Naynay and 4eyes

[4eyedwillie]

Talk to the federal government. Barry added 6 trillion in 4 years and we are at an unsustainable debt load. He also cut defense programs like the missile defense shield (Remember him telling Russia he'd get it done?) and mothballed our space program. How many shuttles are flying now versus when he took office?

How many people are unemployed versus when he took office?

What is the national debt now versus when he took office?

What were our troop levels at when he took office versus now?

How many attacks on US soil happened in the 8 years prior to Obama's reign versus during his presidency?

I'll wait. Let me k now if you need help.

Didn't like were that was going huh? Time for some redirection?

[Forever_frost]

Didn't like were that was going huh? Time for some redirection?

Not at all. I'm showing that Obama has increased funding of unconstitutional items while cutting constitutional ones.

And you really don't like when you have to actually put out real numbers do you?

[4eyedwillie]

Talk to the federal government. Barry added 6 trillion in 4 years and we are at an unsustainable debt load. He also cut defense programs like the missile defense shield (Remember him telling Russia he'd get it done?) and mothballed our space program. How many shuttles are flying now versus when he took office?

How many people are unemployed versus when he took office?

What is the national debt now versus when he took office?

What were our troop levels at when he took office versus now?

How many attacks on US soil happened in the 8 years prior to Obama's reign versus during his presidency?

I'll wait. Let me k now if you need help.

But I'll answer a few of them.
Unemployment- From numbers I've seen he's had a gain of 5.2 million but factor in the the lose of 4.9 million during his first year before any of his policies could take place he's had a net gain of 325,000.

Paying for 2 wars he didn't start.
Paying for the bank bailout which was passed during bushes admin but not fully funded till he took office.
Bailing out the automakers to save jobs took some money but without it he would have lost alot of jobs.
A HELL of alot of pork that was added by both sides.
Paying for TSA
Paying for the Dept. of Home Land Sec.

How many attacks happened under Obama? I don't know of one. A consulate or embassy is not US soil. It enjoys protections and under the Geneva convention the Host country is prevented from entering it BUT the actual property remains the jurisdiction of the host country.
Bush had 1 (arguably 4 separate) attack(s)

[Forever_frost]

Actually, an embassy IS US soil. It is sovereign US soil. You didn't know this?

Paying for multiple wars he chose to either continue or start (Iraq was already under the Bush Sofa and AFghanistan is still rolling along. Libya, Egypt and troops stationed in Jordan all his decisions)
Paying for 787 billion in stimulus he DID demand.
Paying for 400 billion in second stimulus he demanded
Bailing out the UAW which cost us Chrysler (owned by Fiat) and GM is only pulling a profit because it's been tax exempt for years.
Expanding the TSA (VIPR units and TSA on buses and trains)
Oh, and your +300k jobs? Didn't take into account the 10% unemployment in Cali they 'forgot' to measure

Want more?

And I'm bored so I'll let you dispute this:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/obamas-numbers/

You don't know of one? Ft Hood shooting? Muslims trying to poison Army water supply in Oklahoma? Another Muslim trying to blow up a resteraunt full of soldiers in Texas? Another terrorist trying to blow up a skyscrapper in Dallas? What about the latest attack on the NY Fed?

How about more? The underwear bomber? The guy who tried to blow up a Christmas gathering in NY? 16 attacks on US embassies across the globe? More?

[Forever_frost]

[naynay]

Years of piss-poor foreign policy is what mostly caused 9/11. That and failing to act on intelligence.

The neo-cons had plans of going into Iraq way before 9/11 ever occurred. They just needed an excuse.

pilotsfor911truth.org

i'll start my forever_post tomorrow evening and let it run from there.

[Forever_frost]

Keep shucking and ducking there Sparky.

So Bush was either the most brilliant criminal mastermind since Hitler OR he's a retarded monkey who couldn't say nuclear.

Which is it?

[majorownage]

You think Bush slammed planes into the WTC to start a war in Iraq. A country we got no oil from and made no money off of. And somehow kept it all secret for 11 years

Of course "we" didn't make money. But the military-industrial complex did. War is a big business. These companies have a vested interest in keeping us at war.

Am I saying that Bush planned this, top to bottom? Of course not. I'm saying there is VERY plausible foreknowledge. Additionally, 6 of the hijackers trained at MILITARY BASES. Then there is the the warnings the FBI received from concerned private flight instructors about Arabs training and a possible Osama Bin Laden connection:



Look up the Condoleezza Rice memos received addressing Al Qaeda as a threat and a terrorist organization.

To top it off, NORAD had ran simulations of planes being used as weapons two years before 9/11, which is directly contradictory to what Condoleezza Rice said, which was no such analysis of planes being used as weapons had been done.

Here are my points:
1. Foreknowledge
The administration had been warned MULTIPLE TIMES of terrorism.
in memos, by many different individuals, organizations,and nationalities.

2. Planned invasion before attack
Once again planned invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are outlined in memos.

3. Outlandish bullshit in the commissioner's report.
Passport of terrorist found on the streets of Manhattan unharmed. Found by some unknown individual and handed to NYPD.
No mention of how Building 7 collapsed. No steel building has ever collapsed at freefall speed right into it's own footprint.

4. Motive
Patriot act drawn up years before 9/11.
Obvious war profiteering.

Look back at the attack on our embassy in Libya. The state department was warned, but chose not to act. Crises, real or staged, have been used historically as propaganda and motivation. This is nothing new.

[Forever_frost]

I'm pretty sure we have plans to invade every country. It's called war gaming. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't done it to actually know this but we do it all the time. You'd freak if you saw some of the simulations we go through.

Yes, Biden drew up the Patriot Act in the 90's.

[majorownage]

I'm pretty sure we have plans to invade every country. It's called war gaming. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't done it to actually know this but we do it all the time. You'd freak if you saw some of the simulations we go through.

Yes, Biden drew up the Patriot Act in the 90's.

So Blair and Bush are involved with war game simulations?

Sure, heads of state play Risk with each other... *smh*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/21/iraq-inquiry-tony-blair-bush

A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.

The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.

Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.

The president expressed hopes that an Iraqi defector would be "brought out" to give a public presentation on Saddam's WMD or that someone might assassinate the Iraqi leader. However, Bush confirmed even without a second resolution, the US was prepared for military action. The memo said Blair told Bush he was "solidly with the president".

The five-page document, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, and copied to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, the chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, and the UK's ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, outlines how Bush told Blair he had decided on a start date for the war.

Paraphrasing Bush's comments at the meeting, Manning, noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

Last night an expert on international law who is familar with the memo's contents said it provided vital evidence into the two men's frames of mind as they considered the invasion and its aftermath and must be presented to the Chilcott inquiry established by Gordon Brown to examine the causes, conduct and consequences of the Iraq war.

Philippe Sands, QC, a professor of law at University College London who is expected to give evidence to the inquiry, said confidential material such as the memo was of national importance, making it vital that the inquiry is not held in private, as Brown originally envisioned.

In today's Observer, Sands writes: "Documents like this raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security. The restoration of public confidence requires this new inquiry to be transparent. Contentious matters should not be kept out of the public domain, even in the run-up to an election."

The memo notes there had been a shift in the two men's thinking on Iraq by late January 2003 and that preparing for war was now their priority. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," Manning writes. This was despite the fact Blair that had yet to receive advice on the legality of the war from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, which did not arrive until 7 March 2003 - 13 days before the bombing campaign started.

In his article today, Sands says the memo raises questions about the selection of the chair of the inquiry. Sir John Chilcott sat on the 2004 Butler inquiry, which examined the reliability of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, and would have been privy to the document's contents - and the doubts about WMD running to the highest levels of the US and UK governments.

Many senior legal experts have expressed dismay that Chilcott has been selected to chair the inquiry as he is considered to be close to the security services after his time spent as a civil servant in Northern Ireland.

Brown had believed that allowing the Chilcott inquiry to hold private hearings would allow witnesses to be candid. But after bereaved families and antiwar campaigners expressed outrage, the prime minister wrote to Chilcott to say that if the panel can show witnesses and national security issues will not be compromised by public hearings, he will change his stance.

Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff under Blair, described the memo as "quite shocking". He said that it underscored why the Chilcott inquiry must be seen to be a robust investigation: "It's important that the inquiry is not a whitewash as these inquiries often are."

This year, the Dutch government launched its own inquiry into its support for the war. Significantly, the inquiry will see all the intelligence shared with the Dutch intelligence services by MI5 and MI6. The inquiry intends to publish its report in November - suggesting that confidential information about the role played by the UK and the US could become public before Chilcott's inquiry reports next year.

This does not describe a war game simulation, they are plans of action.

[Forever_frost]

War games aren't risk. You're an idiot if you think we dont' war game. Why don't you ask our Squids here if our subs don't war games with other countries.

[ceyko]

I'm glad you have it in you (FF) for these arguments, because I lost my patience in regards to military things years ago. I'll throw in 2 cents every now and then, but I can't understand how people can have 0 understanding of how the military/government works from a training aspect.

[4eyedwillie]

Actually, an embassy IS US soil. It is sovereign US soil. You didn't know this?

Actually they're not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but only in this broader sense.
Additional sources to combat the anti wikipedia crowd.

http://fairplaysubstantialjustice.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/are-embassies-considered-united-states-territory/

http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/Are-US-EMBASSIES-On-Foreign-Grounds-Still-Considered-To-Be-US-SOIL/1182650

[4eyedwillie]

So 6 of 18 the numbers slipped? That's not to bad. And really, back the gas prices back a couple months to Bush's high number and we still haven't got there even with all the QE you keep spouting about. So that's really 5 that slipped.

S&P up 81%, Consumer Confidence Index up 86%, Petroleum imports down 23%, WOW guess he's a total fuckup, can't get ANYTHING right huh?

[Forever_frost]

Actually they're not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but only in this broader sense.
Additional sources to combat the anti wikipedia crowd.

http://fairplaysubstantialjustice.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/are-embassies-considered-united-states-territory/

http://www.experienceproject.com/que...S-SOIL/1182650

I challenge your wiki with the government's site
An embassy is usually located in the capital city of a foreign nation. U.S. embassies abroad, as well as foreign embassies in the United States, have a special status. While an embassy remains the territory of the host state, under international rules representatives of the host country may not enter an embassy without permission—even to put out a fire.

Because an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents.

http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm