Bush is a hero
common sense

Saint Paul, MN

#178094 Jun 13, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Well DUUUUUH! How d'ya think I spotted YOU!
Only "thing" YOU can beat is yer Johnson inbred motor.
Relax bob, you're last post to SH about BH and lisw and the generosity of the american people set a good tone for the day, let's not turn back the clock to yesterday. I'll be away for a while and let things here be.

Have a good day.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#178095 Jun 13, 2014
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax bob, you're last post to SH about BH and lisw and the generosity of the american people set a good tone for the day, let's not turn back the clock to yesterday. I'll be away for a while and let things here be.
Have a good day.
I'm a type B, and have not gotten anywhere near being tense since I left Army boot camp.
That was 1966.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178096 Jun 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
You're on a serious roll here, Flash. You've topped yesterday's 'Baptist minister as franchisee' by leaps and bounds.

I really, really don't see how anyone can claim what's happening in Iraq right now, including the possibility of U.S. air strikes, as 'one for the GOP',. since it was the GOP who got us into Iraq in the first place.

The war WAS over for the United States. The Iraqis (remember the Iraqis? We gave them sovereignty back in what,'04?) said so. They told TWO successive U.S. Presidents "no thanks, we got this", and turned down a continued U.S. troop presence.

If - and it's an if, not a given - the United States bears any responsibility for what's going on in Iraq right now, it's a crop being harvested from seeds planted by the way the U.S. military occupied the country after the invasion, and a variety of decisions made by the Coalition Provisional Authority back in 2003-4.

If the Iraqis request air strikes, I think we should help them.

You really, really, really ought to take the term "News" out of your screen name if you're going to make posts like this. Disinformation would be more appropriate.
One for the GOP in the sense that they called what was going to happen years ago. They voted for a continued presence despite the “Will of the American People” or in other words, the scantly clad 49%, to vacate.

One against the Dems because they were worried more about a perceived American legacy than what was needed to re-establish a secure and stable government after American Intervention.

(see Germany,*see Japan,*see Korea,*see Bosnia)

McCain got this one right this morning!
And so did the Military Commanders.

The whole region is about to boil over, correction, has boiled over because of liberal progressive ideology.

And you submit the decision to stand down was justified because,“They told TWO successive U.S. Presidents "no thanks, we got this", and turned down a continued U.S. troop presence.”

Really?

Decades of historical experience and wisdom flushed because,“They told TWO successive U.S. Presidents "no thanks, we got this", and turned down a continued U.S. troop presence.”

C’mon Willie… really?

26 billion flushed in military and special ops training.
Over 4,500 troops killed (and counting)
Countless troops maimed for life.
An undetermined number suffering mental collapse.
20 suicides a day.

Stayed tuned for the next round…she's gonna be a beaut!
/sarcasm

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178097 Jun 13, 2014
The presidents recent press release -

"Iraq is screwed"

Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#178098 Jun 13, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks SH. But I know him as Blackheart.
Quite some time ago, I mentioned that I was struggling financially, and he immediately sent me a PM offering to help. Course I couldn't accept because he'd already told his story of being a single father trying to raise his own kids. This on top of being Native American in a place where widespread discrimination is rampant, as you might have read.

Two people in here on an anonymous forum have offered financial help,(LisW was the other one). That's typically unheard of, as far as I know, but clearly demonstrates the caring generosity of the American people.
As you say, typical of them both :) I'm not the least bit surprised.
Clearwater

Miami, FL

#178099 Jun 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You're right - I wasn't really confused.
I knew that sooner or later somebody would come along and start stammering, "Yeah, but-but-but-but, look at one of THEM did!" You've been pretty reliable in that regard for quite some time now, Chris.
True. To me that's because since I started posting here back in 08 a running theme has been most that oppose Obama do so because of race. When libs say outright they won't stand for bigots and then give countless examples that show its bs I call it out each time. Like Newsflash said, the outrage is selective.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178100 Jun 13, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks SH. But I know him as Blackheart.
Quite some time ago, I mentioned that I was struggling financially, and he immediately sent me a PM offering to help. Course I couldn't accept because he'd already told his story of being a single father trying to raise his own kids. This on top of being Native American in a place where widespread discrimination is rampant, as you might have read.
Two people in here on an anonymous forum have offered financial help,(LisW was the other one). That's typically unheard of, as far as I know, but clearly demonstrates the caring generosity of the American people.
Amen, bro.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#178101 Jun 13, 2014
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
<quoted text>
One for the GOP in the sense that they called what was going to happen years ago. They voted for a continued presence despite the “Will of the American People” or in other words, the scantly clad 49%, to vacate.
One against the Dems because they were worried more about a perceived American legacy than what was needed to re-establish a secure and stable government after American Intervention.
(see Germany,*see Japan,*see Korea,*see Bosnia)
McCain got this one right this morning!
And so did the Military Commanders.
The whole region is about to boil over, correction, has boiled over because of liberal progressive ideology.
And you submit the decision to stand down was justified because,“They told TWO successive U.S. Presidents "no thanks, we got this", and turned down a continued U.S. troop presence.”
Really?
Decades of historical experience and wisdom flushed because,“They told TWO successive U.S. Presidents "no thanks, we got this", and turned down a continued U.S. troop presence.”
C’mon Willie… really?
26 billion flushed in military and special ops training.
Over 4,500 troops killed (and counting)
Countless troops maimed for life.
An undetermined number suffering mental collapse.
20 suicides a day.
Stayed tuned for the next round…she's gonna be a beaut!
/sarcasm
Yes, really.

The United States returned sovereignty to the Iraqis in 2004. The Bush Administration tried for over a year to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that allowed for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq beyond 2011, and they would not budge. The Obama Administration also tried to get that into the SOFA, and the Iraqis still would not budge.

So ... yes, really. I'm surprised you don't know this.

You may want to compare the way the United States occupied and prepared Germany and Japan for the restoration of sovereignty with the job done by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq before you cite it as an example. To say that the two do not compare favorably is to say that a Cat 5 hurricane is a bit windy.

This is good news for Republicans, maybe, but only in a shallow and somewhat pathetic sense. In order to see it what's happening in Iraq today as Obama's fault, you have to ignore Iraq and Iraqis.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#178102 Jun 13, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>True. To me that's because since I started posting here back in 08 a running theme has been most that oppose Obama do so because of race. When libs say outright they won't stand for bigots and then give countless examples that show its bs I call it out each time. Like Newsflash said, the outrage is selective.
You know, this running theme of yours would make more sense if we'd ever had a regular poster IN THIS THREAD who made that claim.

We haven't, at least not that I can remember.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think any more of Snoop Dog's response

than I do of Sterling's remarks. That said, as far as 'surprise factor', I tend to be a bit more shocked when a billionaire lawyer/businessman starts showing his inner azzhat than when a rapper does it, considering that rap is a genre where being an azzhat is part of the schtick.

From where I'm sitting, you appear to me to be as selective or as one sided as the people you decry - you're just doing it from a different side.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178103 Jun 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, really.
The United States returned sovereignty to the Iraqis in 2004. The Bush Administration tried for over a year to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that allowed for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq beyond 2011, and they would not budge. The Obama Administration also tried to get that into the SOFA, and the Iraqis still would not budge.
So ... yes, really. I'm surprised you don't know this.
It's a matter of record, true that.

What I find peculiar is that Obama didn't really attempt to renegotiate that agreement. Actually not peculiar at all as I mentioned earlier he and his administration wanted the legacy of ending the involvement, you know the whole "bring the boys home!" thingy.

He didn't have the stones to address a war torn American people and lay out what would really happen if America didn't leave a significant residual force behind.

Nope, I'm certain he could have renegotiated SOFA if'in he wanted to. Saying otherwise is just pure unadulterated poppycock!
Clearwater

Miami, FL

#178104 Jun 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You know, this running theme of yours would make more sense if we'd ever had a regular poster IN THIS THREAD who made that claim.
We haven't, at least not that I can remember.
Speaking only for myself, I don't think any more of Snoop Dog's response
than I do of Sterling's remarks. That said, as far as 'surprise factor', I tend to be a bit more shocked when a billionaire lawyer/businessman starts showing his inner azzhat than when a rapper does it, considering that rap is a genre where being an azzhat is part of the schtick.
From where I'm sitting, you appear to me to be as selective or as one sided as the people you decry - you're just doing it from a different side.
Catcher isn't a regular poster? While he may not have said it outright his point has been clear for some time. Things like "caveman Cruz" comes to mind with his smears. And I'm sure that's true from where you stand. I said long ago for me most of this isn't left right its right wrong. The guy Sterling is a clear racist just as the rapper. But what bothers me much more than these guys shooting off at the mouth despite levels of education and so called class is the mob rule we are moving toward. Until the tape of Sterling I'd never heard of him. A short time latter, less than a week I think many we're saying he should be run out. Why? From what I understand this guys racist views have been known for a long time. What's different now? As much as I despise his words he has the FREEDOM to say it. I disagree probably 99% of the time with my atheist neighbor but he has as much right as me to live his life, say what he wants. Just as with the Christian baker a short time back those on the left may celebrate some of these things but make no mistake we are all going to loose in the end. Unless your idea of paradise is a government that tells you what's ok to think and say like the movie Demolitiln Man. No thanks. To hell with that!

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#178105 Jun 13, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Catcher isn't a regular poster? While he may not have said it outright his point has been clear for some time. Things like "caveman Cruz" comes to mind with his smears. And I'm sure that's true from where you stand. I said long ago for me most of this isn't left right its right wrong. The guy Sterling is a clear racist just as the rapper. But what bothers me much more than these guys shooting off at the mouth despite levels of education and so called class is the mob rule we are moving toward. Until the tape of Sterling I'd never heard of him. A short time latter, less than a week I think many we're saying he should be run out. Why? From what I understand this guys racist views have been known for a long time. What's different now? As much as I despise his words he has the FREEDOM to say it. I disagree probably 99% of the time with my atheist neighbor but he has as much right as me to live his life, say what he wants. Just as with the Christian baker a short time back those on the left may celebrate some of these things but make no mistake we are all going to loose in the end. Unless your idea of paradise is a government that tells you what's ok to think and say like the movie Demolitiln Man. No thanks. To hell with that!
I don't understand. You tell us that anybody should be able to say what they want and how they feel, while at the same time criticizing me for expressing my view that Ted Cruz is a caveman.

This is exactly how I feel. Consider this:

Cruz spoke at an anti-gay marriage rally last Thursday hosted by Steven Hotze, a controversial doctor who has told women that birth control would make them unappealing to men and has warned that equality for gays would be a stepping stone to child molestation.

I find Cruz's appearance at this sort of affair highly offensive and insulting. I call him a caveman for it, just as I would if he spoke at a KKK rally. I'm expressing my view as an American.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178106 Jun 13, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Catcher isn't a regular poster? While he may not have said it outright his point has been clear for some time. Things like "caveman Cruz" comes to mind with his smears. And I'm sure that's true from where you stand. I said long ago for me most of this isn't left right its right wrong. The guy Sterling is a clear racist just as the rapper. But what bothers me much more than these guys shooting off at the mouth despite levels of education and so called class is the mob rule we are moving toward. Until the tape of Sterling I'd never heard of him. A short time latter, less than a week I think many we're saying he should be run out. Why? From what I understand this guys racist views have been known for a long time. What's different now? As much as I despise his words he has the FREEDOM to say it. I disagree probably 99% of the time with my atheist neighbor but he has as much right as me to live his life, say what he wants. Just as with the Christian baker a short time back those on the left may celebrate some of these things but make no mistake we are all going to loose in the end. Unless your idea of paradise is a government that tells you what's ok to think and say like the movie Demolitiln Man. No thanks. To hell with that!
The government is always going to tell you what to think, Clearwater. It's called propaganda and every government has tried doing it since we stepped out of the caves. They're doing it now by telling you to vote Democrat or Republican. To them, the most dangerous person is the independent one. That's why more of us have to vote independent. It's the only way we'll be able to keep the hustlers in power off their feet. When they see that their constituency will vote for the best person in, they'll do their best to be that best person.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178107 Jun 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand. You tell us that anybody should be able to say what they want and how they feel, while at the same time criticizing me for expressing my view that Ted Cruz is a caveman.
This is exactly how I feel. Consider this:
Cruz spoke at an anti-gay marriage rally last Thursday hosted by Steven Hotze, a controversial doctor who has told women that birth control would make them unappealing to men and has warned that equality for gays would be a stepping stone to child molestation.
I find Cruz's appearance at this sort of affair highly offensive and insulting. I call him a caveman for it, just as I would if he spoke at a KKK rally. I'm expressing my view as an American.
Did he actually say that women who use birth control will be unappealing to men? A big hand should have come out of the crowd and smacked him upside his head. LOL!!!

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178108 Jun 13, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
The government is always going to tell you what to think, Clearwater. It's called propaganda and every government has tried doing it since we stepped out of the caves. They're doing it now by telling you to vote Democrat or Republican. To them, the most dangerous person is the independent one. That's why more of us have to vote independent. It's the only way we'll be able to keep the hustlers in power off their feet. When they see that their constituency will vote for the best person in, they'll do their best to be that best person.
edit: for the best person,

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178109 Jun 13, 2014
Sooooooooo... Is it true that the IRS just announced that they lost two years of Lois Lerner's e-mails which just happened to fall during the time in question?

Why yes they did!

http://collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Aust...

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#178110 Jun 13, 2014
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a matter of record, true that.
What I find peculiar is that Obama didn't really attempt to renegotiate that agreement. Actually not peculiar at all as I mentioned earlier he and his administration wanted the legacy of ending the involvement, you know the whole "bring the boys home!" thingy.
He didn't have the stones to address a war torn American people and lay out what would really happen if America didn't leave a significant residual force behind.
Nope, I'm certain he could have renegotiated SOFA if'in he wanted to. Saying otherwise is just pure unadulterated poppycock!
I stand on what I said earlier - in order to conclude that Obama (or McCain) could have gotten the Iraqis to agree to retain U.S. troops in country is to ignore Iraq and the Iraqis. There was no shortage of information - credible information - about Iraqi resistance to a continued U.S. presence going back to AT LEAST the end of '07, which was during (the height of?) the surge.

Had the Iraqis (remember the Iraqis? It's their country, after all) desired a continued U.S. presence after 2011, they would have locked that in by renegotiating that SOFA under under the guaranteed friendly President Bush, rather than take a crap shoot with whoever his successor might be. Iraqi politics - electoral, sectarian, what-ever - wouldn't allow for that, no matter what the Americans wanted or thought best.

REALITY demolishes any notion that Obama was a peacemaker in Iraq. Barring overthrowing a government we essentially created in Iraq, he couldn't have expanded or extended the war or our continued presence there if he'd wanted to. All that crap he or some of his supporters claim is a myth.

You, however, are peddling something just as mythical. Now, granted, it's a time honored Republican (and their fellow travelers) game/tactic - let's call in "Who Lost (insert country here)". It's older than I am, actually, dating back to at least Consideration of the actual country inserted in the blank is to be avoided at all costs, as that would definitely interfere with the purely domestic partisan intent of the game.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#178111 Jun 13, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Catcher isn't a regular poster? While he may not have said it outright his point has been clear for some time. Things like "caveman Cruz" comes to mind with his smears. And I'm sure that's true from where you stand. I said long ago for me most of this isn't left right its right wrong. The guy Sterling is a clear racist just as the rapper. But what bothers me much more than these guys shooting off at the mouth despite levels of education and so called class is the mob rule we are moving toward. Until the tape of Sterling I'd never heard of him. A short time latter, less than a week I think many we're saying he should be run out. Why? From what I understand this guys racist views have been known for a long time. What's different now? As much as I despise his words he has the FREEDOM to say it. I disagree probably 99% of the time with my atheist neighbor but he has as much right as me to live his life, say what he wants. Just as with the Christian baker a short time back those on the left may celebrate some of these things but make no mistake we are all going to loose in the end. Unless your idea of paradise is a government that tells you what's ok to think and say like the movie Demolitiln Man. No thanks. To hell with that!
Caveman Cruz ... what is this, a Geico commercial from a few years ago?



Now you're talking about freedom of speech and the government telling us what to think and say. That's cool. Please explain to me the government's role in Sterling losing his franchise.

If it would be easier, you could show me the part of the constitution that guarantees that speech has no consequences.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178114 Jun 13, 2014
NEW YORK -- Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the aggression of insurgents in Iraq “a dreadful, deteriorating situation” Thursday, saying that she “could not have predicted” the extent of their ability to swiftly gain control of large swaths of the country. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clint...

Didn't have a clue?

Not funny!

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178115 Jun 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I stand on what I said earlier - in order to conclude that Obama (or McCain) could have gotten the Iraqis to agree to retain U.S. troops in country is to ignore Iraq and the Iraqis. There was no shortage of information - credible information - about Iraqi
And I stand by what I posted.

So be it...

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Justise_League 864,314
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 2 min dollarsbill 6,428
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 11 min Liam R 221,989
The Christian Atheist debate 15 min Critical Eye 1,972
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 53 min Gods r Delusions ... 599,550
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 1 hr Roger Bemfree 33,180
Why Use Mickeysoft Office? 1 hr danastafford 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 8 hr Great Day of Arma... 612,898
More from around the web