Bush is a hero

Since: Jul 12

Hyattsville, MD

#155729 Nov 26, 2012
karl47 wrote:
No surprise here (see link) and all these right wing trolls constantly demonstrate the similar findings that many pollsters have found.
White voters with no education vote Republican.
In other words, Right wing Tea Freaks = white trash.
This further spells longterm doom for the GOP as this voting block is actually dwindling compared to all other key demographics. There is simply no way a candidate can win a national election primarily relying on these uneducated dumbed down white people, as Romney soundly and decidedly found out.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/103969/obama%E2 ...
Romney won almost 90% of the Appalachian Counties and there are almost 500 of them.

Since: Jul 12

Hyattsville, MD

#155730 Nov 26, 2012
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Well karla, lets just hope in 4 years were not 20 trillion in debt. The way it sounds, just Obamacare should get us to that point.
Maybe Congress can find a way to whittle down the debt and hopefully Obama wont find a way to waste it if they do.
We will be at $20 Tril in debt and would have been regardless of who was elected. Some of this will depend on the rate of growth or lack of it. Late 2013 to mid 2014 are the new targets for recovery. Of course we have had targets since 2010.

Lets just see if the Republicans and Democrats can play nice and work together to solve our problems before the new target become 2024.

Who would have thought that while we were trying to recover:

An earthquake and tsunami in Japan would set us back.

Europe dealing with a country the size of Greece (How many states in the US have a bigger economy?) could not get resolved in this amount of time.

We would have revolutions and near wars in the middle east.

China and the other BRIC countries would also suffer bad economies.

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#155733 Nov 26, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
We will be at $20 Tril in debt and would have been regardless of who was elected. Some of this will depend on the rate of growth or lack of it. Late 2013 to mid 2014 are the new targets for recovery. Of course we have had targets since 2010.
Lets just see if the Republicans and Democrats can play nice and work together to solve our problems before the new target become 2024.
Who would have thought that while we were trying to recover:
An earthquake and tsunami in Japan would set us back.
Europe dealing with a country the size of Greece (How many states in the US have a bigger economy?) could not get resolved in this amount of time.
We would have revolutions and near wars in the middle east.
China and the other BRIC countries would also suffer bad economies.
Its just a big scam to set up the NWO.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#155734 Nov 26, 2012
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text> Thank you and no problem here as well as I'm used to the right attacking the facts and blowing them hugely out of proportion and using fear mongering tactics that don't usually work.
Blessings.
"The political potency of the welfare debate is clear -- welfare reform was enormously popular, and despite Obama's initial opposition to the federal law, he campaigned for the presidency in 2008 on having co-sponsored Illinois' state legislation to implement it. "I passed laws moving people from welfare to work," Obama boasted in a 2008 campaign ad touting his "values straight from the Kansas heartland." It's not surprising that the Obama campaign -- backed up by former President Clinton, who signed welfare reform into law -- is fighting back hard, and with justification, against the distorted charge that the president wants to give welfare recipients a blank check."

I simply wanted to put a true perspective to your "unbiased" link.

"The political potency of the welfare debate is clear -- welfare reform was enormously popular, and despite Obama's initial opposition to the federal law, he campaigned for the presidency in 2008 on having co-sponsored Illinois' state legislation to implement it. "I passed laws moving people from welfare to work," Obama boasted in a 2008 campaign ad touting his "values straight from the Kansas heartland." It's not surprising that the Obama campaign -- backed up by former President Clinton, who signed welfare reform into law -- is fighting back hard, and with justification, against the distorted charge that the president wants to give welfare recipients a blank check."

It took the Republican Congress repeated attempts before President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act... mostly because he didn't want those same "work requirements" that obama just gutted included in the act. The Republican Congress refused to remove it, and Clinton wanted credit for Welfare reform, so on the third presentation, he signed. It doesn't surprise me one bit that Clinton approves of obama's actions gutting those work requirements that he never wanted in the act in the first place.

Since: Jul 12

Hyattsville, MD

#155735 Nov 26, 2012
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Obama's fault, Scottie?
During his 1st term alone, HE made the decision to ram Obamacare thru Congress, KNOWING full well the majority of the US wanted the economy & jobs to be his main focus. Obamacare alone will be 1/6 of the US economy, under control of the Fed.
Obama and the "tax & spend" dems are outta control. The US cannot sustain multi-trillion $$ deficits, and China of all countries, is our chief lien-holder.
California, under Dem control since about 1988?, is a smaller scale blueprint for the US under Dems control, and CA is on the brink of bankruptcy. The new CA tax laws will only delay the process.
Entitlements for illegal aliens is totally ridiculous, and costs taxpayers about $53 billion annually.
Consumer confidence can drive a robust economy, but our economy is trudging along at a pace not seen since the great depression. Bush is partially to blame, but the "buck" stops with Obama now.
First, get your blindness about California out of your head. Has nothing to do with the US except for the Republican and there "NO TAX" policy. The people of California have spoken and agreed to new taxes. Further, if I am not mistaken, the Republican are so hated they lost enough of their numbers that can not block mush more in the legistlature. If you were right they would have the majority.

Second, he got a much reduced stimulus through and you wanted him to not wait before he started spending more money on the economy? Get real. He did something for the economy and while that was given time to work he went on to other things.

Finally, like I have said before - if Obama was as bad as your side thinks, you wouldn't have to embelish. Obamacare only controls the insurance portion of the Medical industry. Hardly 1/6th of the economy. You can still pay a doctor to do anything you want.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#155736 Nov 26, 2012
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Its just a big scam to set up the NWO.
The question is who are they? The Illuminati? Bush Sr.'s alliance to justify Desert Storm? The financial elite with the politicians and gangsters they hire?
BlackHeart

Redding, CA

#155737 Nov 26, 2012
Somebody mentioned 'raw numbers' on who's on welfare. That's not the indicator. Per-Capita is. While the number of whtites is larger, the percentage of race population indicates how many are actually receiving assistance. But everybody knows that already, and I think y'all are just arguing to argue.
On the 'government conspiricy' of the 9-11 attack, all you have to do is look at the result of the whole mess. What came to be after 9-11?'the patriot act', homeland security, new laws and more regulation. In other words, More government control.
And someone in history said that the first step in taking full control of the people is taking control of health care.
Think that'll happen any time soon?

Since: Jul 12

Hyattsville, MD

#155738 Nov 26, 2012
BlackHeart wrote:
Somebody mentioned 'raw numbers' on who's on welfare. That's not the indicator. Per-Capita is. While the number of whtites is larger, the percentage of race population indicates how many are actually receiving assistance. But everybody knows that already, and I think y'all are just arguing to argue.
On the 'government conspiricy' of the 9-11 attack, all you have to do is look at the result of the whole mess. What came to be after 9-11?'the patriot act', homeland security, new laws and more regulation. In other words, More government control.
And someone in history said that the first step in taking full control of the people is taking control of health care.
Think that'll happen any time soon?
Actually, I was correcting someone who had stated the figures incorrectly.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#155739 Nov 26, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no doubt about WTC7 being demolished.
Larry Silverstein modified his story when he realized the original compromised his insurance settlement.
There were no firemen in WTC7 at the time. A fire chief is on video telling people to clear out because the building is full of explosives. How do you account for these two facts?
Of course there were no firemen in WTC7 when it came down. The building was unsavable, due to the fires and damage done structurally when Tower 1 fell, there was no water pressure to fight the out of control fires, the buildings occupants had been evacuated several hours earlier, and they had already lost far too many of their fellow firemen that day to risk more lives fighting fires in a doomed building. They pulled their firefighting efforts because it was far too dangerous, and the building was unsalvagable.

Perhaps you have a link to the company that was hired to install those demolition charges in WTC7 that day. They must have paid their folks very well, as even the fire companies abandoned their efforts in the building because it was unsafe and doomed to fall. I doubt if the police or fire companies would have even allowed them into the building to spend hours placing demolition charges in a out of control burning building... but that's based on common sense, not "internet facts".

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#155740 Nov 26, 2012
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Obama's fault, Scottie?
During his 1st term alone, HE made the decision to ram Obamacare thru Congress, KNOWING full well the majority of the US wanted the economy & jobs to be his main focus. Obamacare alone will be 1/6 of the US economy, under control of the Fed.
Obama and the "tax & spend" dems are outta control. The US cannot sustain multi-trillion $$ deficits, and China of all countries, is our chief lien-holder.
California, under Dem control since about 1988?, is a smaller scale blueprint for the US under Dems control, and CA is on the brink of bankruptcy. The new CA tax laws will only delay the process.
Entitlements for illegal aliens is totally ridiculous, and costs taxpayers about $53 billion annually.
Consumer confidence can drive a robust economy, but our economy is trudging along at a pace not seen since the great depression. Bush is partially to blame, but the "buck" stops with Obama now.
A question BB, what exactly was the game plan so to speak for Romney creating job growth had he won the election, just curious to know?

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#155741 Nov 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>It would ease my 'paranoia' if there was any evidence of what you say - that it was 'much more' than an office fire. Chris, those buildings were built to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. Jet fuel does not reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel. Believe whatever lets you sleep at night - me, I'm still asking questions, and those with answers keep affirming to me that 9/11 was an inside job.
It was an nside job... an inside job planned and executed from inside Afghanistan, by al-qaeda insiders, carried out by terrorist inside our borders.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#155742 Nov 26, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there were no firemen in WTC7 when it came down. The building was unsavable, due to the fires and damage done structurally when Tower 1 fell, there was no water pressure to fight the out of control fires, the buildings occupants had been evacuated several hours earlier, and they had already lost far too many of their fellow firemen that day to risk more lives fighting fires in a doomed building. They pulled their firefighting efforts because it was far too dangerous, and the building was unsalvagable.
Perhaps you have a link to the company that was hired to install those demolition charges in WTC7 that day. They must have paid their folks very well, as even the fire companies abandoned their efforts in the building because it was unsafe and doomed to fall. I doubt if the police or fire companies would have even allowed them into the building to spend hours placing demolition charges in a out of control burning building... but that's based on common sense, not "internet facts".
You are ignoring the fact that a video exists where a fire chief comes out telling everyone to clear out, the building is full of explosives. How do you explain away this fact?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#155743 Nov 26, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there were no firemen in WTC7 when it came down. The building was unsavable, due to the fires and damage done structurally when Tower 1 fell, there was no water pressure to fight the out of control fires, the buildings occupants had been evacuated several hours earlier, and they had already lost far too many of their fellow firemen that day to risk more lives fighting fires in a doomed building. They pulled their firefighting efforts because it was far too dangerous, and the building was unsalvagable.
Perhaps you have a link to the company that was hired to install those demolition charges in WTC7 that day. They must have paid their folks very well, as even the fire companies abandoned their efforts in the building because it was unsafe and doomed to fall. I doubt if the police or fire companies would have even allowed them into the building to spend hours placing demolition charges in a out of control burning building... but that's based on common sense, not "internet facts".
You use the word perhaps and provide an imaginary scenario. You are overlooking the fact that Larry Silverstein already knew of the immanent attack, insured and rigged the building ahead of time.

You must be kidding me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#155744 Nov 26, 2012
There's a bomb in the building, start clearing out.



Check this out.

Listen to what credible people say who were there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

This is real stuff, not sensational conspiracy theory propaganda.

See for yourself, think for yourself.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#155745 Nov 26, 2012
You owe it to yourself to watch this, then decide.

&fe ature=related

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#155746 Nov 26, 2012
Hey, Barry Jennings was there. You owe it to the man to hear what he says about his experience inside WTC7. He was one of the lucky ones who escaped with his life.



Go to 6 minutes. I dare you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#155747 Nov 26, 2012
Whoever is posting nuts on what I am saying is too cowardly to face the truth.

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#155748 Nov 26, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I think you meant to say that the percentage of black people getting assistance is slightly higher, but the percentage of unemployed black people is 14% compared to 8% for white people and 9% for latinos. Percentages are everything Lawest. Even though many more white people have diabetes than black people the percentage of black people is much higher. You better darn well be looking at why it is effecting black people at such a high percentage.
You never said much about the idea of people going against their most basic ideals to support Obama. For instance I know you are ery much against abortion and yet support a president that wants to make it available to a much greater degree. he is for letting a live baby die, with no assist. I thought that was against your greatest principle, but I guess if the smile is nice and he is the first black president it doesn't matter. I mean no offense, I am just stunned.
Let me straighten you out on a few things Lisw to begin with Obama's "smile" doesn't factor into anything for my reasons for voting for him, I believe in job growth and a prosperous economy and as I said before it may not be where we want it to be right now but I maintain that it is not the presidents fault out right when he did inherit such a horrendous situation that I doubt that any president is going to bring this nations economy back to the Clinton era of prosperity we enjoyed back in the 90's and Romney did not offer me anything that I saw worth voting for him, his moral compass is no greater than the presidents, he lied he flip flopped his knowledge of foreign policy matters were shotty and he tried to modernize his own principals to obviously attrack voters who thought he was too far to the right to relate to them.

I don't agree with Obama's stance on abortion and was greatly disappointed with his announcement that he backed same sex marriage but that was all political and not the reasons that I voted for him, as for partial birth my understanding is that PBA is reserved for mothers whose lives would be in danger or their health from the pregnancy which if you really know my stance on abortion was always my opinion that abortion should be reserved for no other reason, even Romney agrees with that reason and have even allowed for it in the cases of incest and rape for which I don't really agree with, Repubs have controled the white house for 20 of the last 32 years and they made no major attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade themselves, so how much did it really mean to them?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#155749 Nov 26, 2012
I did the leg work for you. Go to the links. Don't take anyone's word for anything, especially the slimy bastards who work in our government. Decide for yourself. I used to put down 9/11 stuff myself until I did my own research.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#155750 Nov 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>As I'm sure you're aware, you being a fairly intelligent person with decent reading comprehension, the 'thousands' I referred to in that post were folks on the streets, and in other buildings, surrounding the towers. News reports in the first twenty-four hours following the destruction were rife with 'earwitness' accounts of having heard numerous explosions, and descriptions of those "blasts of air" vary widely as well.
Not to those inside the building when it fell on them. Their stories about what happened were fairly consistant. And, as they were in the forth floor stairwell, they sure would have known if demolition charges were going off around them.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
Several of them didn't survive to give testimony in court about what they saw either.
I tend to think the 16 survivors were given to understand that it would behoove them not to have heard explosions...
Of course... do you realize how much one has to fabricate to make "truther" scenarios work?
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
But of course, that's just me.(And about 2,000,000 other folks who read, and who listen to and watch something other than Fox News.)
CNN. I would have watched 9-11 on CNN, my local networks and the internet. I may have turned on Fox, but I doubt it... CNN and the networks usually cover that kind of stuff better than Fox News. But, it was a nice attempt to cheap-shot Fox News.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min Quivering Lip Lib... 51,593
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Michael 693,165
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 53 min whatgod 619,865
How many MILLIONS of MEXICAN MEN R N in U.S. IL... 1 hr Holy Pipek 7
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr ChristineM 445,958
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr whatgod 991,855
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 3 hr __The Clown Master__ 2,468
More from around the web