Bush is a hero

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#162674 May 22, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can illustrate this somehow?
Uh, you're kidding, right?
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try. "Congress" is not conducting hearings, but Congressional members assigned to certain committees certainly are.
bob, bob, now you've never been one to play "Parse and Dodge". Why start now?
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention that it was the majority of the population that "railed & railed" about what Obama was NOT gettin' done.
And it was a majority of the voting population who decided he had earned a second term.

But somehow your railing majority morphed into "low-information voters". Strange how that works...
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>Now you don't even remember that YOU cited the polls? Obama's approval remains steady at about 50% for now. We'll see for sure how much Repubs have "lowered", in the midterms next year.
Wow, this sounds eerily like a year ago. Is Rove back in the forecasting game?

;)

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#162675 May 22, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Oh yeah, that just started happening, didn't it, hi-information voter? Well, at least you admit that Obama is more forthcoming about it. From the mouths of babes...
A-way back when we were discussing the Patriot Act and the Bush admin's reckless end-runs around FISA warrants to illegally wire-tap American citizens, the general response went along the lines of, "If you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear," and "If it saves just one American life it's worth it". My specific reply at the time was, "It'll be interesting to see you squall when an opposition party wields the same power".
And here we are, and there ya'll are, right on cue, and I'm feelin' just about like a prophet.
Excellent! First you misrepresent facets of the Bush Patriot Act, and then nearly splinter yer arm pattin' yerself on the back claiming to be the thread seer.

And you actually compare (one example) DOJ invasion of not only James Rosen's journalistic privacy, but that of his parents' privacy, to the Bush PA? Wow, you guys are gettin' DESPERATE.
lisw

Carroll, OH

#162676 May 22, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>This hi-lites what is insidious about America's over-use of the term "war". We seem to think we can call everything a war, and talk all patriotic about it, but our populace should be somehow insulated from the effects, to the point we don't even have to contribute materially to it, and no one but a combat troop should ever die. We are, I believe, unique in the world, in that misapprehension.
I hadn't heard that the "War On Terror" was officially over. That being the case, embassy staff, esp. in hot regions, are just as much in the fight as their counterparts were in the Cold War. America needs to toughen up, or stay home. We can't have it both ways anymore, and it's frankly embarrassing and shameful that we try.
Ah now there is still a war on terror. You'll hop onto anything to make obama seem ....okay. He's the one that said there is no war, contingency operation I think he called it, and that it was really over. But let's give you the war on terror. Obama also said our relationship with Libya was to be "normalized". It's why he would not send help, before or during the attack. If it was a war he thought he was dealing with he really really dropped the ball when he went to Vegas to campaign after a good night's sleep. Either way he's a dick.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#162677 May 22, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent! First you misrepresent facets of the Bush Patriot Act, and then nearly splinter yer arm pattin' yerself on the back claiming to be the thread seer.
Perhaps at some point you'll trouble yourself to tell how I "misrepresented facets of the Bush Patriot Act" when all I did was mention the name in recalling how we discussed it here pre-2008?
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>And you actually compare (one example) DOJ invasion of not only James Rosen's journalistic privacy, but that of his parents' privacy, to the Bush PA? Wow, you guys are gettin' DESPERATE.
They both invoked "national security". Yeah, like I said, it ain't so righteous any more when the "other guys" use it, is it?

As a high information voter, you do know the Rosen investigation was to determine the source of a CIA leak, right? Involving North Korea and nuclear bombs and all that skeery stuff that Obama's "not tough enough" about? And that Rosen, with the info from his contact, actually thought he was going to, NOT report, but push US foreign policy in a direction of his choosing?

Email from Rosen to his source: "Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it – or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible."

I don't care for this skating on the edge of the 1st Amendment any more then you, but we sure as hell don't need no William Randolph Hearst wannabes pushing America's hand with a nuclear rogue state.

This alleged "reporter" left the secure bounds of the 1st Amendment when he set himself up as initiator of American foreign policy. If you would be so kind, please at least respond on that point.

Oh, and yes, it is noted how you all have thus far dropped crumbs away from the points in my response to your purported non-ideological indignation over the deaths of four Americans. I ain't no Hansel, I do recall the way back, if and when you care to go.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#162678 May 22, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Ah now there is still a war on terror. You'll hop onto anything to make obama seem ....okay. He's the one that said there is no war, contingency operation I think he called it, and that it was really over. But let's give you the war on terror. Obama also said our relationship with Libya was to be "normalized". It's why he would not send help, before or during the attack. If it was a war he thought he was dealing with he really really dropped the ball when he went to Vegas to campaign after a good night's sleep. Either way he's a dick.
Skip to the loo, my darlin', farther and farther away.....

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#162680 May 22, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I know what he's saying but it boils down to that. We think of war differently. Dying in a war is different than dying at the hands of murderers. It doesn't matter what you think of the war. If my husband had died in Vietnam I'd have been brokenhearted but I would have known those are sometimes the consequences and I hated that war and thought it was unwarranted. That's different than the way I would have felt if he had been made a sitting duck. You aren't making your point by saying everyone who disagrees with you just doesn't get it.
I think you're trying to take Hip's comparison too literally. I think the comparison works even when you consider the difference between military and State Department service.

Under slightly different circumstances (a difference in the party initial after the President's name), there are people right here in this thread who would have accepted little more than 'mistakes were made' as an explanation for Benghazi.

BTW ... I need advice on how to make my point from someone who thinks I'm an idiot about as much as Bullwinkle needs a hat rack.
lisw

Carroll, OH

#162681 May 22, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Skip to the loo, my darlin', farther and farther away.....
Now YOU are good at the dodge. Don't answer any of the concerns anyone has, just point your finger at them and say "nanny,nanny boo-boo."

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#162682 May 22, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Now YOU are good at the dodge. Don't answer any of the concerns anyone has, just point your finger at them and say "nanny,nanny boo-boo."
I >know< you ain't got Alzheimer's.

I >know< you have seen me write in detail on every point raised, because you have replied most every time.

So what your game is NOW, with this "don't answer" smoke, I cannot fathom.....
lisw

Carroll, OH

#162683 May 22, 2013
Listen boys. I might have a modicum of respect for what you have to say, if for just a moment you could respond to our concerns about all of these problems that point to Obama's failures. I think it was you Willie who said there was a scandal and it ain't Benghazi. I haven't heard you own the possibility of any scandal. You are both so busy protecting Obama that you refuse to see that something is really wrong and that if none of these things had happened, the Benghazi cover-up, the IRS targeting, or the AP scandal that Obama might very well not have been re-elected. No way to be sure. I am trying to give HIM the benefit of the doubt, by judging him incompetent and clueless rather than downright evil. I don't think that's true of his posse. I guess we wait and see what comes out. At this time there really is no reason to protect Obama.
lisw

Carroll, OH

#162684 May 22, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I think you're trying to take Hip's comparison too literally. I think the comparison works even when you consider the difference between military and State Department service.
Under slightly different circumstances (a difference in the party initial after the President's name), there are people right here in this thread who would have accepted little more than 'mistakes were made' as an explanation for Benghazi.
BTW ... I need advice on how to make my point from someone who thinks I'm an idiot about as much as Bullwinkle needs a hat rack.
I think you do need advice Willie. You have really gotten this one wrong. You are being purposely obtuse. And I know that if it turns out that Obama was badly tangled up in these things you are not the type to say "I was wrong"

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#162685 May 22, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's some of what I wrote yesterday:
"That is, depending on the outcomes of the current "laundry list" of problems. The low-info supporters still LOVE Obama, no matter how hot the water gets."
To which YOU replied:
<quoted text>
You call it "lying" and I call it a natural presumption from your typical response. Sue me.
The rest of yer whitewash isn't even suitable for pig barns. When the US elects a Republican no-experience community organizer, who starts his 1st term by ramming a HC bill that the majority wanted
set aside until further down the road, and starts his 2nd term off with an ever-increasing, self-inflicted set of incredibly stupid scandals, which he and his admin then tries to cover up, claim
no knowledge, or blatently lie about, you might be justified to invoke the ghosts of Presidents Past.
Yes, bob, I know the partisan pitch.

If I was inclined to waste my time I could counter it with one for any Republican president elected since Eisenhower - and I could do it for any Democrat too, because it's really easy to do.

There are low information voters, but they are equally spread out among the parties. The term as you use it is bogus, a lie, ain't nothin' but a buzzword.

You know those liberals and Democrats who cry racist at any criticism of Obama? Low info voter is what comparable conservatives and Republicans tell themselves.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#162686 May 22, 2013
lisw wrote:
Listen boys. I might have a modicum of respect for what you have to say, if for just a moment you could respond to our concerns about all of these problems that point to Obama's failures. I think it was you Willie who said there was a scandal and it ain't Benghazi. I haven't heard you own the possibility of any scandal. You are both so busy protecting Obama that you refuse to see that something is really wrong and that if none of these things had happened, the Benghazi cover-up, the IRS targeting, or the AP scandal that Obama might very well not have been re-elected. No way to be sure. I am trying to give HIM the benefit of the doubt, by judging him incompetent and clueless rather than downright evil. I don't think that's true of his posse. I guess we wait and see what comes out. At this time there really is no reason to protect Obama.
If there is a true scandal in the Obama administration it will be the IRS thing, not the bugging of reporters or the (imo) imaginary Benghazi coverup or whatever the past and future outrage du jour might be.

I don't know what to think about the IRS scandal. I don't know how high it goes, and I want to know, and no matter how popular the whole 'blindly defending Obama' crap you people tell each other - I haven't made up my mind yet.

I don't see much point in elaborating on why I think that for someone who's so invested in Benghazi that they claim the IRS scandal was released to distract attention away from Benghazi (let alone that it was released to scare conservative donors).

Talking about something Obama screwed up in this thread is a lot like talking to a bunch of hypochondriacs. Everything is a terminal disease, and if you point out that it's only a pimple or a scrape or even a puncture, you're accused of claiming the patient is completely healthy.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#162687 May 22, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>If there is a true scandal in the Obama administration it will be the IRS thing, not the bugging of reporters or the (imo) imaginary Benghazi coverup or whatever the past and future outrage du jour might be.
I don't know what to think about the IRS scandal. I don't know how high it goes, and I want to know, and no matter how popular the whole 'blindly defending Obama' crap you people tell each other - I haven't made up my mind yet.
I don't see much point in elaborating on why I think that for someone who's so invested in Benghazi that they claim the IRS scandal was released to distract attention away from Benghazi (let alone that it was released to scare conservative donors).
.
I agree with everything you say here. The IRS thing is very troublesome. The other two, not so much.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#162688 May 22, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, you're kidding, right?
<quoted text>

bob, bob, now you've never been one to play "Parse and Dodge". Why start now?
<quoted text>

And it was a majority of the voting population who decided he had earned a second term.
But somehow your railing majority morphed into "low-information voters". Strange how that works...
You called me an "august pantheon....", which is ambiguous (IMO).
I'm asking you what specifically or which msg of mine yer referring to. Also if you think my "entry" into current events and politics about 15 years ago (or so) is "recent", I s'pose in geological terms it is.

Parse & Dodge? So you knew you were overstating "Congress" being bogged down by "unending investigation hearings, instead of getting anything done", but then decided to print it ANYway? Yeah, and I'm the fool!

Now who's lying? Nowhere, at ANY time have I ever said the majority that got Obama elected were "low-info voters". If you read what I wrote instead of what you wanted it to say, you wouldn't keep making these careless mistakes.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#162689 May 22, 2013
Busy thread today.

So let's forget those "careless mistakes", and prepare ourselves for the morning Lyndi sermon we should be getting in 8 or 10 hours.

I could just about write it myself.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#162690 May 22, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps at some point you'll trouble yourself to tell how I "misrepresented facets of the Bush Patriot Act" when all I did was mention the name in recalling how we discussed it here pre-2008?
<quoted text>They both invoked "national security". Yeah, like I said, it ain't so righteous any more when the "other guys" use it, is it?
As a high information voter, you do know the Rosen investigation was to determine the source of a CIA leak, right? Involving North Korea and nuclear bombs and all that skeery stuff that Obama's "not tough enough" about? And that Rosen, with the info from his contact, actually thought he was going to, NOT report, but push US foreign policy in a direction of his choosing?
Email from Rosen to his source: "Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it – or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible."
I don't care for this skating on the edge of the 1st Amendment any more then you, but we sure as hell don't need no William Randolph Hearst wannabes pushing America's hand with a nuclear rogue state.
This alleged "reporter" left the secure bounds of the 1st Amendment when he set himself up as initiator of American foreign policy. If you would be so kind, please at least respond on that point.
You clearly misrepresented those facets by writing:[...."Bush admin's reckless end-runs around FISA warrants to illegally wire-tap American citizens"]. But you knew damn well, aunt Martha wasn't the target of any wiretaps. You also knew it was only phone traffic in & out, to suspected terrorist countries that the authorities wanted to monitor. That's where you got the poster's phrase, "if yer not doin' anything wrong......".

As for Rosen (and his parents), you'll excuse me if I don't take
your word for anything regarding this issue. It's still pending, and we've yet to see who said what. Targeting FNN reporters (possibly 3 or more) in the name of security leaks is pretty
hokey, in light of the NYT "Wikileaks" expose several months back.

That freakin' story was far more dangerous to National Security than anything Rosen was trying to say about NK. And the DOJ was after Rosen's protected SOURCE.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#162691 May 22, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Busy thread today.
So let's forget those "careless mistakes", and prepare ourselves for the morning Lyndi sermon we should be getting in 8 or 10 hours.
I could just about write it myself.
Nah. I'll tell ya what you can do. First thing in the morning, take the bus to LB or San Pedro harbor. Have some tea or something while you case the loading docks. Around noon, if you see lotsa people going to lunch, try to stow away on one of the asian cargo ships. If anyone catches you, just tell 'em yer willing to work yer way to Beijing, to see yer dying uncle.

When you get over there, hang up your shingle, and don't come back!

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#162692 May 22, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with everything you say here. The IRS thing is very troublesome. The other two, not so much.
YOU agree with everything HE said??? S h o c k i n g !

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#162693 May 22, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a Republican witch hunt???
Lois Lerner, a top IRS official in the non-profit division that paralyzed Tea Party groups with ongoing harassment, is expected to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions during Congressional testimony schedule before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

I know I'd never have to invoke the fifth for anything I did on my job. Why would she need to invoke the fifth if these activities were conducted by a couple of low level flunkies? Why would a public employee not want to answer questions from the peoples committee to oversee programs?

The minute that Lois Lerner refuses to answer questions from the peoples oversight committee as to what she was doing on her job, thereby refusing to tell us what she did for the money we pay her, we no longer need such an employee, and she should be immediately fired.

She may have a Constitutional right to invoke the Fifth Amendment, but she has no right to a public job where she will not disclose what she did/does for the $$$ we pay her.
TERRIFIC post, Bob! Especially the last two paragraphs. You're absolutely right: "she has no right to a public job where she will not disclose what she did/does for the $$$ we pay her." You ought to put that in a letter to your district's House Representative. Seriously.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#162694 May 22, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>If there is a true scandal in the Obama administration it will be the IRS thing, not the bugging of reporters or the (imo) imaginary Benghazi coverup or whatever the past and future outrage du jour might be.
In the midst of an ongoing investigation, your use of the term
"imaginary" is not all that unusual, considering. But IF the truth ever comes out and it wasn't "imaginary", I'd sure hate to be the one stickin' his neck out so far.

If that happens and you're still posting here, I believe it'll give new meaning to the phrase "turkey shoot".

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min Thinking 63,446
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 30 min DebraE 106,479
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 37 min karl44 973,685
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 37 min Peace_Warrior 618,753
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 57 min Steve III 653,698
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 1 hr ImFree2Choose 2,569
Difference between white masons and black masons (Apr '08) 1 hr Mason3138 377
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 8 hr Pegasus 281,841
More from around the web