Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 10, 2012, 06:34:46 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/afghanistan-teenagers-detained_n_2267248.html
LOL at the obama scumbags defending this over there.
-
I dont get how dems keep repeating 2008 was bush and unpaid for wars.
The deficit is from obama bailouts, not war.
bailouts are 10x the war
obama added 9T to deficit and counting 17T up from 8t in 2008
amazing
bush can still be blamed on TV
wow
TV really lying bigtime
wow
fukin wow
-
He is a whole lot cooler and he didnt start a war based on exaggerations and fabrications that ended up costing trillions of dollars hundreds of thousands of lives and caused more terrorism and danger than it helped
-
He is a whole lot cooler and he didnt start a war based on exaggerations and fabrications that ended up costing trillions of dollars hundreds of thousands of lives and caused more terrorism and danger than it helped
Booommm!!
-
He is a whole lot cooler and he didnt start a war based on exaggerations and fabrications that ended up costing trillions of dollars hundreds of thousands of lives and caused more terrorism and danger than it he
You dumbshits seem to NOT want to remember Iraq was voted on on both sides. BTW, let me know when knowing your job trumps being "cool".
-
He is a whole lot cooler and he didnt start a war based on exaggerations and fabrications that ended up costing trillions of dollars hundreds of thousands of lives and caused more terrorism and danger than it he
You dumbshits seem to NOT want to remember Iraq was voted on on both sides. BTW, let me know when knowing your job trumps being "cool".
The majority of voters clearly thought he "knows the job"
Remember the landslide from last month?
Why are you still here?
-
He's black.
Yes... I said it.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/afghanistan-teenagers-detained_n_2267248.html
LOL at the obama scumbags defending this over there.
And you said Bush did a bang up job..
Boom
-
And you said Bush did a bang up job..
Boom
Yeah - I said his first term was not terrible and the 2nd was a complete disaster correct?
-
He's black.
Yes... I said it.
I think you're forgetting a few things.
Obama is a radical black, secret muslim, communist, marxist, dictator who is trying to collapse the nation and make us all his slaves and he is doing all this to get revenge on us for what we did to his father
Its not really that crazy if you think about it all day long, every day...
-
Yeah - I said his first term was not terrible and the 2nd was a complete disaster correct?
Not terrible = allowing multiple terrorists attacks on "the homeland" (and putting that word into the vernacular)
Letting Bin Laden get away, attacking the wrong country and getting us mired in a quagmire with tens of thousands of Americans killed or maimed, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, out of control federal spending and borrowing and setting the stage for an unprecedented financial crisis in his second term
Yeah......not terrible
-
Not terrible = allowing multiple terrorists attacks on "the homeland" (and putting that word into the vernacular)
Letting Bin Laden get away, attacking the wrong country and getting us mired in a quagmire with tens of thousands of Americans killed or maimed, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, out of control federal spending and borrowing and setting the stage for an unprecedented financial crisis in his second term
Yeah......not terrible
So by your definition Obama is setting us up for an unprecedented financial crisis since he is spending even more than W by a magitude of trillions correct?
-
Not terrible = allowing multiple terrorists attacks on "the homeland" (and putting that word into the vernacular)
Letting Bin Laden get away, attacking the wrong country and getting us mired in a quagmire with tens of thousands of Americans killed or maimed, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, out of control federal spending and borrowing and setting the stage for an unprecedented financial crisis in his second te
Yeah......not terrible
Please....Clinton literally had him ok n at least 10 occations and CHOSE to let him go. If it weren't for the bush policies that Obama wanted to overturn but was talked out of, binladen would still be alive and this country would have been hit on multiple occasions. You
-
Not only that, I disagree his second term was bad, it was only about the 3 or so months of his last term before leaving office. As far as his so called "financial mess". The last 6of his eight years he had a democratic congress. Libs hate hearing it.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the dumbing down of the repub party :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
So by your definition Obama is setting us up for an unprecedented financial crisis since he is spending even more than W by a magitude of trillions correct?
false
how many times have we been over this
the financial meltdown was caused by deregulation of the commodities market and the creation of "Alt A" loans (sub-prime products already existed) and the subsequent asset bubble and the eventual creation of pools of loans that were designed to fail in order to cash in on the credit default swaps.
It had nothing to do with federal spending
-
Please....Clinton literally had him ok n at least 10 occations and CHOSE to let him go. If it weren't for the bush policies that Obama wanted to overturn but was talked out of, binladen would still be alive and this country would have been hit on multiple occasions. You
source ?
Of course you'll have nothing so let's put that aside and just address the other points in my previous post
-
false
how many times have we been over this
the financial meltdown was caused by deregulation of the commodities market and the creation of "Alt A" loans (sub-prime products already existed) and the subsequent asset bubble and the eventual creation of pools of loans that were designed to fail in order to cash in on the credit default swaps.
It had nothing to do with federal spending
out of control federal spending and borrowing and setting the stage for an unprecedented financial crisis in his second term
Straw Man.
-
Not only that, I disagree his second term was bad, it was only about the 3 or so months of his last term before leaving office. As far as his so called "financial mess". The last 6of his eight years he had a democratic congress. Libs hate hearing it.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA!!!!!
I'll bet you really truly believe that nonsense
no wonder your party is so completely tone deaf on why they got their ass handed to them in the last election
-
out of control federal spending and borrowing and setting the stage for an unprecedented financial crisis in his second term
Straw Man.
yep, set the stage but did not cause the crisis in the credit markets
the credit markets melted down when virtually every bank, pension fund, insurance company, etc... realized they were exposed to toxic assets for which they could not value accurately which caused a cascade effect of defaults, margin calls, etc..
No one has ever said the spending by the Bush Administration caused the financial meltdown
-
source ?
Of course you'll have nothing so let's put that aside and just address the other points in my previous post
There's ton of other sources, but here's one. But of course you'll dismiss it even though this has been old news for about 10 years...
Media: NBC's presentation of "Rock Center with Brian Williams" last Wednesday night demonstrated that MSNBC's Chris Matthews isn't the only one who feels tingles up his leg when he talks with or about President Obama.
President Obama's victory lap and shameless, media-assisted political exploitation of the Navy SEALs' triumph continued with the program opening with the photograph taken in the White House Situation Room, now apparently open to public tours.
Administration bigwigs were shown watching the fruits of President George W. Bush's labors as Navy SEALs, acting on a trail of evidence gathered using enhanced interrogation techniques President Obama opposed, took out Osama bin Laden.
The president was shown sitting in the corner dressed in casual clothes, as he had rushed there after playing nine holes of golf at Andrews Air Force Base before heading to the Situation Room at around 2 p.m.
"The picture," said Williams dramatically, "was actually years in the making. When he was president, Bill Clinton spent 75 cruise missiles trying to kill bin Laden."
And missed 75 times, including those launched during the Monica Lewinsky affair and his impeachment. Close, but no cigar.
Michael Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency who led the Osama bin Laden unit of the Counterterrorism Center from 1996 through 1999, and was Special Advisor to it from 2001 until he left the agency in 2004. He is the author of two books on the war on terror.
In a July 4, 2006, Op-Ed in the Washington Times, Scheuer dismisses former terrorism czar Richard Clarke's memoir on the hunt for bin Laden.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
Speaking of "Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting, Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before Sept. 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat."
That impression continued with Brian Williams' fawning "Rock Center" report.
As Clinton guru Dick Morris relates, a first missed opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden came in February 1998, when "Clinton's aides scuttled a CIA plot that had been eight months in the planning to kidnap Osama."
The plan would have used Afghan tribesmen to capture the al-Qaida leader who would then have been brought to the U.S. for trial.
Another chance came on Aug. 20, 1998, in the famous "wag the dog" attack at the height of l'affaire Lewinsky, when cruise missiles were actually fired at a bin Laden encampment in Afghanistan.
Problem was, Clinton ordered that the Pakistanis be informed of the attack, lest they believed the cruise missile in their air space were fired by India, which didn't have any cruise missiles.
The news, of course, was leaked and bin Laden fled.
Yet another missed opportunity came in May 1999 when the CIA reported that bin Laden would be in Kandahar, Afghanistan, for five days. As the 9/11 Commission report said: "If this intelligence was not 'actionable,' working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence could meet that standard."
It was the Clinton administration that could have put Osama bin Laden out of commission before 9/11. It was under the Clinton administration that Americans were killed by terrorists on three continents without a meaningful response.
It was under Bill Clinton that we left Somalia in disgrace after dead Americans were dragged through the streets, giving Osama all the encouragement and proof of our lack of will he needed.
Somebody better look under the rock at "Rock Center."
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050312-610278-brian-williams-praises-clinton-obama.htm#ixzz2ErqP63uX
-
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I'll bet you really truly believe that nonsense
no wonder your party is so completely tone deaf on why they got their ass handed to them in the last election
Laugh all you want Biden, at least Bush didn't walk into office the first day and fuck the entire country up the next.
-
Laugh all you want Biden, at least Bush didn't walk into office the first day and fuck the entire country up the next.
true
Bush just left the country completely rat fucked the day he walked out of of office
Good thing we got Obama instead of McCain or we'd be just as fucked now (or worse) as the last day of the Bush travesty
-
Correrlation doesn't equal causation and that holds true dod both bush and obama. Just because bush was the guy in office when the meltdown happened doesn't mean he was responsible for it. Just because obama is in office during this recession doesn't mean he is the cause of it. For all of our regulations programs and taxes we are still in a capitalistic framework where the ongoings of the economic sector are largely the result of the actions of private enterprise.
-
Not only that, I disagree his second term was bad, it was only about the 3 or so months of his last term before leaving office. As far as his so called "financial mess". The last 6of his eight years he had a democratic congress. Libs hate hearing it.
So you want the wars but dont wanna pay for them?
Typical welfare leech!!
-
Please....Clinton literally had him ok n at least 10 occations and CHOSE to let him go. If it weren't for the bush policies that Obama wanted to overturn but was talked out of, binladen would still be alive and this country would have been hit on multiple occasions. You
Source or GTFO
-
There's ton of other sources, but here's one. But of course you'll dismiss it even though this has been old news for about 10 years...
Media: NBC's presentation of "Rock Center with Brian Williams" last Wednesday night demonstrated that MSNBC's Chris Matthews isn't the only one who feels tingles up his leg when he talks with or about President Obama.
President Obama's victory lap and shameless, media-assisted political exploitation of the Navy SEALs' triumph continued with the program opening with the photograph taken in the White House Situation Room, now apparently open to public tours.
Administration bigwigs were shown watching the fruits of President George W. Bush's labors as Navy SEALs, acting on a trail of evidence gathered using enhanced interrogation techniques President Obama opposed, took out Osama bin Laden.
The president was shown sitting in the corner dressed in casual clothes, as he had rushed there after playing nine holes of golf at Andrews Air Force Base before heading to the Situation Room at around 2 p.m.
"The picture," said Williams dramatically, "was actually years in the making. When he was president, Bill Clinton spent 75 cruise missiles trying to kill bin Laden."
And missed 75 times, including those launched during the Monica Lewinsky affair and his impeachment. Close, but no cigar.
Michael Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency who led the Osama bin Laden unit of the Counterterrorism Center from 1996 through 1999, and was Special Advisor to it from 2001 until he left the agency in 2004. He is the author of two books on the war on terror.
In a July 4, 2006, Op-Ed in the Washington Times, Scheuer dismisses former terrorism czar Richard Clarke's memoir on the hunt for bin Laden.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
Speaking of "Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting, Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before Sept. 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat."
That impression continued with Brian Williams' fawning "Rock Center" report.
As Clinton guru Dick Morris relates, a first missed opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden came in February 1998, when "Clinton's aides scuttled a CIA plot that had been eight months in the planning to kidnap Osama."
The plan would have used Afghan tribesmen to capture the al-Qaida leader who would then have been brought to the U.S. for trial.
Another chance came on Aug. 20, 1998, in the famous "wag the dog" attack at the height of l'affaire Lewinsky, when cruise missiles were actually fired at a bin Laden encampment in Afghanistan.
Problem was, Clinton ordered that the Pakistanis be informed of the attack, lest they believed the cruise missile in their air space were fired by India, which didn't have any cruise missiles.
The news, of course, was leaked and bin Laden fled.
Yet another missed opportunity came in May 1999 when the CIA reported that bin Laden would be in Kandahar, Afghanistan, for five days. As the 9/11 Commission report said: "If this intelligence was not 'actionable,' working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence could meet that standard."
It was the Clinton administration that could have put Osama bin Laden out of commission before 9/11. It was under the Clinton administration that Americans were killed by terrorists on three continents without a meaningful response.
It was under Bill Clinton that we left Somalia in disgrace after dead Americans were dragged through the streets, giving Osama all the encouragement and proof of our lack of will he needed.
Somebody better look under the rock at "Rock Center."
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050312-610278-brian-williams-praises-clinton-obama.htm#ixzz2ErqP63uX
How do you have firing 75 cruise missiles
Equal
Chosing to let him go
???
-
The issue with 9/11 was systemic intelligence problems , messed up incentives for types of intelligence work done, tension and lack of sharing among intelligence agencies, etc. But Iraq was all bush and chenet. Everybody voted for it because of the relentless propaganda that was pushed by the white house.
-
Obama schedules photo-ops, parties, golf as ‘cliff’ nears
Washington Times ^ | 12/12/12 | Dave Boyer
Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:58:56 PM
Since returning from a trip to southeast Asia on Nov. 21, President Obama has managed to play three rounds of golf but has met face-to-face only once with Speaker John A. Boehner, the man with whom he is trying to strike a deal on taxes and spending that could prevent another recession. With the deadline for going over the “fiscal cliff” less than three weeks away, the president’s schedule this week is exceptionally light. It does not include any time on the links with Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican, who is also an avid golfer.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
Who is he playing golf with? could be democrats he is trying to persuade to agree tp a secret deal him and boehner haven't made public
-
Who is he playing golf with? could be democrats he is trying to persuade to agree tp a secret deal him and boehner haven't made public
More like his coke /chooms / pot / booze connect
-
More like his coke /chooms / pot / booze connect
more lies from the lying liar
I only say this because I've asked you to substantiate these claims many times and I think your most recent response was that you just believe it to be true
-
more lies from the lying liar
I only say this because I've asked you to substantiate these claims many times and I think your most recent response was that you just believe it to be true
His own words...his own book.
-
His own words...his own book.
Yes, in the past
Thats not what 333 is talking about
-
Why Did Obama and Cameron Save a Criminal Enterprise Like HSBC?
Posted: 12/13/2012 8:03 am
Why is HSBC still in operation? On the same day (December 10, 2012) that the Barack Obama administration leaked the story of the HSBC settlement, a story ran in the New York Times that was full of self-praise by the Obama and David Cameron (U.K.) governments for their "cooperative approach" to cracking down on systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs). SDIs are treated as "too big to fail" because they pose a global systemic risk when they fail. The HSBC settlement puts the lie to the Obama/Cameron crack-down on the SDIs for it revealed a disgrace -- Obama and Cameron treat the SDIs as too big to prosecute. Indeed, HSBC demonstrates that the SDIs' senior officers are treated by Obama and Cameron as too elite to prosecute. The propaganda meme of the NYT story -- that the SDIs would never again be given special favors due to reforms being adopted by Obama and Cameron -- lasted four hours before it was destroyed by the disgraceful reality of the Obama and Cameron governments' refusal to prosecute HSBC and its officers for their tens of thousands of felonies.
The NYT article begins by accepting the Obama/Cameron framing of the SDI issue, without any critical analysis. "It is one of the thorniest problems hanging over the financial system: how should authorities deal with the collapse of a sprawling global bank to protect the financial system at large?" The reporter's implicit assumption is that we must have banks that are systemically dangerous when they fail.
This example exemplifies why implicit assumptions are so dangerous. They exclude far better alternatives or terrible risks from even being considered -- and they do so unknowingly. If the reporter had made the assumption explicitly he would have been forced to defend it with analytics. The article acknowledges that SDIs drove the financial crisis that caused the Great Recession. In the U.S. alone this caused over a $15 trillion loss in wealth and led to the loss, or prevented the creation, of over 10 million jobs. According to the Bush and Obama administrations we were lucky in preventing the crisis from growing vastly larger. SDIs are economic weapons of mass destruction -- but they cause their primary destruction inside the nation in which they reside.
Why allow a weapon of mass destruction that primarily destroys your own nation? That is an act of insanity. The City of London cannot credibly threaten the United States by creating SDIs and threatening to destroy the UK's economy. The proponents of SDIs bear an enormous burden of persuasion to prove why we shouldn't end the catastrophic danger they pose by shrinking them to the point where they are no longer potential weapons of mass economic destruction. Their burden is even greater when one considers the dominant view of economists that the smaller banks would be more efficient than the SDIs, which are massively too large to manage. The NYT reporter does not even attempt to meet that burden. The reporter also presents no indication that the U.S. and U.K. regulators even considered ending our exposure to these weapons of mass economic destruction.
The article acknowledges that trying to prevent an SDI from causing a systemic, global financial crisis once it fails is likely to fail. First, the regulators are not at all sure that they can prevent a systemic crisis with their "cooperative" proposals. Second, few regulators would risk a global systemic crisis when the alternative of bailing out the failing SDI inherently exists. Regulators have seen the disastrous results of failing to bail out Lehman.
The obvious alternative (to everyone except the reporter, the U.S. and U.K. regulators, and the Obama and Cameron governments who have implicitly assumed it out of existence) is to shrink the SDIs to the point that they no longer pose a systemic risk and to conduct the shrinkage now before they fail. That alternative would vastly reduce the economic WMD and make the banks more efficient -- a win-win solution.
The further good news is that those two "wins" are not the limits of the advantages of shrinking the SDIs before they fail. The NYT article, implicitly, assumes the Obama/Cameron framing of another issue critical to determining the SDI policies we should adopt. "'Too big to fail' is the label for the problem that confronts governments when a large bank is on its last legs." The implicit assumption is that SDIs pose a "problem" only when they are on their "last legs." Had the reporter made this assumption explicitly he would have recognized it is unsupportable. Beyond their inefficiency, SDIs pose grave risks to a nation when they are profitable and growing. SDIs make "free markets," integrity and justice impossible to maintain, they create the perverse political power that produces crony capitalism, and they drive the "competition to laxity" that drives regulatory failure. I have explained most of these points in prior writings, so I will summarize.
Guaranteed to Loot: The Perverse Incentives of Systemically Dangerous Institutions' CEOs.
SDIs' uninsured, general creditors get bailed out even though the contractual deal they agree to would normally cause them to suffer severe losses. The result is that they can borrow significantly more cheaply from general creditors than can their smaller rivals. SDIs that are insured banks receive an explicit governmental subsidy (deposit insurance), but the implicit federal subsidy to general creditors is far larger and is unique to SDIs. The very conservative economists who authored the book Guaranteed to Fail (2011) describe the implicit subsidy as being so large that it is the metaphorical equivalent of "bringing a gun to a knife fight." They conclude that the subsidies are so large that they inherently create "a highly distorted market." Indeed, they argue that the SDIs that created the mortgage crisis so distorted the market that there was "nothing free" about the mortgage markets. The authors also explain the SDIs' immense political power and their ability to corrupt regulators and regulation.
The HSBC case illustrates why SDIs destroy integrity and justice. Public reports of the results of the government investigations of HSBC describe a bank that has been a criminal enterprise for at least 15 years. The current settlement addresses only three of the many scandals HSBC has committed over that time period. HSBC is a recidivist of epic proportions, but the Obama and Cameron governments have failed to prosecute HSBC or any of its officers. When powerful corporations and their controlling officers grow wealthy through massive frauds and do so with impunity from criminal sanction integrity and justice are eaten away. Effective financial regulation, supervision, and prosecutions are essential to "free" financial markets. When cheaters prosper honest firms are driven from the markets, a point that the Nobel Laureate George Akerlof explained in his famous 1970 article on markets for "lemons." He described a "Gresham's" dynamic in which bad ethics drove good ethics from the marketplace.
[D]ishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market. The cost of dishonesty, therefore, lies not only in the amount by which the purchaser is cheated; the cost also must include the loss incurred from driving legitimate business out of existence.
Fraud and the destruction of integrity among SDIs will tend to spread to their market rivals due to this Gresham's dynamic. The result is another form of systemic risk.
The Justice Department, HSBC's regulators, and the Obama and Cameron governments had the perfect opportunity to break this Gresham's dynamic and restore justice and integrity by prosecuting and taking vigorous regulatory steps that forced HSBC to shrink over the next five years to the point that it was no longer an SDI. They could have done so at a time when HSBC was reporting very high profits rather than during a crisis. It was their paramount role and duty as prosecutors and regulators to break the Gresham's dynamic by restoring the rule of law. Doing so would have been good for the markets, for increased competition, for bank efficiency, for the independence of the regulators and prosecutors, for safety and soundness, and for our democracy. Instead, they made the Gresham's dynamic far worse, shamed their institutions and professions, and betrayed their duty to the nation and citizenry.
But things are likely far worse than this description suggests, for the pathetic truth is that there is no indication that the regulators, prosecutors, or government leaders considered doing the right thing at HSBC. That is how destructive making implicit assumptions and adopting the pro-crony framing of issues is in the real world. I hope I am wrong and that an insider will resign in disgust and disclose how she fought to shrink HSBC but was overruled by her superiors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/hsbc-settlement_b_2291859.html