Obama's purge of top military brass...

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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?

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

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

My money is on:

I sometimes wonder

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]