Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
I don't call people who disagree with me libs, unless they are,
well, libs.
They have a name for fucktards like you. You are a goddamned
pidgeon hole retard.
BS.
Not over three freaking years fool.
The lie repeated.
That's another lie.
On Sun, 05 May 2019 06:21:19 -0700, trader4 wrote:
BS.
Not over three freaking years fool.
The lie repeated.
That's another lie.
So, we have bullshit, foolishness and lies. A fairly typical day in the
life of Bill Sloman.
On Sun, 05 May 2019 06:21:19 -0700, trader4 wrote:
BS.
Not over three freaking years fool.
The lie repeated.
That's another lie.
So, we have bullshit, foolishness and lies. A fairly typical day
in the life of Bill Sloman.
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
The surge worked, the US had Iraq stable, mostly peaceful
and Bush started to SLOWLY withdraw US forces over a year before Obama
entered office.
Even the surge never got the occupying forces up to the kind of numbers required to control the country.
That's a lie. Al Qaeda was defeated, Iraq was mostly peaceful and under
control.
It was enough to allow a more or less orderly handover to a cobbled-together Iraqi army, which proceeded to create its own disorders by oppressing the Sunni minority.
Only long after Bush was gone and Obama took over. It was Obama that allowed
it to happen.
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:955cd388-a244-4bec-9227-07ce634cc763
@googlegroups.com:
There were all kinds of insurgents,
From Iran. The entire reason what we did in Iraq failed was because
Iran flooded the nation with assholes and suicide 'programs'.
What we should have done once we knew that, which was very early on,
was to send a huge group of Iraqis down to the edge of the sea at the
border with Iran, and start building a wall. Then, the wall, and the
entire group building it could have worked their way up that border,
mile after mile, and put a stop to that flood, and send a message to
Iran, which would have resulted in a PROPER stoppage of their fuck the
world nuke program. That is what should have happened. Because then
their insurgence would have been noted on the world (read UN) stage and
we would not be tip toeing around about who the fuck is resposnible for
200000 deaths. I cannot belive the idiots that want to say that WE
killed all those people. Goddamnit put the fucking blame where it
belongs. IRAN is the fucking problem here people.
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 2:14:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 1:38:45 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 11:21:23 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 3:50:00 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:11:44 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:11:40 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 12:02:01 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:69434e38-5719-40e2-befa-
6e90a641f73c@googlegroups.com:
snip
Dubbya had already decided that lives and treasure in Irak weren't worth the cost of putting enough US forces in Irak to secure either.
That's a lie.
It's not an opinion that you share, which doesn't make it lie, or even wrong.
You stated it as a FACT, not an opinion, so it's a lie.
My opinion is that it is an obvious fact. Quite why you can't see it yourself escapes me - Dubbya's totally bogus declaration of victory (on the deck of an aircraft carrier of all places) seems to have more influence on your opinion that it would have done on anybody who could think for themselves.
I'm just as entitled to have my own opinion on the subject as you have (and it carries more weight than yours because you are an obvious idiot) and expressing that opinion doesn't happen to be lying.
Of course it's a lie when you claim an opinion is FACT.
Like krw, you seem to think that any opinion that lodges in your defective brain constitutes an obvious and unassailable fact, so anybody who disagrees with your - frequently demented - opinion has to be lying, but this is just one more reason to regard you as a lunatic.
Woooah there Pilgrim. The "opinion" didn't come from me, it was you
who stated it as a FACT.
The surge worked, the US had Iraq stable, mostly peaceful
and Bush started to SLOWLY withdraw US forces over a year before Obama
entered office.
Even the surge never got the occupying forces up to the kind of numbers required to control the country.
That's a lie. Al Qaeda was defeated, Iraq was mostly peaceful and under
control.
Mostly. Al Qaeda had never been there, so they hadn't been defeated -
More stupidity and lies. Al Qaeda certainly was in Iraq after the invasion.
And by 2008, they had been mostly defeated.
Dubbya's claims about Saddam cooperating with Al Qaeda were a trifle more bogus that his claims about weapons of mass destruction, but you'd be too stupid to be aware of that.
Any more irrelevant nonsense you want to try to drag in?
It was enough to allow a more or less orderly handover to a cobbled-together Iraqi army, which proceeded to create its own disorders by oppressing the Sunni minority.
Only long after Bush was gone and Obama took over.
Rubbish.
It's absolutely true. Maliki was not abusing the Sunnis when Bush was in
office.
But Obama took over and Maliki saw that he could
do as he pleased, that Obama and Hillary didn't care.
It was in 2012, right
after the last US troops left that Maliki went after the Sunni VP had him
and dozens of other Sunnis arrested. Maliki evfen started it during a
visit here with Obama! He told Obama he had that problem at home and
OBama said, do what you want, I don't care.
How was he supposed to have been able to stop it? Dubbya had already handed over control to the Iraqi government and the newly constituted Iraqi army.
Well for starters, by not telling Maliki to just do what he wants, it's
his country now.
And second, when he started persecuting Sunnis, how
about sending that strong woman Hillary over there to read him the riot
act? How about Obama threatening to cut off all US aid, a lot of which
was making Maliki and his buddies very rich? How about suggesting that
if necessary the US will work with people in Iraq who will put a bullet
in his head?
He didn't care. His campaign promise to pull out was more
important than doing it in a way that Iraq would not spin out of control.
His campaign promise to pull out was a promise to continue what Dubbya was doing at the time. Dubbya's withdrawal didn't include any mechanism to stop Irak "spinning out of control" and Obama just continued that policy.
Bush's withdrawal was conditional on Iraq remaining stable.
Obama did, and only after ISIS was in full force, with hundreds of thousands
dead, did he finally decide to do something.
And it was Obama that greenlighted Maliki to do what he pleased, that raised no objections, that did NOTHING to even try to stop what he was doing.
What makes you think that? Maliki got stuck with the job of running Irak. He didn't do it very well, but Saddam had done a good job of getting rid of potential competitors, and Dubbya was stuck with what he could find. Obama probably didn't like what Maliki got up to, but he wasn't in a position to dictate better behavior.
Here's a good source and The Atlantic is lib, not some bunch of Obama
haters:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/
A week later, the Iraqi government issued a warrant for Hashimiâs arrest. Thirteen of his bodyguards were arrested and tortured. Hashimi fled the country and, while in exile, was sentenced to death.
âOver the next 18 months,â writes Pollack, âmany Sunni leaders were arrested or driven from politics, including some of the most non-sectarian, non-violent, practical and technocratic.â Enraged by Malikiâs behavior, and emboldened by the prospect of a Sunni takeover in neighboring Syria, Iraqi Sunnis began reconnecting with their old jihadist allies. Yet, in public at least, the Obama administration still acted as if all was well.
In fact, Maliki actually started his oppression of the Sunnis, while
visiting Obama. He had some trouble at home, was claiming that his VP was
out to undo him and Obama told him, it's your country, do as you please.
Got the recordings of him saying that?
Read the article in The Atlantic.
And we do have a recording of Obama praising Maliki for having the most
inclusive govt ever, as if all was well.
It was Maliki's problem, and he wouldn't have paid much attention to advice given by somebody who wasn't close enough to the problem to understand the details of what was going on.
He would when that person is the president who controls the billions of
aid flowing in, some of it putting hundreds of millions into your own
pocket and supporting you.
And if necessary, a real president would,
if necessary, tell Maliki that if you don't straighten up and fly right
the CIA will be helping someone get rid of you, one way or another.
Which M took as a greenlight and started his purges and screwing of the
Sunnis.
The Shiites have been screwing the Sunni's (and vice versa) for a long as the two sects have existed. Maliki would been doing it before his visit to the US.
Well then, why was Obama praising him for doing a swell job, having the
most inclusive govt? And yes, we have that on tape, in public.
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 1:57:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 2:14:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 1:38:45 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 11:21:23 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 3:50:00 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:11:44 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:11:40 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 12:02:01 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:69434e38-5719-40e2-befa-
6e90a641f73c@googlegroups.com:
snip
Dubbya had already decided that lives and treasure in Irak weren't worth the cost of putting enough US forces in Irak to secure either.
That's a lie.
It's not an opinion that you share, which doesn't make it lie, or even wrong.
You stated it as a FACT, not an opinion, so it's a lie.
My opinion is that it is an obvious fact. Quite why you can't see it yourself escapes me - Dubbya's totally bogus declaration of victory (on the deck of an aircraft carrier of all places) seems to have more influence on your opinion that it would have done on anybody who could think for themselves.
I'm just as entitled to have my own opinion on the subject as you have (and it carries more weight than yours because you are an obvious idiot) and expressing that opinion doesn't happen to be lying.
Of course it's a lie when you claim an opinion is FACT.
That happens to be just as much of problem for you as it is for me. You can't recognise it because you have this delusion that your opinions are FACTS.
Do you live in Bush's head? That's the only way you'd know what you claim.
It might be the only way that you'd know what I claim, but most of us have this capacity for making deductions from well-publicised evidence.
George W Bush and his administration pushed up the US occupying forces in Irak to 160,000 (the surge) while acknowledging both that they couldn't afford to sustain that force, and that it wasn't enough to stabilise the country.
They negotiated a transfer of political power to Maliki, and started rebuilding the Iraqi army after the surge had quietened things down enough to make it safe to pass out arms to Iraqis. As the Iraqi army started taking over law and order they ran down the US army of occupation - to about 100,000 men when Dubbya left office - and the Obama adminstration ran it one down to 50,000 during 2010.
The decision to give up on Irak was clearly Dubbya's. Obama endorsed it for a variety of reasons, the main one being that there wasn't any other practical choice.
Your anti-Obama rhetoric is remarkably stupid, even for you.
Like krw, you seem to think that any opinion that lodges in your defective brain constitutes an obvious and unassailable fact, so anybody who disagrees with your - frequently demented - opinion has to be lying, but this is just one more reason to regard you as a lunatic.
Woooah there Pilgrim. The "opinion" didn't come from me, it was you
who stated it as a FACT.
It certainly strikes me as a much more plausible hypothesis than yours, and I can muster logical arguments to support it.
Not being any kind of deity, my endorsement of a hypothesis doesn't make it a fact,
The surge worked, the US had Iraq stable, mostly peaceful
and Bush started to SLOWLY withdraw US forces over a year before Obama
entered office.
Even the surge never got the occupying forces up to the kind of numbers required to control the country.
That's a lie. Al Qaeda was defeated, Iraq was mostly peaceful and under
control.
Mostly. Al Qaeda had never been there, so they hadn't been defeated -
More stupidity and lies. Al Qaeda certainly was in Iraq after the invasion.
And by 2008, they had been mostly defeated.
Dubbya's claims about Saddam cooperating with Al Qaeda were a trifle more bogus that his claims about weapons of mass destruction, but you'd be too stupid to be aware of that.
They did move in after the US invasion
"The group is believed to have started bomb attacks in Iraq as of August 2003, five months after the coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq, targeting UN representatives, Iraqi Shiite institutions, the Jordanian embassy, provisional Iraqi government institutions."
"On 7 June 2006, the leader of AQI, al-Zarqawi, and his spiritual adviser Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, were both killed by a U.S. airstrike with two 500 lb (230 kg) bombs on a safe house near Baqubah. The group's leadership was then assumed by the Egyptian militant Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir."
There were never a more than minor players.
Any more irrelevant nonsense you want to try to drag in?
It was enough to allow a more or less orderly handover to a cobbled-together Iraqi army, which proceeded to create its own disorders by oppressing the Sunni minority.
Only long after Bush was gone and Obama took over.
Rubbish.
It's absolutely true. Maliki was not abusing the Sunnis when Bush was in
office.
Not strictly true.
"As early as 2010. Malikiâs government used "de-Baathification" laws,
"After the new government was formed in November 2010, he refused to appoint ministers of the interior and of defense, preferring to occupy both positions himself. He appointed senior military commanders directly, instead of seeking parliamentary approval as required by the constitution."
In other words he started going nuts while Dubbya was still in power,
He knew better.
He clearly didn't. The first moves against the Sunnis happend in 2010, under Dubbya.
There you go again, lying.
Rest of your BS deleted. You're so stupid you don't even know who was
president. Pathetic, you're an embarrassment even for libs.
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:
There you go again, lying.
Rest of your BS deleted. You're so stupid you don't even know who was
president. Pathetic, you're an embarrassment even for libs.
You're a machine! Unbelievable forbearance on your part. Old Bill's not
used to being taken to task over his daft ideas so relentlessly. His main
weapon (aside from flat-out, in-yer-face mendacity) is attrition and so
far at least it's getting him nowhere! ;-
On 5/2/2019 8:44 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:39:24 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 4/29/2019 7:25 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:59:10 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 4/22/19 9:24 PM, amdx wrote:
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for
all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and
even the
libs know it. The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to
be pretty
much a dudd.  Unless you think paying $500 a month for a
healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as
fraudulent
and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
   The problem with Obamacare was after the Obamacare
regulations went
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of
18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2
years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you
promised?
   I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
   In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and
lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA
that I
now have about $48,000 in.
   Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
                                   Mikek
The boomerz all want less from the government. once they took it and
society at large for all it was good for back in the 60s and 70s.
Fuck You
Got Mine
Wrong again. You just accepted the totally faulty premise. Obamacare
subsidies are based on income and not only don't you get full subsidy
at $40K, the subsidy is gone for a single person if their income
exceeds about $45K.
   I followed and used the website a lot in the first couple of years,
finding out what the subsidies were. I'm not accepting any faulty
premise, I did the work and had actual numbers from the Obamacare
website.
    What you say was not true then, the numbers were much higher,
and my
family of four would have got a heavily subsidized premium even at $80k.
   It is possible that the income limits have changed but I don't think
so,
Google broken?
* Phaseout levels: For 2019, after earning an income of $100,400 or
higher for a family of four, $83,120 for a family of three, $65,840
for a married couple with no kids, and $48,560 for single individuals,
you will no longer receive government health care subsidies.
And no, those have not changed dramatically since inception.
 I haven't heard anyone complaining about getting their subsidy
reduced, and they would complain!
   Why don't you get on the website and come back with actual
numbers of
a family of four making $80k MAGI.
                                       Mikek
Google broken where you are?  Better to pontificate and get it wrong,
without looking it up?
 I looked it up before I saw your response, I didn't use google, I went
to the Marketplace Website.
 I used a family of four, Father 63, mother 59, daughter 24, and son
21yrs old. I used my zip code 32405 (this is a low cost area, the
subsidy will be much higher in other zip codes)
Income $50,000-- Monthly subsidy $2,359-- Yearly subsidy $28,303
Income $60,000-- Monthly subsidy $2,231-- Yearly subsidy $26,772
Income $70,000-- Monthly subsidy $2,091-- Yearly subsidy $25,092
Income $80,000-- Monthly subsidy $1,972-- Yearly subsidy $23,664
Income $90,000-- Monthly subsidy $1,890-- Yearly subsidy $22,680
Income $100,000-- Monthly subsidy $1,808-- Yearly subsidy $21,696
Income $100,400-- Monthly subsidy $1,805-- Yearly subsidy $21,660
 However, this is based on income not MAGI, in my case you could add
$35,524 to the above income numbers and still meet the MAGI number to
get the subsidy. So I could have an income of $135,924 and get a $21,660
Obamacare subsidy. (actually a little higher because, if my income was
higher I would have had higher deductions)
 So, when you said,
"Wrong again. You just accepted the totally faulty premise. Obamacare
subsidies are based on income and not only don't you get full subsidy
at $40K".
Are you willing to admit, you didn't have the facts and you where the
one that was wrong?
                          Mikek
btw, what I have read of your posts, I would say I generally have the
same line of thinking.
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:
There you go again, lying.
Rest of your BS deleted. You're so stupid you don't even know who was
president. Pathetic, you're an embarrassment even for libs.
You're a machine! Unbelievable forbearance on your part.
Old Bill's not used to being taken to task over his daft ideas so
relentlessly.
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:07:54 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 1:57:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 2:14:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 1:38:45 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 11:21:23 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 3:50:00 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:11:44 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:11:40 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 12:02:01 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:69434e38-5719-40e2-befa-
6e90a641f73c@googlegroups.com:
snip
Dubbya had already decided that lives and treasure in Irak weren't worth the cost of putting enough US forces in Irak to secure either..
That's a lie.
It's not an opinion that you share, which doesn't make it lie, or even wrong.
You stated it as a FACT, not an opinion, so it's a lie.
My opinion is that it is an obvious fact. Quite why you can't see it yourself escapes me - Dubbya's totally bogus declaration of victory (on the deck of an aircraft carrier of all places) seems to have more influence on your opinion that it would have done on anybody who could think for themselves.
I'm just as entitled to have my own opinion on the subject as you have (and it carries more weight than yours because you are an obvious idiot) and expressing that opinion doesn't happen to be lying.
Of course it's a lie when you claim an opinion is FACT.
That happens to be just as much of problem for you as it is for me. You can't recognise it because you have this delusion that your opinions are FACTS.
Do you live in Bush's head? That's the only way you'd know what you claim.
It might be the only way that you'd know what I claim, but most of us have this capacity for making deductions from well-publicised evidence.
George W Bush and his administration pushed up the US occupying forces in Irak to 160,000 (the surge) while acknowledging both that they couldn't afford to sustain that force, and that it wasn't enough to stabilise the country.
That's another lie. That would be something, Bush saying I'm gonna go
to 160,000 troops, but I know it won't work.
They negotiated a transfer of political power to Maliki, and started rebuilding the Iraqi army after the surge had quietened things down enough to make it safe to pass out arms to Iraqis. As the Iraqi army started taking over law and order they ran down the US army of occupation - to about 100,000 men when Dubbya left office - and the Obama adminstration ran it one down to 50,000 during 2010.
The decision to give up on Irak was clearly Dubbya's. Obama endorsed it for a variety of reasons, the main one being that there wasn't any other practical choice.
ROFL. Poor little Obama. He had to follow what Bush told him to do.
I guess that confirms that he indeed was a wuss.
Your anti-Obama rhetoric is remarkably stupid, even for you.
My rhetoric? I gave you that article in The Atlantic, a lefty publication,
where the ripped Obama a new asshole over his failure in Iraq, exactly
what I told you too, because it's a FACT.
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:
There you go again, lying.
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:
There you go again, lying.
snip
The last was the best. I told him Obama snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory in Iraq. He proceeds to prove it, by harping about how it all started to reverse in 2010 and 2011. He thought Bush was still president then..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
This isn't the first time I've posted this link, but it doesn't seem that trader4 has ever looked at it
The Irak surge peaked late in 2007, and the occupying force went down steadily after that, initially under Dubbya and then under Obama, who was merely maintaining the strategy that Dubbya had been forced to adopt (and was clearly the least worst option offered by the bad situation that Dubbya had got the US into).
Trader4 can't point to any discontinuity that Obama initiated.
The last was the best. I told him Obama snatched defeat from the Jaws
of victory in Iraq. He proceeds to prove it, by harping about how it all
started to reverse in 2010 and 2011. He thought Bush was still president
then.
I see my job as pointing out that they are being blatantly stupid - they
are incorrigible, but their potential audience needs warning.
On Tue, 07 May 2019 19:31:14 -0700, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
I see my job as pointing out that they are being blatantly stupid - they
are incorrigible, but their potential audience needs warning.
Get back where you belong, Bill. You're not due for early release for a
long time yet.
*PLONK!*