White House Insider: Pelosi Willing to Help Take Obama Down

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1

Remind you of anybody?!


I think you can make anyone look like that especially when they are trained to use body language to get their point across.

I can probably go through the last 4 presidents and get images like that, I would just like to see some proof of these claims rather than a supposed "insider"

I could spread disinfo just as easily by saying I had an insider that was feeding me info, until there is proof this is all just hearsay.

We shall find out soon enough in a few days....

-Kdial1




posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by new_here



I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days. And you know what? Maybe he is right, who knows?- Blogger Ulsterman quoting unnamed source allegedly with access to confidential White House information.


I wish them the best of luck.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Pelosi gets fired tomorrow. She's like a drowning person taking everyone down to the bottom with her. It doesn't matter if she's willing to help take Obama down ... it won't help her and he's doing a fine enough job of ending his own miserable term in office on a down note without her 'help'.

Good riddance to both!



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





to see that woman go will be the best service america could have ever done for herself in this persons opinion.



I agree! I think she is MORE dangerous to the country than Obama. I would love to see the whole house of cards come crashing down around the Democrats and take the controlling Republicans with them! That would be a good day!


Is both the "National Conventions" could be destroyed from within, by their own methods, in the face of public outcry evidenced by the Nov 2nd polls and the Tea Party support on the local level (not the Fox news level), then we might get somewhere. We could get a bunch of people into office that actually want to serve the people instead of just build a career in Washington by making alliances and greasing wheels.

Lord, I hope that Wednesday is good news!

SACK THE INCUMBENT - SACK THE INCUMBENT - SACK THE INCUMBENT



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Pelosi, like nearly all other politicians, would gladly sell her grandmother if she thought it would help her career / stock portfolio / current position.



Maybe there is something positive about her being a conniving, two-faced, back-stabber.


Remember when she'd run Pesident Bush into the ground like a dog and then when she won the Speaker of the House it was all "kissy-kissy" to ole George?

Made me want to
.

EDIT: All I can say is that while she's burning bridges, she needs to make sure they can't be rebuilt.
edit on 1/11/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


i agree that you agree

the second line agrees with us both



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdial1

I could spread disinfo just as easily by saying I had an insider that was feeding me info, until there is proof this is all just hearsay.

We shall find out soon enough in a few days....

-Kdial1


This insider has been giving info since early september and making predictions that have all come true so far. From Rahm Emanuel leaving to Larry Summers leaving to Nancy Pelosi leaving to David Axelrod being marginalized and soon to leave. Let's just wait and see if Gibbs resigns as press secretary and whether Hillary decides to run as VP with obama or run against him in the primary.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I always find it entertaining that these news articles we get, of these insiders who say Obama will be ousted as gay, or Pelosi's going to help take down Obama, they never come from any news organization that is reputable or large...

It's always these small internet based news websites that don't adhere to any professional standards...

I say this is bunk...



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by sp00n1
 


Sounds like more rubbish/disinformation from the fright-wing.

Seriously, do you people really believe this garbage? If you do, then the National Enquirer is a credible news source.


I take it you haven't actually READ the Insider reports. Why bother with that if you've already decided on the truth of the matter before reading them? I've been following the Insider posts since they started and I wouldn't believe the stories either except for one small fact:

Everything he said WOULD happen (in advance of it happening) HAS happened. To me that's a test of the veracity of what he is saying. If he had been wrong about even half of what he predicted I could see saying, "Well, it was a lucky guess." because anyone looking over at the White House has to conclude there are issues, even if you want desperate for them to succeed. If you actually believe there's nothing wrong over there, please take off your rose colored glasses.

I've noticed with this and the other, longer thread that the reactions against this material simply criticize the material and call it and the people who speak in favor of it names. That is, of course, a logical fallacy. Calling people names does not answer the charges. Not one post has actually refuted the claims. They are all like the above post, bereft of anything useful. Frankly I would welcome a post that was thoughtful and considered that addressed these issues and showed how they were NOT true.

The fact is that the Insider has proven remarkably prescient. So far he has been 100% accurate. If you are going to refute that, you have your work cut out for you. Of course, you'll have to start by actually reading the articles and show you are familiar with the material.

Note: I think it would be a good idea to copy those articles to the local hard drive. No telling how long they will remain up.

edit on 11/1/2010 by schuyler because: spelling, as usual



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Right Now , for the American People as a Whole , this Election is all about Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils . The Reps happen to Represent the Least Threat to our Personal Freedoms at the Moment , and that should be a " No Brainer " for most Voters out there, don't you think ?



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I always find it entertaining that these news articles we get, of these insiders who say Obama will be ousted as gay, or Pelosi's going to help take down Obama, they never come from any news organization that is reputable or large...

It's always these small internet based news websites that don't adhere to any professional standards...

I say this is bunk...


What, prey tell, is a "reputable news organization" in your eyes? The New York Times? CNN? MSNBC? Is it Chris Matthews getting tingles up his legs every time he hears Obama speak? If these "reputable news organizations" had actually been doing their job and investigating Obama's background as well as they did Sarah Palin's kids, Obama would never have been elected President. Obama's past is a virtual closed book because those very same "reputable news organizations" refused to deal with it. They WANTED Obama to be elected and they did their part in ensuring he was. They are becoming more and more irrelevant as we speak. I see that as a good thing.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Wow, that is interesting that he is the only candidate in the last 3 elections to not release medical records. Add to that the sealing up of his Harvard documents and the conspiracy gears in my mind hum to life!



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



What, prey tell, is a "reputable news organization" in your eyes? The New York Times? CNN? MSNBC?


There is no such thing as a reputable news organization. WSJ and NYT both have had major recent scandals about plagiarism and pure fiction. We currently have the Alaskan News controversy where they were conspiring to make a story out of nothing in order to damage a candidate. The talking heads on the magic box are admittedly just performers and not real "journalists." The embedded journalists overseas have a white-washed view and limited access to give the impression of transparency. The news from foreign outlets can take a small rowdy bunch of 10 or 15 people and make it look like the entire country is rioting.

You cannot believe your eyes and ears these days. Follow your conscience.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Elliot Spitzer Prostitutes,
Larry Craig Men's Room Fiasco,
John Edward's Love Child,
Al Gore sexual assault cover-up,
Mark Foley child predator,
Bill Clinton BJ king,
Barack Obama might be gay,
JFK, Blown Away,
What else have i got to say?

-- Elton John



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I always find it entertaining that these news articles we get, of these insiders who say Obama will be ousted as gay, or Pelosi's going to help take down Obama, they never come from any news organization that is reputable or large...

It's always these small internet based news websites that don't adhere to any professional standards...

I say this is bunk...


What, prey tell, is a "reputable news organization" in your eyes? The New York Times? CNN? MSNBC? Is it Chris Matthews getting tingles up his legs every time he hears Obama speak? If these "reputable news organizations" had actually been doing their job and investigating Obama's background as well as they did Sarah Palin's kids, Obama would never have been elected President. Obama's past is a virtual closed book because those very same "reputable news organizations" refused to deal with it. They WANTED Obama to be elected and they did their part in ensuring he was. They are becoming more and more irrelevant as we speak. I see that as a good thing.

Associated Press, Reuters, BBC News, among others.

It's not just "Right-Wing News" vs. "Left-Wing News".

And what about Obama's past? Do you actually believe he's not an American citizen, or he's a secret Muslim?

This website is getting more ridiculous by the day...



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Associated Press, Reuters, BBC News, among others.


Not a single one of them exposed bill clinton's sex scandal... it was drudge

none of them scooped the john edward's love child, it was tabloids like National Enquirer

none of them were the first on Tiger woods, nope... again it was the effin' National Enquirer for heavens sake!!



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
If anyone is going to go down in a crazy blaze of glory it is going to be Pelosi. If this is true it will be biblical in scale.
There have been rumors suggesting that she will retire if she loses and without her precious role as Speaker she really has nothing left to lose.

Headline DC "Pelosi goes Postal"... "everyone hates me"...



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Associated Press, Reuters, BBC News, among others.


Not a single one of them exposed bill clinton's sex scandal... it was drudge

none of them scooped the john edward's love child, it was tabloids like National Enquirer

none of them were the first on Tiger woods, nope... again it was the effin' National Enquirer for heavens sake!!

Yet all of them have handled some of the most groundbreaking and world-altering stories in a professional manner.

So, by your logic, since tabloids and fringe-based news websites are wrong most of the time but get it right once in a blue moon, we should trust them explicitly...



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


No, thats not what i am saying at all. First, they are not all wrong all of the time. Second, the rest of the media just wants to keep the status quo or go to great lengths covering michael jackson and anna nicole smith instead of doing real journalism.

it often requires outsiders and anonymous sources to get the balls rolling



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


No, thats not what i am saying at all. First, they are not all wrong all of the time. Second, the rest of the media just wants to keep the status quo or go to great lengths covering michael jackson and anna nicole smith instead of doing real journalism.

it often requires outsiders and anonymous sources to get the balls rolling

And Obama about to be ousted as being gay is real journalism, spoon?

Come on...





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join