New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Trump inherits mess- how Obama's failure in Syria continues to haunt us

middleview

President
Supporting Member
NATO Survey from 2013 Reveals 70 Percent of Syrians Support Assad

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178779.html
More info on that poll:

The sources said no formal polling was taken in Syria, racked by two years of civil war in which 90,000 people were reported killed. They said the data came from a range of activists and independent organizations that were working in Syria, particularly in relief efforts.

https://new-power.org/2013/06/04/poll-says-assad-popularity-high/
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Your memory sucks. Your "win" ratings are from the right wingers here who can't muster a coherent argument with both hands and a flashlight (to steal a good line)....you get a thumbs up from a holocaust denier and a loose puppy who simply roams around clicking disagree or dislike and think that makes you a winner....it doesn't.

The discussion of the recession and derivatives market is a prime example....you read an article that vaguely argues that the petrodollar is to blame. I presented you with specific legislation and actions by the CEOs of financial companies which led to the breakdown and you think you had facts on your side?

You link to a zerohedge article by "Tyler Durden" that offers his interpretation of emails or text messages and think that is factual evidence that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Where did I post that there is zero tolerance for other opinions or interpretations of current events? Your "prodigious" documentation is a figment of that razor thin intellect of yours. Just because someone wrote something down does not make it fact. If it relies on opinion then it may be subject to another opinion...You are the one who gets his panties in a wad over anyone disagreeing with you.
It certainly doesn't exactly indicate a track record of "funny" arguments either. True to form, yes, the discussion of the recession and derivatives market is a prime example - of your predilection for official big government narratives and academic navel gazing while rejecting all the alternative facts that don't comport with them. You claimed it was the leverage of banks due to regulatory reform permitting an increase in leverage, when, in fact, the leverage on banks' balance sheets was roughly the same in 2008 as it was in the 1990s. What do you think has more effect on markets - the actions of CEOs or the actions (and inactions) of federal economic officials? You refuse to even consider the possibility that government has any deleterious effect whatsoever, because you like big government, not because you have the facts on your side. But common sense suggests that the federal government bailing out Bear Sterns and then just months later refusing to do the same for Lehman had a WAY bigger role in confusing (and freezing) credit markets than any poor decisions by a few isolated CEOs. So yes, the facts (and logic) is on my side. The bureaucrats and big government loving academicians are on yours (and you can have that gaggle of bozos).

As for Zerohedge, you don't get to reject the facts they report, or even their interpretations of the facts (when you are simply citing someone else's interpretation of those facts), based on a few posters in their unmoderated forum posting whacky things that I have never cited. You attempt this guilt by association so you don't have to consider the notion that your fealty to the powers that be might be foolish. You aren't going to get an alternative to the narrative on NBC or CNN - you are getting big government propaganda, which you gladly accept because it comports with your misguided "middle" view that big government and socialism is always good while free markets are bad and CEOs are all evil megalomaniacs.

And it is a simple fact that nobody here provides more back up stats and facts to support their posts than me, so I think we know whose figment of imagination the idea that I don't adequately support what I post is. Your problem is that you frankly don't seem to know the difference between opinion and fact, because YOU keep posting opinions and claiming they are facts, not me.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It certainly doesn't exactly indicate a track record of "funny" arguments either. True to form, yes, the discussion of the recession and derivatives market is a prime example - of your predilection for official big government narratives and academic navel gazing while rejecting all the alternative facts that don't comport with them. You claimed it was the leverage of banks due to regulatory reform permitting an increase in leverage, when, in fact, the leverage on banks' balance sheets was roughly the same in 2008 as it was in the 1990s. What do you think has more effect on markets - the actions of CEOs or the actions (and inactions) of federal economic officials? You refuse to even consider the possibility that government has any deleterious effect whatsoever, because you like big government, not because you have the facts on your side. But common sense suggests that the federal government bailing out Bear Sterns and then just months later refusing to do the same for Lehman had a WAY bigger role in confusing (and freezing) credit markets than any poor decisions by a few isolated CEOs. So yes, the facts (and logic) is on my side. The bureaucrats and big government loving academicians are on yours (and you can have that gaggle of bozos).

As for Zerohedge, you don't get to reject the facts they report, or even their interpretations of the facts (when you are simply citing someone else's interpretation of those facts), based on a few posters in their unmoderated forum posting whacky things that I have never cited. You attempt this guilt by association so you don't have to consider the notion that your fealty to the powers that be might be foolish. You aren't going to get an alternative to the narrative on NBC or CNN - you are getting big government propaganda, which you gladly accept because it comports with your misguided "middle" view that big government and socialism is always good while free markets are bad and CEOs are all evil megalomaniacs.

And it is a simple fact that nobody here provides more back up stats and facts to support their posts than me, so I think we know whose figment of imagination the idea that I don't adequately support what I post is. Your problem is that you frankly don't seem to know the difference between opinion and fact, because YOU keep posting opinions and claiming they are facts, not me.
Prime example...you do not have facts here, you have opinions....and while leverage may have been greater or just as bad in the 1990s that ratio of leverage was in violation of banking rules prior to the 2003 change in policy and when you add that degree of leverage to the rapid drop in the derivatives market...the banks had no cash and were insolvent...something that didn't happen in the 1990s...

And where did I post anything supporting the official government position on the Mortgage Downpayment Assistance act or the gutting of SEC enforcement and investigations functions?

Your opinion on the effect of "bailing" out Bear Sterns and not bailing out Lehman...is an example of you pretending your opinions are facts. Another problem with your opinions...if you want to disagree with the facts and opinions I bring to the table...no problem...but your tendency to resort to name calling shows just how sharp that intellect of yours is.

As I've pointed out...Zerohedge has Zero credibility. That is a problem that any media has as they publish bullshit and invent facts to support it. I looked at the Zero article about the memos between the FBI agent and lawyer. It was 90% supposition..."here is what they meant when they said that"....
 

Spamature

President
It certainly doesn't exactly indicate a track record of "funny" arguments either. True to form, yes, the discussion of the recession and derivatives market is a prime example - of your predilection for official big government narratives and academic navel gazing while rejecting all the alternative facts that don't comport with them. You claimed it was the leverage of banks due to regulatory reform permitting an increase in leverage, when, in fact, the leverage on banks' balance sheets was roughly the same in 2008 as it was in the 1990s. What do you think has more effect on markets - the actions of CEOs or the actions (and inactions) of federal economic officials? You refuse to even consider the possibility that government has any deleterious effect whatsoever, because you like big government, not because you have the facts on your side. But common sense suggests that the federal government bailing out Bear Sterns and then just months later refusing to do the same for Lehman had a WAY bigger role in confusing (and freezing) credit markets than any poor decisions by a few isolated CEOs. So yes, the facts (and logic) is on my side. The bureaucrats and big government loving academicians are on yours (and you can have that gaggle of bozos).

As for Zerohedge, you don't get to reject the facts they report, or even their interpretations of the facts (when you are simply citing someone else's interpretation of those facts), based on a few posters in their unmoderated forum posting whacky things that I have never cited. You attempt this guilt by association so you don't have to consider the notion that your fealty to the powers that be might be foolish. You aren't going to get an alternative to the narrative on NBC or CNN - you are getting big government propaganda, which you gladly accept because it comports with your misguided "middle" view that big government and socialism is always good while free markets are bad and CEOs are all evil megalomaniacs.

And it is a simple fact that nobody here provides more back up stats and facts to support their posts than me, so I think we know whose figment of imagination the idea that I don't adequately support what I post is. Your problem is that you frankly don't seem to know the difference between opinion and fact, because YOU keep posting opinions and claiming they are facts, not me.
Dude ! You argued that the recession was a hoax for months at the beginning.
 
The mess in Syria goes back a lot farther than Obama. The entire region was destabilized with the mindless Iraq invasion -- just as that invasion's opponents correctly predicted would happen. Syria's Ba'athist regime was closely tied to Iraq's Ba'athist regime, and when we created chaos in Iraq, into which Al Qaeda grew, things were set in motion, eventually leading to ISIS and the Syrian civil war. The Bushies had envisioned Iraq setting off a series of dominoes, and in a way they were right. They were just hopelessly naive in imagining it would be a toppling of autocratic regimes to be replaced by healthy democracies (or at least Israel-friendly puppet governments), and instead it's been a toppling of stable governments, to be replaced by bloody, endless war. I was about to say something trite like "live and learn," but the truth is that half of us knew this would happen, and the other half are unlikely ever to learn from their mistakes.
1) The invasion wasn't mindless, the occupation was mindless.

2) Just how close was Syria's Ba'athist regime to the Iraqi Ba'athist regime when Syria was and is bed buddies with Iran and Iraq hated, hated, Iran? Exactly how did that work?

3) Live and learn!?!? Ha ha ha... Your dumb ass Obama "warned" us about Iraq and yet he bumble fucked himself into Libyan and Syrian regime toppling policies.

For the love of God when is a lefty going to start to be logically consistent. No wonder the legal definition of marriage is all fvcked up. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So, where are the Syrians claiming they were shot at by snipers and their videos to prove it ?
People I know where living in Damascus when this kicked off --- they said that men, no-one knew who they were, suddenly appeared out of no where and shot up some walls - next day all the News crews where there, standing in front of the walls, telling ridiculous stories ---- Then in a peaceful protest over money matters in Daraa from within the crowd and from buildings snipers began to shoot police and protesters -

Look up Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley if you want the truth - they will lead you to others.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I don't believe I did. In fact, I'm the one who's been saying all along that we're still in the Obama Depression.

View attachment 38969
There is an example of your use of your own opinions in the complete absence of facts.
You claimed the LFPR was growing since Trump became president...this graph is as of 3/1/2018

upload_2018-4-15_15-11-6.png

Notice that the decline in LFPR started in December of 2000....67% dropped to 64%
before Obama became president. It is now 62.7% or so and hasn't changed much since 2014. It is now about the same rate as it was in January 1981.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART/

About 7 million jobs were lost because of the Bush recession...At the usual rate of job growth at between 200,000 and 300,000 from 2010 to now...how long does it take to put those 7 million as well as the recent college or high school graduates to work? with an 8% GDP loss in 2008...how long does it take to recover. You seem to think that those millions of workers should have found jobs in the next two years...(2010 thru 2011)....

The fact is that Reagan's recovery took from 1982 (the worst point of the recession) to 1986.
 

Attachments

middleview

President
Supporting Member
1) The invasion wasn't mindless the occupation was mindless.

2) Just how close was Syria's Ba'athist regime to the Iraqi Ba'athist regime when Syria was and is bed buddies with Iran and Iraq hated, hated, Iran? Exactly how did that work?

3) Live and learn!?!? Ha ha ha... Your dumb ass Obama "warned" us about Iraq and yet he bumble fucked himself into Libya and Syria regime toppling policies.

For the love of God when is a lefty going to start to be logically consistent. No wonder the legal definition of marriage is all fvcked up. :rolleyes:
The invasion was ordered by a president who lied about why he was giving that order. The military carried out a decent operation, leaving behind unguarded arsenals that later came back to haunt us. We had no plan to maintain law and order...remember when Rumsfeld said freedom is messy (or something to that effect) to explain why there was massive looting? The planning for the occupation was an after thought. Get the movie "No End In Sight" to get the story from those who were there.

Bush disbanded the Iraqi army...creating Al Qaeda in Iraq and laying the foundation for the massive invasion of Syria in 2011 by the forces of ISIS....That was the year that Syrian demonstrators were murdered by Assad's troops and a number of Syrian army units defected to fight against him....That was the exact same scenario when Gadaffi ordered his troops to open fire on demonstrators in Libya.

Funny thing you blame Obama for those events.
 
Top