Ha ha ha that was actually a very funny joke.
Why was it okay to call President Bush a “chimp” mock him and even make a movie degrading him. But, a simple joke about Obama causes an international stir?
Democrats certainly are PC…when it comes to one of their own at least.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/21/politics/judy-mozes-obama-tweet-apology/[/quote]
I mean, that’s pretty damn funny. [/quote]
funny, but god forbid you say anything negative about the god king obama. [/quote]
Are you kidding, Obama got a double middle finger this past weekend while golfing in Palm Springs.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ha ha ha that was actually a very funny joke.
Why was it okay to call President Bush a “chimp” mock him and even make a movie degrading him. But, a simple joke about Obama causes an international stir?
Democrats certainly are PC…when it comes to one of their own at least.
[/quote]
imagine the riots and marches in protest if someone made an obummer cartoon
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
58% of Senate Democrats voted for the war, including Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Shumer, Joe Biden, and John Kerry.
Are they chimps too ?[/quote]
No, they were the victim of cherry picked intelligence.[/quote]
LOL, they were victims of the evil George Bush. You loon, Bush had the same intelligence that those who voted for the war had. So…did he know that the intelligence was bad and he invaded Iraq anyway? Tell us all why he did this. What did he have to gain my making things up and invading a country.
Honestly, you are not even logical.
[/quote]
That’s a lie. Bush cherry picked the intelligence until he had a reason for war.[/quote]
Where is your evidence that the intelligence was cherry picked. That’s a mighty big accusation, it should be qualified by evidence.[/quote]
Don’t hold you breath, Pat.
[/quote]
I am not. It’s one thing to accuse of faulty intelligence, poor intelligence gathering methods, reliance on the unreliable, or the misreading of the data was wrong.
It’s a whole other to say that all the intelligence was gathered correctly, and that it was all accurate, but that some of it was used or even altered, to the exclusion of reliable and accurate counter intelligence in order to deliberately make a case that wasn’t there based on the evidence.
It did not help that Saddam was interested in disinformation to scare the Iranians, whom he considered the bigger threat than the U.S. So he wanted to look stronger than he was. It was a catastrophic miscalculation on his part.
So was our intelligence bad? It seems obvious now. Cherry picked is something different. [/quote]
Ooh, ooh, all of a sudden the gullible sheep need proof.
You didn’t need much proof for invading Iraq.[/quote]
No dumbass, I am requiring you qualify your accusation that in fact the correct intelligence was gathered, but was ‘cherry picked’ to make the case against Iraq.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
58% of Senate Democrats voted for the war, including Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Shumer, Joe Biden, and John Kerry.
Are they chimps too ?[/quote]
No, they were the victim of cherry picked intelligence.[/quote]
LOL, they were victims of the evil George Bush. You loon, Bush had the same intelligence that those who voted for the war had. So…did he know that the intelligence was bad and he invaded Iraq anyway? Tell us all why he did this. What did he have to gain my making things up and invading a country.
Honestly, you are not even logical.
[/quote]
That’s a lie. Bush cherry picked the intelligence until he had a reason for war.[/quote]
Where is your evidence that the intelligence was cherry picked. That’s a mighty big accusation, it should be qualified by evidence.[/quote]
Don’t hold you breath, Pat.
[/quote]
I am not. It’s one thing to accuse of faulty intelligence, poor intelligence gathering methods, reliance on the unreliable, or the misreading of the data was wrong.
It’s a whole other to say that all the intelligence was gathered correctly, and that it was all accurate, but that some of it was used or even altered, to the exclusion of reliable and accurate counter intelligence in order to deliberately make a case that wasn’t there based on the evidence.
It did not help that Saddam was interested in disinformation to scare the Iranians, whom he considered the bigger threat than the U.S. So he wanted to look stronger than he was. It was a catastrophic miscalculation on his part.
So was our intelligence bad? It seems obvious now. Cherry picked is something different. [/quote]
Ooh, ooh, all of a sudden the gullible sheep need proof.
You didn’t need much proof for invading Iraq.[/quote]
No dumbass, I am requiring you qualify your accusation that in fact the correct intelligence was gathered, but was ‘cherry picked’ to make the case against Iraq.[/quote]
Pat,
You are wasting your time. Many of us have concluded that wreckless is a socialist teenager who harasses adults online.