Which one of these was the worst president ever?

[Sallow]

Why were the Muj being funded by this country?
It was because they were opposed to the Soviet Union, which was our chief enemy at the time.
Now, you left out that inconvenient fact. That is a lie by omission.

No I didn't. I pointed out that George Bush's father had in FACT been funding the muj, Osama bin Laden was one of their leaders. Here's another FACT. Orlando Bosch, a cuban terrorist reponsible for the bombing deaths of over 70 people was pardoned by George HW Bush.

Orlando Bosch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems that conservative like to be in bed with terrorists when it suits their agenda.

You also skipped right over ANOTHER fact. That the Bushes and Bin Ladens have been doing business for years.

But here's another "fact". Without the funding..the Soviets probably would have left on their own.

You're backflipping super double twisting "lie by omission" not withstanding.

You're a liar and dissembler.
Clinton pardoned the FALN terrorists. You left that out. Because you are a liar and dissembler. You drag in every extraneous fact and throw it up to see if it sticks.
Liar.

Which one of those "terrorists" were convicted of harming anyone? You might also site Clinton for dealing with the IRA as well. But that was to settle a conflict. So gee Rabbi..you bring in a non-sequitor to the argument for the first point..and I help you with the second point..and you still lose.

Haven't lied about a thing here.

But you haven't addressed why you continue to vote for people that have in the past supported those who committed some very massively destructive terrorist attacks that really did kill people and appoint cronies in key positions that directly benefit themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

No I didn't. I pointed out that George Bush's father had in FACT been funding the muj, Osama bin Laden was one of their leaders. Here's another FACT. Orlando Bosch, a cuban terrorist reponsible for the bombing deaths of over 70 people was pardoned by George HW Bush.

Orlando Bosch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems that conservative like to be in bed with terrorists when it suits their agenda.

You also skipped right over ANOTHER fact. That the Bushes and Bin Ladens have been doing business for years.

But here's another "fact". Without the funding..the Soviets probably would have left on their own.

You're backflipping super double twisting "lie by omission" not withstanding.

You're a liar and dissembler.
Clinton pardoned the FALN terrorists. You left that out. Because you are a liar and dissembler. You drag in every extraneous fact and throw it up to see if it sticks.
Liar.

Which one of those "terrorists" were convicted of harming anyone? You might also site Clinton for dealing with the IRA as well. But that was to settle a conflict. So gee Rabbi..you bring in a non-sequitor to the argument for the first point..and I help you with the second point..and you still lose.

Haven't lied about a thing here.

But you haven't addressed why you continue to vote for people that have in the past supported those who committed some very massively destructive terrorist attacks that really did kill people and appoint cronies in key positions that directly benefit themselves.

Raising more irrelevant points again.

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago. There were convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as firearms and explosives violations.[3] The 16 were convicted of conspiracy and sedition and sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials."

Clinton pardoned terrorists. Obama made friends with terrorists. The Left is far more in bed with terrorists than anyone remotely on the conservative side.

You have lied by both omission and commission.

 

[Sallow]

You're a liar and dissembler.
Clinton pardoned the FALN terrorists. You left that out. Because you are a liar and dissembler. You drag in every extraneous fact and throw it up to see if it sticks.
Liar.

Which one of those "terrorists" were convicted of harming anyone? You might also site Clinton for dealing with the IRA as well. But that was to settle a conflict. So gee Rabbi..you bring in a non-sequitor to the argument for the first point..and I help you with the second point..and you still lose.

Haven't lied about a thing here.

But you haven't addressed why you continue to vote for people that have in the past supported those who committed some very massively destructive terrorist attacks that really did kill people and appoint cronies in key positions that directly benefit themselves.

Raising more irrelevant points again.

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago. There were convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as firearms and explosives violations.[3] The 16 were convicted of conspiracy and sedition and sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials."

Clinton pardoned terrorists. Obama made friends with terrorists. The Left is far more in bed with terrorists than anyone remotely on the conservative side.

You have lied by both omission and commission.

No..you do. And you didn't even source your quote. That's okay..I did..to show what you left out, liar.

Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence seeing as none of the 16 had been convicted of harming anyone and they had already served 19 years in prison

Bill Clinton pardon controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was done as a way to renounce the violence of the FALN. Seems you probably have trouble with that as they are Puerto Rican. Not so much with the IRA eh? Which Clinton dealt with directly for the very same purpose.

Obama kills Terrorists. Dead. Bush opens businesses with their brothers. See the difference?

Now why did President George HW Bush..pardon Orlando Bosch? What violent terrorist group was Bush trying to have renounce violence? And why in the name of all that's good would he pardon a mass murderer?

Was it to help a friend?

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama is in bed with Bill Ayers, an American terrorist responsible for killing people.
Deal with it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Obama is in bed with Bill Ayers, an American terrorist responsible for killing people.
Deal with it.

Great... now I have to go poke out my mind's eye.

Does Bernie Dorn and Michelle Antoinette have anything to say about such activities?

 

[Sallow]

Obama is in bed with Bill Ayers, an American terrorist responsible for killing people.
Deal with it.

Ayer's never killed anyone. He was never even brought to trial. And he was no more a friend to Ayer's then you are to the departed Osama bin Laden. They aren't friends.

So..the fact you keep having to change the topic without address a single thing is pretty telling..given the insults you've been spewing.

Let me help ya here..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE]YouTube - ‪Beck - Loser‬‏[/ame]

Yes..Rabbi..you are.

 

[BenNatuf]

Ok... care to explain? There is limited dollars printed, so unless we print more... or take it in Yen, Rupees, Pounds Sterling, etc and add it to our pile... It's not created, it's taken.

Wealth is a measure of more than money. Wealth is a measure of all property.

As the economy grows the amount of goods and services it produces grows, money is valued according to the ammount of goods and services it represents, hence, when there are more goods and services more wealth is available. When the economy grows faster than the money supply new wealth is created, someone gains it, but no-one else has any less wealth for it.

Do you think our nations wealth is equivalent today to what it was in 1776? 1850? 1975? The money supply grows almost every year as more goods and services become available in an ever expanding economy (with the occassional correction). Wealth is not finite. There is no upper limit beyond which you cannot go.

Bill Gates having 40B hasn't made one person poorer.

BTW, printing money in and of itself does not create wealth... it creates inflation and steals wealth.

Truly ridiculous.

You find factual information about basic economics rediculous?

How unsurprizing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Carter, hands down. Why? Two words: MISERY INDEX

You didn't like 18.5% interest rates?

Obama might get hurt from the same things that hurt carter....other than the interest rates

 

[BenNatuf]

Carter, hands down. Why? Two words: MISERY INDEX

You didn't like 18.5% interest rates?

Obama might get hurt from the same things that hurt carter....other than the interest rates

The interest rates are coming. There is simply no way the dollar survives as the worlds reserve currency if we do not reverse the feds monitization. And, there's no way we survive in our consumption and services based economy if the dollar is not the worlds reserve currency.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You didn't like 18.5% interest rates?

Obama might get hurt from the same things that hurt carter....other than the interest rates

The interest rates are coming. There is simply no way the dollar survives as the worlds reserve currency if we do not reverse the feds monitization. And, there's no way we survive in our consumption and services based economy if the dollar is not the worlds reserve currency.

Ah but see thats the intention. Obama wants the dollar to lose its value so that our country loses its wealth. That will help "spread the wealth to the poorer countries"

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama might get hurt from the same things that hurt carter....other than the interest rates

The interest rates are coming. There is simply no way the dollar survives as the worlds reserve currency if we do not reverse the feds monitization. And, there's no way we survive in our consumption and services based economy if the dollar is not the worlds reserve currency.

Ah but see thats the intention. Obama wants the dollar to lose its value so that our country loses its wealth. That will help "spread the wealth to the poorer countries"

You are probably right he thinks that way. We are rich because others are poor. Others are poor because we are rich.
The truth is that there is no limit to wealth. When we prosper, others do too.
That doesn't fit in well with class warfare though. Not an election year meme.

 

[BenNatuf]

Obama might get hurt from the same things that hurt carter....other than the interest rates

The interest rates are coming. There is simply no way the dollar survives as the worlds reserve currency if we do not reverse the feds monitization. And, there's no way we survive in our consumption and services based economy if the dollar is not the worlds reserve currency.

Ah but see thats the intention. Obama wants the dollar to lose its value so that our country loses its wealth. That will help "spread the wealth to the poorer countries"

it may help "equalize the poverty", but it ain't gonna "spread no wealth".

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Im not saying he is right or it will work, just commenting on what I think his motives are after reading his own books and hearing the public statements of him and those he surrounds himself with.

 

[BenNatuf]

Im not saying he is right or it will work, just commenting on what I think his motives are after reading his own books and hearing the public statements of him and those he surrounds himself with.

I meant to add to what you said, not disagree with it. If it came across as disagreement I must appologize for not making it clear enough.

 

[keee keee]

Anyone who voted for Obama in this poll is a RACIST[/COLOR That will be the line coming from the Kool-aid drinking Obama lovers. It has nothing to do with race or color This Guy is the worst President in the history of this country. The Happiest person in this country is Jimma Carter because this fool was elected president. Took him of the top of the list of the worst!!!!

 

[Sallow]

Wealth is a measure of more than money. Wealth is a measure of all property.

As the economy grows the amount of goods and services it produces grows, money is valued according to the ammount of goods and services it represents, hence, when there are more goods and services more wealth is available. When the economy grows faster than the money supply new wealth is created, someone gains it, but no-one else has any less wealth for it.

Do you think our nations wealth is equivalent today to what it was in 1776? 1850? 1975? The money supply grows almost every year as more goods and services become available in an ever expanding economy (with the occassional correction). Wealth is not finite. There is no upper limit beyond which you cannot go.

Bill Gates having 40B hasn't made one person poorer.

BTW, printing money in and of itself does not create wealth... it creates inflation and steals wealth.

Truly ridiculous.

You find factual information about basic economics rediculous?

How unsurprizing.

Um..no.

What's ridiculous is that you don't see that one person with 40 billion is a dangerous thing. Gates set up a defacto monopoly with Microsoft and gobbled up software companies like candy. He embedded the windows IE with the Windows OS and even made it almost impossible for any one to write apps for Windows. When he was called on this, several judgements found that indeed Microsoft violated several anti-trust laws. However, Gates had enough money to get that overturned. And it didn't hurt that he had a supreme court and President friendly to his cause. Microsoft is the type of company that squashes true capitalism. Because capitalism without competition..is not capitalism. It's corporatism.

 

[BenNatuf]

Truly ridiculous.

You find factual information about basic economics rediculous?

How unsurprizing.

Um..no.

What's ridiculous is that you don't see that one person with 40 billion is a dangerous thing. Gates set up a defacto monopoly with Microsoft and gobbled up software companies like candy. He embedded the windows IE with the Windows OS and even made it almost impossible for any one to write apps for Windows. When he was called on this, several judgements found that indeed Microsoft violated several anti-trust laws. However, Gates had enough money to get that overturned. And it didn't hurt that he had a supreme court and President friendly to his cause. Microsoft is the type of company that squashes true capitalism. Because capitalism without competition..is not capitalism. It's corporatism.

No, what's rediculous is you not knowing that the commentary on wealth creation had nothing to do with what some people might consider unethical business practices. Bill Gates has every right to gobble up whatever companies choose to sell to him. Bill gates has a perfect right to put his programming into his programming. Bill gates has a perfect right to protect his program from encroachments and use by other peoples programming. You on the other hand have a perfect right not to buy his programming, there's plenty of open source stuff out there. Bottom line is Bill gates can put together and market his programming any way Bill Gates wants to, and you can choose to either buy it or not. Bill Gates does not have to make his programming compatible with anyone elses. That would be how liberty works.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ok... care to explain? There is limited dollars printed, so unless we print more... or take it in Yen, Rupees, Pounds Sterling, etc and add it to our pile... It's not created, it's taken.

Wealth is a measure of more than money. Wealth is a measure of all property.

As the economy grows the amount of goods and services it produces grows, money is valued according to the ammount of goods and services it represents, hence, when there are more goods and services more wealth is available. When the economy grows faster than the money supply new wealth is created, someone gains it, but no-one else has any less wealth for it.

Do you think our nations wealth is equivalent today to what it was in 1776? 1850? 1975? The money supply grows almost every year as more goods and services become available in an ever expanding economy (with the occassional correction). Wealth is not finite. There is no upper limit beyond which you cannot go.

Bill Gates having 40B hasn't made one person poorer.

BTW, printing money in and of itself does not create wealth... it creates inflation and steals wealth.

Truly ridiculous.

Its actually accurate.

 

[BenNatuf]

Wealth is a measure of more than money. Wealth is a measure of all property.

As the economy grows the amount of goods and services it produces grows, money is valued according to the ammount of goods and services it represents, hence, when there are more goods and services more wealth is available. When the economy grows faster than the money supply new wealth is created, someone gains it, but no-one else has any less wealth for it.

Do you think our nations wealth is equivalent today to what it was in 1776? 1850? 1975? The money supply grows almost every year as more goods and services become available in an ever expanding economy (with the occassional correction). Wealth is not finite. There is no upper limit beyond which you cannot go.

Bill Gates having 40B hasn't made one person poorer.

BTW, printing money in and of itself does not create wealth... it creates inflation and steals wealth.

Truly ridiculous.

Its actually accurate.

It's simply amazing how liberals seem to think putting limits on one mans ability to persue happiness will somehow mean that anyone else has more of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is the absolute root of class envy and demagoguery. See, he's got a mansion and you don't. That means he MUST have taken something from you. Vote for me and I'll get you what's coming to you.

It doesnt get any more naked than that.
And it is totally wrong. Because if you take money from one man to give to another then they both become poorer.