Obama: I'm the President of the United States; I Don't Need to Borrow a Computer

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]ReggieRay[/nom]Another clueless libtard speaks.[/citation]

And somehow the 4500+ dead Americans in the FAKE Iraq war which also costs us over $3trillion in borrowed money from China is some how a GOOD thing? Bush and Cheney are war criminals by USA and international standards.

Remember the FAKE intel on WMDs? Oh yeah, France and many other countries SAID the intel was crap. People in the CIA said the intel was CRAP.

No matter what, that idiot crapped his pants for 7 minutes while America was under attack on 9/11. He's an AWOL idiot how got the job on daddys coat tails and business deals with Karl "not an American name" Rove and "My best business oil partner who kind of makes Darth Vader look nice" Cheney.

Can't change the facts... now MATTER what your Muslim-owned FOXnews or Pill-popping closet homosexual Limbaugh says.
 
[citation][nom]EnFoRceR22[/nom]After reading all your posts I'm sure its your attitude thats the problem not the "liberal man" keeping you down. Jesus didn't form a religion and he was simply "got the most votes" out of the supposed people that were to be the savior. He was simply a prophecy of a religion that may or may have not been named yet. If it was me you would have gotten a do it again stamp. I'm pretty sure they were a tad bit more specific on what they meant by leader. Seems your brain washing is your major problem here.. Blame it on everyone around you and not on perhaps the one making the mistakes.. (sure sounds like a republican to me Im sure the class's had useful information I'm also pretty sure you just didn't consider it as such or just dismissed it as liberal garbage simply because you didn't agree with what was said.[/citation]

no. I learned the information the classes were teaching: English Comp I, Speech, Intro to Criminal Justice, Leadership. I also got the homework done and did it well. The problem was that I expressed a conservative viewpoint and got marked down with whatever excuse the teachers could think of, many of them totally BS like "I don't like the way you formulated this argument" for -20% on a "how to" paper on hooking up a computer in English Comp I, or marking me down 40% of my grade for not having one word in my references italicized. I got through the classes, learned the info, got the homework done right, and still failed the course because the teachers were idiots.

As for the "brainwashing" part, I'll give one very obvious example. In my Leadership class, part of the grading rubric for the so called "Critical Thinking" assignment was "Make sure your standpoint agrees with academic standard by using references to approved academic sources. If your belief system doesn't lead you to the same conclusion as the academic source, then you must re-examine your belief system." (copied directly from the rubric)

That is blatant "Academia is always right" garbage. I don't agree with that. So many so called "experts" as so insulated from the real world that their theories are just total garbage. They write papers about their opinions on how things work, yet never test those theories against any real world results. They just want the students to believe that the only source of information should be their controlled academia.

This leads to things that are directly opposed to productivity in the real world such as "multiculturalism is a must in the business world" and "wallow in complexity". (Multiculturalism, when forced, increases conflicts between systems, such as punctuality and acceptable language, which harms the work environment. Such as I heard from my boss in a previous job: "She's latino, she doesn't have to be here on time." Do you know what that garbage does to morale in a company? Excessive complexity, when forced beyond what is necessary, increases error, loopholes, and unintended results, which creates bad products and bad working environments.) This forced authority of academia in the US is resulting in stalling our entire society, and curtailing creative thinking and solutions. It's gotten as bad these days as the Christian church was back in the middle ages. People who disagree with "academic sources" are branded heretics and thrown out of many jobs, especially when it comes to climate change theories.

There are a great many people (including, but not limited to, myself) who have been unable to get through college not because they weren't doing the work and learning the info. They get held back because they won't subscribe to the liberal tripe.
 
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]And somehow the 4500+ dead Americans in the FAKE Iraq war which also costs us over $3trillion in borrowed money from China is some how a GOOD thing? Bush and Cheney are war criminals by USA and international standards.Remember the FAKE intel on WMDs? Oh yeah, France and many other countries SAID the intel was crap. People in the CIA said the intel was CRAP.No matter what, that idiot crapped his pants for 7 minutes while America was under attack on 9/11. He's an AWOL idiot how got the job on daddys coat tails and business deals with Karl "not an American name" Rove and "My best business oil partner who kind of makes Darth Vader look nice" Cheney.Can't change the facts... now MATTER what your Muslim-owned FOXnews or Pill-popping closet homosexual Limbaugh says.[/citation]
You are right, you cant change the facts. So, I want you to find me an article from before the war started that specifically has france saying our intelligence is bad. I also dont see where you are getting this 3 trillion figure, since the only number I can see says somewhere in the range of 800 billion for iraq.
 
[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]Before this whole Libyan thing, I just saw Obama as the dem in the typical dem vs rep crap. Now, he needs to step down. What did Libya do to the US to even provoke this? This is the most impeachable offense. At least both of the Bushes did what they were supposed to when it came to congress.[/citation]

Ever hear of Lockerbie and PanAm Flight 103?

Perhaps you were unaware that Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, had personally ordered Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to carry the bomb on to flight 103.

I could go on if you like :)
 
[citation][nom]TheRabidDeer[/nom]You are right, you cant change the facts. So, I want you to find me an article from before the war started that specifically has france saying our intelligence is bad. I also dont see where you are getting this 3 trillion figure, since the only number I can see says somewhere in the range of 800 billion for iraq.[/citation]

I suspect (since Dub's daddy and The Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax) we have spent more than $3 trillion in Iraq over the last 20 years while killing hundreds of thousands ...

And Saddam did not even blow up a passenger plane full of US citizens.

:)
 
[citation][nom]TheRabidDeer[/nom]You are right, you cant change the facts. So, I want you to find me an article from before the war started that specifically has france saying our intelligence is bad. I also dont see where you are getting this 3 trillion figure, since the only number I can see says somewhere in the range of 800 billion for iraq.[/citation]

What would be the point? Obviously the ability to do research on your own is beyond your capabilities. You need a fascist homosexual to hold your hand.

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money."

Because we couldn't afford to PAY for the war and run the USA - Bush had to borrow money to pay for the war and to keep us functioning.

Notice, you didn't have anything to say about the intel. Oh 2003 is such a distant memory... if only there was a way to look at news from back then.. its so HAZY. Oh, try YOUTUBE, type in " iraq war protest 2003 "

View this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX2rS6p3akw

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024408

But hey... being a tool is a lifestyle, eh?
 
Tomshardware's #1 goof:
Putting the icons for responses in a box with a response....
that is not related to the response in that box!!!

When...WHEN will they ever correct this?
 
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]What would be the point? Obviously the ability to do research on your own is beyond your capabilities. You need a fascist homosexual to hold your hand."According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money."Because we couldn't afford to PAY for the war and run the USA - Bush had to borrow money to pay for the war and to keep us functioning.Notice, you didn't have anything to say about the intel. Oh 2003 is such a distant memory... if only there was a way to look at news from back then.. its so HAZY. Oh, try YOUTUBE, type in " iraq war protest 2003 "View this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX2rS6p3akwhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story [...] Id=5024408But hey... being a tool is a lifestyle, eh?[/citation]
Iraq AND Afghanistan wars, COULD cost, and potentially by 2017. Not only is it 600 billion less than you estimated, it is still not what it actually cost. I dont quite understand the national debt and how it all works, but I imagine the billions for the war are dwarfed in the few trillion in actual costs that have gone through in recent years (including the end of bush's term).

I dont have much to say about the intel because I was like 14 when that stuff was going on. I didnt keep fully up to date on news. Also, its not my duty to do the research since you are making the claims the burden is on you to prove them.

Thanks for the links, but it still doesnt have anything that says the french claimed our intel was bad. He said the war might not be necessary, but that doesnt mean the intel is bad. In fact, in the video you so kindly provide, he states, and I quote, "As for WMD's, biological or chemical, we dont know" as a response to the question of if he believed if saddam had WMD's. Basically, his stance was to keep investigating.

Anyway, thanks for being a jerk and essentially proving yourself wrong with your own post.
 
[citation][nom]TheRabidDeer[/nom]You are right, you cant change the facts. So, I want you to find me an article from before the war started that specifically has france saying our intelligence is bad.

'CNN': Text of memorandum submitted by France, Russia, Germany, Feb 24, 2003
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-24/us/sprj.irq.memo_1_inspection-regime-disarmament-requirements-verification-and-inspection-commission?_s=PM:US

[citation]While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;- Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results;- While not yet fully satisfactory, Iraqi co-operation is improving, as mentioned by the chief inspectors in their last report.[/citation]

...the whole Niger yellow-cake uranium thing was also rejected by France:
Wikipedia: "Niger Uranium Forgeries"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

[citation]
French intelligence informed the United States a year before President Bush's State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with hard evidence.
[/citation]



[citation][nom]TheRabidDeer[/nom] I also don't see where you are getting this 3 trillion figure, since the only number I can see says somewhere in the range of 800 billion for iraq.[/citation]

BBC: Iraq War Counting the Cost (March 2008)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7304300.stm

[citation]According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the direct costs of the war on terror, which include operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have so far have reached $752bn, if the current year's appropriation of $188bn is included.
...
By the end of next year, the direct cost to US Treasury will be over $1 trillion.[/citation]

...that is direct costs to date, the article goes on to say (this is re-reporting old news from a study done in 2006);

[citation]
Many economists argue that the indirect costs of the war are even greater.

A study by the Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Linda Bilmes, a budget expert from Harvard, concludes the cost could be at least $3 trillion.

The figure is so large because, Professor Stiglitz says, it includes costs that official estimates do not, such as the cost of the lifetime medical care for 65,000 injured American personnel.
[/citation]

...a trillion dollars is a lot of budget deficit...

Cheers,
CList
 
[citation][nom]TheRabidDeer[/nom]Iraq AND Afghanistan wars, COULD cost, and potentially by 2017. Not only is it 600 billion less than you estimated, it is still not what it actually cost. I dont quite understand the national debt and how it all works, but I imagine the billions for the war are dwarfed in the few trillion in actual costs that have gone through in recent years (including the end of bush's term).I dont have much to say about the intel because I was like 14 when that stuff was going on. I didnt keep fully up to date on news. Also, its not my duty to do the research since you are making the claims the burden is on you to prove them.Thanks for the links, but it still doesnt have anything that says the french claimed our intel was bad. He said the war might not be necessary, but that doesnt mean the intel is bad. In fact, in the video you so kindly provide, he states, and I quote, "As for WMD's, biological or chemical, we dont know" as a response to the question of if he believed if saddam had WMD's. Basically, his stance was to keep investigating.Anyway, thanks for being a jerk and essentially proving yourself wrong with your own post.[/citation]Bush, our CIA, and the entire intel community relied upon ONE lying informant that WMDs existed. They didn't. But what we had at the time led over 100 DEMOCRATS to vote FOR funding the war.
BTW, obama has signed off on 5 TRILLION dollars in spending in 2 1/2 years.
 
[citation][nom]clist[/nom]...the whole Niger yellow-cake uranium thing was also rejected by France:Wikipedia: "Niger Uranium Forgeries"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries[citation]French intelligence informed the United States a year before President Bush's State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with hard evidence.[/citation]BBC: Iraq War Counting the Cost (March 2008)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7304300.stm[citation]According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the direct costs of the war on terror, which include operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have so far have reached $752bn, if the current year's appropriation of $188bn is included....By the end of next year, the direct cost to US Treasury will be over $1 trillion.[/citation]...that is direct costs to date, the article goes on to say (this is re-reporting old news from a study done in 2006);[citation]Many economists argue that the indirect costs of the war are even greater.A study by the Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Linda Bilmes, a budget expert from Harvard, concludes the cost could be at least $3 trillion.The figure is so large because, Professor Stiglitz says, it includes costs that official estimates do not, such as the cost of the lifetime medical care for 65,000 injured American personnel. [/citation]...a trillion dollars is a lot of budget deficit...Cheers,CList[/citation]
Yes, a trillion dollars is a lot. Iraq only constitutes a portion of that. http://costofwar.com/en/
That site seems to use the same figures that you all come up with. Also, keep in mind that this is over the course of 8 years, and not a single year so bringing up the budget deficit is pretty retarded. In reality in regards to the budget, it is more in the range of like 80 billion. Which is a lot still, mind you, but its not the numbers you are stating. Regardless of all of that, keep in mind that Pres Obama has been in control for a full 2 years and that budget didnt get any better, particularly in terms of military expenditures on the wars.
 
[citation][nom]TheRabidDeer[/nom]Regardless of all of that, keep in mind that Pres Obama has been in control for a full 2 years and that budget didnt get any better, particularly in terms of military expenditures on the wars.[/citation]

On this I totally agree.

As for mentioning the budget deficit, one of the big problems with the war re: budget is that the majority of BOTH Bush and Obama's spending on the war was done as emergency appropriations and did not get included in the budget numbers, so the size of the "real" deficit is actually worse than stated (this may have stopped in FY 2010 - not sure).

Cheers,
CList
 
[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]Maybe if he would have brought his little war before congress like he was supposed to, time would have been taken to realize that the "rebels" are really Al Qaeda.[/citation]
...Cheney? is that you?
 
I don't need to borrow a computer, I'll just have the taxpayers buy a couple overpriced ones while I take a vacation with my family and play a couple more rounds of golf.
 
and this is why america is on the verge of serious deflation much like germany after WW1. at least bush spending all his time in camp david and on his ranch didn't bankrupt america much further then this globe hopper.
" nah man we're so broke in america, we have to borrow all our computers from the french and china!"
i had to laugh at first tho, comming from the foreigner it came off to me as like he was wondering if barry was poor or too old for technology.
" ya man i got a computer, you think i trade negotiated those 14 chinese to jump off my apple computer makers roof for nothing?"
 
[citation][nom]Noworldorder[/nom]Bush, our CIA, and the entire intel community relied upon ONE lying informant that WMDs existed. They didn't. But what we had at the time led over 100 DEMOCRATS to vote FOR funding the war.BTW, obama has signed off on 5 TRILLION dollars in spending in 2 1/2 years.[/citation]

No, Bush and the rest of the hawks were out to attack Iraq for any reason. They spent 2 years trying to find a fart. They lied to Congress, Senators and ALL Americans.

Er... the $5 Trillion? Uh, remember what was happening even BEFORE the election? ALL republicans signed OFF on the bail-outs and stimulus - theres lots of pics of R-LA Bobby Jingle handing people giant Checks from the Stimulus bill then he crys "boo hoo - Stimulus is bad" - Every R-GOV who SPENT the money then come back and blame Obama/Dems for the stimulus spending! W T F

Also, Obama had corrected Bush's books so in FACT - there was spending going on that wasn't properly shown to us. The Iraq War wasn't free... remember - these morons were promising about about $50-80billions.

They lied - the broke the USA - the MURDERED Americans - They STOLE our money.
The lies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxerr_iGRXE

The EASY way to explain the hidden costs of war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OT5uw1Fb_0
 
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]and this is why america is on the verge of serious deflation much like germany after WW1. at least bush spending all his time in camp david and on his ranch didn't bankrupt america much further then this globe hopper."[/citation]

Huh? You mean that AWOL guy? The one who was shitting in his pants for 7 minutes in front of a bunch of 6 year olds until an AID came and got his sorry butt out of there? That guy? The one who couldn't read the intel about "OSAMA to ATTACK USA"?

The guy who said, he'd have attacked IRAQ, no matter what? Because Iraq threated to kill his daddy? So Bush-cheney-rumsfield-rice killed 4441 American daddys and mommies as of today (Sorry about the 4500) and about 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

Torture... which is ILLEGAL, signed off by team bush. = WAR CRIMES

You know... one of the things the terrorist/middle eastern govt. have told others is that WTC was destroyed because the USA attacked Afgan / Iraq. ie: they are LYING. You understand the lie, right?

Okay, the Neocons are blaming the spending (which much of it has been returned) and bailouts - which THEY themselves have signed off on and EVEN BEGGED FOR - scratch that... CRIED FOR (we know who is the crying bitch in the house)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVOS1CC6V5I

There YOU go... well? See, do you understand what has been going on for the past 2+ years. For these 2 years - they have blocked jobs bills and everything to help the USA recover... why? So people will put ALL the blame on Obama, the black man.
(who is by all means, not perfect - but FIXNews never had a bad word to say to Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc)

Again... Your sources suck. They are from ENTERTAINERS. From FOREIGNERS. FOX is NOT owned by Americans. The two big owners are an Australian and an Arab. Rush is a druggie closet homosexual who visits the Dominican Republic regularly.
 
Is this for real? I mean the comments. Its one thing to spit/listen-from-parents the radical garbage you are all talking about. However, I would say it is a quite different thing to post it on a comment on a tech forum. Beyond the few posts that have gone out of their way to point this out (in way more subtle ways than I have), I applaud you.

The majority of the previous types of comments are akin to the spam on this site.

I hope they are taken care of accordingly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom