THE O'Bumma Thread - Original Vintage Edition

[Big Ben]

Special delivery to Ivan: Madoff is a Democrat! Now what do you do?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-tod ... crat-donor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/1 ... 51120.html

Bush is considering putting the auto companies through an orderly bankruptcy!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_ ... down_autos

What do I do? Well Bush just brokered a deal worth 17.4 billion to bail out the auto companies. Madoff is a crook, democrat or republican, but took advantage of the republican system of swindling money. One difference between Madoff and Cheney, Madoff was honest about his dishonesty! Cheney and Haliburton just keep <A HREF='http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/catalog/default.php/cPath/23_64_255' target='_blank'>Anal</A>-raping the soldiers fighting and dying in the wars you love so much. You must be a Haliburton stockholder, and love the look of blood on your hands! Sleep well child killer!

You want to talk system? You really want to go there? Be careful what you wish for...

Madoff is a Democrat. The system he used was a Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi or pyramid scheme was developed in 1919, when Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was president!

Blagojevich is a Democrat. The system he operates under is the corrupt democratic Chicago political system, the same system that produced "the messiah", barack o'bumma.

Cheney is irrelevant to the crimes committed by Madoff and Blagojevich, both Democrats.

Bush just bailed out the auto companies. The system he is using is the socialist system, a system favored by the Democrats. Wanna bet the ranch that o'bumma will bail out the auto companies again next year? I'm disappointed that Bush is as gutless as the Democrats and is competing with obama for the socialist of the year award.

Your democratic socialist system is going to ruin your country!

[azraelle]

Assuming only one shooter, or assuming 3, the assassination of JFK was an "in-house" affair. 9-11, on the other hand, involved INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS, which typically don't fall under the jurisdiction of the NYC Police Department, unless their leaders happen to be within NYC at the time. YOU'RE STILL THE IDIOT!

What the hell does this mean? What is an “in-house affair?” What are “international terrorists?” Are you suggesting that the terrorists that are responsible for 9-11 could not be subject to NY law? You are obviously not a lawyer. Of course they would be under the jurisdiction of the NYC police department. They would be subject to NY law because they caused an event to occur within the jurisdiction of the NY law.

Your obtuseness in this matter is equaled only by your lawyerly arrogance!
The 19 terrorists in question blew themselves up! The PLANNERS were not in this country. Yes they may be subject to New York City law, but it takes the armed forces to go and fetch them. Or do you seriously believe they would have voluntarily flown over here and surrendered themselves to the proper authorities when we asked them politely to do so? Extradition from Afghanistan would not have worked at the time as Afghanistan's government WAS, for all intents and purposes, Al Quaida, because the Taliban and Al Quaida were essentially one and the same.

[Big Ben]

Assuming only one shooter, or assuming 3, the assassination of JFK was an "in-house" affair. 9-11, on the other hand, involved INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS, which typically don't fall under the jurisdiction of the NYC Police Department, unless their leaders happen to be within NYC at the time. YOU'RE STILL THE IDIOT!

What the hell does this mean? What is an “in-house affair?” What are “international terrorists?” Are you suggesting that the terrorists that are responsible for 9-11 could not be subject to NY law? You are obviously not a lawyer. Of course they would be under the jurisdiction of the NYC police department. They would be subject to NY law because they caused an event to occur within the jurisdiction of the NY law.

Your obtuseness in this matter is equaled only by your lawyerly arrogance!
The 19 terrorists in question blew themselves up! The PLANNERS were not in this country. Yes they may be subject to New York City law, but it takes the armed forces to go and fetch them. Or do you seriously believe they would have voluntarily flown over here and surrendered themselves to the proper authorities when we asked them politely to do so? Extradition from Afghanistan would not have worked at the time as Afghanistan's government WAS, for all intents and purposes, Al Quaida, because the Taliban and Al Quaida were essentially one and the same.

The NYPD don't have the intel, manpower and weapons to chase after the Talliban or Biin L. If America sent the police after them, the head guy would change his name to ossama been laffin.

Lena, special delivery for you on the nexus between Vennezuela and Irran. Even a peace loving organization, as well as its neighbors are concerned:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/public ... &proj=znpp\par

[Cambridge]

That is just silly. The NYPD have all the resources necessary to extradite the people necessary for this crime. If the country involved (Afghanistan) doesn’t coöperate, then there are economic and diplomatic sections that can coerce them

But here’s the ultimate silliness. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So why are we spending $11-billion a month and so-far over 4,000 young men and women of our cream of youth, to do something that has nothing whatsoever to do with our defense? Well, you might say, it was to remove a tyrant. When the f**k did we ever give a f**k about a tyrant in Panama, in Argentina, in North Korea or in Burma? And several years ago we caught the Mother-fu**ker and killed his ugly ass. Mission accomplished.

So, why are we still there? It’s because we are trying to hold back the inevitable Iraqi civil war that will inevitably come just as soon as we leave. We created this joke, and now we are trying hard not to laugh.

[Big Ben]

o'bumma is mulling over spending a trillion dollars. Would Americans prefer the money going to them, or would they prefer to throw it into the government black hole?

Japan tried to spend its way out of its problems and failed:

http://_.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html

Franklin Delano o'bumma's New Deal II will involve trillions of dollars spent on government projects. But many are not enamored with the results of the billions of dollars spent in New Deal I:

http://hnn.us/articles/3800.html

[Cambridge]

o'bumma is mulling over spending a trillion dollars. Would Americans prefer the money going to them, or would they prefer to throw it into the government black hole?

Japan tried to spend its way out of its problems and failed:

http://_.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html

Franklin Delano o'bumma's New Deal II will involve trillions of dollars spent on government projects. But many are not enamored with the results of the billions of dollars spent in New Deal I:

http://hnn.us/articles/3800.html

This is GWB's problem. Don't look to the left for anything but solutions. The left is blameless.

[Big Ben]

o'bumma is mulling over spending a trillion dollars. Would Americans prefer the money going to them, or would they prefer to throw it into the government black hole?

Japan tried to spend its way out of its problems and failed:

http://_.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html

Franklin Delano o'bumma's New Deal II will involve trillions of dollars spent on government projects. But many are not enamored with the results of the billions of dollars spent in New Deal I:

http://hnn.us/articles/3800.html

This is GWB's problem. Don't look to the left for anything but solutions. The left is blameless.

Nope, GWB will be leading quite a fine life down there in Texas. No problems, no worries.

It will be your problem when you are 80 years old, but the crushing weight of US debt prevents the government from providing you the help you need because Medicare is bankrupt and the government has no resources to rob Peter to pay Paul.

It will be your daughter's problem when she is trying to accumulate wealth, but is taxed to death because of the crushing national debt. Then she will see the value of whatever she inherited from you shrink - all because the national debt is so huge that the country will be forced to have massive inflation to try in vain to reduce the burden of that debt - see the lessons of Argentina.

It will be your grandchildren's problem when they want to live in a country where they can grow and achieve their potential, only to find their country mortgaged because their grandparents' generation wanted to live beyond its means.

And it will be your grandchildren's children who will study in elementary school the lessons learned, back when a well-intentioned, but naive and misguided obama went on repeated spending sprees and increased America's debt from $10 trillion to $17 trillion, causing irreversible damage and putting America is a fiscal hole for which it never recovered.

Sorry to break the bad news to you. But at least you can say that a liberal ruined your family's livelihood rather than a moderate or conservative, so you can claim a moral victory.

[Cambridge]

And it will be all be because of an idiot republican who thought the US was a treasure chest of military toys, available for his pleasure.

My children and grandchildren will be paying off the debt of a stupid republican because the socialist republicans have only a shortsighted view of politics. They have the erection for a dictator in Iraq but not the least sense of what is going on politically. They have created a civil war in Iraq and they haven’t the slightest clue as to what has happened.

[azraelle]

MY children and grandchildren will not be wasting their time debating on whether a Republican or a Democrat got them into this mess, but will take a pragmatic and proactive role in eliminating the international bankers who REALLY caused the mess, and stand to reap the profits (e.g. it is THEY that the massive national and international debt is going to be paid to). No more bankers = no more debt to pay back. Intelligent detectives ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY. You might want to try it Cambridge and see where it leads, rather than Quixotically--and uselessly--tilting at windmills.

[mogadishu]

One blog I read claimed several months ago (in August I think) that the Clintons intended to wait for Obama to be elected, and then publicise the claim he was not born in the US. I dismissed it as too crazy, but...

http://rightsoup.com/it-aint-the-mainst ... y-scandal/

*shrugs*

[ZiaAries]

One blog I read claimed several months ago (in August I think) that the Clintons intended to wait for Obama to be elected, and then publicise the claim he was not born in the US. I dismissed it as too crazy, but...

http://rightsoup.com/it-aint-the-mainst ... y-scandal/

*shrugs*

Sounds like you were wise to dismiss it. I hate that people start BS that is NOT true. I find it filthy. I do believe that "what goes around, comes around" in some way or another.

[Big Ben]

My children and grandchildren will be paying off the debt of a stupid republican because the socialist republicans have only a shortsighted view of politics.

So now the American State of California is going to run out of money in about 70 days :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7760249.stm

1/ Should o'bumma and the socialist democrats bail out the State of California? You were against bailing out banks and the auto companies and I agreed with you. So should America bail out liberal, free-spending California and other fiscally irresponsible states? Will it give incentive for fiscally responsible states to become fiscally irresponsble?

2/ How long is it before massive spending programs and bailing everyone and everything out makes the US collapse and be in the same situation California is in today?

3/ California is cutting all its planned infrastructure projects. Isn't it ironic that simultaneously obama plans to spend hundreds of billions dollars on the same?

[H. Franklin Layne]

California has been under the governance of a republican for how long now? The governator couldn't see the problems on his watch? Must like Captain Smith ignoring the iceberg warning, and then blaming the shipbuilder for the disaster. Sorry, doesn't cut it for me.

California is supposed to run out of money. The green state, the wine state, the happy cow state, all these wonderful titles they lay claim to is broke with a republican governor. The US has gone broke under a republican president hooked on war.

ten billion dollars a month for the war on terror. Does nobody else see that as insane? The pentagon is using taxpayer dollars to pay 10 bucks per bullet, or what? Why does Haliburton get to charge the soldiers on the front lines 100 dollars per laundry load? We are in serious financial shiit, and no one is lifting a finger to stop the price gouging by government contractors.

20 years from now, that generation is going to look back and say "How did we ever get through those years, with those idiots in command?"

[Cambridge]

Alan Bullock wrote the history of how Nazism came out of a democratic republic. Someone needs to write the book on how the Bush/Cheney administration came out of a democratic republic. It has to do with the gullibility of the masses. It has to do with what Alexis de Toqueville called The Tyranny of the Majority. GWB would never have happened with a vigilant public. We have ourselves to blame.

[Big Ben]

Alan Bullock wrote the history of how Nazism came out of a democratic republic. Someone needs to write the book on how the Bush/Cheney administration came out of a democratic republic. It has to do with the gullibility of the masses. It has to do with what Alexis de Toqueville called The Tyranny of the Majority. GWB would never have happened with a vigilant public. We have ourselves to blame.

cam, you didn't answer the questions about your home state getting bailed out:

So now the American State of California is going to run out of money in about 70 days :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7760249.stm

1/ Should o'bumma and the socialist democrats bail out the State of California? You were against bailing out banks and the auto companies and I agreed with you. So should America bail out California and other fiscally irresponsible states? Will it give incentive for fiscally responsible states to become fiscally irresponsble?

2/ How long is it before massive spending programs and bailing everyone and everything out makes the US collapse and be in the same situation California is in today?

3/ California is cutting all its planned infrastructure projects. Isn't it ironic that simultaneously obama plans to spend hundreds of billions dollars on the same?

4/ Would a person who is normally against bailouts, suddenly be for a bailout of his own state, because the alternative would be to raise his own personal state income taxes?

These questions are asked in all seriousness because it is a real situation. Blaming bush is unproductive because it won't solve California's problems now.

Merry Christmas from California.