even an attempt to prove it.



There are some people who would say that the US survived Nixon, Reagan and Bush Jr. Is it possible that they are mistaken? Or can only one side be completely right?

Hmm well lets see, economy was awful under carter.Nixon, don't recall it being awful.Reagan? Well after he cleaned up Carter's mess in first term, economy etc went very well.Look at the landslide in 84, can't argue with that success my friend.

People tend to forget the economy under Bush was overall good until the end.A lot of that has to do with long term, institutional problems that came to a head under Bush.People not knowing any better like to blame him for it.

Obama inherited a mess and while do not expect him to solve all problems, he went the opposite way of Reagan(who inherited a worse economy) and his keynesian, socialist policies failed.We still have high unemployment, economy is pretty stagnant.Stock market may do well some days but that does not mean the economy is booming except for a very few. Meanwhile, our debt has skyrocketed etc etc.

So people who say that are in fact inaccurate and unfair to say "we survived Nixon, Regan, Bush" because like them or hate them, whatever the external political factors, things were mostly good on their watches or improved.Carter? things just got worse.Obama? same and expect them to get much worse.

[TarJak]

Same ol same old. I note you've conventiently sidestepped most of my comments on this thread. I can only assume that you agree with what I've said. Either that or your ashamed of your poor arguments and lack of any real evidence.

C'mon Bubbles you can do better than that. Show us what you know and back it up with evidence.

I couldn't care less who your president is, and don't care whether you are arguing from the right, left or upside down. If you are going to make claims then you need to back it up with more than hearsay from a discredited non-doctor who claims someone once told him he was nominated for an award.

People who stand by and let anyone spout anything without challenge are sheep. People who spout utter rubbish without clear cause and effect and evidence of same, are simply trying to guide the sheep down the wrong path.

You may think Tribesman or Steve or me are liberals. I think you don't know what you are talking about and that we are holding up a mirror to your ridiculous claims.

I don't care what you believe but I do care what other people may read and accept without thinking.

As a cynical skeptic on most political agendas, I don't trust any politician of any ilk and also don't follow any particular political doctrine. The only thing I believe in is knowledge through proper research and the associated evidence that comes with it. Please enlighten us with yours.

[Cybermat47]

Wait, has this thread about movies from my New Favourite Show(TM) just turned political?!

EDIT: Wrong thread LOL :haha:

[u crank]

Hmm well lets see, economy was awful under carter.Nixon, don't recall it being awful.Reagan? Well after he cleaned up Carter's mess in first term, economy etc went very well.Look at the landslide in 84, can't argue with that success my friend.

People tend to forget the economy under Bush was overall good until the end.A lot of that has to do with long term, institutional problems that came to a head under Bush.People not knowing any better like to blame him for it.

Nixon resigned to escape impeachment.

During Reagan's eight years in office the national debt more than doubled, from $907 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988, and consumer prices rose by more than 50%.

Bush Jr. started two wars which have cost in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 trillion dollars.

And that's just from memory. I'm not saying that they were bad Presidents but those are the facts.

So people who say that are in fact inaccurate and unfair to say "we survived Nixon, Regan, Bush" because like them or hate them, whatever the external political factors, things were mostly good on their watches or improved.Carter? things just got worse.Obama? same and expect them to get much worse.

Careful, your slip is showing. Again.

[Jimbuna]

My money is on:



I sometimes wonder :hmmm:

[Bubblehead1980]

Same ol same old. I note you've conventiently sidestepped most of my comments on this thread. I can only assume that you agree with what I've said. Either that or your ashamed of your poor arguments and lack of any real evidence.

C'mon Bubbles you can do better than that. Show us what you know and back it up with evidence.

I couldn't care less who your president is, and don't care whether you are arguing from the right, left or upside down. If you are going to make claims then you need to back it up with more than hearsay from a discredited non-doctor who claims someone once told him he was nominated for an award.

People who stand by and let anyone spout anything without challenge are sheep. People who spout utter rubbish without clear cause and effect and evidence of same, are simply trying to guide the sheep down the wrong path.

You may think Tribesman or Steve or me are liberals. I think you don't know what you are talking about and that we are holding up a mirror to your ridiculous claims.

I don't care what you believe but I do care what other people may read and accept without thinking.

As a cynical skeptic on most political agendas, I don't trust any politician of any ilk and also don't follow any particular political doctrine. The only thing I believe in is knowledge through proper research and the associated evidence that comes with it. Please enlighten us with yours.

I have not sidestepped your "arguments", calm down.I have admitted currently there is no concrete evidence you desire to confirm this but based rather extensive research into who Barack Hussein Obama is, I can say with all honesty, it is in his character to do such a thing.I mean if it were one or two high ranking officers, okay but suddenly the upper ranks are filled with criminal behavior and rampant insubordination ? not likely.However, what is most likely is they were not yes men and obama needed a reason to get rid of them for PR reasons, so they chose to exploit or possibly manufacture(not out of bounds for his chicago style tactics) .Some have said rather naively (obama did not fire them). Perhaps he did not personally but if you don't think he can set it in motion for whoever is in the military or government to be canned, then naive is an understatement.

[Bubblehead1980]

Nixon resigned to escape impeachment.

During Reagan's eight years in office the national debt more than doubled, from $907 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988, and consumer prices rose by more than 50%.

Bush Jr. started two wars which have cost in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 trillion dollars.

And that's just from memory. I'm not saying that they were bad Presidents but those are the facts.



Careful, your slip is showing. Again.

Nixon did resign to avoid the show trial by the Democrats and his enemies in the Republican party.Did some things he should not have done, the watergate mess as well as others(removed from gold standard, created the DEA, EPA) but overall was a good President.

Yes, but Reagan had a good reason, we were "fighting" the cold war, he spent money, rebuilt our military, made us stronger and accelerated the end of the cold war.Really, no coincidence Soviet Union collapsed not long after he left office.Instead of screwing around with them as every President had done since 45, he chose to "fight" them.This saved us in long run from spending trillions more over another 20 or 30 years or more screwing around, so occurring debt was is excusable if it helps in long run. Difference is, obama with his relatively short time in office, has accounted for close to or at 40% of the total US debt and we have nothing to show for it but that debt and weakness and he has no plans to stop, he will just spend, spend, spend.Economy is still weak, unemployment high. Don't go there, you have no argument.Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating and is remembered as one of the best by most for a reason, he was just that.

GW Bush was right to go into Afghanistan and it was going well, but he made a mistake going into Iraq, letting Cheney and other neocons lead him astray.However, the economy was fine under him until the end of his term, when many long term, institutional problems(housing bubble burst, caused by the government forcing lower lending standards long before bush was in office) , extreme deregulation that i believe Billy Boy Clinton implemented? , there things were set in motion long before he was President, he had the bad luck of them blowing up before he left office.The spending under Bush was obscene and fault him for that but overall for most of his term, the economy was fine.

Carter? I was not alive then lol but from what I have read, it was a disaster that got worse each day.

Obama? 5 years in, economy is still weak, unemployment high(real unemployment is probably around 14%), world sees us as weak thanks to his naive approach with Putin, constitution has been shredded repeatedly and he is not finished yet.Economy will probably blow up in next couple of years as obamacare causes more harm.Debt continues to explode, no signs of him changing course because he is too ignorant to do so.

I will say that overall Bill Clinton was a good President, he was fortunate to inherit a healthy economy(despite a minor recession that was over before he even took office) and after his liberal excess in first two years, he was rebuked in the mid terms, he changed course in policy to stay in office.Appeared not so radical as he actually is but hey, at least he could do that.

[TarJak]

I have not sidestepped your "arguments", calm down.I have admitted currently there is no concrete evidence you desire to confirm this but based rather extensive research into who Barack Hussein Obama is, I can say with all honesty, it is in his character to do such a thing.I mean if it were one or two high ranking officers, okay but suddenly the upper ranks are filled with criminal behavior and rampant insubordination ? not likely.However, what is most likely is they were not yes men and obama needed a reason to get rid of them for PR reasons, so they chose to exploit or possibly manufacture(not out of bounds for his chicago style tactics) .Some have said rather naively (obama did not fire them). Perhaps he did not personally but if you don't think he can set it in motion for whoever is in the military or government to be canned, then naive is an understatement.
So you've got nothing then.

[AndyJWest]

Yup. Nowt. Zilch. Nada. All based on 'extensive research' which consists of imagining that Obama has done something-or-other, and then using this imaginary 'evidence' as proof that he has done something else.

Are we quite sure that Bubblehead isn't a socialist mole planted on the forum to make the right-wingers look stupid?

[Bubblehead1980]

Yup. Nowt. Zilch. Nada. All based on 'extensive research' which consists of imagining that Obama has done something-or-other, and then using this imaginary 'evidence' as proof that he has done something else.

Are we quite sure that Bubblehead isn't a socialist mole planted on the forum to make the right-wingers look stupid?

Have you read his book? Analyzed his own words? How they fit with his actions and current attitude? Have you researched the people who influenced him? Who has associated with for many years? The church he attended and the ideology? I have, it explains a lot, so before you run your mouth, why don't you do the same.Thanks

[TarJak]

So which came first? The desire to discredit BO or your research? What was the hypothesis you decided needed to be researched?

[Sailor Steve]

before you run your mouth, why don't you do the same.Thanks
He might not reach the same conclusions, so why don't you point out what it is in the book that led you to yours? Cite chapter and verse and explain exactly what it is that bothers you so much.

[razark]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=442&pictureid=7089

[TarJak]

Giddyup

[Bubblehead1980]

So which came first? The desire to discredit BO or your research? What was the hypothesis you decided needed to be researched?


I have said this before.When Obama became a serious candidate in 08, when he started giving Hillary a run I was open to him because I was not thrilled with the Republican candidates and despite what you think, I am open minded to voting for a Democrat, just have to find one who is not a marxist and in the modern Democratic party, pretty difficult to find. Anyways, I liked him initially, he was "clean" had a good message, would have even tolerated some of the liberal tendencies I just will not like about democrats.I heard about his book, so I picked it up.That disturbed me, pretty much turned me away from obama, then not long after the Reverend Wright scandal came out, then the Bill Ayers connection.The Rezko connection along with finding out who his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis was, a hardcore communist.Learning more about his mother and grandparents, very left leaning people.Finding out how he abstained from voting so many times as a Senator but when he did vote, he was the most liberal Senator, along with some class warfare rhetoric I heard from him as a candidate, it painted the picture of him.

Then he won, I decided to be fair, give him a chance.Reversed the idiotic Bush policy of no federal funding for stem cell research, cool but was waiting for something stupid to come along and it did not take long.The stimulus, more keyenesianism.Protected the New Black Panther's from prosecution for voter intimidate but having Eric Holder drop the case, more class warfare rhetoric, just started confirming what I thought about him.Then came the low and dirty manner in which obamacare was shoved through and the idiocy of the law itself, which he gleefully signed. The naivete shown in foreign policy, the apology tour etc That is what turned me against him.

Then came his drone strikes on US citizens, he push to get amnesty through for ILLEGAL immigrants who do not belong here.The signing of the NDAA allowing for indefinite detention. Fast and Furious, Benghazi.Exploiting the tragedy at Sandy Hook to try and shove anti second amendment legislation through congress.Signing of the UN Arms Treaty, it just adds up but none of it shocks me as it fits what I learned about him, he is a far left ideologue who's values and principles are in direct conflict with majority of people in this country and our constitution and history.

Nice try saying I already did not like him, so just used other things to try and discredit him.I was open to him and even briefly liked him and if more people had read his book, he would have never been elected. A white guy wrote the things he did, they would have never been elected.

[Tribesman]

That really tops it, Bubbles has a problem with the negro because Scooby doo and the pesky kids would have foiled poor whitey if it was his dastardly scheme:har:

[TarJak]

So what exactly in his book turned you off?

[Jimbuna]

To be continued.....

[AndyJWest]

To determine whether Obama was a Marxist, one would need to study Marxism. Have you, Bubblehead?

[Bubblehead1980]

That really tops it, Bubbles has a problem with the negro because Scooby doo and the pesky kids would have foiled poor whitey if it was his dastardly scheme:har:

Why make it racial?

[eddie]

To be continued.....

Nooooooooooooooo...............:D

[Betonov]

Obama's far from marxist.

Obama is something we would call right wing here

[AndyJWest]

Why make it racial?

Yup. A good question. Why did you:
A white guy wrote the things he did, they would have never been elected.

[AndyJWest]

Obama's far from marxist.

Obama is something we would call right wing here

Yup. And as far as U.S. Presidents go, I'd say he is to the right of Nixon in his later years.

[Bubblehead1980]

So what exactly in his book turned you off?


I don't have time to type them all currently but there are quite a few racist quotes in that book, just shows his mentality.One that sticks out if where he talks about avoiding being seen with white students when he was in college, to "avoid being mistaken for a sell out". Referred to his paternal grandfather as a "house ******"(his words)

I remember him talking about working in capitalist system as "working behind enemy lines" , that he felt like a sell out.

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

There are plenty of others, READ the book, everyone should.

I don't want to hear about context, that has been the excuse, they try to argue some things were taken out of context.No, it shows his attitude when he authored the book.Attitudes that are still there going by his race baiting behavior.I will update post when have time.

[Bubblehead1980]

Yup. A good question. Why did you:


That was not making it racial, that was the truth.Tribes tried to make it racial, there is a difference between what we said.

[Bubblehead1980]

Obama's far from marxist.

Obama is something we would call right wing here

That is scary if obama would be considered right wing there, I feel for your country.No, at his heart, obama is a marxist, it is who he is and it is honestly who the modern democratic party is.Of course they don't adhere to it rigidly but much of their "thought" is marxist in it's nature.

[Bubblehead1980]

Yup. And as far as U.S. Presidents go, I'd say he is to the right of Nixon in his later years.


Oh COME ON.

[Dread Knot]

Oh COME ON.


Nixon did do some things that would raise eyebrows on today's GOP. His administration not only supported the Clean Air Act and affirmative action, it also gave us the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the agencies the business community most detests, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to police working conditions. Nixon also bolstered Social Security benefits. He introduced a minimum tax on the wealthy and championed a guaranteed minimum income for the poor. He even proposed health reform that would require employers to buy health insurance for all their employees and subsidize those who couldn’t afford it. That failed because of Democratic opposition.

Not to mention that he went to Red China.

[AndyJWest]

Bubblehead, you still haven't told us about your studies of Marxism. Who did you read? The old man himself? Lenin? Trotsky? Mao? Gramsci? Harpo?

[Bubblehead1980]

Nixon did do some things that would raise eyebrows on today's GOP. His administration not only supported the Clean Air Act and affirmative action, it also gave us the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the agencies the business community most detests, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to police working conditions. Nixon also bolstered Social Security benefits. He introduced a minimum tax on the wealthy and championed a guaranteed minimum income for the poor. He even proposed health reform that would require employers to buy health insurance for all their employees and subsidize those who couldn’t afford it. That failed because of Democratic opposition.

Not to mention that he went to Red China.


True, but Nixon was not a marxist at heart, neocon ? yes but left of obama? No.

[Betonov]

I feel for your country.

Don't.

I'm employed, insured for accidents and death without being excluded for my asthma, our doctors saved my finger and eye in work related accidents and I had to pay ZERO, including the painkillers, if I need a rescue service I won't receive a bill, if I have a cold or a heart transplantation I'm covered.
And not some shady USSR style hospitals. Top notch equipment with a posibility to be sent to a more modern foreign facility if need arises.

I own a car, a few hectares of forest, study at the nautical college, university of Ljubljana and my total debt is ZERO. The only interest I see is the positive flow to my bank account.

My government is not syping on me, I'm allowed to protest in front of the parliament, presidential palace or even a cop without even getting a warning to stop.

So, not only my far left marxist goverment is giving me all the liberties you have, I also enjoy a liberty from worries how will I pay for my treatment and from worries how will I pay for my study.

So don't feel for my country. I feel for yours

[Jimbuna]

I don't have time to type them all currently but there are quite a few racist quotes in that book, just shows his mentality.One that sticks out if where he talks about avoiding being seen with white students when he was in college, to "avoid being mistaken for a sell out". Referred to his paternal grandfather as a "house ******"(his words)

I remember him talking about working in capitalist system as "working behind enemy lines" , that he felt like a sell out.

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

There are plenty of others, READ the book, everyone should.

I don't want to hear about context, that has been the excuse, they try to argue some things were taken out of context.No, it shows his attitude when he authored the book.Attitudes that are still there going by his race baiting behavior.I will update post when have time.

That was not making it racial, that was the truth.Tribes tried to make it racial, there is a difference between what we said.

That is scary if obama would be considered right wing there, I feel for your country.No, at his heart, obama is a marxist, it is who he is and it is honestly who the modern democratic party is.Of course they don't adhere to it rigidly but much of their "thought" is marxist in it's nature.

Oh COME ON.

Multi quotes help keep the forum tidy.....even that 'material' often found in GT http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/multiquote_off.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2131425)

[Bubblehead1980]

Bubblehead, you still haven't told us about your studies of Marxism. Who did you read? The old man himself? Lenin? Trotsky? Mao? Gramsci? Harpo?


First, drop the attitude if I don't respond right away, I was busy and try to answer in timely manner. Second, The Communist Manifesto, Quotations from Chairman Mao, in addition to many others over the years. A lot of discussion in college, a poli-sci professor was an actual communist, whackjob for sure who has no business even teaching but class was interesting and was great exposure to that evil "thought" :/\\!!

what have you read?

Keep in mind, when I say marxism as far as obama goes, I speak in terms that in his heart, at the base of his political soul, he is a marxist.I base this on his influences, associations etc and and his behavior in some regards. Definitely hold's the contempt for capitalism that marxists do.

[AndyJWest]

First, drop the attitude if I don't respond right away, I was busy and try to answer in timely manner. Second, The Communist Manifesto, Quotations from Chairman Mao, in addition to many others over the years. A lot of discussion in college, a poli-sci professor was an actual communist, whackjob for sure who has no business even teaching but class was interesting and was great exposure to that evil "thought" :/\\!!

what have you read?

Keep in mind, when I say marxism as far as obama goes, I speak in terms that in his heart, at the base of his political soul, he is a marxist.I base this on his influences, associations etc and and his behavior in some regards. Definitely hold's the contempt for capitalism that marxists do.

So what it comes down to is that you base your claims that Obama is a Marxist on your ability to look into his soul? :o

[Bubblehead1980]

Don't.

I'm employed, insured for accidents and death without being excluded for my asthma, our doctors saved my finger and eye in work related accidents and I had to pay ZERO, including the painkillers, if I need a rescue service I won't receive a bill, if I have a cold or a heart transplantation I'm covered.
And not some shady USSR style hospitals. Top notch equipment with a posibility to be sent to a more modern foreign facility if need arises.

I own a car, a few hectares of forest, study at the nautical college, university of Ljubljana and my total debt is ZERO. The only interest I see is the positive flow to my bank account.

My government is not syping on me, I'm allowed to protest in front of the parliament, presidential palace or even a cop without even getting a warning to stop.

So, not only my far left marxist goverment is giving me all the liberties you have, I also enjoy a liberty from worries how will I pay for my treatment and from worries how will I pay for my study.

So don't feel for my country. I feel for yours


What outrageous amount of taxes do you pay? Nothing is "free" my friend , someone is paying for it. What individual freedoms are you guaranteed?

Guess what? The MAJORITY of people in the US, get to see a top notch doctor as well.There is an uninsured minority in this country, it's life.Guess what I am right now, one of them since I am finishing up my education, not working and can no longer be on my parents but is okay.I went to the Doctor not long ago for a cold that would not go away, only cost me $70, my medicine was only $20, did not mind at all.I went to college with NO help from the government and that is fine with me.I had to take loans out for law school, to pay for some of it anyways, parents could not handle it all but that is fine.Yes, student debt is common, part of it.Nothing is free as said, so your education is not free, just someone else is picking up the tab.Remember, what the government gives you, the government can take away.Our country is finding that out.Our federal government was supposed to be relatively inconsequential under the constitution unless we were at war but since so many people now depend on the government for employment or welfare, it actually hurts when it shuts down.That is just tragic, extremely tragic.


Also, your country has what 2 million people? The US has over 310 million people and rising(unfortunately), a lot more people.Our taxes are already outrageous but the vast majority of people have health insurance via private and government programs, vast majority live comfortably.Even our poor life relatively comfortable.

The spying thing is horrible but is the end result of dangerous collective thinking that has seeped its way into our population and government over the years but it is not the US government alone.I bet your government spies, you just are not aware of it.

[Bubblehead1980]

So what it comes down to is that you base your claims that Obama is a Marxist on your ability to look into his soul? :o


There you go again, twisting it.No, I said I base that on his influences, some of his actions, associations, his disdain for capitalism demonstrated in his book and his class warfare rhetoric as a candidate and president.The man's political base, his instinct, is that of a marxist.

[AndyJWest]

There you go again, twisting it.No, I said I base that on his influences, some of his actions, associations, his disdain for capitalism demonstrated in his book and his class warfare rhetoric as a candidate and president.The man's political base, his instinct, is that of a marxist.

All that is 'demonstrated' is conformation bias. You see what you want to see...

[Bubblehead1980]

All that is 'demonstrated' is conformation bias. You see what you want to see...

No! I do not want that to be true, I wish he was a good man, I wish none of this was true.I wish my country was not stupid enough to elect someone like him to office TWICE.I really tried to give him a chance but as time goes on, he becomes more and more obvious based on things I have mentioned.

[Mr Quatro]

When I read this I was thinking of you Bubblehead, by the way did you know that the word bubblehead is a negative term that surface craft sailors call submarine sailors? Oh well too late to change your name now, but please read this and know that you are not the only person that makes mistakes.

I've even made one or two myself :yep:: http://progressiveandproud.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/if-acaobamacare-is-implemented-the-government-will-spy-on-me-and-have-access-to-my-bank-account/


One of my favorite Professors at the University of Texas at Arlington always said “Nothing ever is, it only appears to be.” He went on to remind people, that when you read the results of study or listen to someone’s conclusion about a study, a law, or anything in life, that a true researcher will go to the source to determine the validity of the statements or conclusions made.

In the course of my career, I have tried to live by these instructions when reading research, watching commercials, or even listening to political speeches. Facts are facts, but facts can be manipulated to imply something other than the truth. What? It is true, people take things out of context, change a word here or there or even summarize things insinuating they mean something other than the purpose of the statement. This has been especially true in terms of the information published about ACA/Obamacare.


This article as helpful as it is ... is about ACA/obamacare so I will post it over there too

[mapuc]

I do not know Obama personally and I do not know his domestic policy,

I, however, have read some politician* saying he's acting as a besserwisser, he always knowing best, he don't want to hear his staff

Got that from reading friends friends status on FB

I personally having hard time to believe these things.

* they have been talking to persons that have been close to Obama.

PS they are NOT the same as those who shared false info DS

Markus

[Tribesman]

Why make it racial?
Its your post bubbles, your words.
If you don't like your own words constantly backfiring on you then think about your words

That is scary if obama would be considered right wing there, I feel for your country.No, at his heart, obama is a marxist, it is who he is and it is honestly who the modern democratic party is.Of course they don't adhere to it rigidly but much of their "thought" is marxist in it's nature.

That illustrates how insular and naïve you are, it also demonstrates how extreme your insularity is to a level that is so picayunish as to be clearly Lilliputian in its nature

What outrageous amount of taxes do you pay? Nothing is "free" my friend , someone is paying for it. What individual freedoms are you guaranteed?


A sensible person would establish the facts before they went off on a rant less that rant be seen as mindless drivel.
Is there any particular reason why you rant without thinking first?

[Betonov]

No he's right.

15% of my pay is income tax. Some percentage is also payed as social security. Basic healthcare insurance is payed by my employer.

I'd say about 24% of my monthly wage is going to the state.
A quarter of my pay to save my life, educate me, keep the roads maintained and provide me with security (police, firefighters, rescue services, army) is an outrages amount of tax. I feel abused.

I had to take loans out for law school, to pay for some of it anyways, parents could not handle it all but that is fine.Yes, student debt is common, part of it.Nothing is free as said, so your education is not free, just someone else is picking up the tab.

Student debt is uncommon here.
Someone else pays the tab ?? Yes, it's called a taxpayer and it's also called an investment into the future. Highly educated workforce makes more money and pays more tax. Plus, to understand why we're not complaining by paying taxes for education and healthcare of others you have to understand something called SOLIDARITY.
And what do we get after slaving away at our job to pay those taxes ??
A well educated workforce that is dept free and can start a future without feeding the banks first.


Also, your country has what 2 million people? The US has over 310 million people and rising(unfortunately),

Less people make less money for the state. We're playing this game on a bit higher difficulty.

[Ducimus]

When I read this I was thinking of you Bubblehead, by the way did you know that the word bubblehead is a negative term that surface craft sailors call submarine sailors? Oh well too late to change your name now, but please read this and know that you are not the only person that makes mistakes.

I've even made one or two myself :yep::
http://progressiveandproud.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/if-acaobamacare-is-implemented-the-government-will-spy-on-me-and-have-access-to-my-bank-account/



This article as helpful as it is ... is about ACA/obamacare so I will post it over there too

Progressive and proud. :hmmm:
I couldn't help but notice. You do realize that by citing a source on the opposite end of the poltical scale (a blog no less), your showing the exact same "qualities" as the person your chastising, with an equally "reputable" source to boot.

[TarJak]

I don't have time to type them all currently but there are quite a few racist quotes in that book, just shows his mentality.One that sticks out if where he talks about avoiding being seen with white students when he was in college, to "avoid being mistaken for a sell out". Referred to his paternal grandfather as a "house ******"(his words)

I remember him talking about working in capitalist system as "working behind enemy lines" , that he felt like a sell out.

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

There are plenty of others, READ the book, everyone should.

I don't want to hear about context, that has been the excuse, they try to argue some things were taken out of context.No, it shows his attitude when he authored the book.Attitudes that are still there going by his race baiting behavior.I will update post when have time.
On the supposed racist comments in his books:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coilofrage.asp

On him being a Marxist:

According to Marxism, class warfare is necessary to achieve a utopian, classless society where all means of production are commonly owned. Socialism (based on Marxism) advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and there is no private property. Communism (based on Marxism) advocates elimination of private property, in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. It is a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.

Where is BO pushing class warfare and state ownership of all means of production? I've heard rhetoric but no evidence.

[Ducimus]

Stellar... und now 'das enden' this thread which has become uninteresting, beyond the pale, and of no perceivable further intellectual pursuit in the otherwise enlighted threads of :subsim: or we can get back to Patton...und beer!:Kaleun_Cheers::/\\!! (where's a moderator when it's really time):D[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Did i say something that wasn't true? I was just calling that post out as I saw it. In my opinion, this thread was over at page one.

[AndyJWest]

On him being a Marxist:

According to Marxism, class warfare is necessary to achieve a utopian, classless society where all means of production are commonly owned. Socialism (based on Marxism) advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and there is no private property. Communism (based on Marxism) advocates elimination of private property, in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. It is a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.

Where is BO pushing class warfare and state ownership of all means of production? I've heard rhetoric but no evidence.

I think almost any Marxist would say that class warfare was 'inevitable' rather than 'necessary' - and argue that there was nothing 'utopian' about the end result. And no, 'Communism' (as Marx foresaw it) wasn't ' a totalitarian system of government' - it was a society with no state/government/party at all. Of course, one can (and should) point out that those advocating Marxist ideas (or claiming to) may not have actually got very far down the road to abolishing 'government' (or actually wanted to) - but Marx himself was no advocate of totalitarianism.

[Tribesman]

No he's right.

How so Betonov?
His implication is that you must be paying exorbitant amounts of tax to recieve the level of services which he doesn't get.
The reality is that if he had a job he would be paying comparable rates of tax but not be getting the services.

[TarJak]

I think almost any Marxist would say that class warfare was 'inevitable' rather than 'necessary' - and argue that there was nothing 'utopian' about the end result. And no, 'Communism' (as Marx foresaw it) wasn't ' a totalitarian system of government' - it was a society with no state/government/party at all. Of course, one can (and should) point out that those advocating Marxist ideas (or claiming to) may not have actually got very far down the road to abolishing 'government' (or actually wanted to) - but Marx himself was no advocate of totalitarianism.

So BO is a Marxist who believes in big government? :doh:

[Tribesman]

So BO is a Marxist who believes in big government? :doh:

Does that mean the tea baggers are marxist because they believe in no government?:har:

[u crank]

Nixon did resign to avoid the show trial by the Democrats and his enemies in the Republican party.

I don't think so. He resigned because he faced almost certain impeachment and removal from office. 43 people convicted, some of them were top administration officials in his government.

Did some things he should not have done

Yea, he broke the law.:O:


Yes, but Reagan had a good reason, we were "fighting" the cold war, he spent money, rebuilt our military, made us stronger and accelerated the end of the cold war.Really, no coincidence Soviet Union collapsed not long after he left office.

There were multiple reasons for the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Chernobyl, Afghanistan, Glasnost and others but U.S. military strength had little to do with it.

Instead of screwing around with them as every President had done since 45, he chose to "fight" them.This saved us in long run from spending trillions more over another 20 or 30 years or more screwing around, so occurring debt was is excusable if it helps in long run.

Reagan started a military spending spree which has lasted to this day and has put your country in financial difficulty. It was unnecessary.

Difference is, obama with his relatively short time in office, has accounted for close to or at 40% of the total US debt and we have nothing to show for it but that debt and weakness and he has no plans to stop, he will just spend, spend, spend.Economy is still weak, unemployment high. Don't go there, you have no argument.

I am not defending Obama.

extreme deregulation that i believe Billy Boy Clinton implemented

One of the four points of Reagan's economic policy was to reduce government regulation. He got the ball rollin'.

Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating and is remembered as one of the best by most for a reason, he was just that.

If those people knew what we know...:hmmm:

[Schroeder]

How so Betonov?

I think he was sarcastic.;)

[mookiemookie]

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff139/cybersynaptics/stewie-barf.gif

[Bubblehead1980]

I don't think so. He resigned because he faced almost certain impeachment and removal from office. 43 people convicted, some of them were top administration officials in his government.



Yea, he broke the law.:O:




There were multiple reasons for the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Chernobyl, Afghanistan, Glasnost and others but U.S. military strength had little to do with it.



Reagan started a military spending spree which has lasted to this day and has put your country in financial difficulty. It was unnecessary.



I am not defending Obama.



One of the four points of Reagan's economic policy was to reduce government regulation. He got the ball rollin'.



If those people knew what we know...:hmmm:

You are clueless.Where are you from again?

[Bubblehead1980]

On the supposed racist comments in his books:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coilofrage.asp

On him being a Marxist:

According to Marxism, class warfare is necessary to achieve a utopian, classless society where all means of production are commonly owned. Socialism (based on Marxism) advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and there is no private property. Communism (based on Marxism) advocates elimination of private property, in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. It is a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.

Where is BO pushing class warfare and state ownership of all means of production? I've heard rhetoric but no evidence.

Okay, overall snopes is NOT a legitimate source, given it's ties to the Annenberg Foundation and other groups, sorry and naturally, they try to cover for his outright racism in Dreams From My Father by claiming things were cherry picked and taken out of context, which is in most cases and especially this one, a cop out when she someone is called out for saying something wrong.Yes, some quotes many have attributed are not in the book but many are, including the one about not being seen as a "sell out" for being around white people.Another one that snopes lies and tries to cover for is where in the Audacity of Hope, he said he would stand with muslims.They tried to say it was taken out of context.True, he said he would stand with "them", referring to muslims, which is a disturbing quote. Snopes does not deny some of these quotes are there, but of course tries to cover for him, it's propaganda, nothing more.

No way around it, I read the book, many of the lines are in there.

Okay, have to understand that when I speak of marxism, I am speaking of it in the manner in which obama and others like him see marxism and apply it to their politics, their ideology is not pure marxism, its based on marxism but that fact alone means they are marxists.They believe in class warfare, state ownership over the means of production, they achieve this through big government . The most basic core belief for them is they seek to protect the collective over the individual, which is in direct conflict with the American tradition, especially as founded.The United States is about the INDIVIDUAL right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.Individual rights take precedent over the collective, but in ensuring the individual rights, the collective is better off.Freedom of speech protects the INDIVIDUAL, even if what he or she is saying something 90% of us disagree with, which goes against the collective, same with economic freedom, it may not be good for everyone in some regards, but it leaves it up to each individual, not the government. This respect for individual rights extends to all areas and was respected for a long time.Slowly though, with the cancer of marxist based ideologies being spread around, a significant part of our population have lost respect for this, thus the political battles we are still fighting.I mean, this collectivism can be seen in obamacare, admitted to by admin officials.The law was knowingly set up so that younger, healthy people pay more on their policies, so to cover others.They see this as well it is good for the collective, to hell with the individual right to one's own money and to determine if he/she needs this healthcare.That is wrong, shameful, and absolutely goes against the basic spirit of this country.

While Obama does not preach marxism outright(he would be extremely unpopular if he did) and not saying he is a "traditional" one, but more of an American one.A "progressive" if you will. They have put an American spin on things but he had no problem buying up GM(means of production?) BO does not push class warfare? LOL are you kidding? Nearly every time he speaks relating to taxes etc he talks about rich people paying more.Talks about it is people's duty lol, come on man, the tactics he used? 2012 election? Come on now. Obama is a class warrior, which is ironic because he has been made pretty well off in last few years but since he is not old money(well not in the american sense) he sees himself as part of this perceived struggle.

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, overall snopes is NOT a legitimate source, given it's ties to the Annenberg Foundation and other groups,
So you're saying their quotes are lies and yours are the truth? Somebody has it wrong. Somebody is indeed twisting the context. You've defended your sources by saying that it doesn't matter if the source is suspect, what matters is that in this case it's telling the truth. Are their quotes accurate, or are they twisting what he said?

sorry and naturally, they try to cover for his outright racism in Dreams From My Father by claiming things were cherry picked and taken out of context, which is in most cases and especially this one, a cop out when she someone is called out for saying something wrong.
So were those things cherry-picked? Were they altered? Are your quotes accurate? Are theirs? That's all that really matters.

Yes, some quotes many have attributed are not in the book but many are, including the one about not being seen as a "sell out" for being around white people.
So some of the things you've been "quoting" from the book are actually lies?

Another one that snopes lies and tries to cover for is where in the Audacity of Hope, he said he would stand with muslims.They tried to say it was taken out of context.True, he said he would stand with "them", referring to muslims, which is a disturbing quote.
If they quoted accurately, what he actually said was that he would stand with Arab and Pakistani Americans who were afraid of reprisals and harrassment by the FBI and other federal organizations simply because of their past. He compared that possibility to the WW2 interment camps and said he would "stand with them should the political wind shift in an ugly direction".

That sounds to me like he's promising to take care of American citizens should the country turn against them because of their background. Nothing was said about Muslims, and nothing was said about supporting the enemy. I don't find that disturbing at all. What I find disturbing is that you could misread that so badly, or that you could get it so backwards.

Or was Snopes lying about that quote?

No way around it, I read the book, many of the lines are in there.
But many of them are indeed twisted to give the wrong effect, which you never bothered to point out. Have you also lied about those quotes?

[Bubblehead1980]

No he's right.

15% of my pay is income tax. Some percentage is also payed as social security. Basic healthcare insurance is payed by my employer.

I'd say about 24% of my monthly wage is going to the state.
A quarter of my pay to save my life, educate me, keep the roads maintained and provide me with security (police, firefighters, rescue services, army) is an outrages amount of tax. I feel abused.



Student debt is uncommon here.
Someone else pays the tab ?? Yes, it's called a taxpayer and it's also called an investment into the future. Highly educated workforce makes more money and pays more tax. Plus, to understand why we're not complaining by paying taxes for education and healthcare of others you have to understand something called SOLIDARITY.
And what do we get after slaving away at our job to pay those taxes ??
A well educated workforce that is dept free and can start a future without feeding the banks first.




Less people make less money for the state. We're playing this game on a bit higher difficulty.


Wow, 24% of your hard earned money, goes to the government, you have no say.That should anger you!

Guess what, I get all the services you do for for less than 24% of my monthly income.

Solidarity? Sounds like some collective thought to me. What about the individual right to their own money? To self determination? That is the difference.I will never forget my first check at this firm I worked for, I would say roughly 12% in taxes were taken out between state and federal.I was angry, that is money I earned.Wasted away by the government.That just goes against everything this country is supposed to be, it makes my stomach turn.

Yes, less people but a high tax rate, so plenty of money with a smaller population it seems.This US brings in a ton of money but such a large population, fact is some will go without, its just the natural course of events.

[Oberon]

Words fail me...

[eddie]

You say so much with just a few words Oberon!:haha:

[Bubblehead1980]

So you're saying their quotes are lies and yours are the truth? Somebody has it wrong. Somebody is indeed twisting the context. You've defended your sources by saying that it doesn't matter if the source is suspect, what matters is that in this case it's telling the truth. Are their quotes accurate, or are they twisting what he said?


So were those things cherry-picked? Were they altered? Are your quotes accurate? Are theirs? That's all that really matters.


So some of the things you've been "quoting" from the book are actually lies?


If they quoted accurately, what he actually said was that he would stand with Arab and Pakistani Americans who were afraid of reprisals and harrassment by the FBI and other federal organizations simply because of their past. He compared that possibility to the WW2 interment camps and said he would "stand with them should the political wind shift in an ugly direction".

That sounds to me like he's promising to take care of American citizens should the country turn against them because of their background. Nothing was said about Muslims, and nothing was said about supporting the enemy. I don't find that disturbing at all. What I find disturbing is that you could misread that so badly, or that you could get it so backwards.

Or was Snopes lying about that quote?


But many of them are indeed twisted to give the wrong effect, which you never bothered to point out. Have you also lied about those quotes?


No, snopes says while some of the quotes that are topic of discussion are there, opponents cherry pick and take them out of context.Sorry, admitting avoided being seen with white people because thought would be seen as a "sell out", not out of context, it demonstrates racist thinking.There plenty of others in there like that as well which shows his preoccupation with race and ill feelings towards white people.I have considered these were the thoughts of a younger, less worldly obama but given his rhetoric, albeit softer but with clear undertones and most obviously, his actions in racial matters, one has to conclude the racial bias is alive and strong in him.Examples? The Cambridge Police incident.Obama's friend was disorderly and out of line, without knowing facts, obama just said the police acted stupidly, cop was white, his friend is black, obama's first instinct was to assume white cop was racist, which makes him racist.

Ordering AG Holder to not pursue the voter intimidation case against the new black panthers.A video clearly showing voter intimidation in 2008 by thugs of the new black panther party was ignored by the new obama "justice" department, case was dropped despite clear evidence.Furthermore, J Christian Adams, a former attorney in the JD Voting Rights Section, who is a whistleblower, he said that it was made known once obama admin came in that no cases of alleged black on white voter intimidation would be pursued.

Obama's appointment of racist like Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.Notice Obama appoints very few white males? Always trying to find a woman or minority . That indicates bias to be honest, sure plenty of qualified white males. New DHS secretary? An underqualified black chosen over two white males who were highly qualified(one was Retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen) who knows more? A lawyer and yes man who tells obama drone strikes on us citizens does no violate the US constitution? lol or a Retired Admiral from a branch of service who specializes in security.HMMMMMMM







Some quotes attributed by others to his book, are not in there but snopes tries to explain away and cover for the ones that are there.

[eddie]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/Thony/Bubbles_zps31130a00.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Thony/media/Bubbles_zps31130a00.jpg.html)

[Betonov]

How so Betonov?
His implication is that you must be paying exorbitant amounts of tax to recieve the level of services which he doesn't get.
The reality is that if he had a job he would be paying comparable rates of tax but not be getting the services.

I think he was sarcastic.;)

Aye :yep:


Solidarity? Sounds like some collective thought to me.

Wow, just wow. And this is where I get off the thread.
Of all the names you were called here I'll ad selfish to the list.
If selflessly helping another human is communist, then bring me my hammer and sickle.
[sings the International to glorious proletariat work]

[Oberon]

If selflessly helping another human is communist, then bring me my hammer and sickle.
[sings the International to glorious proletariat work]


Da Tovarich! :salute:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v23/daigong/Communist_party.jpg

[Tribesman]

Wow, 24% of your hard earned money, goes to the government, you have no say.That should anger you!

Guess what, I get all the services you do for for less than 24% of my monthly income.

Solidarity? Sounds like some collective thought to me. What about the individual right to their own money? To self determination? That is the difference.I will never forget my first check at this firm I worked for, I would say roughly 12% in taxes were taken out between state and federal.I was angry, that is money I earned.Wasted away by the government.That just goes against everything this country is supposed to be, it makes my stomach turn.

Yes, less people but a high tax rate, so plenty of money with a smaller population it seems.This US brings in a ton of money but such a large population, fact is some will go without, its just the natural course of events.
You really should have stopped when your position was in a very deep hole.
So young man, you already said you do not get the services he gets. How do you square that with your latest nonsense?
An intelligent person would realise that the effective taxrate for your location on a reasonably low wage is in excess of what Betanov pays.:hmmm:

This firm you worked for, is that the firm where you claimed all the "other lawyers" agreed with your interpretation of laws?:rotfl2:

[TarJak]

:roll:

Is BO pushing race struggle or class struggle? You seem to have the two confused.

I'm also unclear about your definition of Marxism. Can you point me at the definition you are using?http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Marxism

I can't find one that gels with yours.

[Sailor Steve]

Enough prevaracating. You said
True, he said he would stand with "them", referring to muslims, which is a disturbing quote. Snopes does not deny some of these quotes are there, but of course tries to cover for him, it's propaganda, nothing more.

They said
In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese intermants during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction

There is a vastly different meaning between what you say he says and what they say he says. Only one can be correct. Which one is it?

No way around it, I read the book, many of the lines are in there.
And some of the lines you say are there, aren't there. Why not?

Some quotes attributed by others to his book, are not in there but snopes tries to explain away and cover for the ones that are there.
So you keep saying. Where exactly do they try to "explain away and cover"? It looks like what they are doing is giving precise quotes and showing that his detractors are the ones twisting the words and trying to make them fit their agenda.

So which is it? Saying Snopes does this doesn't make it so. Please show where they are wrong and your version is right. Specifics, if you will.

[Platapus]

I'm also unclear about your definition of Marxism.

Lemme try to explain it to you. On the Internets Tubes, there are specific definitions that are commonly used.

Marxist - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike
Socialist - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike
Communist - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike
Fascist - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike
Radical - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike

That's about as complex as it gets in the Internets Tubes. :yep:

[Tribesman]

This strikes me as interesting.
When Factcheck was used to point out that bubbles claims were complete rubbish he claimed bias as it was linked to Reagans friends who are obviously part of that vast jewish liberal media conspiracy.
Now we have the same with Snopes which are "obviously" biased since they say he is talking rubbish, but how exactly are they linked to Reagans friends the Annenburgs like he claims?:hmmm:


Bubbles, indulge me if you will. I know you generally refuse to actually answer any questions and will try and skirt around everything rather than face up to reality so you can pretend to yourself that somehow your argument really stands.
So just a simple question to satisfy my curiosity.
Are you a product of home-schooling?
I only ask as with your approach and behaviour you seem to fit a very discernible pattern which is often very evident from that line of conditioning.

[Bubblehead1980]

This strikes me as interesting.
When Factcheck was used to point out that bubbles claims were complete rubbish he claimed bias as it was linked to Reagans friends who are obviously part of that vast jewish liberal media conspiracy.
Now we have the same with Snopes which are "obviously" biased since they say he is talking rubbish, but how exactly are they linked to Reagans friends the Annenburgs like he claims?:hmmm:


Bubbles, indulge me if you will. I know you generally refuse to actually answer any questions and will try and skirt around everything rather than face up to reality so you can pretend to yourself that somehow your argument really stands.
So just a simple question to satisfy my curiosity.
Are you a product of home-schooling?
I only ask as with your approach and behaviour you seem to fit a very discernible pattern which is often very evident from that line of conditioning.


Conditioning? Oh it is you who are conditioned? You obviously believe what the government tells you, anyone in opposition is a home schooled nut. No, I did not attend home school.That is insulting you know, you just never :/\\!!


I am getting annoyed because you people are trusting snopes "interpretation" aka excusing what he said, read the book yourself.The lines they say are not in there, are not but there are lines I have said are in there, they acknowledge they are there, but they try to excuse it. I will give you that the "muslim" line can be interpreted different manners.I base mine on his background and other things.However, the quote "
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling conventions. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coilofrage.asp#oOVw7muFGQgB36z2.99
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling conventions. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coilofrage.asp#oOVw7muFGQgB36z2.99

"That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people. ... To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." Dreams From My Father" Pg 101

That right there, says it all.They can try to explain it away, get around it but he was saying he purposely avoided white people because it would make him seem like a sell out.Admits he sought the radicals to hang out with(big shock) , the marxists etc. Wonder why? Pattern he has followed his ENTIRE life. Just read the book, of course you will probably just defend it.People like you would defend him or any liberal no matter who apparent it is they bad news.



"Yes, I’d seen weakness in other men – Gramps and his disappointments, Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. And if later I saw that the black men I knew – Frank or Ray or Will or Rafiq – fell short of such lofty standards; if I had learned to respect these men for the struggles they went through, recognizing them as my own – my father’s voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people’s struggle. Wake up, black man!"


There are plenty of others, will add more when have time.

Yes, who made some of these sites the authority on facts? Themselves? They always seem to make an excuse for Barry(snopes) and other liberals. Their ties to Annenberg Foundation are of great concern. Are you aware Obama used to sit on the board? Wonder why they are so friendly.

[Bubblehead1980]

:roll:

Is BO pushing race struggle or class struggle? You seem to have the two confused.

I'm also unclear about your definition of Marxism. Can you point me at the definition you are using?http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Marxism

I can't find one that gels with yours.


Obama is pushing both, he always has, for him they are intertwined. Did you not read what I said? May not be the letter by letter definition of marxism but that is the core of his beliefs, as it is for many on the modern left.Progressivism is based on Marxism, same trash, different name.

[Bubblehead1980]

Lemme try to explain it to you. On the Internets Tubes, there are specific definitions that are commonly used.

Marxist - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike
Socialist - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike
Communist - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike
Fascist - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike
Radical - a politician that belongs to a political party you dislike

That's about as complex as it gets in the Internets Tubes. :yep:

No, not true.Like I just pointed out, progressives(that is what they are called these days), their ideology comes from marxism, it's all connected.May not fit the exact definition but at it's core, at the core of obama's beliefs, he is a marxist.There is a reason he has traveled in those circles his entire life, that his mentor was a freaking communist(Frank Marshal Davis), he believes in that garbage.Now, I am all about political freedom BUT such an ideology is absolutely incompatible with the United States, it's laws, traditions, etc and someone who believes in that garbage has no place having any type of political power.

[Tribesman]

You obviously believe what the government tells you
Epic fail:har:

I am getting annoyed because you people are trusting snopes "interpretation" aka excusing what he said, read the book yourself.The lines they say are not in there, are not but there are lines I have said are in there, they acknowledge they are there, but they try to excuse it. I will give you that the "muslim" line can be interpreted different manners.I base mine on his background and other things.
Do understand that you are making less and less sense as you go on?
Which really is quite an achievement considering your starting position.:smug:

[Bubblehead1980]

Epic fail:har:


Do understand that you are making less and less sense as you go on?
Which really is quite an achievement considering your starting position.:smug:

Making plenty of sense.Snopes, which you trust is saying the quotes I talked about are in the book.There is one quote that many attribute to his book, that was not in there(that I did not mention since it is not in there) but the others are there.However, they try the old "context" cop out since are covering for him.Honestly, you are just being difficult now. Trying reading, you know, left to right, top to bottom.

[Sailor Steve]

I will give you that the "muslim" line can be interpreted different manners.I base mine on his background and other things.
You specifically stated that "them" referred to muslims, a term he never used. He specifically mentioned "Arab and Pakistani Americans" and left little doubt over his meaning by adding the reference to interment camps. Again, one or the other is true. Which is it?

You also again try to dismiss Snopes because of their ties. When others dismissed your quoted sources because of their ties, you said it didn't matter as long as they told the truth. Do you now seek to have it both ways? My point is that Snopes does show that self-proclaimed "conservative" sources have changed the wording to suit their own charges. This makes those sources liars. So which one is telling the truth? That's all I ask.

[Tribesman]

No, not true.Like I just pointed out, progressives(that is what they are called these days), their ideology comes from marxism, it's all connected.May not fit the exact definition but at it's core, at the core of obama's beliefs, he is a marxist.
Wrong. Marxism is a development of hegels progressive stuff which itself is from the enlightenment age.
You may be familiar with some leading lights of that movement as they were some of the blokes who wrote that US constitution thingy you always prattle on about how good it is.
Once again you get your facts backwards in your lame attempt to justify your ridiculous claims once people point out that they are ridiculous:woot:

However, they try the old "context" cop out since are covering for him.Honestly, you are just being difficult now
Context is everything young man, didn't your teachers (who don't know anything according to you) teach you that?
Definitions are also very important, which you should know as a "legal mind", but you appear to make definitions up as you go along.
I take it the snopes "cover up" can be added to your ever growing list of crazy conspiracy theories now

[Bubblehead1980]

Wrong. Marxism is a development of hegels progressive stuff which itself is from the enlightenment age.
You may be familiar with some leading lights of that movement as they were some of the blokes who wrote that US constitution thingy you always prattle on about how good it is.
Once again you get your facts backwards in your lame attempt to justify your ridiculous claims once people point out that they are ridiculous:woot:


Context is everything young man, didn't your teachers (who don't know anything according to you) teach you that?
Definitions are also very important, which you should know as a "legal mind", but you appear to make definitions up as you go along.
I take it the snopes "cover up" can be added to your ever growing list of crazy conspiracy theories now

So you are trying to tell me progressivism is not rooted in marxism? haha wow, you are some kind of special.

Oh yes, the founders were a bunch of marxists LOL.

Yes, context matters BUT it is often used for a cover to excuse or hide the intent and meaning of things. Obama said some very hurtful, racist things describing his views long before he had a future in politics(last time he was honest in public on this issue) and supporters of his try to excuse it with context.Now, if obama's actions reflected a changed man, I would honestly say okay, he changed.I will admit to some racist feelings when I was in my teens and even toward late teens, I was not taught that but just some natural feelings I had, which is a common human thing.Did not hate people of different races but I had my issues, it took some growing up and self reflection to get over it. However, obama's associations and behavior since then reflect someone who holds racist views.I mentioned a slew of incidents from the black panther's case, the louis henry gates incident, supporting a thug like trayvon martin, the race baiting he has engaged in.The "I will nominate everyone but a white male" to the supreme court and various other positions.Battling voter ID laws claiming racial discrimination the list just goes on and on. Really, you need to get over the comment I made about professors not knowing anything, you have blown that way out of proportion.I was saying I am sick of the liberal bias in academia which is well known.The particular professor I was speaking of is one who shoves the living constitution crap down everyone's throat, I argued with him constantly,I will say he proved to be fair in grading despite personal animosity(ran into him at the pub one night, made i pretty clear we did not like one another over some scotch, amusing incident), but he is part of the problem.

[Oberon]

http://imageshack.us/a/img202/9509/o3em.jpg

[Tribesman]

So you are trying to tell me progressivism is not rooted in marxism? haha wow, you are some kind of special.

wow:doh:
Lets take this in easy steps, just so you don't get even more lost.

Which came first?
How can something (A) be rooted in another thing (B) which didn't exist at the time (A) came along?
If (B) comes after (A) how can (A) be derived from (B) ?

Oh yes, the founders were a bunch of marxists LOL.

What a silly statement.
Trying reading, you know, left to right, top to bottom:rotfl2:
Its no wonder that your "research" always turns out to be so entertaining for the forum.

Really, you need to get over the comment I made about professors not knowing anything, you have blown that way out of proportion.I was saying I am sick of the liberal bias in academia which is well known.The particular professor I was speaking of is one who shoves the living constitution crap down everyone's throat
Why do you lie young man?
You said all the teachers in your school, you also said all the other students were dumb too

[TarJak]

Obama is pushing both, he always has, for him they are intertwined. Did you not read what I said? May not be the letter by letter definition of marxism but that is the core of his beliefs, as it is for many on the modern left.Progressivism is based on Marxism, same trash, different name.

:roll:

[u crank]

You are clueless.

Nice. For a guy studying law your debating skills have hit a low point.

Where are you from again?

What's that got to do with anything? Are you saying that you have to be an American to have any knowledge about America? For a college boy you seem to have a remarkable lack of understanding.

Look pal, if you've run out of arguments, just say so. If you're going to act like a child, I'll stop wasting my time.

[Bubblehead1980]

Nice. For a guy studying law your debating skills have hit a low point.



What's that got to do with anything? Are you saying that you have to be an American to have any knowledge about America? For a college boy you seem to have a remarkable lack of understanding.

Look pal, if you've run out of arguments, just say so. If you're going to act like a child, I'll stop wasting my time.


That is your opinion, PAL. I understand, I just don't agree with what you guys are selling, so you insult.I said he is clueless because he seems to be.

I did not say you will not understand America if you are not an American BUT it explains the disconnect

[Bubblehead1980]

wow:doh:
Lets take this in easy steps, just so you don't get even more lost.

Which came first?
How can something (A) be rooted in another thing (B) which didn't exist at the time (A) came along?
If (B) comes after (A) how can (A) be derived from (B) ?


What a silly statement.
Trying reading, you know, left to right, top to bottom:rotfl2:
Its no wonder that your "research" always turns out to be so entertaining for the forum.


Why do you lie young man?
You said all the teachers in your school, you also said all the other students were dumb too

Stop twisting, what I am saying, jesus christ. Bottom line, it is all connected and we are way off topic here but obama is a marxist at heart, even admits he sought their company in college, and never stopped.

Okay, you took my statement about teachers and fellow students a little too seriously, but that is what you do, you are a troll, I should expect no less.

[mapuc]

I feel so sorry for this guy, what isn't he being acccused of

Being a Muslim
Being a Marxist
Being a non-American
a.s.o

I'm truly happy that I ain't your president.

What's more funny, is that those who accuse Obama or other president to be anything else, haven't got a clue about the American law and what POTUS really can do.

NO!! He can't turn American into some kind of Khalifat and turn the laws into Sharia-laws.

In a very very long distance he could, but here we are talking decades not years.

Markus

[u crank]

That is your opinion, PAL. I understand, I just don't agree with what you guys are selling, so you insult.

Every thing that you've said in this thread is your opinion. Why is yours special?

so you insult.

Calling someone pal is hardly an insult. This is.

You are clueless.

And then..

I did not say you will not understand America if you are not an American BUT it explains the disconnect

Again, this is your problem. I don't know why you can't see it? If someone disagrees with you and you can't make a reasonable argument, you claim that they have a disconnect? That's your explanation?!?

I wish you the best of luck in your future law career.

You're gonna need it.

[Sailor Steve]

I just don't agree with what you guys are selling, so you insult.
You seem to have a misconception here. You are the one who is doing the selling, or trying to. You keep making the same pitch. People keep asking for one good reason why they should buy it, and you keep coming up with nothing more than your personal feelings. When someone shows you that your facts are wrong you either say their sources are biased or say they are clueless. What you have yet to do is answer any direct questions or prove that their (our) sources are actually wrong. I'm still waiting for a response to questions I asked several pages ago.

[Oberon]

So, essentially, this entire thread, and most threads like it have been a 21st century version of this:

http://www.pitchcoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/snake-oil.jpg

Although most of the time they sound like this:

http://www.sovereignindependentuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/repent-the-end-is-nigh-ye-must-be-cleansed.png

[Tribesman]

Stop twisting, what I am saying, jesus christ.
No twisting of your words young man, its your words despite your earlier lame denials. Context matters too, and you can't deny the context of your own words there.
So why are you lying ?
As a "legal expert" do you understand the implications on the credibility of all your statements if some of your statements are proven to be completely false, even moreso if you persist in the lies long after they have been clearly exposed as such.
Your problem in this topic(and others) is that your claims have repeatedly shown to be false, but you still insist that they are really the truth.
It leaves you with no credibility at all and it makes yourself and your claims into a joke.
you are a troll
Young man, are you the person who said he likes to annoy people with his arguments, a person who said he likes to get under their skin ?
Are you going to attempt to wriggle some imaginary context out of your statements to attempt to justify them?
Or perhaps even flatly deny again that your words are your words?

Face it young man, you have hung yourself and were so unwittingly eager to put your head in that you even tied the noose yourself.



What you have yet to do is answer any direct questions
Not true Sailor, he did answer a question on if he was a product of home schooling.
Though of course as a proven liar it naturally does raise reasonable doubts over the validity of his denial.

[Jimbuna]

Name calling and insults is the quickest way to bring about my involvement here.

I'm not apportioning blame to anyone and certainly won't be reading through all these pages.

What I am doing is drawing a line here and will act accordingly should the need arise from here onwards.

[nikimcbee]

Just saw this:
Top generals: Obama is 'purging the military'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/#AUWuDiEB3IbDSDrr.99

:hmmm:

[Platapus]

J http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/#AUWuDiEB3IbDSDrr.99

:hmmm:[/QUOTE]

Well, just as long as it is not from some biased source, it should be ok. :yep:

[Oberon]

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/dbd8a9e26988e6a7ac1f5fbd16f9e287.jpg

[Jimbuna]

^ Precisely.

[Tribesman]

Well, just as long as it is not from some biased source, it should be ok.
Come on, he is not really biased.:03:
He may have a very dodgy history though.
Making lots of stuff up, supporting terrorists, supporting terrorists who have attacked the US, swallowing and disseminating fake "intelligence" he was fed by the Ayatollahs, corrupt awarding of contracts from the dept. of commerce, illegal gun running to vile murdering tin pot dictators in Africa... nice source eh?:doh: