Barack Obama, our next President

[GhostofRaygun]

After only one month from Papa John opening his mouth about ObamaCare and his plans to cut workers, his business has seen one of the largest drop offs in its history. Of course is he back tracking now.
.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/201212...

[carol]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>lol! This coming from the idiot who can't show the Declaration of War for Iraq he claims exists?
Boy chica, you sure are stupid!

And this is the ongoing enigma with Democrats.

Even though every prominent Democrat on Capital Hill - including President Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - said Saddam had to go, President Clinton then said in 2002:

"As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future....I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die."

That's like saying going after Hitler in WWII would mean "innocent people will die."

The fact that even more innocent people would die in gas chambers, massacres, scientific experiments and would suffer unimaginable deaths simply can't be grasped by Democrats.

Is dying to end evil atrocities worse than dying because of them?

[Yeah]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
In case the poster, Chicago, hasn't said this yet.
The Senate voted to approve The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq with the support of large bipartisan majorities on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush administration with a legal basis for the U.S. invasion under U.S. law.
It cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution signed by former President Clinton, that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

lol! You people are talking apples and oranges and you don't even know it.

His point was Congress declared war. And the Congressional records "prove" it. I simply asked for them.

You're still not smart enough to know the AUMF AUTHORIZED the president to use military force at HIS DISCRETION. They know who the commander in chief is... you clearly don't.

Con stupidity can be so appalling... and then I bust out laughing at how comical it is!

[Realtime]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
May I add an unfounded and irrational hatred that goes way beyond politics? Where did that come from, by the way? Didn't used to be like this.

Politics has always been a blood sport__what do you know anyway, you were never interested in politics until Reagan. At least that's what you've been saying for four years.

Maybe you were lying eh?

[carol]

dem wrote:

<quoted text>
In what context?
And who declared it?

A poster wrote just a few minutes ago that the schools in his area took out God and inferred saying the Pledge of Allegience to Obama instead.

Try and keep up.

[Realtime]

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:

<quoted text>Kinda like John Fn Kerry, only he marries the 'silver spoon', and it's hand is there!!

McCains wife ain't broke pally and she's got it all tied up in cash and beer. My kinda gal.

If Cindy wasn't married to that azzhole, she'd be a (D), so would her daughters.

[carol]

sonicfilter wrote:

Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed

Actually, it was doing just fine under Reagan after Carter's recession and again under Bush after 9/11 all the way up until the housing bubble popped.

The Cold War, 9/11 and the housing market crisis weren't part of Supply-Side economics.

They were just realities that had to be dealt with.

Sure wish you guys could get that through your heads.

[Yeah]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
And this is the ongoing enigma with Democrats.
Even though every prominent Democrat on Capital Hill - including President Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - said Saddam had to go, President Clinton then said in 2002:
"As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future....I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die."
That's like saying going after Hitler in WWII would mean "innocent people will die."
The fact that even more innocent people would die in gas chambers, massacres, scientific experiments and would suffer unimaginable deaths simply can't be grasped by Democrats.
Is dying to end evil atrocities worse than dying because of them?

IT DOESN'T MATTER, SON!

You keep trying to spread the blame to everyone, but nowhere in any document was bushie ever FORCED to invade a sovereign country like iraq.

That was his personal decision.

And if you want to push your point about "killing," then you'll have to explain why bushie didn't go after his "Axis of Evil," son.

You keep posting only a tiny part of events because it's politically convenient. You refuse to post where the authority was assigned. And that's too bad since you want to avoid actual facts!

[Yeah]

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>McCains wife ain't broke pally and she's got it all tied up in cash and beer. My kinda gal.
If Cindy wasn't married to that azzhole, she'd be a (D), so would her daughters.

lol! And keep in mind McCain went after her while still married.

[Chicagoan by Birth]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
In case the poster, Chicago, hasn't said this yet.
The Senate voted to approve The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq with the support of large bipartisan majorities on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush administration with a legal basis for the U.S. invasion under U.S. law.
It cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution signed by former President Clinton, that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Thank you, Miss Carol, It slips right passed them, Like 'see no evil, hear no evil'...

[dem]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
A poster wrote just a few minutes ago that the schools in his area took out God and inferred saying the Pledge of Allegience to Obama instead.
Try and keep up.

oh so you're scared of what topix posters write.
interesting

[carol]

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Politics has always been a blood sport__what do you know anyway, you were never interested in politics until Reagan. At least that's what you've been saying for four years.
Maybe you were lying eh?

I rooted for Nixon in 1968 in high school but then turned against him when he accelerated and then delayed ending the war until after he won his second election. I was happy Carter won in 1977 but didn't become a registered voter until 1980 when Reagan ran again (he lost the first time around) and when it became clear Democrats didn't have a clue what they were doing.

It was never the kind of blood sport with so much hatred and distrust towards fellow Americans during either Carter's or Reagan's presidencies. Neither Bush Sr.'s and even Clinton's - until he screwed the pooch in his second term, so to speak.

So, basically, Clinton's gross lack of character and democrats defending it is where it all started. Just answered my own question.

[Karma is a_______]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
And this is the ongoing enigma with Democrats.
Even though every prominent Democrat on Capital Hill - including President Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - said Saddam had to go, President Clinton then said in 2002:
"As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future....I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die."
That's like saying going after Hitler in WWII would mean "innocent people will die."
The fact that even more innocent people would die in gas chambers, massacres, scientific experiments and would suffer unimaginable deaths simply can't be grasped by Democrats.
Is dying to end evil atrocities worse than dying because of them?

there are ways to bring about regime change without invading a country.....take Egypt , Tunisia and Libya for example. Eve President George H.W. Bush knew invading Iraq and ousting Saddam would be/was a big mistake

President Dumbya Bush will go down as the worst President in history who made the greatest foreign policy disaster by invading Iraq. Iran and Al Qaeda were the biggest beneficiaries of that war

[Yeah]

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:

<quoted text>Thank you, Miss Carol, It slips right passed them, Like 'see no evil, hear no evil'...

lol! poor chica. still as idiotic without the facts as before.

[Chicagoan by Birth]

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>McCains wife ain't broke pally and she's got it all tied up in cash and beer. My kinda gal.
If Cindy wasn't married to that azzhole, she'd be a (D), so would her daughters.

Where are you privy to that information? You have a vivid imagination....

[Yeah]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
I rooted for Nixon in 1968 in high school but then turned against him when he accelerated and then delayed ending the war until after he won his second election. I was happy Carter won in 1977 but didn't become a registered voter until 1980 when Reagan ran again (he lost the first time around) and when it became clear Democrats didn't have a clue what they were doing.
It was never the kind of blood sport with so much hatred and distrust towards fellow Americans during either Carter's or Reagan's presidencies. Neither Bush Sr.'s and even Clinton's - until he screwed the pooch in his second term, so to speak.
So, basically, Clinton's gross lack of character and democrats defending it is where it all started. Just answered my own question.

lol! Talking to themselves is how most cons answer things.

Like families, they keep it to themselves!

[Nuculur option]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
A mentality of victimization serves no one and receives little sympathy from anyone.

Yet you revel in your victimization, don't you??

Like the non-existance of your percieved 'war on christmas'??

Or your being victimized by those who 'take' from Gov't??

Or your being victimized by the muslim mobs enacting 'sharia law' all over the USA (in your dreams, anyway)??

Fact is, the whole Teabagger thing was about being victims, wasn't it??

All those po' white folks seeing the nation becoming more diverse, less white, less racist, less willing to steal rights from others based solely on religious beliefs, not the Constitution??

You've been whining for four years now. And most of it is about your being a victim of a black President who you hated from Day One, mostly because he is black.

When nitwits like you say 'we want to take our country back', you're talking about electing a pasty faced guy like Romney because you're a victim of Obama.

What was that you were saying about victims again??

Have another cigarette and think about it.

[Karma is a_______]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>IT DOESN'T MATTER, SON!
You keep trying to spread the blame to everyone, but nowhere in any document was bushie ever FORCED to invade a sovereign country like iraq.
That was his personal decision.
And if you want to push your point about "killing," then you'll have to explain why bushie didn't go after his "Axis of Evil," son.
You keep posting only a tiny part of events because it's politically convenient. You refuse to post where the authority was assigned. And that's too bad since you want to avoid actual facts!

Carol also conveniently forgets that prior to the vote President Bush PROMISED to go back to the UN for final approval to enforce UN Resolutions concerning disarming Saddam. When it came apparent that the UN Weapons inspectors were making progress, that they weren't finding any evidence that Saddam possessed WMD's and that the UN wouldn't approve of invading Iraq, Bush reneged on his promise.

She also keeps forgetting that the UN called the invasion of Iraq an illegal act....which is ironic considering Bushsaid he invaded Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions....

[carol]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>IT DOESN'T MATTER, SON!
You keep trying to spread the blame to everyone, but nowhere in any document was bushie ever FORCED to invade a sovereign country like iraq.
That was his personal decision.
And if you want to push your point about "killing," then you'll have to explain why bushie didn't go after his "Axis of Evil," son.
You keep posting only a tiny part of events because it's politically convenient. You refuse to post where the authority was assigned. And that's too bad since you want to avoid actual facts!

No, Bush was not forced. Democrats gave him their full permission.

Of course, when the political winds changed, they became weasels leaving Bush to hang out to dry.

Thats what weasels do.

The Urban Dictationary defines these kinds of people this way:

Weasel - Shifty, schemeing person who will do whatever they need to to escape whatever they fear in the moment.

Not getting reelected is what they feared the most.

[sonicfilter]

dem wrote:

<quoted text>
oh so you're scared of what topix posters write.
interesting

the Barney Frank Syndrome.