maybe liberals didn't, but any sane, thinking person did.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
we didn't blame Clinton for sleeping on Bin Laden when he had the chance to take him out..
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- This is what eight years of failure lead to (nationalizing banks)
"We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas
God help us.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas
God help us.
Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2009-02-15 21:14:03)
didn't snopes debunk the "it's all clinton's fault" argument a while ago.
I was even bored typing the word boring. Now that's bored.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhh, but not boring enough for you to ignore.BN wrote:
predictable and boring.lowing wrote:
Silly me, and I thought 911 was the result of 8 years of failure.
It's not all Clintons fault. Just like a good majority of the blame Bush gets isn't his fault. I'm not going to explain the executive branch again.Reciprocity wrote:
didn't snopes debunk the "it's all clinton's fault" argument a while ago.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Some people who work at some banks have shown they can't do some parts of their job properly all the time.Macbeth wrote:
Can someone explain to me in great detail how this is a bad thing? Hasn't the banks proven to be incapable of doing their jobs right on several levels?
What's the solution to this? Obviously we have to sieze all the banks everywhere!
Or we could do what we should be doing: let failing companies fail.
Darwinism: it worked for nature, and it works for commerce.
it's an all powerful, prescient office. i know.Kmarion wrote:
I'm not going to explain the executive branch again.
Who's more at fault. The President who knew Osama Binlid was a threat and did fuck all about it.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
no sir... If anything happens now... it's all on BO... we didn't blame Clinton for sleeping on Bin Laden when he had the chance to take him out... fair is fair... you take the good with the bad as president... and on that note... I pray to God the terrorist animals don't attack any country including the US...
or
The president who flew Osama's family (old business partners of daddy) out of the country. Then spent 8 years repeatedly failing to catch him after he has planned & executed the single biggest terrorist attack on the USA?
Anyway I thought we where talking about the banks? 8 Years of failure by the Republicans led to this. Why are you changing the subject to blame Clinton for something unrelated? Can you not admit that the current financial crises is the fault of the ppl who steered us here? Do you think that you will burst into flames is you criticize one single thing about the previous administration. Blair included.
Actually BJ Bill did quite a bit, compared with Duhbya's big fat zero action.Who's more at fault. The President who knew Osama Binlid was a threat and did fuck all about it.
^ This one.The president who flew Osama's family (old business partners of daddy) out of the country. Then spent 8 years repeatedly failing to catch him after he has planned & executed the single biggest terrorist attack on the USA?
Fuck Israel
Osama was esrtranged from his family. They had nothing to do with him.Dilbert_X wrote:
Actually BJ Bill did quite a bit, compared with Duhbya's big fat zero action.Who's more at fault. The President who knew Osama Binlid was a threat and did fuck all about it.^ This one.The president who flew Osama's family (old business partners of daddy) out of the country. Then spent 8 years repeatedly failing to catch him after he has planned & executed the single biggest terrorist attack on the USA?
Unless you are endorsing holding the father on trial for the actions of a 40 year old son, the 2 are not connected.
I hear their are still decendants of Hitler alive,, maybe we should execute them, after all we never got to Hitler himself.
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home, and how your mighty military has failed so badly and repeatedly to capture one little guy on a donkey.
Would have been worth waterboarding his father at least.
Would have been worth waterboarding his father at least.
Fuck Israel
They were allowed to fly out because of attitudes just like yours, Bin Ladens family has nothing to do with Bin Laden.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home, and how your mighty military has failed so badly and repeatedly to capture one little guy on a donkey.
Would have been worth waterboarding his father at least.
Perhaps he ia not on a donkey. Perhaps he is being supported by a rather large following and hidden, through mis-information and lies.
Of course I am probably just "paranoid" since we all know their are just "a few" Islamic terrorists out there that wish us harm.
Well invading countries and supporting their enemies isnt exactly winning over their hearts and minds...lowing wrote:
They were allowed to fly out because of attitudes just like yours, Bin Ladens family has nothing to do with Bin Laden.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home, and how your mighty military has failed so badly and repeatedly to capture one little guy on a donkey.
Would have been worth waterboarding his father at least.
Perhaps he ia not on a donkey. Perhaps he is being supported by a rather large following and hidden, through mis-information and lies.
Of course I am probably just "paranoid" since we all know their are just "a few" Islamic terrorists out there that wish us harm.
How would you know they had nothing to do with it without questioning?lowing wrote:
They were allowed to fly out because of attitudes just like yours, Bin Ladens family has nothing to do with Bin Laden.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home, and how your mighty military has failed so badly and repeatedly to capture one little guy on a donkey.
Would have been worth waterboarding his father at least.
Perhaps he ia not on a donkey. Perhaps he is being supported by a rather large following and hidden, through mis-information and lies.
Of course I am probably just "paranoid" since we all know their are just "a few" Islamic terrorists out there that wish us harm.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Apparently it was well known in the inner circles of world politics. I am guessing since we did not kill this family over WTC '03 or any of the other terrorists attacks Bin Laden is responsible for.Varegg wrote:
How would you know they had nothing to do with it without questioning?lowing wrote:
They were allowed to fly out because of attitudes just like yours, Bin Ladens family has nothing to do with Bin Laden.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home, and how your mighty military has failed so badly and repeatedly to capture one little guy on a donkey.
Would have been worth waterboarding his father at least.
Perhaps he ia not on a donkey. Perhaps he is being supported by a rather large following and hidden, through mis-information and lies.
Of course I am probably just "paranoid" since we all know their are just "a few" Islamic terrorists out there that wish us harm.
WTC '03?lowing wrote:
Apparently it was well known in the inner circles of world politics. I am guessing since we did not kill this family over WTC '03 or any of the other terrorists attacks Bin Laden is responsible for.
Did I miss something?
I need around tree fiddy.
I'm not a member of the "inner circle" like lowing apparently is so I wouldn't know DonnieDonFck wrote:
WTC '03?lowing wrote:
Apparently it was well known in the inner circles of world politics. I am guessing since we did not kill this family over WTC '03 or any of the other terrorists attacks Bin Laden is responsible for.
Did I miss something?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Ya, I didn't renew my Illuminati membership either, so I'm not getting the newsletter anymore.Varegg wrote:
I'm not a member of the "inner circle" like lowing apparently is so I wouldn't know DonnieDonFck wrote:
WTC '03?lowing wrote:
Apparently it was well known in the inner circles of world politics. I am guessing since we did not kill this family over WTC '03 or any of the other terrorists attacks Bin Laden is responsible for.
Did I miss something?
I need around tree fiddy.
Gee, so I fat fingered the 0 instead of the 9, get over yourselves already
Never said I was part of anything, but I feel safe to assume that if Bin Ladens estranged family had anything to do with his actions, they would have been arrested. Don't forget guys, we are supposed to be the "paranoid" ones, not you. Try to gain some composure
Never said I was part of anything, but I feel safe to assume that if Bin Ladens estranged family had anything to do with his actions, they would have been arrested. Don't forget guys, we are supposed to be the "paranoid" ones, not you. Try to gain some composure
Last edited by lowing (2009-02-16 04:46:57)
DonFck wrote:
WTC '03?lowing wrote:
..WTC '03 or any of the other terrorists attacks Bin Laden is responsible for.
Did I miss something?
This, I just had to do:lowing wrote:
Gee, so I fat fingered the 0 instead of the 9, get over yourselves already
On-Off-Topic: OBL is probably in Tahiti getting a tan. Shave + Hawaii-shirt + baseball cap = incognito for that dude.
I need around tree fiddy.
lol, ok now THAT was funny!!DonFck wrote:
DonFck wrote:
WTC '03?lowing wrote:
..WTC '03 or any of the other terrorists attacks Bin Laden is responsible for.
Did I miss something?This, I just had to do:lowing wrote:
Gee, so I fat fingered the 0 instead of the 9, get over yourselves already
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8586/m … 407ra7.jpg
On-Off-Topic: OBL is probably in Tahiti getting a tan. Shave + Hawaii-shirt + baseball cap = incognito for that dude.
OK getting back on topic.
In the last days of his Presidency Bush attempted to uphold the mantra that increased regulation of financial institutions wasnt needed. I would assume it was a policy of his presidency. If the banks fail (mostly due to improper regulation) then isnt it true that unwatched capitalism was largley to blame for banks problems?
I would say that ATG and a lot of the republicans on the forum would say that the capitalist ideal of totally free market is the way to go. So, I dont think you can blame him for a move to nationalising banks when he was probably doing what capitalists and other republicans on the forum would agree with anyway.
Talk of Nationalising banks is a result of the failure of unregulated capitalism, not as a result of Bushs incompetence ( he was just doing what capitalists do). Personally I also think Nationalising banks isnt a great idea. Instead greater regulation would be a better solution. If you say that Bush failed to introduce greater regulations on the banks, and that was his failure, then I would entirely agree with you.
In the last days of his Presidency Bush attempted to uphold the mantra that increased regulation of financial institutions wasnt needed. I would assume it was a policy of his presidency. If the banks fail (mostly due to improper regulation) then isnt it true that unwatched capitalism was largley to blame for banks problems?
I would say that ATG and a lot of the republicans on the forum would say that the capitalist ideal of totally free market is the way to go. So, I dont think you can blame him for a move to nationalising banks when he was probably doing what capitalists and other republicans on the forum would agree with anyway.
Talk of Nationalising banks is a result of the failure of unregulated capitalism, not as a result of Bushs incompetence ( he was just doing what capitalists do). Personally I also think Nationalising banks isnt a great idea. Instead greater regulation would be a better solution. If you say that Bush failed to introduce greater regulations on the banks, and that was his failure, then I would entirely agree with you.
We partly are already, in fact it was in November when it started.
There is nothing wrong with the free market. It was when govt. interfered, when it went into the shitter. It was the democrats that pushed for a fair housing act that forced banks to give loans t ofuckers that otherwise could not afford them or deserved them. The loans went bad and now the democrats are pointing the finger at anyone but themselves for it.Burwhale wrote:
OK getting back on topic.
In the last days of his Presidency Bush attempted to uphold the mantra that increased regulation of financial institutions wasnt needed. I would assume it was a policy of his presidency. If the banks fail (mostly due to improper regulation) then isnt it true that unwatched capitalism was largley to blame for banks problems?
I would say that ATG and a lot of the republicans on the forum would say that the capitalist ideal of totally free market is the way to go. So, I dont think you can blame him for a move to nationalising banks when he was probably doing what capitalists and other republicans on the forum would agree with anyway.
Talk of Nationalising banks is a result of the failure of unregulated capitalism, not as a result of Bushs incompetence ( he was just doing what capitalists do). Personally I also think Nationalising banks isnt a great idea. Instead greater regulation would be a better solution. If you say that Bush failed to introduce greater regulations on the banks, and that was his failure, then I would entirely agree with you.
Govt. intervention was the problem in the first place. Leave the market alone and it woulda been just fine.
I find it odd that you tar every Muslim on earth, unrelated to 9/11 with the same brush as the hijackers repeatedly on this forum. Savages. Violent etc.lowing wrote:
Apparently it was well known in the inner circles of world politics. I am guessing since we did not kill this family over WTC '03 or any of the other terrorists attacks Bin Laden is responsible for.
Yet rubbish actual blood ties between the head of Al Quida and his family? I don't know about the US. But here, if someone murders 2 thousand citizens the government will want to talk to the murders family to extract information. Not extract the people with the information.
---------------------------------------------
A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1. - Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."
Yup, all Clinton's fault.
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away - But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- This is what eight years of failure lead to (nationalizing banks)