The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

[Straight Success]

Why is your argument changing everytime? You seem to have skipped around the rebuttal that I gave for the war.

I understand that Jay Z loves Obama and that means that you have to also, but inform yourself on what you are arguing about.

Provide me with factual information, that he voted for the war. I'm not saying he didn't or he did, I'm just not going to take your word.

ROFLMFAO.

Who cares what Shawn says, it's just music. Actually, he is a republican (unless he changed back to a democrat recently), so everything he does, I do not follow. Although, he keeps it real and tells his audience the real about America and what's going on. I'm not sure that you would know though. Try to listen some of his music, he keeps us up on current events, politics (oh and yes, he has the funds and capital to know what's going on in today's world), the economy, and miscellanneous topics as well. Also he is a trend setter in many communities across the globe, so at time I do follow him when his direction is positive and logical.

[HybridKyle]

My only point is....it shouldn't matter what color your president is, thats biased, is it not? now if it said something along the lines of "my president is changing things for the better, we are stronger and he is the greateset thing since sliced bread" then I could understand, but we cannot say that can we? His color should have no bearing one way or the other.

Are you serious about your final 2 sentences? Really? You FOLLOW a rapper? Actually, you DO when it suits you, and DON'T when it suits you better...And what does having money have to do with knowing whats going on in the world? Does that mean he gets a special news channel? Or current events reported to him quicker than you or I? I mean really...REALLY?? You have GOT to be kidding me...You say yourself... "who cares what 'Shawn' says, it's just music" but then go on to say the rest... I guess "Shawn" provides you with links to support his points as well? LMFAO

WOW, I don't need to say anymore

[Straight Success]

My only point is....it shouldn't matter what color your president is, thats biased, is it not? now if it said something along the lines of "my president is changing things for the better, we are stronger and he is the greateset thing since sliced bread" then I could understand, but we cannot say that can we? His color should have no bearing one way or the other.

Are you serious about your final 2 sentences? Really? You FOLLOW a rapper? http://www.cb7tuner.com/vbb/newreply...181681Actually, you DO when it suits you, and DON'T when it suits you better...And what does having money have to do with knowing whats going on in the world? Does that mean he gets a special news channel? Or current events reported to him quicker than you or I? I mean really...REALLY?? You have GOT to be kidding me...You say yourself... "who cares what 'Shawn' says, it's just music" but then go on to say the rest... I guess "Shawn" provides you with links to support his points as well? LMFAO

WOW, I don't need to say anymore

Ok. If you get the chance to listen to the song, by all means do that. I'll even post up a link so that you can listen to it. The things you mentioned is in the songs. It's actually positive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzmaAYp3uo

"... This is not a race song..."
-Young Jeezy

Original Song and Video (which was played on abc news):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLLvFUyMg8

[quakerjoe]

If we didn't bail out all of those huge corporations which employs thousands, where would the economy be? Also , where would those corporations be? The people who worked at those corporations, where would they have been or be right now, if it wasn't for the bail out money?\


EDIT: For the first time, I think I have an idea what the war was about. However, the Iraq part of the war still makes no sense.

Those thousands of people, who work for the large corporations, would have been displaced for a period of time if the companies had not received bailouts. However, those large corporations going under is good for the smaller corporations. With the larger corporations out of the running there is more demand placed upon the smaller corporations requiring them to expand and hire on many of those workers that were displaced. This alleviates some of the dependency that we find in large corporations and spreads the risk, as they call it in insurance. (Also when a large corporation goes under they sometimes liquidate their assets including expensive machinery that can be bought by the smaller corporations for pennies on the dollar.) Somehow, giving the bailouts to the failing corporations seems to me like they were rewarding failure. What happened to letting people, who make bad business decisions, get what they deserve? No… not jail time, unless they broke the law. They go out of business. By those people going out of business the void that is left will be filled, plain and simple.

[owequitit]

Go back and read my response to Vero's post. I didn't solely pin this on Bush and the republican party. Although no facts are needed (even though I already posted some and will post more just for YOU), the Bush administration definitely helped us get where we are, no doubt about it.

Actually some of the stuff in the links you've posted up had some informative information. Not enough to change my view points, but there was a minute amount of validity in very few of them of them. I actually learned a thing or two. A lot of it seemed like many people's opinions without solid hard core evidence or facts, just their own interpretations.

1)Yes, because IRS statistics and budget realities are "subjective."

Luckily, my links had a MINUTE amount of useful information in them, because so far, yours really haven't. So, are you going to contribute or continue to try and stir the pot?

2) I don't recall ever saying Bush didn't help get us here, so please show me where I said that.

[Straight Success]

Those thousands of people, who work for the large corporations, would have been displaced for a period of time if the companies had not received bailouts. However, those large corporations going under is good for the smaller corporations. With the larger corporations out of the running there is more demand placed upon the smaller corporations requiring them to expand and hire on many of those workers that were displaced. This alleviates some of the dependency that we find in large corporations and spreads the risk, as they call it in insurance. (Also when a large corporation goes under they sometimes liquidate their assets including expensive machinery that can be bought by the smaller corporations for pennies on the dollar.) Somehow, giving the bailouts to the failing corporations seems to me like they were rewarding failure. What happened to letting people, who make bad business decisions, get what they deserve? No… not jail time, unless they broke the law. They go out of business. By those people going out of business the void that is left will be filled, plain and simple.

Very interesting point. I follow that logic very well. I am not sure if the situation would have unfolded like that, or if no bail out money was available, we would have ended up in a depression. IDK.

Letting the little guys grow is a good concept. Is it possible that they would have grown fast enough to employ the thousands who got misplaced? Again IDK. We can only speculate.

[owequitit]

Obama hasn't spent no where near as much as Bush spent on the war.
C'mon, be serious.

He wouldn't of had to spend if we didn't get into this situation that were in. He spent for us to recover.

Still dismissing the FACTS I see...

1) Obama has been in office for 7 months. Bush was in for 8 years. Of course, Obama hasn't outspent Bush yet. But then again, based on a year over year average, he has already FAR exceeded the trend.

2) I partly wish there had been no war. Because most likely if there hadn't, we would all be living with the realities of getting blown up in shopping malls right now. You can blame Bush for the wars all you want, but the fact is that had we done nothing, we would be worse off. We tried doing nothing for a little over a decade and it didn't work. It escalated further and further, until it culminated with 9/11.

3) The links on recovery have also already been posted. The economy is recovering BEFORE Obama's stimulus is being spent. That is indicitive that it did NOT recover anything. One must ask the question what an additional trillion dollars in debt was good for if it didn't recover anything. But again, this is you refusing to look at the facts that have already been posted. Less than 2% of the stimulus has been spent. If that stimulus is going to save us, then why is the economy recovering BEFORE it is spent? If that 2% saved the economy, which it diddn't, why did we need the rest of the money?

[owequitit]

If we didn't bail out all of those huge corporations which employs thousands, where would the economy be? Also , where would those corporations be? The people who worked at those corporations, where would they have been or be right now, if it wasn't for the bail out money?\


EDIT: For the first time, I think I have an idea what the war was about. However, the Iraq part of the war still makes no sense.

The first bailout is not the same as the one Obama did. The first one was done by George W. Bush, and as I recall, most people on the left complained that it was anti-democratic and anti free market. But suddenly, when Obama wants to do the same thing, it is OK?

The fact is that the reason that bailout was even necessary is because since 1996 the Federal government failed to provide the oversight of the credit default swap market that was so severely needed. That was also covered in the links I provided. Had they provided the oversight needed 15 years ago, it transcends nearly 2 Democrat presidential terms and 2 Republican presidential terms, as well as Republican and Democratic control of Congress, so clearly, the issue was on both sides. The problem was that the politicians were willing to ride it out because times were good. Now, there is nothing more than finger pointing and blaming.

The Iraq war was a mistake based on flawed, but actionable intelligence. Even Bush has admitted that.

[owequitit]

Ok. If you get the chance to listen to the song, by all means do that. I'll even post up a link so that you can listen to it. The things you mentioned is in the songs. It's actually positive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzmaAYp3uo

"... This is not a race song..."
-Young Jeezy

Original Song and Video (which was played on abc news):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLLvFUyMg8

OK, I'm sorry, but did you just try to post a song as a credible link?

[owequitit]

Very interesting point. I follow that logic very well. I am not sure if the situation would have unfolded like that, or if no bail out money was available, we would have ended up in a depression. IDK.

Letting the little guys grow is a good concept. Is it possible that they would have grown fast enough to employ the thousands who got misplaced? Again IDK. We can only speculate.

No bailout would have decimated the little guy too, because the entire financial system in this country would have collapsed, taking everything else with it. That is why, BS aside, both sides have ulimately supported the bailout. Imagine the fallout if they actually just let the economy collapse completely.

And no, those job losses would not have come back instantaneously.

[Straight Success]

Still dismissing the FACTS I see...

1) Obama has been in office for 7 months. Bush was in for 8 years. Of course, Obama hasn't outspent Bush yet. But then again, based on a year over year average, he has already FAR exceeded the trend.

2) I partly wish there had been no war. Because most likely if there hadn't, we would all be living with the realities of getting blown up in shopping malls right now. You can blame Bush for the wars all you want, but the fact is that had we done nothing, we would be worse off. We tried doing nothing for a little over a decade and it didn't work. It escalated further and further, until it culminated with 9/11.

1. You can't blame the growth of the American population or the senior citizens collecting SSI and health care (and the many more that arise every year) on any one administration. This is everyday life. SSI recipients will not receive an increase from now on because there is no rise in the cost of livinga s stated by the news (I think it's BS, but hey).

2. I second that. We had to go to war to show that we are not a punk @ss nation. Yes it did help protect our freedoms. At the same token, Bush decide to follow his own agenda and own ulterior motives with the war which put us even further in debt. The war in Iraq was just a continuation with a problem that his father had in the '80's. We didn't need to bring that **** into the 2000's. That's why so many are pissed. We didn't have to do the Iraq thing, just stick to battling the terrorism. It would of saved us billions, maybe even trillions.

I do have a question. It might be silly, but I don't care what everyone thinks. It's useful information for me. What was/is the name of this war?

[Straight Success]

OK, I'm sorry, but did you just try to post a song as a credible link?

No. You funny. LMFAO. That was for that HrbridKyle. He said something about my signature. Go back and read a few of the post.

I'm still digging at your post # 70. It's interesting.

[owequitit]

Provide me with factual information, that he voted for the war. I'm not saying he didn't or he did, I'm just not going to take your word.

ROFLMFAO.

Who cares what Shawn says, it's just music. Actually, he is a republican (unless he changed back to a democrat recently), so everything he does, I do not follow. Although, he keeps it real and tells his audience the real about America and what's going on. I'm not sure that you would know though. Try to listen some of his music, he keeps us up on current events, politics (oh and yes, he has the funds and capital to know what's going on in today's world), the economy, and miscellanneous topics as well. Also he is a trend setter in many communities across the globe, so at time I do follow him when his direction is positive and logical.

http://www.loc.gov/index.html

Link to every bill, voting record, arguement, book, published journal, article or anything else you could ever hope to know as public information. Everything might not be computerized yet, but they DO have it. If it is not available on the website, then you can contact them and they will send you copies of it, or in some other way make it available to you.


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/

Congressional records from 1994 to today. I am certain Obama is in that category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_R...s_Against_Iraq

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...nt-detail.html

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

You need neither money nor "resources" to be aware of what is going on in your country. The wonderful thing about our Democracy is that it strives to ensure information that is not critical in nature is available to the public at all times, should they seek to find it. Even laws go for public comment prior to being enacted. A citizen's failure to participate in the process, is a failure of the citizen, not the system.

And for the record, Barrack Obama could NOT have voted on the Iraq war, because he was not even in office until 2005. Also, you made the comment that he was a great senator. How can we define a senator as great when he resigns about 1/3 of the way through his first term?

I also ROFLMAO when you want someone to provide substantive links, but use rappers as your authoritative source. I hate to be brutally honest, but that is seriously damaging your credibility in this thread.

[owequitit]

1. You can't blame the growth of the American population or the senior citizens collecting SSI and health care (and the many more that arise every year) on any one administration. This is everyday life. SSI recipients will not receive an increase from now on because there is no rise in the cost of livinga s stated by the news (I think it's BS, but hey).

Who did I blame this on? When have I said anything even about this subject? Are you still trying to create a smokescreen because you ego will not allow you to back down?

2. I second that. We had to go to war to show that we are not a punk @ss nation. Yes it did help protect our freedoms. At the same token, Bush decide to follow his own agenda and own ulterior motives with the war which put us even further in debt. The war in Iraq was just a continuation with a problem that his father had in the '80's. We didn't need to bring that **** into the 2000's. That's why so many are pissed. We didn't have to do the Iraq thing, just stick to battling the terrorism. It would of saved us billions, maybe even trillions.

What were his alterior motives, and where are you links?

I do have a question. It might be silly, but I don't care what everyone thinks. It's useful information for me. What was/is the name of this war?

The war on terror.

[quakerjoe]

Very interesting point. I follow that logic very well. I am not sure if the situation would have unfolded like that, or if no bail out money was available, we would have ended up in a depression. IDK.

Letting the little guys grow is a good concept. Is it possible that they would have grown fast enough to employ the thousands who got misplaced? Again IDK. We can only speculate.

You’re most likely right. In my scenario it would take a bit of time for the smaller corporations to grow large enough to employ each and every one of the displaced, but I think the size of some of the larger corporations is what would make this scenario almost unrealistic. They've almost become like the bureaucracies. (At least it’s like we’re too dependent on them) But if you think about it there is more than one way to grow. (the old fashioned way) For instance you can find investors that can help you buy the recently vacated factories, an improbable option, but possible.