Barack Obama, our next President

[Cardinal of the Kremlin]

The interview below with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Karachi, Pakistan, daily newspaper, Ummat and published on September 28, 2001, 17 days after the alleged, but unsubstantiated, al Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon. The interview was sensational. The alleged “mastermind” of 9/11 said that he and al Qaeda had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. The British Broadcasting Corporation’s World Monitoring Service had the interview translated into English and made public on September 29, 2001.
Osama bin Laden’s sensational denial was not reported by the US print and TV media. It was not investigated by the executive branch. No one in the US Congress called attention to bin Laden’s refusal of responsibility for the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on a superpower.
To check my memory of the lack of coverage, I googled “Osama bin Laden’s interview denying responsibility for 9/11.” Some Internet sites reproduced the interview, but the only mainstream news source that I found was a 1 minute YouTube video from CNN in which the anchor, after quoting an al Jazeera report of bin Laden’s denial, concludes that “we can all weigh that in the scale of credibility and come to our own conclusions.” In other words, bin Laden had already been demonized, and his denial was not credible.
The sensational news was unfit for US citizens and was withheld from them by the american “free press,” a press free to lie for the government but not to tell the truth.
Obviously, if bin Laden had outwitted not only the National Security Agency, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO puppet states, Israel’s Mossad, and in addition the National Security Council, NORAD, US air traffic control, and airport security four times on the same morning, it would be the greatest feat in world history, a movement building feat that would have made al Qaeda the most successful anti-imperialist organization in human history, an extraordinary victory over “the great satan” that would have brought millions of new recruits into al Qaeda’s ranks. Yet the alleged “mastermind” denied all responsibility.THE BUSH FAMILY NEVER LEFT THE WHITEHOUSE SAME POLICIES AND LIES

[Not Surprized]

Carter wrote:

<quoted text> Today's Rejected Woman Syndrome #1 LOL

Reported for stalking asshole.

#105825 Jun 17, 2011

Devin wrote:

<quoted text>
ROFLMAO....... You posted that Woman's personal information on this thread....... you were sanctioned by Topix..... That qualifies you as a Topix Stalker, at least the moderator considers you such......
That's not Devin's assessment, I was here when the moderator warned you, it's not like you've forgotten....... ROFLMAO
The other delusional lunatic, Pelosi was kicked off Topix for the same thing...... ROFLMAO

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/grantley-pa/T ...
#108974

Waxballs Is Stalking Again wrote:

No need to lie stalker. You were banned for stalking and for spamming topix with your judgit machine, Waxballs. Your lucky you weren't arrested for what you did to that woman you fckn sick bastard. Go back to the cesspool you dragged yourself out of you animal.
Waxballs Waxbrains resurfaces from the longest dumpster dive in history!! Remember that topix banishment ? Still stalking women and giving out their personal information to the many topix posters roound the world? Better watch your step there Waxbrains, the Moderators are watching, you sick, psycho Stalker. Still spamming threads with macros runescape I see. You're a real honest to God psychotic STALKER if there ever was one. Keep it up maybe the FBI will catch on.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/itasca-il/T50 ...
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/itasca-il/T50 ...

#18127
Oct 17, 2009
"Sounds Paranoid To Me wrote:
She changed her name bacause she was being stalked. The poster who was stalking her got her private information and published it for the world to see on this forum. That is why he was banned. So she changed her name. I observed the whole incident from the start. Not only did he publish her information but continued to stalk and harass her. Can you understand why she would change her name now?

sunnycali wrote:
Would you report someone HERE to the moderators if they were giving out YOUR personal information?

17602
Oct 15, 2009
"sunnycali wrote:
Again, if someone posted YOUR private information would you just sit there and say, "way to go - that's freedom of speech in action?" And I mean information that included your home address and phone number. You would do nothing? If the answer is that you would do nothing then you apparently care little for your family.

17603
Oct 15, 2009

"sunnycali wrote:
So if someone were giving out your personal information you would not report that person? If someone were using extremely obscene language you would not report that person?
This has absolutely nothing to do ideology. I don't have any problem with free speech. I don't have any problem with people of any political bent expressing their opinions. I DO have a problem with people violating the most basic terms of decency.
Oh, and I would report someone if I saw them breaking into YOUR house. Or abusing a member of YOUR family. I guess you and I are different in that respect. And I'm very sorry for that. Not for me but for you.

#58531Reply Jun 9, 2010
"Devin wrote:
Waxman, you are a known stalker, you've been sactioned by Topix on several occasions.
You are the poster child for keeping certain presonal information unrelated to the debate to one's self.
Come on now...... What's your purpose why aren't your focusing on the issues of the debate, the 1995 Budget Impass?
.... stay with the issue of the debate which is more than enough dialogue with individuals like yourself... didn't you ever warn your children about relating personal information over the internet about themselves?.. it's an employed security feature...

[Mike R]

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Total bullsht.

Prove it.

[THE DEBIL]

WOMEN DON'T BUILD TOWERS. THEY BUILD EMPIRES. VERY OFTEN THEY INCORPORATE TOWERS INTO THEIR EMPIRES BUT THEY ARE AS LIKELY TO TEAR THEM DOWN AGAIN JUST BEFORE THEY'RE FINISHED. THEN THEY'LL HAVE SOME MAN WITH A BIG TALLYWACKER BUILD THEM A NEW TOWER OR SOMETIMES WILL FOREGO TOWERS ALTOGETHER.

[ra_con_teur]

dem wrote:

<quoted text>
That's him.

When you look in the toilet and a brown terd is floating around with no purpose...

thats you...

[Subversive Barry]

Mike R wrote:

<quoted text>Prove it.

Realtime can only prove what an idiot he is. He does that quite well.

[Not Surprized]

Alloramadai wrote:

<quoted text>
Messaged u

Got it. Check your messages.

[THE DEBIL]

MOST WOMEN - ABOUT 80%- DON'T EVEN LIKE BIG TALLYWACKERS BUT THEY REALIZE THAT THE MEN WHO OWN THEM WILL OFTEN BUILD THEM A TOWER. SUCH IS LIFE. WHEN THE SAUDIS FLEW THE PLANES INTO THE TOWERS THE MESSAGE WAS: "TAKE THAT, CAPITALIST PENISES." AND, AS WITH ANY DICK-SLAPPIN' ANTI-CAPITALIST, THE PENISES THEN INVADED IRAQ.

[Realtime]

Cardinal of the Kremlin wrote:

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was bitterly right when he said US president Barack Obama “seems to be a nice man, and that is precisely the problem” and aptly described him as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.
Under the pretext of combating terrorism, Obama has followed in the footsteps of former President George Bush and even intensified the killer drone attacks in different parts of the world, a move which has terminated in the unfortunate deaths of multitudes of innocent people. President Obama argues that the drone strikes are focused efforts to exterminate people who are on a list of active terrorists and that they have not caused huge human losses.
Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar, who represents families of civilians killed in US killer drone strikes, says,“Either President Obama is lying to the nation, or he is too naive, to believe on the reports which CIA is presenting to [him].”
In a similar strain, Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK has said:
“So many people who spoke out against George [W.] Bush’s extraordinary rendition and Guantánamo and indefinite detention have been very quiet when it comes to the Obama administration, who is not putting people in those same kind of conditions, instead is just taking them out and killing them. So we need to make people speak up and say that when Obama says this [program] is on a tight leash, this is not true, this is a lie.”
Only in Pakistan, Obama has authorized over 300 drone attacks and has killed innocent civilians. A new study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law shows that the killer “drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective.” Besides, the study calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low – about 2%. The report says Washington is misrepresenting drone strikes as “a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer,” saying that in reality,“there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.”
In a 29-page report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Philip Alston, the United Nations special representative on extrajudicial executions, called on the United States to exercise greater restraint in its use of drones.
“I’m particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe. But this strongly asserted but ill-defined license to kill without accountability is not an entitlement which the United States or other states can have without doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions.”

Any mention of the "total" financial aid that the US pays out each year to our long time ally Pakistan???

Without US aid and lax immigration and travel policies that fkn shthole would collapse in around itself.

[Not Surprized]

new yawk wrote:

All rational limits of sanity? LOL!
WTH is that?
You're the one who went irrational:
"red head with temper has friends with guns" !
Was that a threat? If so, I answered it.
No Mas?
If you want No Mas, then my advice is you don't answer any posts regarding me. Triangulating, then No Mas is off.
If you're smart, you'll understand the terms and conditions.
If not ...
<quoted text>

Reported for threats and stalking.

[Subversive Barry]

Not Surprized wrote:

<quoted text>
Reported for stalking asshole.
#105825 Jun 17, 2011
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/grantley-pa/T ...
#108974
Waxballs Is Stalking Again wrote:
No need to lie stalker. You were banned for stalking and for spamming topix with your judgit machine, Waxballs. Your lucky you weren't arrested for what you did to that woman you fckn sick bastard. Go back to the cesspool you dragged yourself out of you animal.
Waxballs Waxbrains resurfaces from the longest dumpster dive in history!! Remember that topix banishment ? Still stalking women and giving out their personal information to the many topix posters roound the world? Better watch your step there Waxbrains, the Moderators are watching, you sick, psycho Stalker. Still spamming threads with macros runescape I see. You're a real honest to God psychotic STALKER if there ever was one. Keep it up maybe the FBI will catch on.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/itasca-il/T50 ...
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/itasca-il/T50 ...
#18127
Oct 17, 2009
"Sounds Paranoid To Me wrote:
She changed her name bacause she was being stalked. The poster who was stalking her got her private information and published it for the world to see on this forum. That is why he was banned. So she changed her name. I observed the whole incident from the start. Not only did he publish her information but continued to stalk and harass her. Can you understand why she would change her name now?
sunnycali wrote:
Would you report someone HERE to the moderators if they were giving out YOUR personal information?
17602
Oct 15, 2009
"sunnycali wrote:
Again, if someone posted YOUR private information would you just sit there and say, "way to go - that's freedom of speech in action?" And I mean information that included your home address and phone number. You would do nothing? If the answer is that you would do nothing then you apparently care little for your family.
17603
Oct 15, 2009
"sunnycali wrote:
So if someone were giving out your personal information you would not report that person? If someone were using extremely obscene language you would not report that person?
This has absolutely nothing to do ideology. I don't have any problem with free speech. I don't have any problem with people of any political bent expressing their opinions. I DO have a problem with people violating the most basic terms of decency.
Oh, and I would report someone if I saw them breaking into YOUR house. Or abusing a member of YOUR family. I guess you and I are different in that respect. And I'm very sorry for that. Not for me but for you.
#58531Reply Jun 9, 2010
"Devin wrote:
Waxman, you are a known stalker, you've been sactioned by Topix on several occasions.
You are the poster child for keeping certain presonal information unrelated to the debate to one's self.
Come on now...... What's your purpose why aren't your focusing on the issues of the debate, the 1995 Budget Impass?
.... stay with the issue of the debate which is more than enough dialogue with individuals like yourself... didn't you ever warn your children about relating personal information over the internet about themselves?.. it's an employed security feature...

Report this .|..

You say everyone is this Waxballs.

Grow up, nutcase. And stop posting with a fake name, Obama worshipper.

[ra_con_teur]

THE DEBIL wrote:

WOMEN DON'T BUILD TOWERS. THEY BUILD EMPIRES. VERY OFTEN THEY INCORPORATE TOWERS INTO THEIR EMPIRES BUT THEY ARE AS LIKELY TO TEAR THEM DOWN AGAIN JUST BEFORE THEY'RE FINISHED. THEN THEY'LL HAVE SOME MAN WITH A BIG TALLYWACKER BUILD THEM A NEW TOWER OR SOMETIMES WILL FOREGO TOWERS ALTOGETHER.

Since you are in Poland...

how many friends do you bring in to change a lightbulb?

[Not Surprized]

Subversive Barry wrote:

<quoted text>
Realtime can only prove what an idiot he is. He does that quite well.

Stalker Waxballs.

Subversive Barry wrote:
<quoted text>
What a rediculous thing to say. You obviously are deficient in this area.
Let me refer to to one of our government services. You may start by calling 211 (InfoLine) and tell them what you said and do all day.
Best regards and thanks for your blind support.
BO

nostrilis waxman wrote:
another rediculous assert by a clueless moron:
<quoted text>

[RealDave]

TSM wrote:

<quoted text>
RealDave… Whose administration gave Solyndra the Cash? Your argument about Solyndra is about as silly as your argument ‘who sign NAFTA!! The answers are Obama/Clinton!!

1) The Bush administration tried hard to get that Solyndra loan approved before he left office.

2) NAFTA was signed by George HW Bush. The Nafta Treaty was never ratified by Congress thanks to Democrats. Clinton signed a law passed by Congress enacting the various aspects of the NAFTA Agreement that Bush signed with the heads of Mexico & Canada.

You keep proving how uninformed you are.

[Cardinal of the Kremlin]

The Democrats and the Republicans won so one set of rich elites beat the other .001% what did you GAIN more new taxes as Bush Sr. SAID read my lips so says uncle obama the plan for the darkest minority the same as before keep them on the threadmill they still dont see they have the same problems they always had "black PRESIDENT" doesn't matter keep a carrot in front of them they know no better,liberal democrate hollywood said it best in the godfather "animals"

[Alloramadai]

dem wrote:

<quoted text>Don't be alarmed by Yawkie.
She just fat imbecile with a penchant for abuse.

Sow. Wishing she'd bring that Ducati over; I'd love to take her for a ride on the country roads, show her a couple of the local stock ponds. Nothing like a crazy tramp to suck the wind from your sails. Guess a moniker of Waxballs says it all.

[Realtime]

Mike R wrote:

<quoted text>Prove it.

That's troll talk fkface__how about your dumbazz putting up a link to a halfway believable source. Mike Russo is a fkn right wing yahoo and you're a liar, you'll have to better than that.

[leosnana]

Homer wrote:

<quoted text>Yep, fck em, they can get a second, 3rd job, he doesn't care if they never see their kids, they never should have had them in the first place. Doesn't matter if their job was shipped overseas they should have anticipated that.
"....are there no prisons, are there no workhouses? Let them die and decrease the surplus population..."

Think there'll be a lot of forged chains Marleys in flack's Christmas Carol? Think his big 1%'ers at Massey will leave some coal in his stocking?

[Not Surprized]

Subversive Barry wrote:

<quoted text>
Report this .|..
You say everyone is this Waxballs.
Grow up, nutcase. And stop posting with a fake name, Obama worshipper.

Reported for stalking and harassing and threatening another woman and giving out her information on topix. You lose Waxballs. Third times a charm.

[RealDave]

Mike R wrote:

<quoted text> The Left has insisted that Bush pushed subsidies for Solyndra too and is therefore at least as responsible for the collapse as Obama. Solyndra execs didn’t see it that way in January 2009 and ramped up political pressure to fast-walk approval for the loan guarantees:
Solyndra officials were intensely pressuring Bush administration officials in early January 2009 to approve a government loan for the solar company before the Obama administration took power.
On Jan. 12, 2009, Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet sent an Energy Department official an email marked “urgent” expressing outrage that Bush officials had decided a few days earlier that while the loan application had “merit” it needed further study before officials could move forward with a taxpayer-financed loan.
The Obama administration went ahead with the loan that the Bush administration was reluctant to approve, let alone fast track.
The rest is history.

Nice try. Bush pushed for a decision & the application was lacking. Solyndra fixed the application & it was then approved.

What that says is that both Bush & Obama believed it was a worthy project.

What it says that it was not Obama feeding his cronies.

What it says is that Solyndra had newer technology that was worth exploring.

What it also says is that you right whiners are liars.

You have no clue about Solyndra, its promise, why it was a good investment at the time the investment was made,. why it failed, or even the purpose of the loan program.

I suggest Sonny, that you get better informed. As of now, you appear to be just another dumbass, uneducated & uninformed right whiner.