Being from a different country, yeah, I can see where they saw him as dangerous

He was OK, not as good as Reagan.

I learned a lot from the poll, that people are beginning to understand that I was right all a long, Obama is a shit president

You have got to be the most racist fuck tard on this forum, is that all you got, he must be evil because he was white? Post somewhere else, this forum has no place for racist minded people.

What a fucking moron, the president is suppose to represent the people, not just the democrats. If you weren't so fucking narrow minded you would see that. Republicans represent people that are citizens of this country and should have a voice, that shit for brains president has no intention of caring about anything but his own agenda and gives a rats ass about what the other people want, like jobs.

End result, the numbers are in, people consider Obama the worse president in history after WW2.

The ones that think Obama is a good president are young and don't know what other presidents were like and are lied to about those presidents.

So strange that you call me narrow minded. The party you defend is the epitome of narrow-mindedness.

And you sound just like an old dude. The kind of people who will be gone in a few years and allow us to move forward.

It's better to be an old guy who wants things to stay the way they are?

When we move forward, I will applaud, we are moving backwards, but you are too fucking ignorant to see that!

Having hate for one party is that of a fool

I don't hate the democrats, I have no love for the republicans. I hate the president, one person, because he lies and is a bad leader.

You can only see what they tell you, hate the right, hate the white man, you must have had a terrible childhood. I will never change color, but you will get old, unless you are always this angry towards people because of their age and the color of their skin and someone you talk to doesn't like it!

Again I disagree. This is called "rules of engagement" which is how US forces operate around the world, both locally and here at home. When in a foreign country, unless in direct combat or expecting hostilities, weapons are kept in "condition four" - no round in the chamber, no magazine inserted.

How long does it take to go from "condition four" to firing? That requires you to take a click from your hip and slam it home.... All of three our four seconds for a US Marine?

At the same time, do you think the outcome would have been any different if they were locked and loaded? I do not think it would have changed a thing. They could have opened fire in seconds, but originally they didn't know if they were dealing with a drunk driver, a nut case, or a suicide bomber. One Marine did in fact open fire on the truck.

Sure they are. Marines practice what is called the "three block war" - meaning on one block they are in full combat, the next block doing humanitarian aid, and the third block doing peacekeeping. They have a long history of this - During the 1920s and 1930s Marines were deployed to China to keep the peace, or at least to protect American citizens and their property. The Marines also have the Marine Corps Security Force Regiment, which guards Navy bases, nuclear weapons, and provides security on Navy ships.

Lol! You should just stop talking about stuff you don't know.

Reagan raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office, including four times in just two years. http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489...uds-Tax-Record

Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, ?roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.? Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously.

Unemployment soared to 10.8% after Reagan?s 1981 tax cuts.

Income inequality exploded during ol' Ronnie's rein.

Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class

Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously and bailed out social security. Not a bad idea but today's righties would shit a brick if he did that today.

Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, yet they block Obama's path to citzenship. Fucking Republican flip-floppers.

Reagan illegally funnelled weapons to Iran. And I know you know this.

Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act.

Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. (Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden ? a prominent mujahidin commander ? emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services? close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan?s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden?s ascendancy.)

And who is the worst president? GOPpers say Obama. Of course. Because he's black.

yeah, it's frustrating to watch how someone steers the world into cold war, threatens to nuke others for fun and you can't even vote him off

always remembers me of this song...

Pretty much all pigshit. I do not need to be told about "rules of engagement". I fought in three different combat operations...and served in several non combat operations...over the 12 years I served in the 82nd Airborne. Where as you did not serve in any. If I recall correctly you did not even go on a "float".

I also know alot about the Marines and how they operate as PF's oldest son served five years in the Corp on top of three years in the Army.

The fact is it was the President that personally ordered them to be housed where they were and the way they were...and no military commander would have ever done that and there was a cry of outrage about this when the bombing took place because of how they were housed in a hostile country.

I assume that since you worked at SOI you have heard of..."keep your interval". In a hostile situation you do not group/house people in a single location. Fundamental.

I was in the military at the time of the bombing.

nah because gat damn obama tuk er jerbz and next he's comin for mah gunz! :mad::mad::mad:

as soon as [insert any candidate from the other party] gets into office everything will surely change for the better

(I never worked at SOI. SOI was for boots straight out of boot camp.)

This wasn't a patrol where they had to "keep their interval".

These Marines - only a portion of the Marines stationed there - were housed in a four story building at the airport. I am assuming it was a secure facility; Seems to me there was a perimeter around the building.

Seems to me no different than the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia thirteen years later.

I thought that you had once posted about being an instructor at SOI. PF's oldest son was an instructor at SOI at one point in time.

That sums everything about you, playing the racist card you low life FUCK!

Fuck you and your maple syrup. Back on ignore you piece of shit, I don't know why anyone would ever do business with you, you sir, are a fuck tard!

All the shit on this forum about racist remarks, I hope Eric see this and bans your ass for propagating a hate mentality.

I feel Reagan was a big reason the cold war came to an end, weather you believe it or not. I was part of the cold war, knowing what one SSBN could do, scared the shit out of me!

Reagan wasn't about war, he was about peace and freedom. No body wanted to fuck with the cowboy! He used that!

If I recall correctly, RR was the impetus behind the largest nuclear disarmament treaty ever signed.

selective memory, i'd say

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

just read up about his first term

Yes, him and Gorbachev signed START1 together.

lol at vendzilla constantly bashing obama. This guy is a caricature.

vendzilla, do you understand the fact that presidents and parties realistically don't have anything to say? Do you understand that the mission of those entities is to divide and conquer?

Ok, that's about the dumbest thing I've heard today, but the day is still young.

The only reason you come into threads I start is to troll them and bash me, I didn't post an opinion in the OP, I posted a poll.

But please, tell us how you came to your conclusion living in a different country from your parents basement?

In fact, you should hate ALL presidents, as they ALL lied, no exception.

But that is not the case ..

Yes, they all lie, I'll give you that. But this president lies more than any I know of. I knew when he was running for president that he was promising way too much. Then when he spent all that money for shovel ready jobs, that did work, did it? And I got tired of the continually blasting of the right and Bush that it was their fault that he can't get things done.

This president has been all about dividing the country, he continually bashes Bush for the problems he started, not doing anything about them himself and in almost every speech, he uses to bash the right. That has caused so much damage to the country in dividing it. Then he won't even send troops to the border to control and secure it. He's been asked directly by the governor there and refused him.

Did you know that Mexican troops have been on US soil? a couple dozen times?

http://toprightnews.com/?p=1905

Did the Obama administration do anything? Nope!

I was a combat tactics instructor, but not at SOI.... I worked at the advanced school for NCOs a few doors down.

because that's how the world works. Your little team doesn't mean shit, they only exist to make you blind. Same goes for politics everywhere, including in my different country.

The energy industry, arms industry and the federal reserve really run the show. Presidents make decisions based on what these industries want, and every president does that.

Alan Greenspan was re-elected as Fed chairman from 1987 until 2006 by every single president, R and D, until he quit himself. Ben Bernanke was his successor and is also being re-elected by every new president. When Obama is done and a new president comes, he will re-elect Bernanke as well. How is someone being re-elected when they have ran the complete economy in the ground? They run the show, that's how, so he can't be kicked out.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve consist of private banks. So the name is already a lie, since there is nothing federal about it. The private banks pull the strings. The US dollar is owned by these private banks - they can print whatever they feel like. The system is built and now completely relies on the bankers of the Fed - businessmen. They are the leaders.

Got it...

Pigshit.

The only military you were in was the one that had a base on fantasy island. PATHFINDER.

I usually try to avoid trolls...but in your case this is the first time I can recall having seen you post...so see sig. Now you are dismissed you ignorant fucking troll.

Everytime you use that "dismissed" gimmick, I think of Sgt. Carter on the "Gomer Pyle" show. :1orglaugh

Vendzilla is the only person I semi regularly considering ignoring as I feel humanity as a whole gets dumber every time he posts

Why would you personally insult him like that for no reason would be my question?

He has a right to his opinions. And he always posts links to explain his reasoning.

In this thread he posted a poll that's been on MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and FNC and reported widely.

Do you feel "dumber" because he's kinda gloating over the facts? Then you should have felt really dumb when ObamaCare passed and all the liberal guys on here were gloating about the new "Law Of The Land" that Baby Jesus got passed on a Senatorial trick procedure vote and was later upheld by the Supreme Court for what it really is: A Tax.

Did that make you feel dumb when those guys were gloating about facts? Or are you just trolling Vendzilla to be mean about it?

He just posts the same shit over and over.

Also I like obamacare. Sure it was hamstrung some by conservatives with no public option, but it'll happen sooner or later

You sure about that? Silly question, of course YOU are :1orglaugh Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war. And that's just for Iraq.

Scale of lies matters, too.
"Iraq was in on 9/11 (lie), let's invade"
"Iraq works with al-quaeda (lie), let's invade"
"Iraq has WMDs (lie), let's invade"

So, 5,000+ Americans dead, at least 200,000 (mostly civilian) Iraqis dead, and $2 TRILLION later, Obama's the biggest liar to you.

As if anyone needed further proof that you are absolutely, blindly partisan, notwithstanding your bullshit claims to the contrary.

That's your right and your opinion.

Other people have their opinions.

I'm not sure what a "public option" is...or how conservatives "hamstrung" it when the Pres. had complete control over both the House and the Senate...but again, if you think it's a good thing that is your right to do so.

Just seems like we all end up fighting like kids in school when people disagree.
Instead of calling names and getting personally insulting (which we all do sometimes)...we should try to make our points instead.

I know how you feel...when you see someone posting something that is in direct conflict with your own thoughts on a subject and you want to "correct" them so that people don't think that person's ideas are the right ones.

I do it too... whenever I see a crockett post. lol

Hey, I just checked that link.

In all fairness...most of the Iraq data came from the Clinton administrations intelligence. Pres. Clinton was saying the exact things (there is video of him on YouTube during his Presidency saying that Iraq had WMD's if you want to check it).

I googled your first "quote" that you said Bush made.

Couldn't find it anywhere. Instead found plenty of articles saying that he never said that.

Can you link any of those "quotes" up that say George Bush said them?

By the way, in 20/20 hindsight (like all the Democrats who voted FOR the war)...I think it was absolutely the wrong thing to do. And I am now against ANY "preliminary" strike wars or invading other sovereign nations who have not declared war on us first.

EDIT: By the way....I absolutely think that Pres. Clinton (whom I admire) and Pres. Bush (whom I don't) BOTH lied and KNEW they were lying with that intelligence gathering. I think they wanted war with Iraq. Otherwise why would we keep UN sanctions on them for over a decade that made it difficult for their country to function. Our govt. was looking for a fight...and 9-11 gave them an excuse.

I put him on ignore some time ago.

Some people just believe in what they believe in so much that they are blinded by the truth. They pick at any thread of wrong doing or hint of scandal and try to make a mountain out of a molehill.

This is where politics fail - you cannot agree with someone all of the time because you like them (or they are from your party), while at the same time you cannot disagree with someone all of the time because you don't like them (or they aren't a member in your party).

Sure sure. Before we bitch smack a country around by invading and spending billions we just use "old intelligence" from a "prior administration". That sounds perfectly reasonable.

Come on already, before you go to war you triple check everything - and then check it again. And you surely do not rely on "old information".

OBAMAnation

"Dude", I was "paraphrasing".

More proof presidents don't run jack shit, but the big corps behind them. It doesn't matter who's in office, they keep running the show and push their will through, no matter who is president.
They really wanted that war badly, that's for sure. And not a single fuck is given by them when their own people die in those wars along with lots of other casualties.

Pigshit.

In other words just making that up. That's the problem. Too many people paraphrasing and then other people believing it when they read it.

Let's get to the heart of this:

Bush wanted to go into Iraq. He saw 9-11 as a great opportunity to do so. But he didn't do it by himself. Bush Sr. AND Pres. Clinton wanted to as well. Why? Because the U.S. Federal Govt. thinks it can do as it pleases.

So Bush's presidency sucked.

Obama's presidency has sucked from a lot of people's viewpoint for different reasons. He promised a ton of things and then proceeded to do the opposite on a lot of them.

Bottom line: They both suck in my opinion. Just take a look at our country and what the feds have done to us internationally. Neither of these President's did a good job.
Does Obama suck as much as Bush? If you're a Democrat: "NO" If you're a Republican: "Yes"
If you are neither...who gives a fuck. Neither of them did any good for our country in the big picture.

Why has Obama's presidency? The economy? Because of Iraq? The IRS thing? The gun thing? Romenycare?

Here, let me try again, just for you. The Bush administration was lying about 1) Iraq being part of 9/11, 2) Iraq working/allied with al-Qaeda, and 3) Iraq having WMDs, which they used as reasons for their invasion.

Thus, my shorthand version.

I mean seriously dude, did you really think I literally meant George W Bush stood up and said "Iraq works with al-qaeda, let's invade"?? Oh right, you did:1orglaugh

Yeah, I did because you made sure to say that these were things they said before you made the "quotes".

I also think you can't show me where one administration official EVER said Iraq was part of 9-11.

As for the rest of what you said...you can look up on YouTube and see news video of President Clinton saying the same exact things when he was President.

So my belief is that BOTH of them were lying about it OR they have career military guys in the Pentagon giving President's bad intel to start wars.

I do agree with you (again I'm saying this) that Bush definitely didn't look for anything that went against that bad intel. He was itching to get in there. BAD move. :(

I admit, it sounds like something a simpleton such as Bush would say. But come on...

They very, very strongly implied it, to the point that in '03, 69% of Americans believed Saddam was directly involved. Between repeated lies about a Saddam/al-Qaeda alliance, to exchanges/claims like the ones below....well, if you can't see the blatantly obvious implication, I don't know what to tell ya.

"Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the detainee captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, eventually provided that smoking gun. He claimed knowledge of an Iraq-Qaeda connection because it was tortured (torture, that thing which great for getting bad info, or getting people to say what you want them to.) out of him. The Bush administration cited it as evidence for the Iraq War?s greatest lie.

Other lies were told to this effect. Two months after the 9/11 attacks, on December 9, 2001, Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press and, when asked by Tim Russert whether ?Iraq was involved in September 11,? mentioned a ?report that?s been pretty well confirmed, that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.?
In fact, the CIA had told Cheney this report was false a day before his Meet the Press appearance. In a briefing that was sent to the White House Situation Room, the CIA concluded that ?11 September 2001 hijacker Mohamed Atta did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000.? Cheney cited it anyways.

Two years later, on September 14, 2003, Cheney appeared once again on Meet the Press. Russert asked him if he was ?surprised? by the fact that ?69 percent? of Americans believe Saddam ?was involved in the September 11 attacks.?
?I think it?s not surprising that people make that connection,? Cheney said. ?With respect to 9/11, of course, we?ve had the story that?s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.? In reality, it had been conclusively discredited years earlier."

From http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/18/9...-greatest-lie/

So its Clinton's fault when they didnt listen when richard clark said bin laden is your biggest problem and they ignored him or when bush ignored bin laden to strike the united states.

here you go Robbie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVC3wboYOdg
they all spoke around it and then the fox gop machine ran with it. I remember my father a pretty well read guy thought saddam was involved. Also as far as dems voting for it. It was all you are with us or against us. They had tied Saddam to 911 so to vote against the war was political death. And they have no spines except Bernie and Dennis.
You watch that video and Obama's you can keep your insurance lie seems like nothing. lol

Yet you constantly argue with me, bash me and degrade me, you have no fucking spine !

I give you facts and you still think the house and the senate are different from congress and you still believe that Sarah Palin said that she can see Russia from her house.

You are retarded! And I catch you at it every time!

And yet you can never debate me because I back up my claims and opinions. Like my opinion you are a troll!