Shocking Footage: Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams

OnearmSword said:
Welcome to Obamaville USA. I bet Obama watches that video and gets his jollies off. Just the kind of world he envisions for us all.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the world built by the Patriot Act and the NDA. Those were created and pushed thru by both the dems and repubs.

Neither side of the aisle is worried about the freedom of US citizens.
 
WinterBorn said:
Welcome to the world built by the Patriot Act and the NDA. Those were created and pushed thru by both the dems and repubs.

Neither side of the aisle is worried about the freedom of US citizens.
Click to expand...

Currently only one side is putting the brakes on the runaway government train. Or do you think Obama's recent defeats in Congress do not count?
 
OnearmSword said:
Currently only one side is putting the brakes on the runaway government train. Or do you think Obama's recent defeats in Congress do not count?
Click to expand...

That is not out of any sense of responsibility. The reason is that the other party is in power.

When George W. was in the White House the spending was crazy as well. The places they spend money may be different, but both sides spend far more than we can afford.
 
WinterBorn said:
That is not out of any sense of responsibility. The reason is that the other party is in power.

When George W. was in the White House the spending was crazy as well. The places they spend money may be different, but both sides spend far more than we can afford.
Click to expand...

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt



To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

^^^^^ Obama spends at just about triple the rate Bush did. Nuff said..
 
OnearmSword said:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt



To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

^^^^^ Obama spends at just about triple the rate Bush did. Nuff said..
Click to expand...

Not even close to Nuff Said.

Bothe parties have spent like drunken sailors. Neither party is as concerned about serving us as they are about defeating the other party.
 
WinterBorn said:
Not even close to Nuff Said.

Bothe parties have spent like drunken sailors. Neither party is as concerned about serving us as they are about defeating the other party.
Click to expand...

Was enough for me to prove that Obama spends at triple the rate! That Obama spent far more in his first term than Bush did in two terms. LETS PUT IT INTO A REAL LIFE TYPE COMPARISON SHALL WE? GUY GOES INTO A BAR AND DRINKS 5 STRONG MIXED DRINKS IN TWO HOURS. Gets tipsy. Next guy comes in and drinks 6 strong mixed drinks in ONE HOUR!!
You have to ride 25 miles to your home with one of them driving you there LATE AT NIGHT ON WET AND SLIPPERY ROADS.
Which one are you going to choose?? I rest my case....
 
OnearmSword said:
Was enough for me to prove that Obama spends at triple the rate! That Obama spent far more in his first term than Bush did in two terms. LETS PUT IT INTO A REAL LIFE TYPE COMPARISON SHALL WE? GUY GOES INTO A BAR AND DRINKS 5 STRONG MIXED DRINKS IN TWO HOURS. Gets tipsy. Next guy comes in and drinks 6 strong mixed drinks in ONE HOUR!!
You have to ride 25 miles to your home with one of them driving you there LATE AT NIGHT ON WET AND SLIPPERY ROADS.
Which one are you going to choose?? I rest my case....
Click to expand...

Good luck with this one. Solitary will just keep on spinning...
 
OnearmSword said:
Was enough for me to prove that Obama spends at triple the rate! That Obama spent far more in his first term than Bush did in two terms. LETS PUT IT INTO A REAL LIFE TYPE COMPARISON SHALL WE? GUY GOES INTO A BAR AND DRINKS 5 STRONG MIXED DRINKS IN TWO HOURS. Gets tipsy. Next guy comes in and drinks 6 strong mixed drinks in ONE HOUR!!
You have to ride 25 miles to your home with one of them driving you there LATE AT NIGHT ON WET AND SLIPPERY ROADS.
Which one are you going to choose?? I rest my case....
Click to expand...

Let me stop you at the "You have to ride 25 miles to your home with one of them driving you there...".

No, I don't have to ride with them. And I don't see that one or the other of the two political parties is any better than the other. You may think the lesser of two evils is the way to run a country but I do not.

I raised hell at the way Bush spent, and I have raised hell at the way Obama spent. You, on the other hand, want to try and make one side look innocent and the other look bad.
 
WinterBorn said:
That is not out of any sense of responsibility. The reason is that the other party is in power.

When George W. was in the White House the spending was crazy as well. The places they spend money may be different, but both sides spend far more than we can afford.
Click to expand...

No offense but the spending wasn't actually different. Obama has only started 1-2 bills that are actually expenses. Pretty much all of Obama's excessive spending was put in place during the Bush Administration. (It's why NO ONE can name one costly bill Obama created)

But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have stopped the spending and it doesn't mean he wouldn't have if Congress would have let him.

You know Obama wanted to spend money on those pesky veterans and stuff....
 
Last edited:
DamnYankee said:
http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/

Welcome to the police state.
Click to expand...

You might want to take a look at the pictures you provided; because I do see people coming out of their homes, but don't see any incidents of guns being pointed at them (directly), nor do I see people leaving with their hands on their heads.

I do see a single incident where they had people exiting, after they had to search the house for them.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You might want to take a look at the pictures you provided; because I do see people coming out of their homes, but don't see any incidents of guns being pointed at them (directly), nor do I see people leaving with their hands on their heads.

I do see a single incident where they had people exiting, after they had to search the house for them.
Click to expand...

Click on the video and watch it.
 
WinterBorn said:
Let me stop you at the "You have to ride 25 miles to your home with one of them driving you there...".

No, I don't have to ride with them. And I don't see that one or the other of the two political parties is any better than the other. You may think the lesser of two evils is the way to run a country but I do not.

I raised hell at the way Bush spent, and I have raised hell at the way Obama spent. You, on the other hand, want to try and make one side look innocent and the other look bad.
Click to expand...

Either pick the lesser evil or let the greater evil reign supreme. You choose doing nothing and thus give aid to letting the greater evil reign. Good for you. Now get off your little soapbox and come down to reality.
We have a damn two party system. Your denying reality may seem like a righteous exercise in your mind but the reality is that by your inaction/silence you give aid to the greater evil. Deny all you care too but reality proves you are as wrong as a snorkel on a fish!!
 
OnearmSword said:
Either pick the lesser evil or let the greater evil reign supreme. You choose doing nothing and thus give aid to letting the greater evil reign. Good for you. Now get off your little soapbox and come down to reality.
We have a damn two party system. Your denying reality may seem like a righteous exercise in your mind but the reality is that by your inaction/silence you give aid to the greater evil. Deny all you care too but reality proves you are as wrong as a snorkel on a fish!!
Click to expand...

No, I choose to vote for candidates that belong to neither of the major parties. I also choose to not give either side a pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top