- This topic has 1,004 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
urbanrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 13, 2009 at 5:24 PM #483477November 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM #482709
patb
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Some well-bred Brits think of Americans as savages — rich and powerful savages with money and big guns, but savages nonetheless.
Also a side effect of us savagely kicking the RedCoats out of the US with our guns… 😉
Michelle is only a private citizen so she can hug the queen as friends would do.
No.. not at a public event, particularly if it was a political event. I did a little search on it.. there is a variant that makes this different. The Queen initiated it by putting her hand on Mrs Obama’s back first. This changes the picture a bit. Only thing that Michelle Obama may have done wrong is keeping her arm at the Queen’s back a little too long after the Queen removed hers. So some if it is blown out of proportion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1166490/Ones-new-best-friend-The-Queen-Michelle-new-touchy-feely-protocol.htmlhttp://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-v-bush-a-study-in-contrasts/
Cute photoshop on the Bush image.. notice that there is no shadow between the faces, but there is sunlight casting shadows on the headcovering of Abdullah. — fake[/quote]
Sorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
November 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM #482875Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Some well-bred Brits think of Americans as savages — rich and powerful savages with money and big guns, but savages nonetheless.
Also a side effect of us savagely kicking the RedCoats out of the US with our guns… 😉
Michelle is only a private citizen so she can hug the queen as friends would do.
No.. not at a public event, particularly if it was a political event. I did a little search on it.. there is a variant that makes this different. The Queen initiated it by putting her hand on Mrs Obama’s back first. This changes the picture a bit. Only thing that Michelle Obama may have done wrong is keeping her arm at the Queen’s back a little too long after the Queen removed hers. So some if it is blown out of proportion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1166490/Ones-new-best-friend-The-Queen-Michelle-new-touchy-feely-protocol.htmlhttp://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-v-bush-a-study-in-contrasts/
Cute photoshop on the Bush image.. notice that there is no shadow between the faces, but there is sunlight casting shadows on the headcovering of Abdullah. — fake[/quote]
Sorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
November 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM #483245Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Some well-bred Brits think of Americans as savages — rich and powerful savages with money and big guns, but savages nonetheless.
Also a side effect of us savagely kicking the RedCoats out of the US with our guns… 😉
Michelle is only a private citizen so she can hug the queen as friends would do.
No.. not at a public event, particularly if it was a political event. I did a little search on it.. there is a variant that makes this different. The Queen initiated it by putting her hand on Mrs Obama’s back first. This changes the picture a bit. Only thing that Michelle Obama may have done wrong is keeping her arm at the Queen’s back a little too long after the Queen removed hers. So some if it is blown out of proportion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1166490/Ones-new-best-friend-The-Queen-Michelle-new-touchy-feely-protocol.htmlhttp://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-v-bush-a-study-in-contrasts/
Cute photoshop on the Bush image.. notice that there is no shadow between the faces, but there is sunlight casting shadows on the headcovering of Abdullah. — fake[/quote]
Sorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
November 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM #483326Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Some well-bred Brits think of Americans as savages — rich and powerful savages with money and big guns, but savages nonetheless.
Also a side effect of us savagely kicking the RedCoats out of the US with our guns… 😉
Michelle is only a private citizen so she can hug the queen as friends would do.
No.. not at a public event, particularly if it was a political event. I did a little search on it.. there is a variant that makes this different. The Queen initiated it by putting her hand on Mrs Obama’s back first. This changes the picture a bit. Only thing that Michelle Obama may have done wrong is keeping her arm at the Queen’s back a little too long after the Queen removed hers. So some if it is blown out of proportion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1166490/Ones-new-best-friend-The-Queen-Michelle-new-touchy-feely-protocol.htmlhttp://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-v-bush-a-study-in-contrasts/
Cute photoshop on the Bush image.. notice that there is no shadow between the faces, but there is sunlight casting shadows on the headcovering of Abdullah. — fake[/quote]
Sorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
November 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM #483551Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Some well-bred Brits think of Americans as savages — rich and powerful savages with money and big guns, but savages nonetheless.
Also a side effect of us savagely kicking the RedCoats out of the US with our guns… 😉
Michelle is only a private citizen so she can hug the queen as friends would do.
No.. not at a public event, particularly if it was a political event. I did a little search on it.. there is a variant that makes this different. The Queen initiated it by putting her hand on Mrs Obama’s back first. This changes the picture a bit. Only thing that Michelle Obama may have done wrong is keeping her arm at the Queen’s back a little too long after the Queen removed hers. So some if it is blown out of proportion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1166490/Ones-new-best-friend-The-Queen-Michelle-new-touchy-feely-protocol.htmlhttp://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-v-bush-a-study-in-contrasts/
Cute photoshop on the Bush image.. notice that there is no shadow between the faces, but there is sunlight casting shadows on the headcovering of Abdullah. — fake[/quote]
Sorry even the right wing websites refer to his kissing Bandar
November 13, 2009 at 8:32 PM #482713Participant[quote=sd_t2][quote=jficquette]There is definitely something to how they think to make them the way they are.
John[/quote]
Yes, we could start with the fact that they think at all.
Neglecting Bush’s far more patronizing and offensive backrub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, let’s focus on one of the few assertions you make that are provable/disprovable — the “doubling” of the national debt under Obama.
This handy tool from the Treasury will help expose your “fuzzy math”:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Putting in Jan 21, 2009 and Nov 12, 2009 as the date range we get:
10.625 trillion and 11.987 trillion, respectively – a 12.8% increase in the national debt.
Putting in the Bush era – Jan 21, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009, however, we get:
5.728 trillion and 10.627 trillion, respectively — an 85.5% increase (that is, a near doubling) of the national debt.
So… whatever political stripe you choose to wear, do your homework and you’ll be more credible.[/quote]
Reality has a well known liberal bias
November 13, 2009 at 8:32 PM #482880Participant[quote=sd_t2][quote=jficquette]There is definitely something to how they think to make them the way they are.
John[/quote]
Yes, we could start with the fact that they think at all.
Neglecting Bush’s far more patronizing and offensive backrub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, let’s focus on one of the few assertions you make that are provable/disprovable — the “doubling” of the national debt under Obama.
This handy tool from the Treasury will help expose your “fuzzy math”:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Putting in Jan 21, 2009 and Nov 12, 2009 as the date range we get:
10.625 trillion and 11.987 trillion, respectively – a 12.8% increase in the national debt.
Putting in the Bush era – Jan 21, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009, however, we get:
5.728 trillion and 10.627 trillion, respectively — an 85.5% increase (that is, a near doubling) of the national debt.
So… whatever political stripe you choose to wear, do your homework and you’ll be more credible.[/quote]
Reality has a well known liberal bias
November 13, 2009 at 8:32 PM #483250Participant[quote=sd_t2][quote=jficquette]There is definitely something to how they think to make them the way they are.
John[/quote]
Yes, we could start with the fact that they think at all.
Neglecting Bush’s far more patronizing and offensive backrub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, let’s focus on one of the few assertions you make that are provable/disprovable — the “doubling” of the national debt under Obama.
This handy tool from the Treasury will help expose your “fuzzy math”:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Putting in Jan 21, 2009 and Nov 12, 2009 as the date range we get:
10.625 trillion and 11.987 trillion, respectively – a 12.8% increase in the national debt.
Putting in the Bush era – Jan 21, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009, however, we get:
5.728 trillion and 10.627 trillion, respectively — an 85.5% increase (that is, a near doubling) of the national debt.
So… whatever political stripe you choose to wear, do your homework and you’ll be more credible.[/quote]
Reality has a well known liberal bias
November 13, 2009 at 8:32 PM #483330Participant[quote=sd_t2][quote=jficquette]There is definitely something to how they think to make them the way they are.
John[/quote]
Yes, we could start with the fact that they think at all.
Neglecting Bush’s far more patronizing and offensive backrub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, let’s focus on one of the few assertions you make that are provable/disprovable — the “doubling” of the national debt under Obama.
This handy tool from the Treasury will help expose your “fuzzy math”:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Putting in Jan 21, 2009 and Nov 12, 2009 as the date range we get:
10.625 trillion and 11.987 trillion, respectively – a 12.8% increase in the national debt.
Putting in the Bush era – Jan 21, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009, however, we get:
5.728 trillion and 10.627 trillion, respectively — an 85.5% increase (that is, a near doubling) of the national debt.
So… whatever political stripe you choose to wear, do your homework and you’ll be more credible.[/quote]
Reality has a well known liberal bias
November 13, 2009 at 8:32 PM #483556Participant[quote=sd_t2][quote=jficquette]There is definitely something to how they think to make them the way they are.
John[/quote]
Yes, we could start with the fact that they think at all.
Neglecting Bush’s far more patronizing and offensive backrub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, let’s focus on one of the few assertions you make that are provable/disprovable — the “doubling” of the national debt under Obama.
This handy tool from the Treasury will help expose your “fuzzy math”:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Putting in Jan 21, 2009 and Nov 12, 2009 as the date range we get:
10.625 trillion and 11.987 trillion, respectively – a 12.8% increase in the national debt.
Putting in the Bush era – Jan 21, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009, however, we get:
5.728 trillion and 10.627 trillion, respectively — an 85.5% increase (that is, a near doubling) of the national debt.
So… whatever political stripe you choose to wear, do your homework and you’ll be more credible.[/quote]
Reality has a well known liberal bias
November 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM #482718Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=Casca]John, add to the list the decision this morning to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM), the 911 mastermind, in federal court in NYC. An absolute travesty of justice. Had the current course with the military tribunals been allowed to run in Gitmo, he was a month away from a death sentance. Now we’ll spend a prince’s ransom to both defend and prosecute him in a court where he will be allowed full constitutional protections. This fuck should have been dead a long time ago. There is evil upon the land.[/quote]
People want to blame Bush for all this but open minded people should see what he was going up against. Corrupt Media, Congress etc.
If the Government ran media wanted to they could destroy Obama in about one week considering all of the “talking points” available and they could do it with a fraction of the effort they used against Bush. Obama has real issues. Bush didn’t.
John[/quote]
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
just another item of incompetence.
November 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM #482884Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=Casca]John, add to the list the decision this morning to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM), the 911 mastermind, in federal court in NYC. An absolute travesty of justice. Had the current course with the military tribunals been allowed to run in Gitmo, he was a month away from a death sentance. Now we’ll spend a prince’s ransom to both defend and prosecute him in a court where he will be allowed full constitutional protections. This fuck should have been dead a long time ago. There is evil upon the land.[/quote]
People want to blame Bush for all this but open minded people should see what he was going up against. Corrupt Media, Congress etc.
If the Government ran media wanted to they could destroy Obama in about one week considering all of the “talking points” available and they could do it with a fraction of the effort they used against Bush. Obama has real issues. Bush didn’t.
John[/quote]
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
just another item of incompetence.
November 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM #483255Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=Casca]John, add to the list the decision this morning to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM), the 911 mastermind, in federal court in NYC. An absolute travesty of justice. Had the current course with the military tribunals been allowed to run in Gitmo, he was a month away from a death sentance. Now we’ll spend a prince’s ransom to both defend and prosecute him in a court where he will be allowed full constitutional protections. This fuck should have been dead a long time ago. There is evil upon the land.[/quote]
People want to blame Bush for all this but open minded people should see what he was going up against. Corrupt Media, Congress etc.
If the Government ran media wanted to they could destroy Obama in about one week considering all of the “talking points” available and they could do it with a fraction of the effort they used against Bush. Obama has real issues. Bush didn’t.
John[/quote]
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
just another item of incompetence.
November 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM #483335Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=Casca]John, add to the list the decision this morning to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM), the 911 mastermind, in federal court in NYC. An absolute travesty of justice. Had the current course with the military tribunals been allowed to run in Gitmo, he was a month away from a death sentance. Now we’ll spend a prince’s ransom to both defend and prosecute him in a court where he will be allowed full constitutional protections. This fuck should have been dead a long time ago. There is evil upon the land.[/quote]
People want to blame Bush for all this but open minded people should see what he was going up against. Corrupt Media, Congress etc.
If the Government ran media wanted to they could destroy Obama in about one week considering all of the “talking points” available and they could do it with a fraction of the effort they used against Bush. Obama has real issues. Bush didn’t.
John[/quote]
What Bush couldn’t run the government run media?
just another item of incompetence.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.