Bush is a hero

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#179534 Jul 5, 2014
The Awakener wrote:
<quoted text>
From the looks of things, many are displeased with Obama and all his 'promises' that he has eloquently mentions in his public speeches. I hear about many Americans lost their jobs that requires University degrees, and some have took on jobs as janitors, garbage collectors, Mc Donald's and car washers. Even with these jobs, they still are struggling week by week.
Correct again. You must be watching our Fox News channel.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#179535 Jul 5, 2014
Whoaaaa, Topix just went berserk!
The Awakener

Crystal Creek, Australia

#179536 Jul 6, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct again. You must be watching our Fox News channel.
I don't really. I sometimes look up on ABC News, CNN or CBC News (Canadian News) or listen to some American radio via the Internet. Or just research on the Internet.

Some Americans have informed me that Fox News is not really a reliable source.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#179537 Jul 6, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
True tips on all 3 icebergs.
One would then think the 1st, 2nd & 3rd priority of the newly elected president would be jobs, jobs and jobs. You would be wrong.
The 1st priority for Obama was getting Obama-care (aka the ACA) passed so he could "rooster" around the oval office crowin' that he managed to get Nat'l HC through when no other president could make that claim.
Obama simply ignored the majority of US citizens demanding j-o-b-s.
Six years later, people are STILL struggling, employers are sitting on trillions of $$$, and NOT hiring due to lack of confidence for an inexperienced president who NEVER should've
been elected for ONE term, much less TWO terms (IMO).
Our international neighbor should note that there are facts, and then there are "facts" that Republicans, er, excuse me, "Independents" tell each other to make them feel better.

Except Obama's first priority was to carry out the bailout package bequeathed him by his lame duck predecessor.

His second priority was an economic package designed to stimulate jobs. This package was whittled in half by Republicans in Congress, and likewise it's possible salutary effects were also whittled in half. Republicans in Congress in Congress, after 12 years of profligate spending, all got fiscal religion, amazingly enough to coincide with Obama's inauguration. Their sudden insistence on "austerity" resulted in miniscule tax reductions for the middle class, extended large "temporary" tax reductions for the wealthy, followed by the mathematically predictable shrinkage of jobs, primarily in the public sector, reverberating all the way down to the local level. Republicans stood by and watched the economy implode, and then did everything they could to keep it from recovering. But why? Why would these guardians of the nation do such a thing?

Well, it's very simple. The opposition party won an election.

Across the aisle, the Senate leader expressed clearly Republican's #1 priority going forward. Was it "jobs"? Uh, no. Stabilize the devastated economy? Noooo, you're getting colder. Investigate what happened that lead to the fiscal meltdown, and take steps to ameliorate them? Oh, not even close, now you're freezing. None of the above. The leader of the Republican Party stated that their #1 priority (and this ties in directly with your charge above, bob) was to sit on their hands, do whatever it took to obstruct anything the President proposed, make him look as bad as possible, in order to make him a one-term president.

Not jobs.
Not economy.
Not defense.
Not America.

Their #1 priority for the next four years, as stated by their leaders, was to regain power. Everything they have done since, and more importantly everything they have NOT done, is with that goal in mind EXCLUSIVELY.

Which is why they have earned the lowest public satisfaction numbers of any Congress in history. Now think back at some of the scoundrels and mountebanks we've had in history. Yeah, The last two Congresses have been lower than all of them.

Reconcile that in the No-Spin Zone, bob.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#179538 Jul 6, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Wilmer, I'll try one more time. My msg to the Aussie was a brief synopsis, and MY OPINION as to why the US went to Iraq. You already have your mind made up, and nothing I have to say will alter that one whiff. Hence, my use of the term "master baiter".
Your question was asking me to cite specific page and wording of UNSC Res 1441. And I replied that YOU didn't need MY help with such a request. You disagree with my opinion again. I'm STUNNED!
:-O
Course I left plenty of room for you to describe to Awakener how you also supported the Iraq war, minus the way it was prosecuted. 5-4-3-2-1 Go!
Yes, you stated it was an opinion, bob. But you stated it as a fact, pinned to an alleged response to a UN resolution. I believe you're being asked to substantiate that item which you stated as fact.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#179539 Jul 6, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this is about as close as we're going to get to that. By these words, the UN seems to say that any UN member can use any means in its power to make Iraq comply. And by these words I would think that Russia or China could act like we did. But would we allow them to do it? Hopefully we'll never see, bro.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorizes Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area...
I think you're drilling down on Iraq, when you need to see how many resolutions there are passed by the UN against all perceived violations by all nations, and NOT acted upon with military intervention by members. Why Iraq? That's the trillion dollar question.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179540 Jul 6, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Wilmer, I'll try one more time. My msg to the Aussie was a brief synopsis, and MY OPINION as to why the US went to Iraq. You already have your mind made up, and nothing I have to say will alter that one whiff. Hence, my use of the term "master baiter".
Your question was asking me to cite specific page and wording of UNSC Res 1441. And I replied that YOU didn't need MY help with such a request. You disagree with my opinion again. I'm STUNNED!
:-O
Course I left plenty of room for you to describe to Awakener how you also supported the Iraq war, minus the way it was prosecuted. 5-4-3-2-1 Go!
I wasn't trying to bait you, bob.

As far as Awakener goes ... I'll pass.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#179541 Jul 6, 2014
Is this Supreme Court completely detached from it's own rulings?

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the SC didn't say that mandating contraceptives was unconstitutional. They said that the government must seek the least intrusive avenue to enacting the provisions of the law, ANY law. This is done under the ACA by the corporation signing a form that asserts a religious objection, which throws the responsibility onto a third party underwriter, be it the insurer or the government. Referring to the existence of this method, the SC basically said No harm, no foul, everybody wins.

But just a few days later, in a separate case, the SC finds that the mere signing of this form violates the right to freedom of conscience. In the view of the complainant (in this case Wheaton College) all this does is kick the can around the corner. They STILL object to being connected, however remotely, to access to this contraception by whatever means. The Court also agrees with THAT.

I think what really needs to be examined here is what constitutes a religious objection under the law, and establishing a sharp line between operating as a religion vs operating as a corporation. I really really can't see Jesus of Galilee recognizing a "religious corporation". In fact, I would suggest that the contemporary equivalent of his time was the Temple hierarchy, and this is exactly why he caused that infamous fuss with the money-changers that contributed materially to his death sentence.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#179542 Jul 6, 2014
I would respectfully ask all to write their Congress-critter in support of Boehner's threat (so far) to sue the Executive branch for over-reach in Executive Orders and signing statements. Just like the abuse of the filibuster, it's past time to stop just talking about it.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179543 Jul 6, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
Is this Supreme Court completely detached from it's own rulings?
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the SC didn't say that mandating contraceptives was unconstitutional. They said that the government must seek the least intrusive avenue to enacting the provisions of the law, ANY law. This is done under the ACA by the corporation signing a form that asserts a religious objection, which throws the responsibility onto a third party underwriter, be it the insurer or the government. Referring to the existence of this method, the SC basically said No harm, no foul, everybody wins.
But just a few days later, in a separate case, the SC finds that the mere signing of this form violates the right to freedom of conscience. In the view of the complainant (in this case Wheaton College) all this does is kick the can around the corner. They STILL object to being connected, however remotely, to access to this contraception by whatever means. The Court also agrees with THAT.
I think what really needs to be examined here is what constitutes a religious objection under the law, and establishing a sharp line between operating as a religion vs operating as a corporation. I really really can't see Jesus of Galilee recognizing a "religious corporation". In fact, I would suggest that the contemporary equivalent of his time was the Temple hierarchy, and this is exactly why he caused that infamous fuss with the money-changers that contributed materially to his death sentence.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014 /07/commentary-why-i-dont-thin k-the-courts-wheaton-college-d ecision-rests-on-any-misunders tanding-of-the-law/

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179544 Jul 6, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Let's try this again ...

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#179545 Jul 6, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>Our international neighbor should note that there are facts, and then there are "facts" that Republicans, er, excuse me, "Independents" tell each other to make them feel better.
Except Obama's first priority was to carry out the bailout package bequeathed him by his lame duck predecessor.
His second priority was an economic package designed to stimulate jobs. This package was whittled in half by Republicans in Congress, and likewise it's possible salutary effects were also whittled in half. Republicans in Congress in Congress, after 12 years of profligate spending, all got fiscal religion, amazingly enough to coincide with Obama's inauguration. Their sudden insistence on "austerity" resulted in miniscule tax reductions for the middle class, extended large "temporary" tax reductions for the wealthy, followed by the mathematically predictable shrinkage of jobs, primarily in the public sector, reverberating all the way down to the local level. Republicans stood by and watched the economy implode, and then did everything they could to keep it from recovering. But why? Why would these guardians of the nation do such a thing?
Well, it's very simple. The opposition party won an election.
Across the aisle, the Senate leader expressed clearly Republican's #1 priority going forward. Was it "jobs"? Uh, no. Stabilize the devastated economy? Noooo, you're getting colder. Investigate what happened that lead to the fiscal meltdown, and take steps to ameliorate them? Oh, not even close, now you're freezing. None of the above. The leader of the Republican Party stated that their #1 priority (and this ties in directly with your charge above, bob) was to sit on their hands, do whatever it took to obstruct anything the President proposed, make him look as bad as possible, in order to make him a one-term president.
Not jobs.
Not economy.
Not defense.
Not America.
Their #1 priority for the next four years, as stated by their leaders, was to regain power. Everything they have done since, and more importantly everything they have NOT done, is with that goal in mind EXCLUSIVELY.
Which is why they have earned the lowest public satisfaction numbers of any Congress in history. Now think back at some of the scoundrels and mountebanks we've had in history. Yeah, The last two Congresses have been lower than all of them.
Reconcile that in the No-Spin Zone, bob.
Annnnnnnnd there he is again, right on cue. <muffled applause with members turning to one another nodding their approval>

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#179546 Jul 6, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you stated it was an opinion, bob. But you stated it as a fact, pinned to an alleged response to a UN resolution. I believe you're being asked to substantiate that item which you stated as fact.
<muffled applause continues for a full 7 1/2 minutes, then wanes>

You can reword it, edit it, reword it again, reedit it, strain it thru a sieve, put it on a billboard, make it into a black-lite poster, bark at it, bury it in the back yard, throw darts at it, or print it out and use it for comedy relief, my answer remains the same.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179547 Jul 6, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Annnnnnnnd there he is again, right on cue. <muffled applause with members turning to one another nodding their approval>
And one cue follows another ...

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#179548 Jul 6, 2014
The Awakener wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really. I sometimes look up on ABC News, CNN or CBC News (Canadian News) or listen to some American radio via the Internet. Or just research on the Internet.
Some Americans have informed me that Fox News is not really a reliable source.
Some Americans? No surprise.

About 13+ years ago, a brand new network decided to buck the left-leaning established media and <gasp> present BOTH sides of the issues. Since then, the left in every capacity, has tried to silence Fox News. When that wasn't achievable, the same effort went into marginalizing FNN. Fox is far from perfect.

All I can suggest is that you take 'em for a test drive, and then decide for yourself. I CAN tell you that the hosts of the various shows within Fox are from all 3 sides of the political spectrum, right, left, and indy.

Fox weekends Sat-Sun are BRUTAL(IMO). It's mostly financial analysis (Sat), and jurist-host analysis (Sun).
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#179549 Jul 6, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Annnnnnnnd there he is again, right on cue. <muffled applause with members turning to one another nodding their approval>
On cue? I don't even know what that means?(besides the obvious distraction......)

Looked to me like I was the first one here this morning, so after starting the coffee, I joined in. I don't see how that could be "right on cue". Has there been another arbitrary rule established?
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#179550 Jul 6, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
<muffled applause continues for a full 7 1/2 minutes, then wanes>
You can reword it, edit it, reword it again, reedit it, strain it thru a sieve, put it on a billboard, make it into a black-lite poster, bark at it, bury it in the back yard, throw darts at it, or print it out and use it for comedy relief, my answer remains the same.
Oh I get it. You exhausted your repertoire yesterday, and I come just in time for the dregs........

You didn't answer. You made an assertion stated as a fact, then hid behind "opinion" as a shield against any challenge.

As has been stated way more often than necessary here, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts. In the real world, facts are NOT relative, although an exclusive diet of Fox News would understandably lead one to believe so.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179551 Jul 6, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Some Americans? No surprise.
About 13+ years ago, a brand new network decided to buck the left-leaning established media and <gasp> present BOTH sides of the issues. Since then, the left in every capacity, has tried to silence Fox News. When that wasn't achievable, the same effort went into marginalizing FNN. Fox is far from perfect.
All I can suggest is that you take 'em for a test drive, and then decide for yourself. I CAN tell you that the hosts of the various shows within Fox are from all 3 sides of the political spectrum, right, left, and indy.
Fox weekends Sat-Sun are BRUTAL(IMO). It's mostly financial analysis (Sat), and jurist-host analysis (Sun).
Given the several dozen posts Awakening [sic] has made to this point, it seems just as likely to me that the Americans who told him that subscribe to the notion that Fox News is controlled by the boogeyman, in this case Zionists.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179552 Jul 6, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>Oh I get it. You exhausted your repertoire yesterday, and I come just in time for the dregs........
You didn't answer. You made an assertion stated as a fact, then hid behind "opinion" as a shield against any challenge.
As has been stated way more often than necessary here, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts. In the real world, facts are NOT relative, although an exclusive diet of Fox News would understandably lead one to believe so.
I don't think bobby wants anybody in his thread but right-thinkin''merkuns and the occasional easy to handle troll.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#179553 Jul 6, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
Their #1 priority for the next four years, as stated by their leaders, was to regain power. Everything they have done since, and more importantly everything they have NOT done, is with that goal in mind EXCLUSIVELY.

Which is why they have earned the lowest public satisfaction numbers of any Congress in history. Now think back at some of the scoundrels and mountebanks we've had in history. Yeah, The last two Congresses have been lower than all of them.
Reconcile that in the No-Spin Zone, bob.
Kinda sucks...kinda.

You see, what I'm getting out of that, besides that it sucks, is that the republican lead is willing to handle a flat lined nation until it DOES regain power with the HOPES that the U.S of A. doesn't go into a full blown meltdown.

And...according to some here, that ai'nt going to happen!

Sooooooooo, kudos to the GOP!

Hip...Hip...Hooray!

*sung with gusto!*

So long sad times, go long bad times
We are rid of you at last
Howdy gay times, cloudy gray times
You are now a thing of the past

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So lets sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again

Altogether, shout it now, there's no one
Who can doubt it now
So lets tell the world about it now
Happy days are here again

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) 1 min I Am No One_ 855,457
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Just Think 596,520
Poll Which is the Best SAP ABAP institute in hyderab... (Nov '12) 20 min Surendra varma 38
"What's UP wit all dat 'ol BULLS - - T??!" 22 min Doctor REALITY 1
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr TITUS 7,339
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr Edthirty 1,036
Why do blacks name their children ridiculous na... (Sep '08) 1 hr Edthirty 248
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 9 hr End Times 612,638
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 16 hr I Am No One_ 444,356
More from around the web