3 Years in...where is that 'change' again?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>>Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden

>*AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right.

Exactly. It took him sixteen fucking hours to get Bin Laden! What a loser.

Interesting that you didn't have this same view when Bush was informed that America was under attack.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

we are getting out of Iraq,

ep, we got out of Iraq DEAD on the same time line as what Bush had. Where is the "CHANGE" in that???

What is really nuts is that Obama will make that sound like he did something different and want his base to be in love with him.

SOS.

They all suck

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

>>Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden

>*AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right.

Exactly. It took him sixteen fucking hours to get Bin Laden! What a loser.

Interesting that you didn't have this same view when Bush was informed that America was under attack.

It's all about our guy Vs your guy. Like a sports team, no matter how bad OBAMA SUCKs we're sticking with him.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this.

Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have.

yet just yesterday you can see my postings defending his invasion. When have you ever defended an Obama decision?

Quote

Quote

But you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer).

Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple.

Let's go with this. To make it fit the bill, Bush got hit by a pitch, though it really only grazed the jersey. He advanced on a pair of balks, and then had to be replaced because he broke a toenail trotting to third. Obama steals home and is credited with the run.

Again, you've failed to put anything up...because you got NOTHING to work with in this situation. You hate it, you can't admit it, but you can't fathom an argument that isn't laugh out loud stupid to let Bush look good here. It's even worse than trying to defend his non service with the Air Reserves during the Vietnam War.

Thanks for proving the point yet again, and showing your hypocrisy of whining about how Obama gets no credit and all the blame.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression.

(Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP)
along with Obama's stimulus package.

Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!"

hugs and cheers!
Shc

So this is what success looks like, heh?

Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads.

Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc.

The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII.

Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it.

It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it.

Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it?

If it wasn't for TARP/Stimulus, then U.S would have went into an economic depression (Great Depression).

This isin't an economic speculation, but an economic fact.

Anyone in late 2008/2009 who looked and read Citi, Bank of America, AIG, JP Morgan know that it barely survived during those crucial months. This is undeniable.

Now ask yourself this question: Had these corporations failed, what economic repercussions would they have on the U.S economy? Something much much severe than the "Great Recession" we actually had.

Quote

Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it

This isin't contradictory.
The stimulus was too small to bring the U.S to full employment and have real growth, but the TARP/stimulus was large enough to stave off the Great Depression.

Quote

It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it.

Thank you for asking. When I get access to the old charts and numbers, I'l post it.

In the meantime, do help yourself with this topic (its more in relation to printing money, but it does help to understand eco 101 and the Euro crisis).
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4236166;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;


Cheers
Shc

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it.

More like you've been diagnosed with cancer and you went into chemotherapy.

The cancer went away, but you still have other after-effects / adverse effects. You blame the chemotherapy for the after-effects while you completely deny you ever had cancer at all.

Yes the 2008/2009 crisis was THAT serious.

Cheers
Shc

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Thanks for proving the point yet again, and showing your hypocrisy of whining about how Obama gets no credit and all the blame.

to reiterate, you still haven't provided an actual argument, and you're resorting to a nonsensical one liners. Where's my whining, exactly? Citations are good. Clue is good. Honesty is good.

And the score remains 1-0. Deal with it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Where's my whining, exactly? Citations are good.

So is memory. From your post 39:

"Obama can't have any credit for the success (or any other), but any failings are still fair game."

Quote

Clue is good. Honesty is good.

Indeed - maybe you should try getting some of both.

Quote

And the score remains 1-0.

Yup...Bush 1, Obama 0.

Quote

Deal with it.

Indeed, you should.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Where's my whining, exactly? Citations are good.

So is memory. From your post 39:

"Obama can't have any credit for the success (or any other), but any failings are still fair game."

That's a simple statement of fact. Waiting 16 hours is awful, but waiting 7 years and doing nothing is hard work!

Quote

Quote

And the score remains 1-0.

Yup...Bush 1, Obama 0.

So are we measuring the number of "Mission Accomplished" banners in this new game? Certainly it isn't evil henchmen killed.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression.

(Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP)
along with Obama's stimulus package.

Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!"

hugs and cheers!
Shc

So this is what success looks like, heh?

Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads.

Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc.

The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII.

Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it.

It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it.

Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it?

If it wasn't for TARP/Stimulus, then U.S would have went into an economic depression (Great Depression).

This isin't an economic speculation, but an economic fact.

Anyone in late 2008/2009 who looked and read Citi, Bank of America, AIG, JP Morgan know that it barely survived during those crucial months. This is undeniable.

Now ask yourself this question: Had these corporations failed, what economic repercussions would they have on the U.S economy? Something much much severe than the "Great Recession" we actually had.

Quote

Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it

This isin't contradictory.
The stimulus was too small to bring the U.S to full employment and have real growth, but the TARP/stimulus was large enough to stave off the Great Depression.

Quote

It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it.

Thank you for asking. When I get access to the old charts and numbers, I'l post it.

In the meantime, do help yourself with this topic (its more in relation to printing money, but it does help to understand eco 101 and the Euro crisis).
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4236166;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;


Cheers
Shc

Consider this, from an article titled “Liquidity Crises – Understanding sources and limiting consequences: A theoretical framework,” by Robert E. Lucas, Jr. and Nancy L. Stokey:

In studies conducted by Nancy Stokey and Robert Lucas, the WHOLE banking system held approximately 50 billion $ in cash by August 2008. The banking system was clearing about 2.9 to 3 trillion $ PER DAY. This wouldn’t be so bad if the contracts said “We’l pay IF we have money”. No, most of the trades involved the promise to pay somebody in hard cash based on the contracts given. Banks would therefore have to rely heavily on the repo market to pay them back in these hard cash. If a certain bank or financial institution cannot pay back and this becomes public information, then the bank will go under through a bank run. Having 50 B$ for 3 trillion $, there is no margin for error.

Even the slightest doubt in the quality of the collaterals traded in the repo market could break the system. Guess what? 2008 was it.

More about this later…


cheers

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Consider this, from an article titled “Liquidity Crises – Understanding sources and limiting consequences: A theoretical framework,” by Robert E. Lucas, Jr. and Nancy L. Stokey:

In studies conducted by Nancy Stokey and Robert Lucas, the WHOLE banking system held approximately 50 billion $ in cash by August 2008. The banking system was clearing about 2.9 to 3 trillion $ PER DAY. This wouldn’t be so bad if the contracts said “We’l pay IF we have money”. No, most of the trades involved the promise to pay somebody in hard cash based on the contracts given. Banks would therefore have to rely heavily on the repo market to pay them back in these hard cash. If a certain bank or financial institution cannot pay back and this becomes public information, then the bank will go under through a bank run. Having 50 B$ for 3 trillion $, there is no margin for error.

Even the slightest doubt in the quality of the collaterals traded in the repo market could break the system. Guess what? 2008 was it.

More about this later…

SOME GRAPHS/NUMBERS

GRAPH 1
http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2011/12/NomuraChart1.png

GRAPH 2
http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2011/12/NomuraChart2.png

The basic summary:

Having basic good capital wasn't the sole problem behind the 2008 crisis. Lehman and Bear Stearns fell because brokers who had the power over their short-term financing started to worry about the collateral that was promised to them.

When confidence over the banks went poof, then financial institutions as old as Lehman will fall easily.
If the whole financial institution is put in doubt then all the large banks will become exposed to bank runs.


And we're not out of the woods yet. With the euro crisis, the concerns aren't anymore about collateral relating to sub-prime and mortgage securities, but about their exposures in the euro countries.

Point is, when confidence fell out of flavour, the Obama administration took the major steps necessary to restore this confidence. The Government was the back-stop in the relation.

The Government realized this situation and took the appropriate steps with TARP/Stimulus. This is what economists mean when they say the administration stopped the economy from a freefall. Its not big enough to bring unemployment to 4%, but it is big enough to have it stabilized in the 9-11%.


I also want to mention about the Euro because they are so focused on the so called expansionary austerity.

Remember: There is no Government back-stop. The ECB refuses to absolutely defend Italian bonds/Spanish bonds. And just like banking confidence, confidence in countries bonds are necessary ESPECIALLY when the country does not have the power to print their own money.


will write/edit post more on this later..

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where's my whining, exactly? Citations are good.

So is memory. From your post 39:

"Obama can't have any credit for the success (or any other), but any failings are still fair game."

That's a simple statement of fact. Waiting 16 hours is awful, but waiting 7 years and doing nothing is hard work!

And you prove the point yet *again*.

Quote

Quote

Quote

And the score remains 1-0.

Yup...Bush 1, Obama 0.

So are we measuring the number of "Mission Accomplished" banners in this new game?

Ah, "the old familiar lie" yet again....where a banner celebrating a ship's return from tour becomes an Iraq war statement...at least in the minds of the left.

Quote

Certainly it isn't evil henchmen killed.

You're right - Bush is ahead 3 - 1 on that score.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So are we measuring the number of "Mission Accomplished" banners in this new game?

Ah, "the old familiar lie" yet again....where a banner celebrating a ship's return from tour becomes an Iraq war statement...at least in the minds of the left.

So you're claiming those photos of Bush on the carrier with this banner were fakes created by the left?

BTW, let's see pics of all the other warships with similar banners.

Quote

Quote

Certainly it isn't evil henchmen killed.

You're right - Bush is ahead 3 - 1 on that score.

Oooh, even more fascinating. Which 3 are you claiming? Oh, they have to be leaders, not underlings. Otherwise, Obama's count gets to go up as well.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression.

(Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP)
along with Obama's stimulus package.

Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!"

hugs and cheers!
Shc

So this is what success looks like, heh?

Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads.

Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc.

The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII.

Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it.

It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it.

Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it?

If it wasn't for TARP/Stimulus, then U.S would have went into an economic depression (Great Depression).

This isin't an economic speculation, but an economic fact.

Anyone in late 2008/2009 who looked and read Citi, Bank of America, AIG, JP Morgan know that it barely survived during those crucial months. This is undeniable.

Now ask yourself this question: Had these corporations failed, what economic repercussions would they have on the U.S economy? Something much much severe than the "Great Recession" we actually had.

Quote

Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it

This isin't contradictory.
The stimulus was too small to bring the U.S to full employment and have real growth, but the TARP/stimulus was large enough to stave off the Great Depression.

Quote

It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it.

Thank you for asking. When I get access to the old charts and numbers, I'l post it.

In the meantime, do help yourself with this topic (its more in relation to printing money, but it does help to understand eco 101 and the Euro crisis).
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4236166;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;


Cheers
Shc

More on the Euro (its a very fascinating subject to mention since its very current-event):

See Italian 10 years bond:
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBTPGR10:IND

Italy's economy is sustainable yet it is constantly attacked by the market. Same principles with the banks. If it is believed that they will fail, then they will fail.

Right now, ALL european nations are under austerity (aka cut cut cut spending) and even the most optimistic economists are forecasting a European recession. The more they try to balance the budget through "budget cuts", the more they'l end up missing growth target and have the very possibility of getting into a catastrophic deflation.

This will be a lesson to the U.S too who are also looking to "cut and slash" their budget in the name of expansionary austerity.

I'l try to find graphs again in regards to Cameron's cut & slash methods and what that did to overall U.K business confidence (hint: It does not look good).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-k-business-confidence-index-falls-to-lowest-in-two-years.html

"U.K. business confidence declined in March to the lowest in two years, suggesting the economy may struggle to gather strength in the second quarter.

A gauge of sentiment, which aims to predict economic developments four months in advance, fell to 1 from 3 in February, London-based Lloyds Banking Group Plc (LLOY) said in an e- mailed statement today. The share of companies that were less optimistic about economic prospects increased to 44 percent from 36 percent in the previous month."


http://www.aei.org/404
AEI paper on austerity:
"there is a great deal more controversy concerning the impact of successful consolidation on GDP growth. Although empirical studies have found many consolidations coupled with expansion, the degree to which consolidation drives rather than merely accompanies expansion is disputed. Various mechanisms have been proposed through which consolidation may spur growth, including credibility effects on interest rates and the effects outlined under the expectational view. However, the literature has identified endogeneity issues in many of these studies that may cause them to overstate expansionary effects."

more on this later through edits.


more on this through edits.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So you're claiming those photos of Bush on the carrier with this banner were fakes created by the left?

Nope, I'm saying that it was for the ship, not Iraq...something confirmed by the Navy, btw.

Quote

As explained by Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea. The idea popped up in one of the meetings aboard the ship preparing for its homecoming and thought it would be good to have a banner, 'Mission Accomplished.' The sailors then asked if the White House could get the sign made. ... The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," Cmdr. Chun continued noting that the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.

But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Certainly it isn't evil henchmen killed.

You're right - Bush is ahead 3 - 1 on that score.

Oooh, even more fascinating. Which 3 are you claiming? Oh, they have to be leaders, not underlings. Otherwise, Obama's count gets to go up as well.

Sadam, Uday and Qusay. I think you'll find Bush ahead on underlings, as well - as of May of this year, it was 7-3 in favor of Bush for the AQ top 10. link.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So you're claiming those photos of Bush on the carrier with this banner were fakes created by the left?

Nope, I'm saying that it was for the ship, not Iraq...something confirmed by the Navy, btw.

Quote

As explained by Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea. The idea popped up in one of the meetings aboard the ship preparing for its homecoming and thought it would be good to have a banner, 'Mission Accomplished.' The sailors then asked if the White House could get the sign made. ... The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," Cmdr. Chun continued noting that the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.

But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

Let's leave the spin zone and evaluate the above.

The ship is receiving the President with an unnecessary jet landing on a carrier (was 30 miles offshore, could have more safely delivered him via helicopter.) The White House produced the banner, hung the banner, and used it to declare the end of combat in Iraq.

It was a PR stunt that backfired greatly with Bush and Rove later wishing it had never been there.

Quote

Sadam, Uday and Qusay.

sounds like triple counting to me. BTW, John Rich gave the US the credit for Quaddafi yesterday.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you're claiming those photos of Bush on the carrier with this banner were fakes created by the left?

Nope, I'm saying that it was for the ship, not Iraq...something confirmed by the Navy, btw.

Quote

As explained by Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea. The idea popped up in one of the meetings aboard the ship preparing for its homecoming and thought it would be good to have a banner, 'Mission Accomplished.' The sailors then asked if the White House could get the sign made. ... The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," Cmdr. Chun continued noting that the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.

But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

Let's leave the spin zone and evaluate the above.

The ship is receiving the President with an unnecessary jet landing on a carrier (was 30 miles offshore, could have more safely delivered him via helicopter.) The White House produced the banner, hung the banner, and used it to declare the end of combat in Iraq.

I thought you said we were leaving the spin zone - what part of "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea" were you unable to comprehend?

Quote

It was a PR stunt that backfired greatly with Bush and Rove later wishing it had never been there.

Thanks to the news spinning it like you have, yes.

Quote

Quote

Sadam, Uday and Qusay.

sounds like triple counting to me.

I'm sure you think so.

Quote

BTW, John Rich gave the US the credit for Quaddafi yesterday.

So?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I thought you said we were leaving the spin zone - what part of "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea" were you unable to comprehend?

The part where it's a bald faced lie.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I thought you said we were leaving the spin zone - what part of "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea" were you unable to comprehend?

The part where it's a bald faced lie.

Yes, because YOU know better than the Navy.

Thanks for once again proving GQ's point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I thought you said we were leaving the spin zone - what part of "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea" were you unable to comprehend?

The part where it's a bald faced lie.

Yes, because YOU know better than the Navy.

Thanks for once again proving GQ's point.

Uh, who is the Command in Chief of the Navy? Hint: it's the same people we know for a fact made the banner. The same people we know for a fact hung the banner. Is it so hard for you to accept that they are the same people who came up with the banner?

Next we could talk about yellow cake fantasies...

Sheesh. We're not in high school here. We can have a big boy conversation about politics.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html

Quote

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Uh, who is the Command in Chief of the Navy? Hint: it's the same people we know for a fact made the banner. The same people we know for a fact hung the banner. Is it so hard for you to accept that they are the same people who came up with the banner?

So, even given the statement that it was the SHIP'S request, you're still saying that it was all Bush...was nano-thermite involved, too?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Uh, who is the Command in Chief of the Navy? Hint: it's the same people we know for a fact made the banner. The same people we know for a fact hung the banner. Is it so hard for you to accept that they are the same people who came up with the banner?

So, even given the statement that it was the SHIP'S request, you're still saying that it was all Bush...was nano-thermite involved, too?

I think I've made it quite clear. And unlike you, backed it up.

Like in the case of credit for Bin Laden's death, the world has spoken about Mission Accomplished. No one buys your story.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Uh, who is the Command in Chief of the Navy? Hint: it's the same people we know for a fact made the banner. The same people we know for a fact hung the banner. Is it so hard for you to accept that they are the same people who came up with the banner?

So, even given the statement that it was the SHIP'S request, you're still saying that it was all Bush...was nano-thermite involved, too?

I think I've made it quite clear. And unlike you, backed it up.

Your opinion vs. statement from the Navy.

Nano-thermite for the win loss!

Quote

Like in the case of credit for Bin Laden's death, the world has spoken about Mission Accomplished. No one buys your story.

I don't give a flying fuck if anyone 'buys' the story or not. Consensus defines nothing but popular opinion, shaped by the MSM.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't give a flying fuck if anyone 'buys' the story or not. Consensus defines nothing but popular opinion, shaped by the MSM.

Consensus doesn't buy the nanothermite story either...since there's no evidence to support it. Mission Accomplished, otoh...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mission Accomplished, otoh...

...is the Lib version of nanothermite.

Make sure to say hi to Rhys at the next meeting.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706