Crapinoleum: quatchi:
And while were adding things up here what exactly do the GOP think is their greatest legislative accomplishment in the last 3 1/2 years?

What single thing did they do that they can point to and say "Elect us because of X"?

I can't think of one.

Anyone?

Lots of things!

• We got in the way of __________
• We obstructed progress on ____________
• We talked about jobs jobs jobs but did squat about them
• We took the lead in getting the S&P rating lowered
• We diverted the national discussion away from actual improvements, and toward privacy invasion

Darn computer is out of ink or I'd go on....

Have you noticed that the price of computer ink has sky-rocketed under President Fartbongo as thousands of 'puter patriots afraid of having their 1st amendment taken away have been stockpiling the stuff like crazy?

*shakes tiny fist*

Dang you, Inkgrabongo!

/The really sad thing about your post is that there are probably people out there who would read that list and agree non-ironically.

Corvus: HeartBurnKid: Actually, there's a lot of things marijuana can be used for. My mom uses it to relieve arthritic pain.

So you are saying that having more pot-dispensaries than pharmacies makes sense? You think pot should be prescribed more than every other medicine in the United States COMBINED? You think everyone is using them for medical purposes?

I don't think everyone is using their medical card to get marijuana for medical purposes, but there are approximately a metric farkton of medical uses for marijuana. A major part of the reason it is still illegal federally is because the pharmaceutical industry lobbies Congress to obstruct bills that would legalize it. They know they would lose millions in sales if that happened because their drugs simply do not work as well as marijuana, and they have far more side effects. It's pretty telling that the only recorded overdoses from THC that resulted in death all came from people who were using Marinol, a synthetic THC pill.

ManateeGag: Mugato: everyone thinks he's some "messiah" that can do no wrong.

you know, I've only heard people on the right say this about Obama. I've never heard anyone on the left call the him a messiah or a savior.

That's because us left-wing heathens only use those words as a joke.

Corvus: Esc7: Warms the cockles of my heart to see the free market in action.

But the law said they couldn't be for profit. They had to be non-profit co-ops. That is the STATE law.

Eh, state law and federal law are both wrong on pot.

There's lots of dispensaries because a lot of people are demanding a lot of pot. If all regular pharmacies carried this (as they should because right now it is classified as medicine) maybe they wouldn't have cropped up. If it was just sold like tobacco, as it should be, you'd see stores everywhere. Until giant chains swallow them up.

Bin Laden's dead because of waterboarding and the new GM is alive because the investors in the old GM lost their ass. Bravo!!

Mugato: Debeo Summa Credo: And on the other hand, Osama killed 3,000 Americans and anything Bush did in response was because he was a warmonger doing the bidding of defence contractors. Bush was equivalent to hitler in the minds of the left, but once the President has a D after his name they applaud.

Of course hard right wingers are going to downplay any success Obama has had in the war on terror, but to deny the left wasn't just as virulently anti-Bush is incredibly stupid and hypocritical, and quite frankly hilarious to any reasonable person. But both sides are bad, so vote Dem, right?

That's bullshiat and you know it. Bush had an approval rating in the 90%'s after 9/11. It's when he INVADED THE WRONG FARKING COUNTRY that people started getting pissed.

It's too early for you to re-write history. We don't all have the memories of goldfish.

Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I'm not re-writing history. You apparently do have the memory of a goldfish if you think that hard-core conservatives are being harder on Obama than hard-core liberals were on Bush. Either that or you're 8 years old and don't remember.

I don't care - I hated Bush almost as much as any of you, in fact I was in that other 10% despite being supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan, (I was really opposed to the tax cuts) and like I said elsewhere in all likelihood I'm voting for Obama again this November. But you guys are as delusional as any limbaugh listening dittohead or fox news viewer if you think your guy is getting shiat on any more excessively than Bush was by your side.

Here's the thing:

It is coming out that major players in Obama's administration advised against the bin Laden raid. They foresaw disastrous political consequences if the raid failed. But Obama put protecting America above his own political fortune, and he made the right call for the country.

Now, who do you trust handling the NEXT 3 AM phone call? President Obama, who has demonstrated the grit, leadership, and moral courage to do what's right for America instead of what's politically expedient?

Or Mitt Romney?

Election over. Welcome to Obama II.

Debeo Summa Credo: Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I think he mentioned the WRONG country. You know, Iraq? The reasons for invading boiling down to "He had WMDs at one time, so probably still has a few laying around," "My Dad didn't finish the job," and "I wanna be a war president."? That war? The war that distracted us from Afghanistan? The war that was still boiling 10 years after "Mission Accomplished"? REMEMBER THAT ONE?

farking hell, you're rewriting history in a post about how you're not rewriting history.

Aarontology: It's freaking amazing. Since 9/11 all we heard was that he was the most evil man on Earth

Actually, no--the Bush administration tried very, very hard to make it about Saddam Hussein, and downplayed the importance of Osama Bin Laden. By the time congress voted to go to war against Iraq, a depressingly large fraction of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11 and had forgotten all about Bin Laden.

Oh, Obama gave GM a loan or something? We should let Biden know that time machines do exist.

EnviroDude: Aar1012: EnviroDude: And if you are going to hang the success of your foreign policy on killing a guy, then you really don't have much to crow about, do you?

You don't think that if Bush had killed Bin Laden that the GOP wouldn't have used his corpse as the podium?

Did they do so with Saddam?

No, but they did with his sons, (warning, picture in link is graphic):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/24/iraq.usa2

Contrast this to the fact that no photos of Bin Laden's corpse were released.

/hot

urbangirl: And on the other hand, Osama killed 3,000 Americans and anything Bush did in response was because he was a warmonger doing the bidding of defence contractors.


Stopped reading after this sentence. Really? For the last time, it is FACT that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11.

What? Osama had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and that a fact? Could you provide a citation that doesn't come from www.imacrackhead.com?

Debeo Summa Credo: But you guys are as delusional as any limbaugh listening dittohead or fox news viewer if you think your guy is getting shiat on any more excessively than Bush was by your side.

For almost the entirity of Bush's first term, he was given an absolute free ride by the media. Nothing he did could be meaningfully questioned by anyone. MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for being too critical of Bush. It wasn't until hurricane Katrina most of a year into Bush's 2nd term that the media started actually asking questions. And yes, because Bush's was such an objectively terrible presidency, the tone of those questions were sometimes mildly aggressive.

But even then, the national Democratic Party remained civil. Congressional Democrats never shouted down Bush during a speech before Congress. Progressive Supreme Court Justices never threw tantrums at State of the Union addresses, nor sat them out in protest because their delicate feelings got hurt. Even when much of the grassroots left got hostile, the progressive institutional apparatus remained civil. Now, by contrast, the conservative institutional apparatus stop just short of outright calling for violence against the administration.

There is no comparison between "my side's" treatment of the objectively awful Bush presidency, and "your side's" treatment of the objectively competent Obama presidency.

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I think he mentioned the WRONG country. You know, Iraq? The reasons for invading boiling down to "He had WMDs at one time, so probably still has a few laying around," "My Dad didn't finish the job," and "I wanna be a war president."? That war? The war that distracted us from Afghanistan? The war that was still boiling 10 years after "Mission Accomplished"? REMEMBER THAT ONE?

farking hell, you're rewriting history in a post about how you're not rewriting history.

What the farking hell is your point? Aarontology claimed that right wingers were minimizing 3,000 dead Americans because they didn't like the President that killed them, I countered by saying there were liberals who were so opposed to Bush that they criticized any move he made regarding a response to 9/11, Mugato said I was bullshiat, I responded with a claim that he was full of shiat because there were obviously just as many liberals opposed to Afghanistan than there are conservatives who dismiss the significance of the killing of Bin Laden.

Now you go off on some farking tangent about Iraq. So I'll ask again: what the farking hell is your point?

urbangirl: For the last time, it is FACT that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11.

Nothing? Really?

I must confess, I was once registered as a Republican.

Vegemite: I must confess, I was once registered as a Republican.

And I'm sure one day they will be a viable better alternative to vote for. But their form now? They are a disaster with horrible policies, terrible candidates and deal with spreading misinformation, playing to emotions and ignoring any and all context to the point that any action makes both sides the same, vote republican.

The current GOP is not only focused on cutting the nose to spite the face, they are PROUD of it.

Debeo Summa Credo: liberals who were so opposed to Bush that they criticized any move he made regarding a response to 9/11,

This is personally my favorite right-wing canard:

"Rush Limbaugh, the intellectual father of modern conservatism, called on his listeners to 'hound and harass' Democrats out of office.Republican states have threatened to secede from the union, provoking inevitable civil war if they do. Republican leaders employ inflammatory rhetoric intentionally calculated to hint at political violence.

But both sides are equally bad, because some hippy HATED BUSH NO MATTER WHAT HE DID. SEE, HERE HE IS BURNING BUSH IN EFFIGY AT AN ANTIWAR PROTEST! THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME!"

Corvus: DROxINxTHExWIND: I needed the President to lead in that moment. I needed him to say, "fark how this plays out politically, this shiat is wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it". Instead, he doubled down on their foreign policy to assert his toughness on "terrorism" and started kicking illegals out of the country.

Great vote for yourself every election then. Because that's the only person who is going to do 100% of what you want. Your never going to win or accomplish anything for that but you can feel good about yourself. You seem to believe feeling good about yourself is more important than actually accomplishing anything constructive.

A person who never thinks of political ramifications of decisions he makes is a person who will never get elected to office. - Grow up and realize that.

Democracy is a system build on compromise. You either make some compromises to get things done or you don't and piss in the wind.


Feel good about myself? Mutherfarker, thousands of Americans died because of a series of lies were told to scare us all into war. WHAT THE FARK IS WORSE THAN THAT?? Who gives a shiat about how much healthcare costs if they're dead? There are still some things that should NEVER be on the table and the lives of our soldiers and foreign civilians is one of them. When you were a child, I presume that you knew the difference between what is right and what is wrong. That shouldn't go away because you've "grown up". Compromise. The farking Republicans won't even raise taxes on billionaires and I'm supposed to accept Bush's free ride as an even exchange? Nonsense.

Corvus: So you are saying that having more pot-dispensaries than pharmacies makes sense?

I'm saying that this is useless information without more datapoints.

Corvus: You think pot should be prescribed more than every other medicine in the United States COMBINED?

When did I say or imply that? I merely stated that there might be a reason why your city, in particular, has a lot of dispensaries. It might have to do with your neighbors.

Corvus: You think everyone is using them for medical purposes?

No, I'm sure there's some people abusing it. Just like there are people abusing a lot of prescription meds. I don't think we should close down pharmacies for that reason, either.

Corvus: Well if your mad you should be mad at the non-medicinal pot smokers who made it harder. If it wasn't for them making it a problem people would of let them be.

That's the same argument people throw around when they try to get mosques shut down, and it's just as idiotic and fallacious here. They may be in the wrong, but they're not the ones preventing people from getting prescribed medicine.

urbangirl: And on the other hand, Osama killed 3,000 Americans and anything Bush did in response was because he was a warmonger doing the bidding of defence contractors.


Stopped reading after this sentence. Really? For the last time, it is FACT that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11.

Don't blow their minds. Lets keep this Osama did it narrative alive. The Bush Administration might lie to get us into Iraq, but they'd never stand down and let Americans get attacked. Perish the thought.

Debeo Summa Credo: Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I think he mentioned the WRONG country. You know, Iraq? The reasons for invading boiling down to "He had WMDs at one time, so probably still has a few laying around," "My Dad didn't finish the job," and "I wanna be a war president."? That war? The war that distracted us from Afghanistan? The war that was still boiling 10 years after "Mission Accomplished"? REMEMBER THAT ONE?

farking hell, you're rewriting history in a post about how you're not rewriting history.

What the farking hell is your point? Aarontology claimed that right wingers were minimizing 3,000 dead Americans because they didn't like the President that killed them, I countered by saying there were liberals who were so opposed to Bush that they criticized any move he made regarding a response to 9/11, Mugato said I was bullshiat, I responded with a claim that he was full of shiat because there were obviously just as many liberals opposed to Afghanistan than there are conservatives who dismiss the significance of the killing of Bin Laden.

Now you go off on some farking tangent about Iraq. So I'll ask again: what the farking hell is your point?

His point is, most liberals weren't against Afghanistan. There were some, sure, but most of us were fine with it. It was Iraq that pissed us off.

Debeo Summa Credo: Now you go off on some farking tangent about Iraq. So I'll ask again: what the farking hell is your point?

That you're rewriting history.
Mugato mentions Bush had a high approval rating, even among those villainous liberals, until he invaded the wrong farking country for manufactured reasons. You're seriously going to compare the liberals outrage at war crimes to conservatives downplaying Osama's takedown and neat wrap-up of Libya? It's not even on the same level.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Corvus: DROxINxTHExWIND:
I needed the President to lead in that moment. I needed him to say, "fark how this plays out politically, this shiat is wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it". Instead, he doubled down on their foreign policy to assert his toughness on "terrorism" and started ...

President Obama has:

1) Rejected the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.
2) Ended the United States practices of torture and rendition to torture.
3) Withdrawn almost all US forces from Iraq.
4) Is calculating how to draw down US forces in Afghanistan.
5) Changed America's strategic posture from aggressive, lone wolf jingoism to moderate, coalition building diplomacy backed by force.

President Obama has done anything but "double down" on Bush foreign policy. He has scrapped almost all of it.

HeartBurnKid: That's the same argument people throw around when they try to get mosques shut down, and it's just as idiotic and fallacious here. They may be in the wrong, but they're not the ones preventing people from getting prescribed medicine.

There is a fundamental right to religious exercise in the United States. There is no fundamental right to produce, possess, or use marijuana for any purpose.

Your analogy is technically, structurally correct. But if you're trying to insinuate the suppression of marijuana is as grave as the suppression of mosques... Well, I try to avoid being directly insulting.

urbangirl: And on the other hand, Osama killed 3,000 Americans and anything Bush did in response was because he was a warmonger doing the bidding of defence contractors.

Stopped reading after this sentence. Really? For the last time, it is FACT that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm guessing you misread that and thought it said "Saddam killed 3,000".

As in the lies RW media repeated endlessly convincing people that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11 and thus a legitimate target in the War on Terror to the point where there are still idiots today who believe that.

Am I right?

bugontherug: HeartBurnKid: That's the same argument people throw around when they try to get mosques shut down, and it's just as idiotic and fallacious here. They may be in the wrong, but they're not the ones preventing people from getting prescribed medicine.

There is a fundamental right to religious exercise in the United States. There is no fundamental right to produce, possess, or use marijuana for any purpose.

Your analogy is technically, structurally correct. But if you're trying to insinuate the suppression of marijuana is as grave as the suppression of mosques... Well, I try to avoid being directly insulting.

The best kind of correct.

bugontherug: HeartBurnKid: That's the same argument people throw around when they try to get mosques shut down, and it's just as idiotic and fallacious here. They may be in the wrong, but they're not the ones preventing people from getting prescribed medicine.

There is a fundamental right to religious exercise in the United States. There is no fundamental right to produce, possess, or use marijuana for any purpose.

Your analogy is technically, structurally correct. But if you're trying to insinuate the suppression of marijuana is as grave as the suppression of mosques... Well, I try to avoid being directly insulting.

What about the poor rastafarians?

Vegemite: bugontherug: HeartBurnKid: That's the same argument people throw around when they try to get mosques shut down, and it's just as idiotic and fallacious here. They may be in the wrong, but they're not the ones preventing people from getting prescribed medicine.

There is a fundamental right to religious exercise in the United States. There is no fundamental right to produce, possess, or use marijuana for any purpose.

Your analogy is technically, structurally correct. But if you're trying to insinuate the suppression of marijuana is as grave as the suppression of mosques... Well, I try to avoid being directly insulting.

The best kind of correct.

As long as we understand that banning marijuana has nothing meaningful in common with banning mosques, we're cool.

qorkfiend: bugontherug: HeartBurnKid: That's the same argument people throw around when they try to get mosques shut down, and it's just as idiotic and fallacious here. They may be in the wrong, but they're not the ones preventing people from getting prescribed medicine.

There is a fundamental right to religious exercise in the United States. There is no fundamental right to produce, possess, or use marijuana for any purpose.

Your analogy is technically, structurally correct. But if you're trying to insinuate the suppression of marijuana is as grave as the suppression of mosques... Well, I try to avoid being directly insulting.

What about the poor rastafarians?

No right to engage in generally prohibited conduct on religious grounds.

HeartBurnKid: Debeo Summa Credo: Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I think he mentioned the WRONG country. You know, Iraq? The reasons for invading boiling down to "He had WMDs at one time, so probably still has a few laying around," "My Dad didn't finish the job," and "I wanna be a war president."? That war? The war that distracted us from Afghanistan? The war that was still boiling 10 years after "Mission Accomplished"? REMEMBER THAT ONE?

farking hell, you're rewriting history in a post about how you're not rewriting history.

What the farking hell is your point? Aarontology claimed that right wingers were minimizing 3,000 dead Americans because they didn't like the President that killed them, I countered by saying there were liberals who were so opposed to Bush that they criticized any move he made regarding a response to 9/11, Mugato said I was bullshiat, I responded with a claim that he was full of shiat because there were obviously just as many liberals opposed to Afghanistan than there are conservatives who dismiss the significance of the killing of Bin Laden.

Now you go off on some farking tangent about Iraq. So I'll ask again: what the farking hell is your point?

His point is, most liberals weren't against Afghanistan. There were some, sure, but most of us were fine with it. It was Iraq that pissed us off.

And actually, a lot of us libtards fell for the con that our invasion of Iraq was justified. Shame on us for believing Colin Powell.

I personally didn't really turn on Bush until we found no WMDs in Iraq and realized that he and his merry band of neocons were lying through their farking teeth the whole time.

bugontherug: HeartBurnKid: That's the same argument people throw around when they try to get mosques shut down, and it's just as idiotic and fallacious here. They may be in the wrong, but they're not the ones preventing people from getting prescribed medicine.

There is a fundamental right to religious exercise in the United States. There is no fundamental right to produce, possess, or use marijuana for any purpose.

Your analogy is technically, structurally correct. But if you're trying to insinuate the suppression of marijuana is as grave as the suppression of mosques... Well, I try to avoid being directly insulting.

No, I'm not. I'm saying blaming recreational smokers for the suppression of medical marijuana is as stupid and morally bankrupt as blaming terrorists for the suppression of mosques.

Tor_Eckman: HeartBurnKid: Debeo Summa Credo: Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I think he mentioned the WRONG country. You know, Iraq? The reasons for invading boiling down to "He had WMDs at one time, so probably still has a few laying around," "My Dad didn't finish the job," and "I wanna be a war president."? That war? The war that distracted us from Afghanistan? The war that was still boiling 10 years after "Mission Accomplished"? REMEMBER THAT ONE?

farking hell, you're rewriting history in a post about how you're not rewriting history.

What the farking hell is your point? Aarontology claimed that right wingers were minimizing 3,000 dead Americans because they didn't like the President that killed them, I countered by saying there were liberals who were so opposed to Bush that they criticized any move he made regarding a response to 9/11, Mugato said I was bullshiat, I responded with a claim that he was full of shiat because there were obviously just as many liberals opposed to Afghanistan than there are conservatives who dismiss the significance of the killing of Bin Laden.

Now you go off on some farking tangent about Iraq. So I'll ask again: what the farking hell is your point?

His point is, most liberals weren't against Afghanistan. There were some, sure, but most of us were fine with it. It was Iraq that pissed us off.

And actually, a lot of us libtards fell for the con that our invasion of Iraq was justified. Shame on us for believing Colin Powell.

I personally didn't really turn on Bush until we found no WMDs in Iraq and realized that he and his merry band of neocons were lying through their farking teeth the whole time.

Yeah, you can count me in that group too.

Serious Black:
4) Obama dropped the public option because he made a deal with hospital l ...

...and the fact that there was 0.00000000000000% chance of 60 Senators and 218 House Reps agreeing to a public option.

Kurmudgeon: And yet for some, that won't be good enough.

And your other option is Rmoney.

urbangirl: And on the other hand, Osama killed 3,000 Americans and anything Bush did in response was because he was a warmonger doing the bidding of defence contractors.


Stopped reading after this sentence. Really? For the last time, it is FACT that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11.

There isn't a [citation needed] big enough for this statement.

Serious Black: LeoffDaGrate: Il Douchey: OK, then, let's give Barry a free pass on fuel prices; there are certainly other factors that affect it than him. But on a deeper level, is there anything, anything at all that you are willing to admit is an Obama failure? The last mistake that Obama owned up to was selecting Tom Daschle as his health czar. Do you really think (as he apparently does) that his performance since then has been flawless? Does he bear no responsibility after nearly four years in charge for the mess we're in? Is he really in the league of our two or three top presidents ever in your view? Can we fairly hold Obama accountable for anything? or is all this failure the fault of Bush and dirty racism?

Let's turn this around, shall we? Il Douchey, is there anything, anything at all that you are willing to admit is an Obama win? Thus far, I've seen nothing but partisan bullcrap coming from you, never giving the President kudos for anything at all. Never once a good job, wise move, well played, or good idea. You are claiming that the left sees him as faultless, but don't you think it's equally as telling to say that he is nothing but a problem, has no redeeming qualities, and cannot do any good?

Please answer. I'd seriously like to see if you can take as well as you can give.

I tried this once with a true believer in the Prosperity Gospel. He outright stated that everything Obama has done is either designed to destroy America or cover up that he is destroying America.

Now I haz a sad.

Tor_Eckman: HeartBurnKid: Debeo Summa Credo: Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I think he mentioned the WRONG country. You know, Iraq? The reasons for invading boiling down to "He had WMDs at one time, so probably still has a few laying around," "My Dad didn't finish the job," and "I wanna be a war president."? That war? The war that distracted us from Afghanistan? The war that was still boiling 10 years after "Mission Accomplished"? REMEMBER THAT ONE?

farking hell, you're rewriting history in a post about how you're not rewriting history.

What the farking hell is your point? Aarontology claimed that right wingers were minimizing 3,000 dead Americans because they didn't like the President that killed them, I countered by saying there were liberals who were so opposed to Bush that they criticized any move he made regarding a response to 9/11, Mugato said I was bullshiat, I responded with a claim that he was full of shiat because there were obviously just as many liberals opposed to Afghanistan than there are conservatives who dismiss the significance of the killing of Bin Laden.

Now you go off on some farking tangent about Iraq. So I'll ask again: what the farking hell is your point?

His point is, most liberals weren't against Afghanistan. There were some, sure, but most of us were fine with it. It was Iraq that pissed us off.

And actually, a lot of us libtards fell for the con that our invasion of Iraq was justified. Shame on us for believing Colin Powell.

I personally didn't really turn on Bush until we found no WMDs in Iraq and realized that he and his merry band of neocons were lying through their farking teeth the whole time.

You didn't go "Why the fark are we even thinking about doing this?" when he first brought it up?

Debeo Summa Credo: Mugato: Debeo Summa Credo: And on the other hand, Osama killed 3,000 Americans and anything Bush did in response was because he was a warmonger doing the bidding of defence contractors. Bush was equivalent to hitler in the minds of the left, but once the President has a D after his name they applaud.

Of course hard right wingers are going to downplay any success Obama has had in the war on terror, but to deny the left wasn't just as virulently anti-Bush is incredibly stupid and hypocritical, and quite frankly hilarious to any reasonable person. But both sides are bad, so vote Dem, right?

That's bullshiat and you know it. Bush had an approval rating in the 90%'s after 9/11. It's when he INVADED THE WRONG FARKING COUNTRY that people started getting pissed.

It's too early for you to re-write history. We don't all have the memories of goldfish.

Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I'm not re-writing history. You apparently do have the memory of a goldfish if you think that hard-core conservatives are being harder on Obama than hard-core liberals were on Bush. Either that or you're 8 years old and don't remember.

I don't care - I hated Bush almost as much as any of you, in fact I was in that other 10% despite being supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan, (I was really opposed to the tax cuts) and like I said elsewhere in all likelihood I'm voting for Obama again this November. But you guys are as delusional as any limbaugh listening dittohead or fox news viewer if you think your guy is getting shiat on any more excessively than Bush was by your side.

I don't know that you're adequately remembering the Bush era. Yes, he was becoming more and more of a perpetual target. Yes, by the end of his presidency, he was the punchline to most jokes. It also took 8 years, two wars, the No Child Left Behind Act, and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. Bush lost his political capital. President Obama was never given any to begin with.

Comparing the end of the Bush era with Obama's entire presidency gives a poor impression of history.

qorkfiend: Tor_Eckman: HeartBurnKid: Debeo Summa Credo: Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Which percentage is greater: the percentage of conservatives today "seriously minimize the murder of three thousand Americans because they hate the president that had bin Laden killed" or the percentage of liberals who were against Bush for invading Afghanistan?

I think he mentioned the WRONG country. You know, Iraq? The reasons for invading boiling down to "He had WMDs at one time, so probably still has a few laying around," "My Dad didn't finish the job," and "I wanna be a war president."? That war? The war that distracted us from Afghanistan? The war that was still boiling 10 years after "Mission Accomplished"? REMEMBER THAT ONE?

farking hell, you're rewriting history in a post about how you're not rewriting history.

What the farking hell is your point? Aarontology claimed that right wingers were minimizing 3,000 dead Americans because they didn't like the President that killed them, I countered by saying there were liberals who were so opposed to Bush that they criticized any move he made regarding a response to 9/11, Mugato said I was bullshiat, I responded with a claim that he was full of shiat because there were obviously just as many liberals opposed to Afghanistan than there are conservatives who dismiss the significance of the killing of Bin Laden.

Now you go off on some farking tangent about Iraq. So I'll ask again: what the farking hell is your point?

His point is, most liberals weren't against Afghanistan. There were some, sure, but most of us were fine with it. It was Iraq that pissed us off.

And actually, a lot of us libtards fell for the con that our invasion of Iraq was justified. Shame on us for believing Colin Powell.

I personally didn't really turn on Bush until we found no WMDs in Iraq and realized that he and his merry band of neocons were lying through their farking teeth the whole time.

You didn't go "Why the fark are we even thinking about doing ...

No, and shame on me for that. I think I was still somewhat shell-shocked by 9/11 and obviously not paying enough attention to what was really going on.

I won't make that mistake ever again.

Osama bin Laden is dead, thanks to polices and work done long before Obama took office and some of which was done before he was even a senator, but why should the people who worked for years and years before Obama came along get any credit at all?

GM is 'alive' for the sake of Obama's union supporters, who are the only people that made out well from that 'deal'. Incidentally unless GM finds a way to get away from the union contracts that are strangling them to death they will require another bail out at some point.

randomjsa: Osama bin Laden is dead, thanks to polices and work done long before Obama took office and some of which was done before he was even a senator, but why should the people who worked for years and years before Obama came along get any credit at all?

GM is 'alive' for the sake of Obama's union supporters, who are the only people that made out well from that 'deal'. Incidentally unless GM finds a way to get away from the union contracts that are strangling them to death they will require another bail out at some point.

Got nothing but tired and stale talking points huh?

BKITU: Geotpf: urbangirl: And on the other hand, Osama killed 3,000 Americans and anything Bush did in response was because he was a warmonger doing the bidding of defence contractors.


Stopped reading after this sentence. Really? For the last time, it is FACT that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11.

There isn't a [citation needed] big enough for this statement.

Beware, traveler, for yonder citations be good for naught but Troofer links.

I like reading weird websites like those. Alas, she hasn't come back to defend herself.

randomjsa: Osama bin Laden is dead, thanks to polices and work done long before Obama took office and some of which was done before he was even a senator, but why should the people who worked for years and years before Obama came along get any credit at all?

Bin Laden would have been dead a decade before he was killed had Bush not had a hard on for Iraq and instead gone all-in to Afghanistan (instead of holding back the majority of our forces for Iraq).