Ai thuyết phục hơn về kinh tế? Obama = 34% và Romney = 55%
Nghe cho kỹ, "thuyết phục" hơn, 55%, chẳng là nói dễ làm khó, lời nói không mất tiền mua, lời nói rẻ tiền, Mitt ta chẳng có thành tích ǵ, ngoài cái "tài thuyết phục", Mitt ta mà không có cái tài thuyết phục th́ c̣n cái ǵ để mà đ́-bết đây? bầu tổng thống hay bầu đ́-bết "thuyết phục"?
Originally Posted by Tigon
Chị Tigon nhận thức rất hay. Muốn hoà bình phải chuẩn bị chiến tranh.
Ý tưởng ấy phù hợp vơi châm ngôn CƯ AN TƯ NGUY mà trường Võ Khoa Thủ Đức ngày xưa dùng.
Bốn chữ này rút gọn trong câu sau đây của Kinh Dịch:
- An nhi bất vong nguy, tồn nhi bất vong vong, trị nhi bất vong loạn. Thị dĩ thân an nhi quốc gia khả bảo.
Nghiã là :
Khi yên ổn thì đừng quên rằng rất có thể nguy,
Khi vững vàng thì đừng quên rằng rất có thể mất,
Khi trị thì đừng quên rằng rất có thể loạn. Nhờ vậy mà an thân vững nước.
Chương trình "lá chắn" cuả Cố TT Reagan ngày xưa làm đế quốc Nga tan rã là thí dụ hay nhất. Chệt cộng đang ì ạch trang bị lại
"tàu sân bay" cổ lỗ sĩ đấy.
Last edited by Vân Nương; 17-10-2012 at 01:49 PM.
Obama wins the second debate. Too bad it’s not the one that mattered.
Yahoo! News – 2 hrs 53 mins ago
Xin các bác đọc tiếp ở đây:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-wins-the...d-1568495.html
Cũng may những Tổng Thống sau này không giống Reagan chứ nếu giống th́ không chừng bác và tôi đă ra đường nằm rồi. Có bán sạch của cải của cả nước Mỹ này cũng không đủ trả nợ. Suốt ngày đi mượn nợ mà toàn tính chuyện làm world leader. Mai này sạch túi để coi nói c̣n thằng nào nghe ?
Nếu tôi nhớ không lầm th́ cứ mỗi một US dollar bác kiếm được th́ 68 cents là tiền nợ. Thực chất, bác chỉ bỏ túi 32 cents. Bây giờ bác không lo chuyện này v́ you got the whole amount, chính phủ tạm thời gánh cho bác. Nhưng mai này khi chính phủ Mỹ broke th́ mấy thứ như tiền an ninh xă hội, medicare, medicaid,... nếu c̣n th́ cũng bị cắt giảm nghiêm trọng. Tới lúc đó, mong bác đừng quên nguyền rủa đảng Cộng Ḥa và những tư tưởng hiếu chiến nhé.
Và ai là nạn nhân: con bác, cháu bác, các thế hệ sau này. Và có thể ngay chính bác khi chính phủ cạn tiền.
C̣n ai muốn chiến tranh ???
US Debt
34 Shocking Facts About U.S. Debt That Should Set America On Fire With Anger
The name of the blog clearly declares the blog owner's hostility toward Obama in particular and the Democratic Party in general. Obambi is a hostile derogative term. Therefore, the intention of the blog owner is to smear the Democrates and isn't to provide cold hard facts as from The Great Recession Blog (e.g. http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/d...ear-president/ ). By posting an article from the Obambi blog, you have revealed your intention to be similar to that of the blog owner's, that is, to smear the Democrates at all cost. By your action, you have undone all your past claims of "civility" and "fair reporting" ------> Your "reporting" completely lacks credibility.
Last edited by FatDuck; 17-10-2012 at 08:15 PM.
Thái lan không có chiến tranh vẫn có ḥa b́nh cho tới nay
Ấn độ giành độc lập từ tay ngươi Anh cũng không có chiến tranh
Miến điện ngày nay được giải phóng ra khỏi chế độ quân phiệt cũng kho^ng có chiến tranh và c̣n nhiều nữa...
Kinh phí xử dụng trong các cuộc chiến do các cường quốc tạo ra , nếu xử dụng vào các mục đích ḥa b́nh thế giới th́ sẽ tạo ra rất nhiều công ăn việc làm cho mọi người, đồng thời sẽ làm cho thế giới ổn định hơn ! Chỉ tại tài phiệt thích chế súng đạn và phải tạo chiến tranh để bán kiếm lời trên xương máu ngươi vô tội. Trung cộng đang chuẩn bị chiến tranh , liệu nước Tàu và thế giới sẽ có ḥa b́nh?
Giữa 1 người kiếm sống bằng nghề đánh nhau cho chủ tiệm cầm đồ và 1 người xây cất nhà cửa. Bạn chọn nghề nào? Đánh nhau và chiếm hửu là 1 nhu cầu hạ đẳng c̣n sót lại từ thời tiền sử. Do đó con ngươi cần có 1 xă hội văn minh để ḱm chế và điều tiết nhu cầu đó !
Last edited by Bac Teo; 17-10-2012 at 08:34 PM.
Dr Ron Paul the former Republican presidential candidate exposed Reagan as a traitor and a national embarrassment. See Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuC4iYpNzT4
Reagan paid the Iranian to continue holding the American embassy personnel as hostages with the ultimate goal of preventing the re-election of Jimmy Carter in 1980. As soon as Reagan took office, the Iranian released the hostages. Reagan kept his end of the bargain with the Iranian by selling weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini, who publicly denounced the U.S. as “the great Satan” . The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States as "levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort." Treason is punishable by death. Furthermore, Reagan used money gained from selling weapons to the Ayatollah to illegally support an insurgency against the elected Marxist government of Nicaragua. He completely disregarded a law that Congress had passed specifically to forbid that type of funding. He knowingly funnel aid to our enemy (Iran). He knowingly violated the Boland amendment that forbade funding to the Contras. By his action, he allowed himself to be above the law.
As for the deficit, crazed Reagan fans are blind to the fact the GOP (since Reagan) has mortgaged the future of America to artificially pump up the economy (that finally crashed under the Bush administration). Since 1950 every president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of the GDP, except Reagan, Bush father and son. Read here <----- the numbers are only good for those who know how to read.
Last edited by FatDuck; 18-10-2012 at 05:24 AM.
Bac Teo ni không rành Việt ngữ. "chuẩn bị chiến tranh" đâu phải nghĩa "có chiến tranh". Luận cái ǵ mà trật đường rày vậy ha?Thái lan không có chiến tranh vẫn có ḥa b́nh cho tới nay
Ấn độ giành độc lập từ tay ngươi Anh cũng không có chiến tranh
Miến điện ngày nay được giải phóng ra khỏi chế độ quân phiệt cũng kho^ng có chiến tranh và c̣n nhiều nữa...
Kinh phí xử dụng trong các cuộc chiến do các cường quốc tạo ra , nếu xử dụng vào các mục đích ḥa b́nh thế giới th́ sẽ tạo ra rất nhiều công ăn việc làm cho mọi người, đồng thời sẽ làm cho thế giới ổn định hơn ! Chỉ tại tài phiệt thích chế súng đạn và phải tạo chiến tranh để bán kiếm lời trên xương máu ngươi vô tội. Trung cộng đang chuẩn bị chiến tranh , liệu nước Tàu và thế giới sẽ có ḥa b́nh?
Giữa 1 người kiếm sống bằng nghề đánh nhau cho chủ tiệm cầm đồ và 1 người xây cất nhà cửa. Bạn chọn nghề nào? Đánh nhau và chiếm hửu là 1 nhu cầu hạ đẳng c̣n sót lại từ thời tiền sử. Do đó con ngươi cần có 1 xă hội văn minh để ḱm chế và điều tiết nhu cầu đó !
First of all, It is a tensed, and crackling debate. In fact, it is the best debate since Abraham vs Doughlas (my perception). I like it when Romney was speaking then Obama tried to interrupted, Romney said "you'll get your chance in a moment, I'm speaking..", then Obama did, and sit back in his chair. It's kind of SHUT UP and SIT DOWN.
That's about the energy of the debate. The contents were just old sh...it throwing back and forth.
However, 1 thing new: Benghazi. Obama is still lying. I am sure this issue will mushroom in the coming days. here is the truth.
• March, 2012: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, later says he received no response. He does so again in July, with the same result.
So who do we believe? The on the ground guy who is risking his damn life or Barack Obama and the assh-les surrounding him who are now saying they didn’t know? Nordstrom has no reason to lie. No reason to risk his own future by speaking out against the administration. I’ll say it again. State knew. Obama knew. THEY ARE ALL LYING. Yeah. Hillary? F-ck her too. We told her to stay away from these people. 2016 huh? Good luck with that now.)
• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.
(NOTE: Six months before the September 11th attack. No need for more security huh?)
• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.” Another Facebook posting a month later highlights Stevens’ daily runs in Tripoli in an apparent threat.
(NOTE: So we got sh-t like this happening and the Obama White House tried to say it wasn’t a terrorist attack that killed those Americans on September 11th? Terrorists were posting the Ambassador’s daily schedule for f-ck’s sake.)
• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.
(NOTE: Take this June 6th event and put it up against what the White House will say after the September 11th attack that they had no “actionable intelligence” regarding a pending attack. This was clearly a test run. We got people in the White House who are purposely ignoring threats to the United States. Their entire foreign policy is a bunch of new age talk nice bullsh-t. Period. Terrorists blew a huge hole in the wall of the consulate four months before September 11th and the White House will say they had no clues there was a situation brewing? )
• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.
(NOTE: There was already several attacks against American personnel prior to this video being released. How then is the video to blame for those and subsequent attacks?)
• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.
(NOTE: My understanding is the man begged them to stay on. Stevens was afraid. Really worried. Borrowed time worried. And the Obama White House could have given a sh-t. Or, they were up to some weird save the day plan like you forwarded me earlier. I am not pushing away any conspiracy on this thing. It stinks all the way. Top to bottom this thing stinks like week old road kill in July.)
• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”
(NOTE: That date of September 8th. So they had Libyan militia telling diplomats the sh-t was about to hit the fan. If State had been on the ball. If the administration had been on the ball, they had 48 hours to secure the safety of American personnel. Here’s a big red f-cking siren going off here. After these reports 48 hours earlier though we have the ambassador flying INTO Benghazi???????????? ???? When I first read that report of the Libyans telling us on the 8th that the danger level had become critical and then we have Stevens flying INTO Benghazi after those warnings, gave me chills. That means there is something way more going on here. I got no real answer as to what. Just that there was something really strange going on. The missing weapons? Maybe. But maybe more. Like I said. Gave me chills. My gut telling me there is something there and they want it buried so deep now they are willing to look like idiots doing it. Better to look like idiots than murderers?????
• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.
(NOTE: Hello??? No actionable intelligence? Really Jay Carney? Really?)
• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
(NOTE: Mitt Romney was RIGHT.)
• Sept. 12: Media outlets report that Stevens and three other Americans have been killed in an attack by well-armed militants. Obama denounces an “outrageous and shocking attack” without mentioning the video or terrorism. Reuters reports for the first time that some administration officials believe the assault “bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”
(NOTE- within 24 hrs media reports indicated the Benghazi Massacre was clearly a coordinated attack while the Obama administration aggressively pushed the “not our fault it was the video” excuse. The cover-up is fully engaged at this point. The question I still have is WHY????????? It’s got to be more than they just didn’t want Obama to look dumb. He does that enough all on his own. What the f-ck was going on in Libya? Why was Stevens flying into Benghazi when all the warnings were screaming to do the exact opposite? Who ordered him to go? No way he does that on his own. The guy was afraid. He was ordered in. Who made that call? And why?)
• Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says “the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”
(This is about 48 hrs after the Benghazi attack. Intelligence in Libya and back to DC knew by then it was most likely terrorists. You asked if it was possibly something that had been staged by Obama operatives and it went bad? I’ve run that scenario around and around and there are some missing peices that I can’t quite fit together. But I’m not saying it isn’t possible. With these people, not possible no longer applies. That would be a huge f-cking risk though.)
• Sept. 14: Carney says the administration had “no actionable intelligence” about a pending attack.
(READ THAT STATEMENT AGAIN. THIS IS THREE DAYS AFTER THE BENGHAZI MASSACRE. THER HAD BEEN NO LESS THAN THREE RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE AMERICAN CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11TH. WHY ARE THEY SO WILLING TO LIE LIKE THIS WHEN ALL THIS EVIDENCE POINTS TO A TERRORIST ATTACK??? HAS TO BE SOMETHING BIG THEY ARE COVERING UP. BIG. BIG. BIG.)
• Sept. 16: Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, does the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and says the video is the “proximate cause” of the assault in Benghazi. “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice tells ABC. That same day, interim Libyan president Mohamed Magarief insists on CBS that “it was planned, definitely.”
(NOTE: Apparently Libyan intelligence is better than American intelligence under the Obama regime. Susan Rice was directly prepped by the Obama White House. She was told EXACTLY what to say when she went on television and repeatedly LIED to the American public. And she doesn’t answer to Hillary. She answers to Obama/Jarrett.)
• Sept. 19: National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the assault was a “terrorist attack” but goes on to call it an “opportunistic” attack in which armed militants took advantage of an ongoing protest.
(NOTE: This is where the first real rift between the United States intelligence community and the Obama White House is put out in the open. This is when I started to really get chatter about some people getting real pissed with the Obama WH because they are learning they are gonna be set up as the blame for the attack.)
• Sept. 20: CBS reports that witnesses in Benghazi say there was no protest prior to the armed assault against the consulate. Magarief tells NBC the same thing on Sept. 26. Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
(NOTE: Obama is openly lying to the American people. I’m screaming at the TV asking why???? Why did Jarrett send him out there to lie like this? Why risk that kind of damage? Are they that stupid? That confident? And lots of people are asking these questions at this point. Talking Senators starting to ask some tough questions of the administration. Behind the scenes still. But pushing for answers. Obama is looking like he really could be one and done, so some of them are willing to push them around a bit. Not as much as I would like, but it’s a start.)
• Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.
(NOTE: Within 24hrs of Barack Obama telling America the video was to blame and calling it a “natural protest” Hillary Clinton goes on record with the term “terrorist attack”. Clinton and Obama are now in direct opposition – though publicly still circling their own wagons against growing accusations of a cover-up. I got little to no sympathy for Hillary. But I am watching Bill’s reaction to this. Real close. So far it’s been very quiet and if I was Obama and Jarrett, that would make me very very nervous. I have known very few people that can snap a leash as hard and unexpected as Bill Clinton, and he’ll be smiling ear to ear and look like the nicest guy you could ever know while he does it. That first debate, BC had a hand in some of that. How Obama was left hanging a few times. How he looked over at the moderator for help and it didn’t arrive. “He don’t want to listen - he don’t want to prepare? Let him be on his own then.” The only one I’d want to piss off less than BC is the Old Man. He don’t snap a leash. He makes you hang yourself with it and has you thanking him for giving you the opportunity to do so.)
• Sept. 25: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama doesn’t mention terrorism but makes repeated references to the video. Asked about Clinton’s statement on ABC’s “The View” show, the president skirts the issue by saying: “We’re still doing an investigation,” blames “extremist militias.”
(NOTE: Why does our current president REFUSE to use the term TERRORIST when it involves Muslim extremists? Even as his own Secretary of State and National Counterterrorism Center director have gone on record DAYS EARLIER calling the Benghazi killings a terrorist attack, Barack Obama refuses to do so.)
• Sept. 27: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it’s “clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”
(NOTE: Panetta had been pretty low profile up to this point. Two days after Obama’s UN speech, Panetta is using the term terrorist attack in regards to the Benghazi Massacre that pushes Obama into a corner while he comes to the defense of the intelligence community. And then we get a new report out about how Obama didn’t really make the call on Bin Laden from a former military intelligence guy. Coincidence? F-ck no. That was a firm tap to the top of Obama’s head reminding him there are people who KNOW things, right? We got these very powerful people all facing off against each now. Each one of them is hoping nobody goes THERE, but each one of them is letting it be known they will go there if they have to. And all the rest of them are just scrambling for cover hoping they don’t get stepped on.)
• Oct. 6: In a letter to Senate Republicans demanding an explanation for the shifting rhetoric, Rice lays the blame on the intelligence community, says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials.”
(NOTE: Now the rift between the Obama White House and the intelligence community is really opening up here. Some might not realize that as U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice answers FIRST to President Barack Obama NOT to Hillary Clinton. Rice is a cabinet member. Her loyalty is to the WH not State. That letter she sent blaming the intelligence community was drafted and approved by high ranking Obama White House advisers…JARRETT.)
• Oct. 9: Senior State Department officials for the first time acknowledge that there was never any protest in Benghazi during a background call with reporters. They say linking the attack to the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.
(NOTE: Hillary now using the Obama White House tactic of blaming the U.S. intelligence operations. Possible rift now between her and Leon Panetta? If so, dangerous for her to roll that dice unless it has been agreed beforehand some poor no namer is going to be given up as the sacrificial lamb in this current blame game scenario. Actually, it’s dangerous regardless, because if she is crossing Panetta in any way, she won’t win unless Bill does a full on intervention and I don’t know if he wants to go there. Don’t ever underestimate Leon Panetta. He is powerful in a way that only comes from information. And information he’s got. On a whole lot of them and us.)
• Oct. 10: Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify at a House oversight committee hearing on security lapses in Libya. They say their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington, testimony confirmed by cables made public by chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
• Oct. 11: During the vice presidential debate, Biden says, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” He also denies responsibility for the administration’s shifting explanation: “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”
(NOTE: Has there ever been an administration so willing to throw some of the very bravest who serve to protect the safety of American citizens right under the wheels of the f-cking bus? In all my years of being around these kinds of people I have never seen this kind of thing. Never. There’s been scraps between officials. There’s been firings and resignations. That’s all part of the deal. But to blame the entire intelligence community when the record clearly shows people were aware of how bad the situation had gotten? When the Libyans knew but we are saying we didn’t know? Bullsh-t. Barack Obama is lying. Everyone around him is lying. And that lie comes at a whole lot of risk. So what is the motivation to lie? Why do it? What are they covering up? Sorry I got more questions than answers on there but that’s what it is.) LINK
____________________ _____
What I can tell you is the Benghazi issue is playing out in the media much more than it was just a week ago. That took some effort, but it’s reaching a closer version of critical mass. We got the debate tomorrow. The townhall thing makes me nervous and hopeful. The Obama team will try and pack the house with their people. Not sure how successful the Romney people will be able to counter that. It’s New York. Happy to report though that there is some serious endowment influence to be leveraged here with Hofstra. You know who has apparently made some friendly “don’t make me pull the plug on you” calls in our favor.
One last thing. Got a story that came back my way. A little dated now but figured you’d like to hear it. Few days or so after the first debate. When it finally started to sink in just how badly Obama did and how Romney was really starting to look like he could win this thing. Jarrett went ballistic upstairs. Inside her office in West Wing 2. Remember how I told you how there is her office upstairs and then Obama’s study just down the hall? How Obama spends most of his time in the study and hardly any time downstairs in the Oval?
Anyways, Jarrett was blaming everyone around her for Obama’s performance on the debate. This got back to Plouffe who has apparently become more and more agitated over Jarrett’s influence. She’s not only trying to coordinate Obama’s brain but now telling the operatives how to handle the campaign and that’s got Plouffe biting nails over what to do with her. So she is holed up in a meeting with somebody from the White House Counsel in her office and comes out pissed. Sends staff to go get Plouffe. His office is downstairs right next to the Oval. Where Axelrod used to be. Plouffe is down there a lot more than Obama is. The poor bastard is trying to coordinate the plans from Chicago, and Jarrett’s interference from upstairs. Not an easy job. Jarrett decides to make the trip downstairs herself. Now this kind of thing with Jarrett, her pushing people around, it happens a lot these days. It’s become her thing. When it gets back to her how people call her the defacto president, she likes that. A lot. Makes her smile to hear it. Like she told Obama a while back. He might not like his life but she does. And she’s living it.
I’m guessing she’s not even sure if Plouffe is on the premises because he has been spending more time in Chicago with all the others, but down she goes. No word on if Obama was around in the version I got. Maybe he was still in his study. Or over at the residence. Doesn’t really matter. He has depended on the script more and more these days and that script either comes from Jarrett or is approved by her if it comes from someone else. She controls everything going to and from the president.
So down she goes to West Wing 1, and she’s got that look everyone around there is so familiar with. Queen Jarrett on the warpath. Needs somebody to blame for her boy f-cking up so bad during the first debate. Got polls getting shaky. Got a fundraising red alert going out. She enters Plouffe’s office. Comes right back out. Has words with an assistant down there. Not sure who. But the assistant apparently gives as good as she gets. Then another woman steps in. From the description I’m thinking it’s Smoot, though I thought she was out of town at that time but the description fits her. Like so many of them, she’s been back and forth to Chicago as well. Now you got to know that Julianna is a good company individual. Good at what she does. Wall Street connected. Carolina girl. Especially well thought of with some high profile members of Congress. A hell of a lot more thought of than Valerie Jarrett. Good at the cash box. And for those people, cash is always king. So if Jarrett was going after Smoot on that day, I can see her discovering a woman more than willing to push right back.
So Jarrett is told by this other woman to step back into Plouffe’s office area. The door closes and they have it out. Jarrett is screaming at her. Now you got to understand, this is maybe 20 feet at most from the Oval. So if Obama was in there, he wasn’t coming out. And there’s security of course. But apparently they don’t intervene like they have before. Guessing these kinds of altercations have become so common they don’t bother. Just another day in paradise inside the Obama White House.
What I do know is that the phrase “He said he was one of ours! What the hell happened? He was one of ours, that’s what we were told. What the hell happened?” was repeated at least a few times during that altercation.
That was coming from Jarrett and it had to have been overheard by at least ten people in and around the West Wing at the time. It was loud enough to get Lew to quickly trot down to that end of the hall and into the office where the two women were still squaring off. He only made it about 30 seconds before Jarrett was heard telling him “You – OUT!” And that’s what he did. Right back down the hall and back to his office without saying a word to anyone about it. Just shook his head a bit as if to say “what are you gonna do?”
Both women came back out and Jarrett made her own way back down the hallway with the other woman following her. Jarrett swung around again and the two were face to face before a male member of the staff intervened between them. Told it was an intern. Poor bastard. Also told Jarrett very clearly looked like she didn’t want to take it any further but the other woman looked like she was ready to go. You ever cross a Carolina woman when she’s pissed? Wouldn’t recommend it. She wasn’t giving any indication of being one bit afraid of Valerie Jarrett on that day in that hallway.
Now it’s not so much the argument I want to point out here but what Jarrett said to that other woman, who I believe was Julianna Smoot. When she was screaming about “he was one of ours” I am thinking it was a reference to Jim Lehrer, the moderator of that first debate. I went back and rewatched that debate a few times and there are several examples where Obama looks right over at Lehrer and appears to be waiting to be bailed out. And I’m guessing Lehrer tried to do just that but Obama was so bad so often and Romney was so good nobody could have saved Obama’s ass that night. Nobody.
And that means they will try to ensure they get that kind of help even more for the second debate. But just like he was prepared for the first debate, the governor will be even more prepared the second time around. And this time we are pushing Benghazi out there hard. A whole lot of us. They will try and pack the house. They will try and play out a gotcha moment. But we are prepared. The governor doesn’t have to win big like he did last time. He’s just got to win.
We get that, we get a one and done pile of sh-t pretender out on his ass where he belongs. There’s the riots though. They got some plan to have him come out and calm the f-cking racist seas after the election. Heal the country. Get the rioters to go back home and move on because “that is what America does”. That will help secure him sainthood status in the history books and line up about a $100 million for his United Nations One World World bullsh-t Tour in 2014.
You didn’t think we’d be rid of this guy for good once he’s out of the White House did you?
They got big plans to go. And on that end of things, I don’t think there’s a damn thing to be done about it.
-WHI
____________________ _
LOL. Really? Were you there when Abraham (Abraham who?) debated Douglas (not Doughlas, as you misspelled) debated? What year was that? What were some of the main issues debated? Who won? Who lost? LOL
When you call one candidate by his last name, you should do the same for the other. Reporters don't call a candidate by his/her first name only; that is common courtesy, doing anything to the contrary would be disrespectful.
If you copied and pasted the article from another site, please have the courtesy to list the source.
If you forgot where you copied and pasted from, please have the courtesy to state so.
Last edited by FatDuck; 17-10-2012 at 10:00 PM.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks