Obama may go to prison and be impreached for killing our own!!! [video]

reply to post by MrInquisitive


I enjoyed the post about your fellow brothers who use logic and reason. Happy to be at your service friend!! Glenn Beck doesn't go very far on facts, to be fair nothing from the right does so he's just in good company. By now they've already figured out facts won't win them anything.... ever.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Yeah only a Republican would take Beck's word over Forbes. I'm happy to support the lowest spending president in the last 30 years. Obama 2012.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


Clearly you'd know Bush Sr. came before Clinton right?

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by muse7
Lmao Bush was given multiple warnings that terrorists were going to attack the WTC yet he did nothing about it, and he went on to serve 8 years.

Lies, lies lies. Bush was NEVER warned the WTC was going to be attacked.

Yes he was, by Richard Clarke, his own National Security Advisor.

AUGUST '01 BRIEF IS SAID TO WARN OF ATTACK PLANS

The Bush Administration Know-It-Alls Who Failed to Heed Warnings Before 9/11

When are people going to realize that partisan politics aren't going to solve anything? Bush was warned; Obama was not only warned, he actively denied those brave SEALS the backup they were begging for.

Both of them deserve to go to prison for the rest of their lives.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Hahahah your lack of answers to peoples questions has become infantile. Hold on to your video, clearly it is all you have, or don't, who knows you won't tell us and in your vast wisdom you think anyone even cares what you have to say? The video is a joke, your a joke, Becks a joke, Romney's a joke and anyone with half a half of a brain cell can tell. Obama 2012, and nothing you can say or do will sway anyone's vote, you know why? That takes intelligence. Now post a whole bunch of your BS to me so I can laugh some more, it's o so enlightening.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Yeah only a Republican would take Beck's word over Forbes. I'm happy to support the lowest spending president in the last 30 years. Obama 2012.

Are you high?

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

reply to post by TTAA2012


Nope but you must be thinking that avatar is cool: www.forbes.com...

reply to post by TTAA2012


An also that article has a lot of numbers and figures, but not many sources for those numbers like in the article I posted. Also the writer of that article Peter F. is a strict republican. Clearly mine comes from the other end, who to believe who to believe. I'll take mine especially since politifact agrees: www.politifact.com...

reply to post by TTAA2012


Fact check on yours: www.factcheck.org...

Originally posted by TTAA2012

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Yeah only a Republican would take Beck's word over Forbes. I'm happy to support the lowest spending president in the last 30 years. Obama 2012.

Are you high?

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

Ahh yes, an oped from Peter Ferrara, who's known for saying such wonderfully ludicrous things like:

"there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan"

Or instead believe the CBO which says:

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion

www.cbo.gov...

Let's see, who do we trust?

- The CBO, who's using actual figures, or a guy that thinks America has more Muslims (max 7M ) than Afghanistan (29M)?

I'll go with the CBO - Not Peter "I used to work for Bush and think 7 is bigger than 29" Ferrara and certainly not Glenn Beck.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by TTAA2012

 

Fact check on yours: www.factcheck.org...

Total US Debt in 2008 - 10 Trillion

Current US Debt 4 years Later - 16.25 Trillion

And it's expanding exponentially, a fact that is NOT a writer's opinion.

(Good rebuttal BTW.)

Originally posted by TTAA2012

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by TTAA2012

 

Fact check on yours: www.factcheck.org...

Total US Debt in 2008 - 10 Trillion

Current US Debt 4 years Later - 16.25 Trillion

And it's expanding exponentially, a fact that is NOT a writer's opinion.

(Good rebuttal BTW.)

Obama's first Budget was the 2010 budget:
en.wikipedia.org...

the 2009 Budget: en.wikipedia.org...
and 2008 Budget: en.wikipedia.org...

Were both submitted by Bush

The 2010 budget came into effect in October 2009, and was for $3.721 trillion.
2009 (Bush) was for $3.518 trillion
2008 (Bush) was $2.9 trillion

However from 2010 to 2011 ($2.314 trillion) Obama shrunk the budget by 1.3+ Trillion.

That's right, the enacted 2011 budget was $2.314 trillion.

en.wikipedia.org...

In 2012 it was $2.469 trillion. en.wikipedia.org...

So, Obama:

$3.721 trillion
$2.314 trillion
$2.469 trillion

Obama TOTAL
$8.504 trillion

Last three years of Bush:

$3.518 trillion
$2.9 trillion
$2.73 trillion

George W TOTAL
$9.148 trillion

And yet, I'm supposed to believe Obama is spending more than Republicans??

reply to post by TTAA2012


AND BTW:

Only about 4 trillion of that is under Obama... remember, the budget runs from 2010-2012 at this point.

So you need to go back and add another 2 trillion to Bush's total...

And hey guess what, under George W, from 2008-2010 (his last three budgets) the debt went from 10 to 13.5 trillion.

3.5 trillion in three years.

So, in the same amount of time the deficit has only increased by about half a trillion more under Obama, and the budgets have been on total smaller.

www.treasurydirect.gov...

Oh and hey:

WASHINGTON -- A senior intelligence official has issued a new timeline for the events surrounding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, indicating a series of tragic miscalculations that left CIA officers exposed at an annex near the consulate -- but no evidence of interference from Washington or of the CIA witholding aid from the State Department, as Republican critics have alleged.

REPUBLICANS LYING!?!? NEVERS!!

According to the timeline, CIA officials in Libya sent a security team to the consulate within 25 minutes of the report of the attack, and the U.S. military sent an unarmed drone to provide intelligence information.

worldnews.nbcnews.com...

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by TTAA2012

 

AND BTW:

Only about 4 trillion of that is under Obama... remember, the budget runs from 2010-2012 at this point.

"Only" 4 Trillion added to the deficit? What happened to cutting it?

So you need to go back and add another 2 trillion to Bush's total...

And hey guess what, under George W, from 2008-2010 (his last three budgets) the debt went from 10 to 13.5 trillion.

3.5 trillion in three years.

So, in the same amount of time the deficit has only increased by about half a trillion more under Obama, and the budgets have been on total smaller.

www.treasurydirect.gov...

edit on 2-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

I wish I was left-brained with a head for numbers. If I was, I could probably figure out a decent response. What I do know, is that a 16 Trillion dollar deficit is a staggering amount of money and I don't know how we can ever hope to repay it.

I also know that Obama said if the economy wasn't fixed by the end of his first term, he would be a "One-term President." Well the economy is far from fixed, it's worse. The price of gas has doubled since Obama took office (but I suppose that is Bush's fault too) increasing my transportation costs to almost $300 a month, and my heating bill to $250 a month on the winter - when under Bush I paid just over $100.

I don't have any "change" left.

Maybe a businessman will be able to put the country back into the black. I kinda doubt it, but I know that if Obama gets another 4 years this country will be like a third world nation when he's done with it. I think that's kind of the point.

.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by Propulsion

Originally posted by PunchingBag80
I'd like to see what comes of this...

If it’s true and the ambassador was selling arms that are being used against us, this opens up a whole new can of worms!

There is at least one precident I know of personally (one where I saw the waybills, know the people in the meeting and where the meeting took place to "ink" the sale) for this kind of "behavior" where a US ambassador was selling or organizing arms sales and that was Saddam in Iraq in 1988, for the invasion of Kuwait. The whole thing was set up by the US state department. This was initially setup in the Clinton days (democrat) and then carried forward by Bush Sr., so continuity between parties exists and that means neither president was actually in control, it was someone higher.

Cheers - Dave

Thanks for making it patently clear that you don't know what you are talking about. Bush Sr. was president from 1988-1992, and Clinton from 1992-2000. So Clinton didn't start arming Sadam and Iraq, and then have it followed up by Bush Sr.

It's always interesting to find out if people are actually paying attention LOL. I know Reagan was in office during the initiation of the weapons deals (1988 through the French, English and South Africans) with Saddam for the invasion of Kuwait. The weapons were actually transported from the US through French ports, then shipped to Capetown. From there they went to Durban where the G5 cannons were added and then were subsequently shipped to Iraq. And yes I know, how could anyone forget that Clinton was after Bush Sr, since we have the 1973 WTC bombing and the Monica Lewinski thing and let's not forget the Bill and Hillary "Whitewater" scandal and investigation that was "whitewashed." BTW, the FBI involvement in the original 1993 WTC bombing is simply another extension of policy and that one was on Clinton's watch, since he became president in January 1993 and the WTC bombing was Feb. 26 1993,. probably something initiated by Bush Sr and followed through by Clinton.

Regardless, the main point is that this has been going on for some time, the arming of your enemies by yourself and it was also carried on by Clinton. Of course shrub, just carried on his father's legacy and obama has carried on shrub's legacy. Nothing changes, both "parties" are controlled by the same people and choice is simply an illusion.

I wondered how long it would take and I am glad someone caught it ;-)

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by observer

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by Propulsion

Originally posted by PunchingBag80
I'd like to see what comes of this...

If it’s true and the ambassador was selling arms that are being used against us, this opens up a whole new can of worms!

There is at least one precident I know of personally (one where I saw the waybills, know the people in the meeting and where the meeting took place to "ink" the sale) for this kind of "behavior" where a US ambassador was selling or organizing arms sales and that was Saddam in Iraq in 1988, for the invasion of Kuwait. The whole thing was set up by the US state department. This was initially setup in the Clinton days (democrat) and then carried forward by Bush Sr., so continuity between parties exists and that means neither president was actually in control, it was someone higher.

Cheers - Dave

Thanks for making it patently clear that you don't know what you are talking about. Bush Sr. was president from 1988-1992, and Clinton from 1992-2000. So Clinton didn't start arming Sadam and Iraq, and then have it followed up by Bush Sr.

Let us remember who helped Saddam arm himself with chem/bio weapons shall we? It was actually... Rumsfeld! Working as an envoy for Reagan.
Link to DailyMail

I seem to remember a lot of the stories about Rumsfeld wasn't he still in bed with Searle and also in bed with Bayer? Wasn't Rumsfeld the guy who also armed the government with the cancer and brain tumor producing sugar replacement "aspertame." A poison that has changed it's name, is it three times now? Didn't Rumsfeld push that drug through the FDA illegally, there is so much research on the drug it's hard to remember it all. I think Sweet Misery was one of the documentaries.

Also, on my last post, I see one person caught my deliberate reversal of presidents LOL

Cheers - Dave

And this was not an embassy/consulate full of State Department diplomats.. Out of thirty five listed individuals only eight represented the State Department and I'm sure they were doing a lot more than attending cocktail parties...These were CIA SAD/SOG operatives who know they are on their own when sh!$ hits the fan..Deniability is part of their training, The White House, CIA are being quiet and slow to reveal info due to the security issues involved, i.e. why are they there in the first place...All Fox News is doing is calling out US security/special interests in a country hostile to the United States, and by doing so they are risking the lives of other Americans in the region... We will only know what we are told and nothing more. Of course they will deny, contradict, misrepresent, the facts, the timeline, and who knew what and when...

Benghazigate my ass...From what we have been told since 9-11 we are fighting a "war on terror." This was just that, a military/CIA installation under attack from hostile forces..They weren't saying "we got to get those boys out of there." I'm sure it was more like "crap, destroy the evidence." I guarantee those guys were not "begging for help." They knew no one was coming to rescue their asses, It goes with the job..

What Fox News news is doing now is about the same as when they outed US Navy Seal Matt Bissonnette AKA "Mark Owen" as the No Easy Day writer... They should be the ones who could go to jail ..haha Gitmo with all the other enemy combatants of the US...

Originally posted by TTAA2012

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by TTAA2012

 

AND BTW:

Only about 4 trillion of that is under Obama... remember, the budget runs from 2010-2012 at this point.

"Only" 4 Trillion added to the deficit? What happened to cutting it?

So you need to go back and add another 2 trillion to Bush's total...

And hey guess what, under George W, from 2008-2010 (his last three budgets) the debt went from 10 to 13.5 trillion.

3.5 trillion in three years.

So, in the same amount of time the deficit has only increased by about half a trillion more under Obama, and the budgets have been on total smaller.

www.treasurydirect.gov...

edit on 2-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

I wish I was left-brained with a head for numbers. If I was, I could probably figure out a decent response. What I do know, is that a 16 Trillion dollar deficit is a staggering amount of money and I don't know how we can ever hope to repay it.

I also know that Obama said if the economy wasn't fixed by the end of his first term, he would be a "One-term President." Well the economy is far from fixed, it's worse. The price of gas has doubled since Obama took office (but I suppose that is Bush's fault too) increasing my transportation costs to almost $300 a month, and my heating bill to $250 a month on the winter - when under Bush I paid just over $100.

I don't have any "change" left.

Maybe a businessman will be able to put the country back into the black. I kinda doubt it, but I know that if Obama gets another 4 years this country will be like a third world nation when he's done with it. I think that's kind of the point.

.

edit on 11/2/2012 by TTAA2012 because: (no reason given)

It's good that you admit that you don't have a head for numbers.

The debt is different than the budget. The debt is brought on in many ways that are not all controlled, or controllable, per se. for instance, look at Sandy, it's hard to know if there was billions budgeted for that (probably not) or the drought. If it's not in the budget than sometimes money has to be borrowed to cover it. The same goes for wars... we budget for them, but then they cost more than we budget for. Obama, in fact any President, has a LOT less control over the debt than the budget.

On the budget side of things, Obama has spent LESS than his predecessor, in the same length of time. That seems to be a positive step... no?

What economists now admit as well, is that tax cuts for the rich don't ACTUALLY create growth... in fact one of the biggest single chunks of the debt is the Bush Tax Cuts (1 Trillion - www.huffingtonpost.com...), but Romney is clamouring for even more tax cuts for the wealth on TOP of the Bush tax cuts. Alternatively, everyone from Obama to Ben Stein is saying a better solution is actually to INCREASE taxes on the wealthy, but again Romney won't do that.

As for the claim that Obama said he'd fix the economy in three years or quit:

www.politifact.com...

It's BS.

I think, as you yourself has said, you don't have a head for numbers. You have now posted debunked propaganda, and on top of that, have posted nonsense like Obama was somehow responsible for two years of budget that were actually submitted by Bush.

Seeing how little you actually grasp the facts, how gullible you are, and how you aren't exactly able to defend you positions, you are not in any way convincing, at least to me.

You may think you have good reasons for voting against Obama (though who knows how many of them are ACTUALLY true), but based on this little interaction I'd suggest being a bit more thorough in your quest for information.

Research before you believe something negative something is saying about someone else; they could be lying to you - and often are. Learn the ACTUAL numbers, don't just trust pundits and oped pieces. And don't vote with your gut... it's easily confused -- and we need people using their brains, not their bias and misguided angst, to choose a President.

Good luck. Go get informed.

As for the so called "contractors,' call them what they are CIA mercenaries employed by the associates of Rumsfeld and Cheney who have made billions with their "private" army of so called "contractors." from Blackwater/Xe, DynCorp, Vinnell, DFI International, MPRI, Cubic, and many others employed to carry out operations for the US military, CIA/SAD/SOG, etc. Then you have Kellog Brown and Root, Halliburton, and Bechtel, supplying the whole party.. All trained by the US and funded by US $, equipped by the US, open access to US intel, and accountable to no one....

Glen and his ilk just rocking the wrong boat..