The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

[quakerjoe]

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

I thought it was him as well.

[Straight Success]

First of all, read everything, just don't skim through. I'm here debating witb more than one and doing it on my own, and I'm going to stand tall doing it.

About the music link, pump your brakes and stop. That was not intended to be a credible link. It was simply to show Kyle the nature of my sig and the meaning behind the song. You always say read Scott. Go back and read. If you want, listen to the lyrics of the song, it makes a lot of sense pertaining to positive progress, no racial issues.

Secondly, Kyle brought it up about Obama voting for the war when Bush was in office. I simple made a comment about his post. Again, go back and read Scott.

...now let me get my sources.

[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.

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?

1. Of course Obama had to spend to get the economy back on it's feet. He spent more this year in reference to Bush' first year to help us recover. If he didn't, you said it yourself, paraphrasing, "we'd be up shit's creek without a paddle."

2. Already responded.

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

To retaliate for his father and the desert storm war. Basically there was bad blood between the Bush's and Saddam, and they wanted him out of the picture. We had no business in Iraq. You can't locate a logical reason for us being there. His motives were to show the Bush's power and make it felt in Iraq stemming from bad blood in the '80's. Money, oil, power, and past problems with Iraq is why we were over there. The WMD's was just a BS excuse to go and try to kill Saddam.

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

I'm getting ready to retort to your post # 118.

[8ball]

the irs and federal reserve is not part of a government task force agency. Its basicly its own bank ? ? ? Taxation with out representation. If I EVER have to pay into the IRS they can eat my ass.

[owequitit]

First of all, read everything, just don't skim through. I'm here debating witb more than one and doing it on my own, and I'm going to stand tall doing it.

About the music link, pump your brakes and stop. That was not intended to be a credible link. It was simply to show Kyle the nature of my sig and the meaning behind the song. You always say read Scott. Go back and read. If you want, listen to the lyrics of the song, it makes a lot of sense pertaining to positive progress, no racial issues.

Secondly, Kyle brought it up about Obama voting for the war when Bush was in office. I simple made a comment about his post. Again, go back and read Scott.

...now let me get my sources.

I have read every word in this thread thank you.

I know who made the comment about Obama and the Iraq war, I was simply verifying.

[owequitit]

1. Of course Obama had to spend to get the economy back on it's feet. He spent more this year in reference to Bush' first year to help us recover. If he didn't, you said it yourself, paraphrasing, "we'd be up shit's creek without a paddle."

2. Already responded.

You are still consistently ignoring the FACTS. The fact is that Obama's spending IS NOT STIMULATING ANYTHING. What part of that do I need to repost?

To retaliate for his father and the desert storm war. Basically there was bad blood between the Bush's and Saddam, and they wanted him out of the picture. We had no business in Iraq. You can't locate a logical reason for us being there. His motives were to show the Bush's power and make it felt in Iraq stemming from bad blood in the '80's. Money, oil, power, and past problems with Iraq is why we were over there. The WMD's was just a BS excuse to go and try to kill Saddam.

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

I'm getting ready to retort to your post # 118.

The only thing substantive in your inclusion here are the following documents, which is #57 in that Wikipedia article:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf

http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf

http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

The United States is not on that list, so apparently it wasn't about the oil, because we weren't even a potential suitor.

The other sources were editorials, and not definitive links to facts. This was #56

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml

I don't necessarily think this article was unfounded, but unless someone can find links, it seems fairly biased.

Also, if you use the links I provided earlier, as well as the statement in this Wiki article, you would see that the measure was largely bipartisan. I.E. Both Dems and Republicans supported it. Couldn't they have stopped the whole process too?

[owequitit]

the irs and federal reserve is not part of a government task force agency. Its basicly its own bank ? ? ? Taxation with out representation. If I EVER have to pay into the IRS they can eat my ass.

I think you are confused.

1) The IRS is a division of the Tresury Department, which is very much a government entity. There is no taxation without representation in this country, because YOUR Senators are elected by YOUR state's voters, and as such they are representatives of your agenda.

http://www.irs.gov/irs/index.html?navmenu=menu3

2) You are correct. The Federal Reserve is a seperate entity with government oversight, but this is for a VERY specific reason. The central bank was created, because there had to be a way to coordinate and control the money supply in order to maximize economic growth. As such the Federal Reserve was tasked with controlling the important aspects of the money supply such as interest rates, how much money is available to lend, how much banks have to hold in reserve, etc.

The VERY specific reason it is "seperate" is because the people who invented it wanted it to be free of political meddling. Our politicians can't even have a private affair correctly, they sure as hell can't balance a budget, and it is questionable whether they do much good at all. Can you imagine how screwed up our economy would be if it was left to a bunch of squabbling, fat ass politicians? Yeah right. We would all still be in the middle ages, and living in straw huts.

For the record, the Federal Reserve is not an entity of taxation. They control monetary policy, while the Senate and the President control Fiscal Policy. They are two completely different things.

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

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MonetaryPolicy.html

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/fe...ary/index.html

Fiscal Policy:

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

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FiscalPolicy.html

http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/

http://www.investopedia.com/articles...4.asp?viewed=1

3) The reason the Federal Reserve is not completely independent is because the chairman and board are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. As such, those bodies have control over who is running the show. Since you have control over who sits in the Senate, you have indirect control over who runs the Federal Reserve.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/

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

[HybridKyle]

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).

I'll just say this, you are saying that the population grew THAT MUCH from when Bush was in office until Obama took office...? LOL
Cost of living hasn't gone up? Have any of your bills increased? I know mine have, I have a wife and 3 kids.

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?

I suppose Bush's "ulterior" motives were what? To over throw a dictator that tortured, imprisoned, and mutilated his own people...BY THE THOUSANDS? Guess we shouldn't have gone to war over that huh? They weren't Americans, who cares right...? I WAS THERE buddy, was there when it started, I saw what was done to those people. You cannot IMAGINE the things that were done to men, WOMEN, & CHILDREN there.

There is always something else in it for someone, but that doesn't mean thats the reason they are doing it.

And your song source...so you are saying you get your information from a song? From another persons opinion...LOL If that doesn't contradict everything you have said I don't know what does. I could post videos and interviews of rappers that have lots of money and are "trend setters" that are AGAINST Obama, and the government...but I don't, I choose to get my FACTS and not go from opinions.

It's called the "War in Iraq" "War on Terrorism" but I have heard that it is now being called the "War on Al-Qaeda"
The name is being changed because they are continuing the war, they are just stopping the "War in Iraq". You see, you have to pay attention to details, to the small print, loop holes. The troops will NOT be home by when it was said they would be. The war MIGHT be over, but they will not be back home. Most will remain overseas.

Show me YOUR facts of where Obama has NOT spent more!
http://americandigest.org/mt-archive...ama_defici.php

I am NOT saying I support what Bush did in spending, BUT YOUR "facts" are not facts at all. You still continue a debate without providing FACTS, or support, other than a song you want me to listen to.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7300061

And NO WITH Obama giving the war more money, that would take the total of the war FROM THE START (back in 2002) to just at $1 Trillion. That means, that from the start of the war it has cost us less than what President Obama has spent since he has been in office, for 7 months. lol What more do you want?

[HybridKyle]

2) You are correct. The Federal Reserve is a seperate entity with government oversight, but this is for a VERY specific reason. The central bank was created, because there had to be a way to coordinate and control the money supply in order to maximize economic growth. As such the Federal Reserve was tasked with controlling the important aspects of the money supply such as interest rates, how much money is available to lend, how much banks have to hold in reserve, etc.

The VERY specific reason it is "seperate" is because the people who invented it wanted it to be free of political meddling. Our politicians can't even have a private affair correctly, they sure as hell can't balance a budget, and it is questionable whether they do much good at all. Can you imagine how screwed up our economy would be if it was left to a bunch of squabbling, fat ass politicians? Yeah right. We would all still be in the middle ages, and living in straw huts.

For the record, the Federal Reserve is not an entity of taxation. They control monetary policy, while the Senate and the President control Fiscal Policy. They are two completely different things.

]

This is why we need to change the federal reserve, they OWN the US. The president nominates who runs the Fed. and the senate elects, majority of that senate who is on the presidents agenda.

EDIT: President Obama (on TV AGAIN today LMAO) renominates Bernanke for chairman of the Fed. Just now, LIVE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545908...s_and_economy/

Scott, by your links and notes on the Fed they run all the money, and they DO...it is by default then that they are the ones that caused the downward spiral we are in. The Fed drove down interest rates and got people to "pork" and pumped money that wasn't there into the economy...and now it has collapsed.

WHY would you put the same person back in charge...? This is becoming a big joke, to me, to the people, to the world...WE ARE FUCKED!

[Straight Success]

I would like to see how you respond to 'THAT' post Scott.

You are still consistently ignoring the FACTS. The fact is that Obama's spending IS NOT STIMULATING ANYTHING. What part of that do I need to repost?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...-effects_N.htm

When some asked, how long does he need to work, this is why I responded the way I did. No one said the stimulus package would fix everything right way. They planned for the package to create stability and growth by the fourth quarter.

And your song source...so you are saying you get your information from a song? From another persons opinion...LOL If that doesn't contradict everything you have said I don't know what does. I could post videos and interviews of rappers that have lots of money and are "trend setters" that are AGAINST Obama, and the government...but I don't, I choose to get my FACTS and not go from opinions.

Let's get this issue straight, once and for all. That sposetd specifaclly for YOU. Not as a source of information, but for you to listen to the content. That was posted simply for the comment about my signature, not as a reliable source of information.

I suppose Bush's "ulterior" motives were what? To over throw a dictator that tortured, imprisoned, and mutilated his own people...BY THE THOUSANDS? Guess we shouldn't have gone to war over that huh? They weren't Americans, who cares right...? I WAS THERE buddy, was there when it started, I saw what was done to those people. You cannot IMAGINE the things that were done to men, WOMEN, & CHILDREN there.

No, that's none of our business. I don't even have to post a link with facts for that. That's common sense. If I see two guys fighting in the street, and one pulls a knife or a gun, why the &^^& should I get involved. It's none of my business. Why jepordize my life for two strangers problems. You go walk your @ss over there and see what happens. The most I could do is let the cops handle it (I may even call them), but I'm not taking my @ss no where near them two.

Did anyone help through the halocaust, or slavery, or etc? We're not even going to get into that. There are times when we can help with certain issues, that was not one of them. How did we benefit from that war in Iraq?

Show me YOUR facts of where Obama has NOT spent more!

It's projected that he may in the long run.

However look at this. Who spends 3 trillion on a useless war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030702846.html

... and again, Obama has to fix this... Why does he have to clean up the mess that we, Bush, or whoever made?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

It's not like Obama's out blowing the money on hookers and golfing like some. He's spending it on America. Yes, US. Healthcare, eduactaion, defense network, law enforcement, national labs, create new jobs, stimulation of the economy, energy, housing, etc... We'll get back, and pay down the debt. No question about it. Clinton did. He did'nt pay it all back, but he was the only recent president where there was a decline in the national debt. His net accumilation of debt wasn't that much, no where near Reagan, Bush, or Bush. I've already posted the link look at it.

Also, if you use the links I provided earlier, as well as the statement in this Wiki article, you would see that the measure was largely bipartisan. I.E. Both Dems and Republicans supported it. Couldn't they have stopped the whole process too?

Yes, but they were misled. They thought the war was simlpy to protect the American people from terrorism, not to go in and demolish Saddam.

Excuse me if there is a typo or two in there somewhere.

[owequitit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090825/...s_obama_budget

[owequitit]

This is why we need to change the federal reserve, they OWN the US. The president nominates who runs the Fed. and the senate elects, majority of that senate who is on the presidents agenda.

EDIT: President Obama (on TV AGAIN today LMAO) renominates Bernanke for chairman of the Fed. Just now, LIVE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545908...s_and_economy/

Scott, by your links and notes on the Fed they run all the money, and they DO...it is by default then that they are the ones that caused the downward spiral we are in. The Fed drove down interest rates and got people to "pork" and pumped money that wasn't there into the economy...and now it has collapsed.

WHY would you put the same person back in charge...? This is becoming a big joke, to me, to the people, to the world...WE ARE FUCKED!

You are misinterpreting the role of the Federal Reserve.

They make decisions on how much it costs to borrow money, and to try and maintain a minimal amount of inflation. That is their primary function. To some degree, they are supposed to insure liquidity, but they are also supposed to interfere as little as possible in free market operations.

They use certain guidelines for decision making. They don't just make economic decisions from the hip. It is a VERY complex process.

The problem was caused by greedy Americans who want to blame everyone else for their stupid decisions. Nobody made the Americans leverage themselves to the hilt, and nobody made them take out bad debt. It just didn't work that way.

The Credit default swap market that brought everything down was completely unregulated. The Federal Reserve had no authority to stop it. The SEC should probably have had control of that because they were more "investments" than money. But they didn't have the authority either.

As for the subprime lending, that should have fallen under the auspices of the FDIC, one of whose jobs is to ensure that banks remain liquid.

The fact is that American people wanted to get more than they could afford, more than they needed, because they were greedy. And as with any group of people whose greed exceeds their means, they got exactly what they deserved.

The Federal Reserve did make some improper estimations and assessments on things, and Alan Greenspan has already talked about where he screwed up and what he did wrong, but isn't it always easier to be an armchair quarterback, than the person making the decision at that moment?

http://www.fdic.gov/

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

http://www.sec.gov/

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

[owequitit]

I would like to see how you respond to 'THAT' post Scott.



http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...-effects_N.htm

When some asked, how long does he need to work, this is why I responded the way I did. No one said the stimulus package would fix everything right way. They planned for the package to create stability and growth by the fourth quarter.

I am going to split this up because we have covered this going on 10 times now, and you still don't seem to understand, so I am going to assume that the information is overwhelming for you, since we have so many simultaneous discussions going on. I want you to treat each of these next posts as completely seperate. Read, and respond individually.

Your link is outdated. It is from February, BEFORE the stimulus was passed, BEFORE the economy started to recover, BEFORE the links that have already been provided existed. It is old, irrelevant news. Did you even check the date, or are you just fishing for ways to justify your position?

"That" post was responded to many pages ago. Go look at the amount of the stimulus that has been spent. About 2%.

The problem is that the economy is already recovering.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090825/...hvdXNpbmdjb24-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090825/...N1bWVyc2VudA--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090825/...5pbmNvbnN1bQ--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090825/...RlaG91c2VidQ--

These are all pretty solid signs of recovery, especially the housing prices. So, it is becoming quite clear that the economy is reversing its course into recovery, or is at least trending that way.

The problem with your story is that:

http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/06/0...dy-been-spent/

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/agency-allocations

We still haven't spent most of it.

If we haven't spent most of it, then it can't be responsible for turning the economy. If it isn't responsible for turning the economy, then it hasn't had the intended "stimulus" effect. If it hasn't had the intended stimulus effect, then why did we run up our national debt 1 trillion dollars?

Stop. Read. Think. Answer the questions. This is quickly becoming a one sided discussion because you keep trying to rehash your same, flawed, one sided arguements. It is getting old. I don't mind discussing, or even disagreeing with you, but you are covering the same bases over and over and over, which indicates to me that you are hung up somewhere, but rather than ask how something works, or WHY stuff is happening, you keep picking a link here or there to try and respond in an arguementative way to the same crap we have already covered more than once.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009[/url]

It's not like Obama's out blowing the money on hookers and golfing like some. He's spending it on America. Yes, US. Healthcare, eduactaion, defense network, law enforcement, national labs, create new jobs, stimulation of the economy, energy, housing, etc... We'll get back, and pay down the debt. No question about it. Clinton did. He did'nt pay it all back, but he was the only recent president where there was a decline in the national debt. His net accumilation of debt wasn't that much, no where near Reagan, Bush, or Bush. I've already posted the link look at it.

Obama isn't Clinton. He is already outspending those three together. Fact. Not fiction.

Yes, but they were misled. They thought the war was simlpy to protect the American people from terrorism, not to go in and demolish Saddam.

Excuse me if there is a typo or two in there somewhere.

Yes, because senators are a bunch of gullible people with no information.

This is clearly going nowhere, because you are too close minded to see reality for what it is. As such, if you can't start to provide anything substantive, I am not going to waste my time responding to your opinions. If you want to live in a pretty little whole, by all means go for it, but I am not going to join you.

[Straight Success]

I am going to split this up because we have covered this going on 10 times now, and you still don't seem to understand, so I am going to assume that the information is overwhelming for you, since we have so many simultaneous discussions going on. I want you to treat each of these next posts as completely seperate. Read, and respond individually.

I wasn't referring to the information in these post. I was talking about 'THAT', which obviously someone noticed and took care of already. The whole flaming thing. But somebody's on point or so it was made to seem that way.

[Straight Success]

1. If you look and read what you have posted you go back and forth as to what fits your argument at the moment. One time you say we are seeing affects of the stimulus then you turn around and say it takes time for things to get fixed...meaning that nothing is fixed, the economy is JUST BARELY stabilizing now, and it's so small it is a bump on the line. It's not from OBAMA! It's the way things happen.

The problem is that the economy is already recovering.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090825/...hvdXNpbmdjb24-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090825/...N1bWVyc2VudA--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090825/...5pbmNvbnN1bQ--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090825/...RlaG91c2VidQ--

These are all pretty solid signs of recovery, especially the housing prices. So, it is becoming quite clear that the economy is reversing its course into recovery, or is at least trending that way.

I've read many articles which suggest the recovery is here and the recession is near or at the end. I've read others that state it may take a little while longer. From what I've seen, I can attest to both argumets. Some people feel that the recession is over and others don't. It's in many of the links already posted.

2. Thats the problem with you, and society today!! You made my point for me! LMAO You are selfish, only care about YOUR needs or wants. Besides, lets put it more realistically. Not 2 guys, but a group of guys with knives are rapping your mom, sister, wife. Guess you would do nothing huh? And I DID walk my ass over there, guess what, still here, and still have no problems with doing it again. If it was YOU, bet you anything that you would be wishing someone came to help you.

Your emotional. What went on in Iraq did not affect America. Point blank. Slavery did, it was here in America. Of course if that was my family, it effects me. I'm a part of it. We don't major ties to Iraq beside business. Their government or ours for that matter has no effect on eachother's policies inside each country. Bad stuff happens in many countries that we have no control over. Cuba and Castro for example. Who are we to say that another country has to abide by our laws?

Wish we could label people like this, put a sign above them, that way when you get in an accident, robbery and get shot, or etc... everyone could see you wouldn't help them, so why should they help you...they could just leave you to fend for yourself, in certain death. Nice huh...?

No... I'll help a stranger in a minute, so long as it does not affect my well being. Again common sense. Also I would help if I was a fire fighter or some other type of heroic act for a good cause that would benifit someone else.

Are you serious about not helping in the holocaust OR SLAVERY BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Guess you haven't had a history class...EVER?
Uhhmmm the major WAR World War II WAS about the holocaust, what do you think it was about? Oil? Money? Ulterior motives? Jesus man, you might want to go back through Elem. and Middle school to get some BASIC facts and knowledge.

No. The halocaust is not the reason WWII broke out. It started because Hitler was trying to bully everyone and take over many countries (New world order under Hitler). The world didn't like that plan. The halocaust is not what started it. We went to war mainly because of Pearl Harbor.

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

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You are wayyyyy toooo emotional.