Interesting. Ulsterman has made contact with another insider... this time from Wall Street. Fascinating interview. Three-parter. Too long to post, but here's the start... and a link to the rest. Obama-worshippers need not follow. You'll only get upset... again. The 3-parter ends with the news that the Obama administration is hellbent on unionizing the military. Interesting read...
I am always puzzled by the consistent use of discredited sources. Your Ulsterman has a long history of anonymous sources and propagating lies. I find it very odd when there is so much to actually be critical of the president that made up sources seem to be the standard.
I dunno, TFM. The stories seem plausible to me. But then again, I have an open mind. And refuse to believe the liberal fantasy that NO INSIDER WOULD EVER SPEAK ILL OF OBAMA. Also makes sense an 'amateur' insider would go thru somebody like Ulsterman. Yeah, silly ole Ulsterman who spends all his time making up fantasy stories about Barack Obama. Nobody believes him, right? Sounds like the perfect mouthpiece to me.
Of course they do. They support your position and require zero evidence. They have been consistently wrong yet you continue to use the m. I have no doubt that the partisan hackery in your posts thrives on the petty fiction put forth by your Ulsterman. I mean, it is so much easier than actually using facts to support a series of arguments based solely on party. Why bother with an actual news story when one, you i n this case, can post things that cite zero facts?
Tell me, TFM. Why is it so easy for you to draw the line between credible and non-credible sources of info? You say the WH Insider lied. About what? Many things he said have come to pass... especially staff changes. Most of the other stuff isn't that specific. Talk about Obama's demeanor and how he conducts business isn't newsworthy, but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting. Besides, this is a 'new' insider. Not fair to base his/her reliability on the other guy/gal. Did you read this guy's interview? Or just here to tell me how unreliable he is?
Only in Political Opinions & Beliefs of course, but yes, 'plausible' is as good it gets. If it was 'factual' it'd belong in Current Events, right?
Bwahahahahahahahaha! How conveniently you forget. Remember his "huge scandal coming some"? That thread that was hammered into the earth? The scandal that never happened? Indeed. Like a psychic hotline. I am simply pointing out your consistent use of discredited sources and wondering why someone would still follower a person who obviously is incapable of being truthful or accurate. the conclusions I am left with is because it is the equivalent of e-poo, random (*)(*)(*)(*) being flung in the hopes that some sticks and that the right wing echo chamber around here runs in agreeing with you.
See, that's the only thing you naysayers ever come up with. The 'huge scandal'. Which was retracted in a subsequent report that the scandal was avoided because Pelosi decided to stay. Got anything else he 'lied' about? Haven't seen anybody but Obama-worshippers running in to comment. I'm sure the right wing echo chamber is busy reading the 3-part interview. Unlike the left, they prefer to be informed of the subject matter before shooting off their mouths.
That is awesome. Absolutely awesome. A really bad conspiracy theory. I see no evidence of that when someone is using a source that so consistently is wrong.
Anyone who thinks that their opinions don't needs facts to back them up is an idiot..... I could say that It's my opinion that the pluto is made of (*)(*)(*)(*) from a giant space baby......Are you saying regardless of the lack of facts that my opinion could still be considered plausible since it's never been disproven?
All you have to know is that Goldman Sachs was the 2nd largest contributor to Obama's campaign. So, I really imagine that this banker meeting of kings involved a lot of talk on how Obama could keep the bankers from the pitchforks. That's what Obama told them, by the way. [ You see the bigger implications of this statement, right? Phony crony and his speeches.
You still haven't given me another example where he was wrong. You saying it doesn't make it so. At least ten previous reports on this forum. I'd be willing to bet you haven't read one.
Actually, I did. You then claimed that the "imminent White House scandal" was something that happened in Congress, which is fairly laughable in it's attempt to add some much needed legitimacy to your source. I did particularly love the whacked out claim that the president is going to unionize the military. That was hysterical.
No huge scandal here... just insight into the actions of the POTUS at a recent roundtable meeting. Not interested? Don't read it. Let's see... a prev report from the WH Insider was titled something like, "Valerie Jarrett is the real power in the WH." Now we have this report from a Wall Street Insider who claims to have witnessed this event first hand. Know anything about Valerie Jarrett? This story fits like a glove.
That's hilarious. What Obama understands about the American economy?! How are Wall St crows qualified to assess that? Apart from noting Obama's affection for deplorable honesty.
Anyone who buys into the sales and marketing of bloomberg, and WSJ, deserves what's comming to them if they don't know how to interpret propaganda. These publications make money off the simple investors who follow their spin and talking heads. that's how they move the market. Every investor needs to pay as they go and pay as they learn.
Unless hes out on the golf course at Marxist Vineyard,or partying it down at the White House,or on the road running his mouth and making empty promises and speeches,expect him to be not interested.Hes not a businessman,never has been,and has no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue how a business works or how to do business.He wants to run the economy HIS way,not what the insiders on Wall Street that know their (*)(*)(*)(*) recommend to him.Hes a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing narcissist. He couldve atleast shown some balls and spoke for himself and offer his input instead of his stooge Jarret speak for him. Incompetent for the job of the Presidency is not even the word for him.
Even if this post is true which I highly doubt, who really gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) what some wall street crook thinks? The American people could give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about wall street if they make money or not. SMW once again proves her partisan hackery.
How absurd. Obama is a leader of an entire country! He has a "general" for this particular campaign with whom he has worked out what policy he chose, and he lets his expert and director in the field handle the briefing. This is how it works if you are running something larger than a ice cream truck! At least for effective leaders.
So Obama has figured out how not to bark when others can? Sure. That seriously undermines the credibility of the presidential office. Or its observers. No names.
