builder Posted October 14, 2010 Posted October 14, 2010 Bush's actions have nothing to do with what Obama has done. Obama has all the power and had a super majority for a year and only lost that majority when he refused to listen to the American people. During that year Republicans could do nothing to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do and also during that time they accomplished nothing but harm to America. They now have to answer to that harm. why is this single massive point so hard for some to grasp??? Bush's actions have everything to do with what Obama has done. It will take a lot more than a charismatic black academic to regain your international cred after that previous disaster. Yeah, Bush wasn't the greatest prez ever. We get it. blah blah blah. Let's clarify that, shall we Eddo? Bush was the repub choice, from how many candidates? And he was deemed to be the best choice? Or the best connected? With the Dems having complete control of the House, Senate, and the White House- why is our country not all happiness and rainbows now??? Why is your country's economy in the shitter, you mean? Look to the fiscal irresponsibility of your past prez, you know, what's his name? You don't read graphs too well? Sorry, can't blame that one on the Repubs... Sorry, can blame lots of irresponsible and often corrupt shite on the repugs. 1 Quote Persevere, it pisses people off.
timesjoke Posted October 15, 2010 Posted October 15, 2010 Bush's actions have everything to do with what Obama has done. It will take a lot more than a charismatic black academic to regain your international cred after that previous disaster. Obama has made our international "cred" worse, he is weak and everyone knows it. This is why everyone from North Korea to Iran are giving him the finger and waving him off. Say what you want about Bush, nobody thought he was weak, and on the international stage, strength is all that matters. Even the French are looking at Obama with surprise at how weak he is, and that says a lot. Let's clarify that, shall we Eddo? Bush was the repub choice, from how many candidates? And he was deemed to be the best choice? Or the best connected? Bush was no angel, and in the last couple years of his Presidency he was very liberal and let the Democrats who controlled Congress get away with a lot, but in his mind he had to do what he could to win and support his troops so he traded that troop support for agreements to sign off on things the Democrats wanted. Myself I would have exposed the extortion of the Democrats and let the American people know what the Democrats were doing but Bush felt it was better not to have that fight and maybe he was right, I don't know. It is always easy to sit back and say what we would or would not do but I do know I did not agree with everything Bush did. And that is the biggest difference between a Conservative and a Progressive. A Conservative can admit their leaders are not perfect and can agree or dissagree freely on each point while Progressives are blind followers and they never admit their leaders have done something wrong. I am proud of many things Bush did such as keeping us safe and taking the fight to the radicals who were drawn from all over the world to fight against the "infidels" in Iraq instead of fighting housewives and children in our streets. Trained soldiers wearing body armor and having the ability to defend themselves faced the radicals and killed them instead of those same radicals planting bombs on school busses and such. Why is your country's economy in the shitter, you mean? Look to the fiscal irresponsibility of your past prez, you know, what's his name? You don't read graphs too well? A President can do nothing all by himself. Not even in your backward Country does one man make all policies and make them law. You have to look at all who were in control and created the laws set on Bush's desk and the last two years of Bush's Presidency was with a Democrat Congress who were holding support for the troops as hostage to make Bush sign off on their laws. Bush in my opinion was weak to let them get away with it, but still everything that was made law, was created by Democrats and placed on Bush's desk by them. Sorry, can blame lots of irresponsible and often corrupt shite on the repugs. Well you can certainly try, but you will be a dishonest person if you do not admit that the last four years have had Democrats in control of the purse strings. Combine that with the fact that it was the democrats who made the laws that flooded the market with home loans to the poor that could not possibly pay back those loans and we can easily see it is the policies of the Democrats who have wrecked our economy. Even now, with the Democrats in control of everything they still try to blame everything on the Republicans. Progressives just can't take responsibility for what they have done, it really is that simple. Bush was ome man, just like Obama is one man, it takes a collection of hundreds of men to set policies and make laws. Both Obama and Bush are restricted by what is placed on their desk by Congress. Sure, a President can refuse to sign, but he risks a huge mess by fighting a battle he cannot win. In Bush's case, he did what he thought he could to moderate the damage caused by the Progressives, but in the end, he was one man and he had to agree to certain things to ensure his troops would get the funds they needed to succeed, so he made compramises for them, not himself. Obama is all about himself and his accomplishments. Obama truly believed transforming America and creating a path to Government run healthcare would be his legacy. Now that it seems that legacy with at the least be unfunded and stripped down if not completely removed, he has gone off the deep end. Have you seen the crazy stuff he has been saying lately? The more he talks, the more Americans turn away from him. 1 Quote
wez Posted October 15, 2010 Posted October 15, 2010 Well, I think we can all agree that none of us like the things our government has done o'er the last umpteen years. What's the sense in blaming one political party over another when they're both at fault for delivering us to hell in a bucket? Enough bickering over labels that are intended and designed to fool people into actually believing they have a choice when the choice between a kick in the nuts or a kick in the head is no choice at all. Question is, what are "we" gonna do about it? I for one am going to relentlessly rant about "Liberals" and "Progressives" until I make everyone around me sick.. That'll make it all better.. right TJ? By the way.. Bush didn't "keep us safe" .. it was largely due to him and his daddy that we were ever targeted by Muslim extremists in the first place.. quite the opposite. Nuttin' to be proud of Rusty.. 1 Quote
timesjoke Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 Well, I think we can all agree that none of us like the things our government has done o'er the last umpteen years. What's the sense in blaming one political party over another when they're both at fault for delivering us to hell in a bucket? There are degrees Wez, while I completely agree that when Republicans have had control the way Democrats have had control over the last 4 years, they did not do the things me as a Conservative would like to have seen (such as tort reform) they at the same time did not try to create a massive power grab the way Democrats have with the banks/auto industry/ healthcare. When compared side by side, it is the Progressives who are trying to transform America into a huge daycare center. The only blame I give is blame earned with actual behavior Wez. That is why you also see me blast Republicans who mess up while a Progressive never will admit their side messed up. Enough bickering over labels that are intended and designed to fool people into actually believing they have a choice when the choice between a kick in the nuts or a kick in the head is no choice at all. The only people bickering are people like you who try to muddy the waters with untrue comments like this one. There is a huge difference between Progressive and Conservative politics, but the biggest difference is one of money. Look to California to see how even when broke for many years, they still spend money they don't have to build things like the most lavish public High School in the Nation. There really is a difference between the sides if you care about things like the Constitution. Question is, what are "we" gonna do about it? We can't do anything about it unless people admit it is the Progressives who are causing most of the problems with their need to meddle and push an agenda to play Robin Hood. Individual responsibility and self-reliance is what made America great, not lazy dependence on the Government tit. I for one am going to relentlessly rant about "Liberals" and "Progressives" until I make everyone around me sick.. That'll make it all better.. right TJ? Telling the truth is all we can do, fighting this trend to transform America into a daycare facility is done on any battlefield available. By the way.. Bush didn't "keep us safe" .. it was largely due to him and his daddy that we were ever targeted by Muslim extremists in the first place.. quite the opposite. Nuttin' to be proud of Rusty.. And after all that talk about not pointing fingers at Progressives you had to point your finger at two Republicans and tell a lie? You Progressives all follow this game plan, you pretend to be reasonable and say how we should all get along and work together then you ruin it by acting completely against what you just said. Bush was responding to Muslim attacks, not causing it. Sure the terrorists "CLAIM" they are only reacting to the things the West does but you have to remember something Wez........they are terrorists, they kill innocent people, they prefer to target and kill women and children because it will cause the most fear so why is it you Progressives think you can trust what they say? Do you really believe a terrorist would not lie about why they do what they do? 1 Quote
wez Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 why is this single massive point so hard for some to grasp??? Yeah, Bush wasn't the greatest prez ever. We get it. blah blah blah. With the Dems having complete control of the House, Senate, and the White House- why is our country not all happiness and rainbows now??? Sorry, can't blame that one on the Repubs... Appears the single massive point so hard for some to grasp is the fact that the entire country doesn't change overnight with new politicians entering office. The Great Depression took 1/4 century for our economy to get back to where it was in 1929 and the only reason we recovered was cuz of a World War. Life ain't a TV show where Capn' Morality saves humanity in a day.. How easy is it to change to better yourself overnight? 1 Quote
timesjoke Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 why is this single massive point so hard for some to grasp??? Yeah, Bush wasn't the greatest prez ever. We get it. blah blah blah. With the Dems having complete control of the House, Senate, and the White House- why is our country not all happiness and rainbows now??? Sorry, can't blame that one on the Repubs... Appears the single massive point so hard for some to grasp is the fact that the entire country doesn't change overnight with new politicians entering office. The Great Depression took 1/4 century for our economy to get back to where it was in 1929 and the only reason we recovered was cuz of a World War. Life ain't a TV show where Capn' Morality saves humanity in a day.. How easy is it to change to better yourself overnight? So are you saying they should not be held accountable for their own promises too Wez? The Democrats said they knew what was wrong and had the ability to fix it Wez. Obama promised us unemployment capped at 8% if we gave him the freedom to enact his ideas without even taking the time to read the bill before making it law. Either they knew what they were doing or they did not Wez. Let me ask you a question everyone dodged Wez....if the stimulus package had worked, would Obama be giving Bush credit for it's success? No? Then why is it's complete failure not the Democrats' fault in your mind? Democrats have been in control of the purse strings for 4 years now. Everything Bush signed for his last two years in office was placed on his desk by Democrats, not Republicans. Most of the mess Bush signed was connected to funding to the troops so in many ways Bush was trapped into signing whatever they gave him. Quote
jokersarewild Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 If it worked, Dems would say it was them who brought it about. Since it didn't, they blame Republicans. Etc, etc. It will ALWAYS be like this. That is the nature of politics. I'm not sure why we're even arguing this point. Quote RoyalOrleans is my real dad!
timesjoke Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 If it worked, Dems would say it was them who brought it about. Since it didn't, they blame Republicans. Etc, etc. It will ALWAYS be like this. That is the nature of politics. I'm not sure why we're even arguing this point. I agree it is considered normal sometimes, but it being normal does not mean we have to let them get away with it. Wez was trying to say we should not blame the Progressives for their failures, I am saying that we should hold them to them accountable for those many failures, just like I fully admit the Republicans earned being cast out of power because of their failure to live up to their conservative promises. Quote
wez Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Wez was trying to say we should not blame the Progressives for their failures, I am saying that we should hold them to them accountable for those many failures, just like I fully admit the Republicans earned being cast out of power because of their failure to live up to their conservative promises. No, wez was saying the political labels you hold so dear are meaningless and the fact that you accept them and blanket individual human beings in labels prevents holding anyone accountable for anything. Who are the individual human beings that you think should be held accountable, what should they be held accountable for, and what should be done to them? George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld are liars, they waged war based upon lies to cover up ulterior motives, they should be served up as a war criminals with an apology. I do believe that would go a long ways to repairing relations in the Middle East. Would these 3 sacrifice themselves for their country? Course not.. they serve up other peoples children to death based on lies, greed, and theft. Quote
timesjoke Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 No, wez was saying the political labels you hold so dear are meaningless and the fact that you accept them and blanket individual human beings in labels prevents holding anyone accountable for anything. I am using the proper labels to help identify who has done what Wez. It is not meaningless to identify who made the promise to keep unimployment below 8% and if that promise was good or not. You want everyone to ignore the faile promised and failures by not identifying the people who are responsible. You dodged my direct question Wez. If the "stimulus package" had worked as promised, would you say that success was because of Bush? Of course not, if it had worked as promised the Progressives would be strutting around like proud roosters and all you would hear on the campaign trail is how smart they were. So if they would have taken the praise and credit for it's success, why do you feel it is unfair to give them the blame for it's failure? Who are the individual human beings that you think should be held accountable, what should they be held accountable for, and what should be done to them? We should hold accountable those who created the failed promises and policies. They should be held accountable for their actual actions as proven by their own words to make promises that they broke. They should be taken to task for their failures and in this case taken out of power because of their mistakes. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld are liars, they waged war based upon lies to cover up ulterior motives, they should be served up as a war criminals with an apology. I do believe that would go a long ways to repairing relations in the Middle East. Would these 3 sacrifice themselves for their country? Course not.. they serve up other peoples children to death based on lies, greed, and theft. What lie Wez? Bush said exactly the same things Bill Clinton and the rest of the Progressives said before he ever took office. If there was a lie it was created by someone other than Bush and Company. For Bush to have spoken a lie he would have to have independent knowledge outside of the intelligence circles President Clinton and even people like Pelosi had. Congress is entitled to their own intelligence meetings away from the President and all of them agreed before Bush took office that there were weapons of mass destruction. Even Al Gore said we needed to take out Suddam so there was no lie Wez. I know you desperately want to believe there was a lie, but the facts are the facts. Are you trying to say Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Al Gore, all of these Progressives were puppets for Bush before Bush ever took office? You can't be saying that now can you? And stop with the "would they sacrifice themselves" bull sh!t, like Obama wouls give up his life or something. There is no way to appease the middle east, we are infidels and there is no degree of pacification that will ever elevate any of us above that unless we convert to Islam. Quote
wez Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 I am using the proper labels to help identify who has done what Wez. It is not meaningless to identify who made the promise to keep unimployment below 8% and if that promise was good or not. What are their human, individual, specific names? Do you have verification/proof of an "I promise employment will stay below 8% if you elect me"? You want everyone to ignore the faile promised and failures by not identifying the people who are responsible. You dodged my direct question Wez. If the "stimulus package" had worked as promised, would you say that success was because of Bush? What are the human, individual, specific names of the people you are identifying? Since the "stimulus package" was instituted and begun under the Bush Presidency, addressed by him in a speech to the nation before Obama was ever elected, why are you excusing Bush from any liability for it's utter failure? Furthermore, why aren't you taking it one step farther and blanketing "conservatives" in your rantings of the past 2 years? Of course not, if it had worked as promised the Progressives would be strutting around like proud roosters and all you would hear on the campaign trail is how smart they were. So if they would have taken the praise and credit for it's success, why do you feel it is unfair to give them the blame for it's failure? So you're upset over speculations as to what credit someone might had taken had something been a raging success that was instituted under the Bush Presidency which in reality is an utter failure? _______________________________________________________________________ Now.. Lets break my question down and look at your answers. wez: Who are the individual human beings that you think should be held accountable? TJ: We should hold accountable those who created the failed promises and policies. wez: what should they be held accountable for? TJ: They should be held accountable for their actual actions as proven by their own words to make promises that they broke. wez: What should be done to them? TJ: They should be taken to task for their failures and in this case taken out of power because of their mistakes. _______________________________________________________________________ errrrr.. K.. Who specifically, by individual legal name should be held accountable for failed promises and policies? What exact, specific actions and promises other than "keeping unemployment under 8%" are you referring to? Please provide proof of the unemployment "promise" as well as any others you specifically identify. Please specifically define exactly what "taken to task" entails and subsequently, what individual, specific, legal named person/s should replace them? ________________________________________________________________________ What lie Wez? Bush said exactly the same things Bill Clinton and the rest of the Progressives said before he ever took office. If there was a lie it was created by someone other than Bush and Company. For Bush to have spoken a lie he would have to have independent knowledge outside of the intelligence circles President Clinton and even people like Pelosi had. Congress is entitled to their own intelligence meetings away from the President and all of them agreed before Bush took office that there were weapons of mass destruction. Even Al Gore said we needed to take out Suddam so there was no lie Wez. I know you desperately want to believe there was a lie, but the facts are the facts. Are you trying to say Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Al Gore, all of these Progressives were puppets for Bush before Bush ever took office? You can't be saying that now can you? For one, Bush was specifically told by intelligence that the yellowcake rumors out of Niger were total BS and held no basis in fact, yet he chose to go before the nation and claim otherwise. The intel came from Joe Wilson, who subsequently outed this utter lie and questioned the basis to declare war which lead to repercussions of having his wife, Valerie Plame, outed by someone in the Bush administration as a CIA operative, which is a serious crime and nothing short of treason. Read about it here.. Irony: Bush Administration excoriated over questionable "yellowcake" in Plame affair Most interesting was this part.. The irony … From the India Times, we now find that one of the larger stockpiles of “yellowcake uranium,” belongs to the failed Lehman Brothers, a financial institution which was one of the first companies crushed under the current financial crisis associated with mortgage loans. For some inexplicable reason, the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank decided not to “bailout” Lehman Brothers … but went on to bailout almost every other major investment house. This prompted many to speculate that the attempts to bailout Lehman were somehow rooted in their rivalry with Goldman Sachs whose former officials were now deeply connected with the government. “Failed investment bank Lehman Brothers sits not only on toxic sub-prime mortgage loans but also toxic nuclear stockpile.” “According to reports, the bankrupt bank holds up to 450,000 pounds of uranium — called yellowcake — which can be upgraded to run nuclear plants and make nuclear weapons.” "’It turns out we were looking in the wrong place for weapons of mass destruction,' said the New York Post on Wednesday in a sarcastic comment on the invasion of Iraq in search of Saddam Hussein's non-existent deadly arsenal. ‘They were not in Iraq. They were in Lehman Brothers' portfolio.’"What, were they gonna make up their losses selling uranium? Take a read.. And stop with the "would they sacrifice themselves" bull sh!t, like Obama wouls give up his life or something. There is no way to appease the middle east, we are infidels and there is no degree of pacification that will ever elevate any of us above that unless we convert to Islam. Would they sacrifice themselves for the good of their country? What Obama would do is irrelevant to my question. He didn't declare war based on fraud and run around the Middle East acting like a tough guy with other peoples kids. I can guarantee you if we handed over Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld as the war criminals they are, admitted our wrongdoing, and apologized, relations would improve. Even if they didn't, it's the right thing to do. I really don't think your statement of conversion is accurate in any way, shape, or form. I do believe after more than a 1/2 century of interference by our government in their part of the world they just want to be left the f uck alone. I'd more suspect that you'll never be happy until all Muslims are converted to Christianity or dead, yet you claim it's them? Have they had military bases in your backyard for a 1/2 century to exploit natural resources? Have they been waging multiple wars in your front yard over the past 40 years? Have they been instigating and taking sides in wars between the US and Canada, the US and Mexico, or Canada and Mexico during the last 50 years like we've been doing and justifying it by claiming we want to convert them from Heathens to Christianity? They are not you. Wake up and take a look in the mirror. Quote
timesjoke Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Well once again you demonstrate why it is futile to try and have a reasonable debate with you Wez, you are either completely happy being uninformed or you just make sh!t up as you go along just to say you got to argue about something. I stopped reading when you lied and said Bush started the "stimulus package" that was promised to us to keep unimployment below 8%. If you are incapable of admiting that Obama and almost every Progressive Democrat rammed this down our throats without even reading it under this promise and how that promise failed, then there really is nothing else you can say to further this duiscussion down a reasonable path. Obama and the Democrats made the promise, they even had a pretty graph to go with their threat that it needed to be passed as soon as possible to save jobs" [attach=full]3048[/attach] The red triangles show the actual numbers on top of the predicted numbers from Obama, both with and without the proposed "stimulus package". Did the "stimulus package"work as promised by the Progressives Wez? no. Did the Republicans ever get behind this mess and claim it would keep unimployment below 8%? No. So if only one easily defined group has told a massive lie and added a trillion dollars to the deficit as a result of that lie, why do you feel it is unreasonable to point this out? I see you posted a lot of garbage about Bush but I did not read that either, no point really because there was no lie from Bush and no way for you to prove there was because even Bill Clinton and the rest of the Progressive leadership said the same exact thing Bush said and they had their own sources of intelligence. What you fail to understand is Bush was only one man, he did not invent false intelligence or spoon feed information to Congress because Bush did not have that power and as much as you guys love to pain Bush an idiot, how can you at the same time try to paint him a brilliant man planting evidence in the CIA and even in other intelligence agencies around the world? "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." ~ letter written by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry and many others. 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." ~ letter written by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos 2001 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." ~ Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" ~ National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." ~ Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." ~ Robert Byrd, October 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." ~ Bill Clinton in 1998 [/u] "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." ~ Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." ~ Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." ~ Tom Daschle in 1998 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." ~ John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." ~ Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." ~ Al Gore, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." ~ Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ~ Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 There was no lie by Bush or anyone else Wez, unless you are claiming the lie started 8 years before Bush ever took office? Bill Clinton, his wife, Pelosi, Reid, Barbra Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore....the list goes on forever showing that long before Bush ever took office, the Progressive leadership all confirmed the exact same intel as Bush showed, and that intel was there before he took office. Were all these Democrats in on the Bush lie? And if so, why would they lie for Bush? Quote
eddo Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 stupid TJ, Don't you know that it's ok for Obama to lie? It's only bad when other people lie, not Obama. geeze.... Quote I'm trusted by more women.
wez Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Stoopid eddo, don't ya know it's ok to lie and wage war with other peoples children but not ok to "lie" if unemployment goes over 8%? Geez.. Quote
timesjoke Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 I'm surrounded by morons.. As he sits in the middle of a bunch of mirrors...... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.