Wow, the Wall Street banksters strike back

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

KG you are wrong on several counts....

That "Hawaiian" (Kenyan, black man, communist, Hitler, Fascist, etc....) in the White House now makes Clinton look like a light weight in the brains department. He makes Bush II look like an idiot. Well, I admit, that is not hard to do.

I would assert the following (and this is strictly my opinion):

(1) If Obama makes all comers look like "light weight in the brains department", why did he go through such extraordinary lengths to even seal his college transcripts through an executive order?

If he makes G.W. Bush look like an "idiot", what does that say about John Kerry who attended Harvard and Yale at roughly the same time as Bush, yet has a lower GPA? Is he an idiot as well, because he was propped up in 2004 as being so intellectual by the media (until the transcripts were released)?

(2) A smart man, like Obama is claimed to be, especially one that is a shrewd politician, would not have made such colossal policy mistakes. He would have moved to immediately quench doubts about his person. Obama's failure to do so, was not very smart, and is inexcusable.....

(3) Obama is not "Hitler" (or Stalin, or even Mao, neither is he a Fascist, Communist, Leninist, or even Marxist), but he is certainly a socialist of sorts. His views, his statements, and to a certain degree his policies, point in that direction.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

I would assert the following (and this is strictly my opinion):

(1) If Obama makes all comers look like "light weight in the brains department", why did he go through such extraordinary lengths to even seal his college transcripts through an executive order?

If he makes G.W. Bush look like an "idiot", what does that say about John Kerry who attended Harvard and Yale at roughly the same time as Bush, yet has a lower GPA? Is he an idiot as well, because he was propped up in 2004 as being so intellectual by the media (until the transcripts were released)?

(2) A smart man, like Obama is claimed to be, especially one that is a shrewd politician, would not have made such colossal policy mistakes. He would have moved to immediately quench doubts about his person. Obama's failure to do so, was not very smart, and is inexcusable.....

(3) Obama is not "Hitler" (or Stalin, or even Mao, neither is he a Fascist, Communist, Leninist, or even Marxist), but he is certainly a socialist of sorts. His views, his statements, and to a certain degree his policies, point in that direction.

KG, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law review. You cannot even consider a run for that position if your grades are not in the top ten percent of your class. Please spare me the right wing put down of his amazing achievement. Harvard Law would never put someone in that position that is not qualified. The editor of any law review is under intense scrutiny all the time by their staff and fellow students. You can ask my wife about it.

Bush was a "C" student. His family has deep ties with Yale and Harvard biz. When your family has these ties you are guaranteed a free ride through school. Everything Bush has been involved in has turned to shit and he has had to be bailed out. This includes his Presidency. Running out of office while the world economy collapses, bailing out the banks to prevent that collapse is a fitting legacy to an abject failure.

Your second point is confusing. Are you talking about his birth certificate or his horrible policy decision to involve the US and NATO in helping the Libyan rebels defeat a brutal dictator and terrorist. I don't care if he led from behind, upside down, or sideways he was responsible winning the war in Libya and not a single American life was lost. He schooled the neo-cons on how a Mid-East dictator/terrorist should be taken out of power.

How about his horrible decision to go into Pakistan and kill bin Laden. If that mission had failed, and it almost did, his administration would have been toast.

Obama exhibits no traits of socialism. I wish he would. He actually proposed a budget cut that put SS and Medicare on the table. If you want to know what a real socialist is Google Bernie Sanders.

One other thing about grades. I barely graduated High school and I attended college on a full scholarship. I was on the deans list or presidents list every semester. My ACT and SAT scores were very high. I just hated high school. I loved college. Grades are subjective and mean very little in the field these folks play in. Kerry was not that bright in my book. If he had been, he could have turned it around on those swift boat jackass'. Instead he chose to ignore them.

This brings us back to President Bush's penetrating question, "is our children learning"

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

.

(1) I don't care if he led from behind, upside down, or sideways he was responsible winning the war in Libya and not a single American life was lost. He schooled the neo-cons on how a Mid-East dictator/terrorist should be taken out of power.
----------------

(2) Obama exhibits no traits of socialism.

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

You're argument is quite interesting.

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

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

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

You're argument is quite interesting.

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

(1) Not exactly. There were demonstrations against our invasion (launched under false pretenses, BTW). In contrast, the Arab League supported what we did in Libya (as did the world at large). Yes, the NeoCons were schooled by Obama on this. This is the source of their contrived and ridiculous criticisms of his Libya efforts. They're losing their mantle of being "the party of national security."

(2) As for Obama being a socialist, it all relative. By American (and certainly by GOP standards), perhaps so. By the standards of nearly all First World nations (including the one in which you live), he would still be a conservative. If he were a German politician, his views/policies would have him squarely in the CDU/CSU camp and not the SPD. Hell, in France, he'd be seen as a reactionary.

BTW, the USA has the widest income disparity of all developed nations by a very large margin. It's not healthy for the country, but the question remains what to do about it.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by finnbow

(1) Not exactly. There were demonstrations against our invasion (launched under false pretenses, BTW). In contrast, the Arab League supported what we did in Libya (as did the world at large). Yes, the NeoCons were schooled by Obama on this. This is the source of their contrived and ridiculous criticisms of his Libya efforts. They're losing their mantle of being "the party of national security."

(2) As for Obama being a socialist, it all relative. By American (and certainly by GOP standards), perhaps so. By the standards of nearly all First World nations (including the one in which you live), he would still be a conservative. If he were a German politician, his views/policies would have him squarely in the CDU/CSU camp and not the SPD. Hell, in France, he'd be seen as a reactionary.

BTW, the USA has the widest income disparity of all developed nations by a very large margin. It's not healthy for the country, but the question remains what to do about it.

(1) Yes... but it was logical to assume, given the history of Iraq, that they existed. These "false pretenses" (and the invasion was blessed by the UN btw also, although that technically does not matter) would have only existed afterwards. The demonstrations, in support of Hussein, with huge portraits of him and burning American flags, were called -BEFORE- the invasion.

With the destabilization of North Africa by Obama (and others), he "acted foolishly" - to borrow his terminology.

(2) Too bad I cannot vote here. I would be squarely a CSU candidate. Then again, the CSU is also changing. They have this Turkish guy running in Bavaria (their home) who converted from Islam to Christianity. This arabic guy, wearing traditional Bavarian folk costume, is tough! My fricken Socialist husband, always votes for the SPD, but I will eventually torture that out of him

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by wgrr

Bill Clinton is a friend. My wifes law partner for many years worked at the Arkansas AG's office when Bill was the AG of Arkansas. My father in law was the dean of the UofA law school and was responsible for hiring Bill and Hillary to teach there. Need I go on. That "Hawaiian" (Kenyan, black man, communist, Hitler, Fascist, etc....) in the White House now makes Clinton look like a light weight in the brains department. He makes Bush II look like an [/idiot. Well, I admit, that is not hard to do.

What makes you think that Barry is so bright? Law Review? Where is his peer reviewed academic papers? Bill Clinton would run circles around Obama and not even work up a sweat. Where has Obama ever demonstrated his academic ability or his nimbleness in thought? BTW, he makes about as many faux pas and misstatements as Bush. I'm sure Obama is just concealing his abilities so that we shan't be blinded by his stellar brightness.

Here is the link to the CBO numbers on the health care bill should you care to read the crunched numbers

Are CBO numbers reliable? Their projections usually work on quite flexible assumptions supplied by those with an interest in the legislation.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

(1) Yes... but it was logical to assume, given the history of Iraq, that they existed. These "false pretenses" (and the invasion was blessed by the UN btw

First, you don't invade a sovereign country based upon assumptions.

Secondly, no the UN did not bless the invasion. In fact, on September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

We tried to secure approval for our invasion (remember Colin Powell's dog-n-pony show?), but we failed to secure it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...d_the_Iraq_War

On a previous post, you mentioned a VX gas accident on an Iraqi Army Base in 2003. Can you providing a source for this assertion?

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by bhunter

What makes you think that Barry is so bright? Law Review? Where is his peer reviewed academic papers? Bill Clinton would run circles around Obama and not even work up a sweat. Where has Obama ever demonstrated his academic ability or his nimbleness in thought? BTW, he makes about as many faux pas and misstatements as Bush. I'm sure Obama is just concealing his abilities so that we shan't be blinded by his stellar brightness.

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

We all know why he did it. He didn't want anyone to see his stellar grades from Columbia or Harvard because he wanted to stand on his own merits. Yes, he didn't want to embarrass people with his intellectual superiority; he didn't want people to find out that he is a cerebral mutation.

[piece-itpete]

Yes, the CBO is required to use projections supplied to them by Congress.

And wgrr, 59 Dems +1 liberal independent = the Dems blew it on numerous occasions.

Pete

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by finnbow

First, you don't invade a sovereign country based upon assumptions.

Secondly, no the UN did not bless the invasion. In fact, on September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

We tried to secure approval for our invasion (remember Colin Powell's dog-n-pony show?), but we failed to secure it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...d_the_Iraq_War

On a previous post, you mentioned a VX gas accident on an Iraqi Army Base in 2003. Can you providing a source for this assertion?

2002 - I will look for it. This Kofi Annan said this afterwards.... yet the Security Council did not veto anything. I believe that Mr. Annan was stating his opinion, and not that of the body.