Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:05 am
@parados,
I'm not the topic. You lose again.
parados
 
  2  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:09 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
When you claim to have "facts" and then spout partisan drivel promoted by others you become the topic Renaldo. Your "facts" aren't worth disputing because you can't discuss them other than reciting them without realizing they aren't really true.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:12 am
@parados,
I suggest you stop your whining, grow a pair, and then show us how my points are untrue. Thanks.
parados
 
  2  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:21 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
"Fact 1" that you got wrong.
You can't provide an instance of Obama saying unemployment would remain under 8% if the stimulus bill passes.

While it's a nice talking point your puppet masters get you to repeat, it isn't factual.

Politifact points out that it is NOT true that Obama made any promise.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:24 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
The after effects of what GW Bush did is still germaine. Are you really that stupid! FACT: What past presidents did or didn't do still affects us, and that goes back to George Washington.
Yes, including entitlement programs started by Democrats FDR and LBJ that are now threatening to bankrupt the country.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:25 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The after effects of what GW Bush did is still germaine. Are you really that stupid! FACT: What past presidents did or didn't do still affects us, and that goes back to George Washington.
Yes, including entitlement programs started by Democrats FDR and LBJ that are now threatening to bankrupt the country.


Don't be ridiculous. None of our entitlement programs are 'threatening to bankrupt the country.' Just a silly thing to say.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:29 am
@parados,
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html
okie
 
  0  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:32 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Politifact points out that it is NOT true that Obama made any promise.
It looks like you guys are working hard to refine the art of "Bait and Switch?" I even noticed the other day that Obama claimed he didn't really mean he wanted to revert to pre1967 borders in Israel, when he said it recently. I guess Clinton did not know what he really had started when he said "It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is. Is there any mystery now as to how it is so easy for liberal judges to make the constitution say anything, and even invent things that are not in it at all, such as the "right to privacy?"
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:36 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

parados wrote:
Politifact points out that it is NOT true that Obama made any promise.
It looks like you guys are working hard to refine the art of "Bait and Switch?" I even noticed the other day that Obama claimed he didn't really mean he wanted to revert to pre1967 borders in Israel, when he said it recently.


He didn't say that recently. You're simply wrong.

Quote:
I guess Clinton did not know what he really had started when he said "It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is. Is there any mystery now as to how easy it is for liberal judges to make the constitution say anything, and even invent things that are not in it at all, such as the "right to privacy?"


You'll twist his words to mean whatever you want, so what does it matter what he really says?

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  2  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:36 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
I didn't realize that Obama was the same thing as 2 of his advisors.


Quote:
Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html#ixzz1NIBppFTE


You are still full of **** Renaldo and can't seem to do anything but dance to your puppet masters string pulls.
parados
 
  2  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:38 am
@okie,
Quote:
It looks like you guys are working hard to refine the art of "Bait and Switch?"

Renaldo seems to be practicing bait and switch.
He claimed Obama said something then presented evidence of 2 other people saying it..
Bait and switch for sure.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:47 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

I didn't realize that Obama was the same thing as 2 of his advisors.
Well, I suggest you begin to realize that when you are the coach or manager of the team, you are responsible for what the team says and does, especially the captain of your economic team. The buck stops at Obama's desk, parados, learn it. I realize you seem to be pretty uninformed, but ignorance is not a valid excuse for you regarding everything. I remember that some of those promises and claims by members of the administration were well talked about as justification for Obama selling his stim plan. If you don't remember that, you need to ask yourself why you were and apparently remain so much in the dark?
parados
 
  2  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:48 am
@okie,
Ah.. of course.. and you used the same standard for Bush.. right?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:50 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Ah.. of course.. and you used the same standard for Bush.. right?


Bush's advisers said that the cost of the Iraq war would be less than 50 billion dollars, and the rebuilding would 'self-finance.' They were off by a factor of more than 15 - and counting.

They also claimed the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves with a 'massive' expansion of jobs and the subsequent tax revenues that would follow. Dead wrong.

They ALSO predicted that the markets could 'self-regulate' and that no regulation of the Derivatives market was necessary. Couldn't be more wrong.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I was thinking along the lines that according to okie's standard Bush has admitted that his tax cuts didn't pay for themselves.

Quote:
You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

- Andrew Samwick
Chief Economist on Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 11:59 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Of course, when advisors have differing and diametrically opposed positions, it makes it hard to ascribe BOTH positions to the President. I seem to recall Bush had a rather influential advisor that was against tax cuts. Does that mean Bush opposed the tax cuts at the same time he was for them?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 12:02 pm
@okie,
Quote:
To be clear, I am not claiming there were no atrocities at all in Vietnam, but I am asserting that they were not typical of what went on there, as Kerry claimed.


Quote:
Six Questions for Deborah Nelson on Vietnam War Crimes, and Why They Matter Now
By Ken Silverstein

Deborah Nelson is the Carnegie Visiting Professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland at College Park. She is the author of the new book, The War Behind Me: Vietnam Veterans Confront the Truth About U.S. War Crimes (Basic Books, 2008), based on a declassified army archive and interviews with suspects, whistleblowers, survivors, former commanders, investigators, and Pentagon officials. Nelson was formerly the Washington investigations editor for the Los Angeles Times (full disclosure: I worked for her there), and also reported for the Washington Post, the Seattle Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times. Her national awards include a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting for a series that exposed widespread problems in the federal government’s Indian Housing Program. She recently replied to six questions about her new book.

1. The Vietnam War crimes you wrote about were covered up for many years with government and military complicity. How did they remain buried for so long?

They were classified for the first twenty years, buried in a bureaucracy for the next ten (think closing scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark), and currently are held hostage by the Privacy Act.

Here’s the history in brief: After Seymour Hersh exposed the My Lai massacre, the Army Staff assembled an internal team of officers to collect and monitor war-crime allegations. They kept tabs on incidents reported to Army investigators, members of Congress, the press, and at public forums. Over the next five years, they amassed an estimated 9,000 pages of evidence. All that motion did not appear to be directed at addressing or preventing atrocities–but rather served as an early-warning system and butt-covering operation for the administration. Few outside a small circle of Pentagon officials knew about it. After the war, the records were packed away, until about 1990, when the Army declassified them. They were stored in boxes on the back room shelves at the National Archives and Records Administration. A decade passed before a small number of scholars and journalists learned of their existence.

One of them was Nick Turse, who had researched the files for his dissertation at Columbia University. He thought some of the cases might be newsworthy and emailed the Los Angeles Times in 2005, when I was the Washington investigative editor. We joined forces to investigate the origin and fate of the files. We tracked down suspects, witnesses, former commanders, investigators and Pentagon officials; we traveled to Vietnam and entered the information from the files into spreadsheets. We discovered that investigators had confirmed cases involving at least 300 allegations of murder, massacre, torture, assault, mutilation and other war crimes–but the Army kept the findings secret from the public. Fewer than half the confirmed cases resulted in courts martial, and convictions were rare.


Unfortunately, the National Archives put the war-crime records back under wraps some time in the last few years. I was told that they contained private information on individuals and had not been properly “sanitized.” Last I checked, there were no plans to process the entire collection. However, NARA is processing individual case files requested under the freedom of information act. I, along with others, have managed to win re-release of some of the cases, although the wait can be inordinately long.

An interesting side-note: During Kerry’s run for president, the Swift Boaters attacked the testimony he made as a young veteran in 1971, when he told the Senate that war crimes were common in Vietnam. One of the officers who helped compile the secret war-crime files. Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns, contacted Kerry’s campaign staff in 2004. He wanted to tell them that there were records at the National Archives that would show Kerry was right. Johns said he left three messages, but no one called him back.


http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004324




In 2005, Deborah Nelson joined forces with military historian Nick Turse to investigate an extraordinary archive: the largest compilation of records on Vietnam-era war crimes ever to surface. The declassified Army papers were erroneously released and have since been pulled from public circulation. Few civilians have seen the documents. The files contain reports of more than 300 confirmed atrocities, and 500 other cases the Army either couldn’t prove or didn’t investigate. The archive has letters of complaint to generals and congressmen, as well as reports of Army interviews with hundreds of men who served.

Far from being limited to a few bad actors or rogue units, atrocities occurred in every Army division that saw combat in Vietnam. Torture of detainees was routine; so was the random killing of farmers in fields and women and children in villages. Punishment for these acts was either nonexistent or absurdly light. In most cases, no one was prosecuted at all.

In The War Behind Me Deborah Nelson goes beyond the documents and talks with many of those who were involved, both accusers and accused, to uncover their stories and learn how they deal with one of the most awful secrets of the Vietnam War.
okie
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 12:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You'll twist his words to mean whatever you want, so what does it matter what he really says?
Cycloptichorn
It is Obama and his administration trying to change what they have said, cyclops. You are free to blindly follow, but I am not going to buy into Obama's word games.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 12:08 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You'll twist his words to mean whatever you want, so what does it matter what he really says?
Cycloptichorn
It is Obama and his administration trying to change what they have said, cyclops. You are free to blindly follow, but I am not going to buy into Obama's word games.


I don't think they have tried to change anything they said.

Re: the 8% unemployment number, they realized within a month of claiming that, that the number was off; the reason given was that the estimate was based upon numbers from Fall 2008, which were subsequently and MAJORLY revised downwards in the Spring of '09. You act as if they never said they were wrong; they clearly did.

Did Bush's advisers ever admit they were wrong about any of the **** they predicted incorrectly? Has ANY Conservative admitted that their predictions regarding tax cuts and their effects are perfectly incorrect? Not to my knowledge.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 12:15 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
parados is not the one with the problems; you're the one who doesn't know between facts and fiction. You spew party memes without knowing they are lies, and spread them like parrots, because people like you don't have the brains to understand what you're saying.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2050
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 07:13:30