Holy. Fucking. Shit.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
^
It doesn’t matter anyway. Obama will get a free pass at everything he does. No one will criticize anything he does at all. Even if all these predictions of 20%+ unemployment, severe deflation, massive corruption, etc… come true, none of it will be Obama’s fault.
Remember kids, everything is Bush’s fault.
EVERYTHING.[/quote]
You guys over there in the States are where Australia was nearly a year ago. One of the most successful governments (12 years) was tossed out and replaced by a Prime Minister who used to be a former low level diplomat. The public were tricked by a very slick media-driven election campaign, helped of course by the usual left-leaning press who hated the incumbent conservative government.
A year later all we have had are hundreds of reviews, committees and announcements, but no decisions of any real substance have been made, and the other week they decided on a whim to throw away half of the budget surplus in handouts to stimulate the economy after the financial crisis, except that most people intend on saving it rather than spending it, defeating the whole purpose of the handouts!
And of course anything that goes wrong is the previous government’s fault!
I hope for your sake that Obama doesn’t end up like this, although the parallels are eerily similar. At least Obama looks and sounds statesman-like, every time our PM appears on TV I feel embarrassed!
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
A black man is going to be sitting in the white house. That has as every moron foaming at the mouth.
You hired a punk to do a man’s job 8 years ago. Again 4 years ago.
[/quote]
There are lots of black men, like C Powell, whom I’d happily vote for. But just like a doctor, there is no substitute for experience. We just hired a ‘newbie’ doctor to perform his first open heart surgery. Scary stuff.
Let’s let him warm up on you first.
[quote]theOUTLAW wrote:
I just wish Bush had been more conservative. I admire the guy, but you reach across the aisle and you get your hand chopped off. That is also why John McCain lost his bid. No one seems to know what the Republican party stands for anymore after the last 8 years.
When Obama raises taxes on people earning below 100 G’s…the supermajority will blame it on Bush. They will claim they are just cleaning up an unforeseen mess that Bush left behind. George Bush will be blamed for for every single one of Obama’s broken promises.[/quote]
Yep. Libs NEVER see themselves as wrong on anything. They’ll blame everything under the sun but themselves. They never question their premises.
Say to a lib: “Each person’s life, property, money, is sacred. They EARNED it or it was bequethed to them by someone who earned it. What right do you have to take that away?”
Their answer is to call you a racist, a selfish bastard, on and on. They think they have a right to your money or time. They never question that and get mad if you do.
Of course Bush was treated unfairly. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Obama should expect similar if not worse treatment.
By the way it seems Putin couldn’t even wait a few more years to start dealing with Obama. Opportunities like this don’t come along often for our opponents.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081106/wl_nm/us_russia_medvedev_putin
[quote]Odogg wrote:
Mission Accomplished!!!
Remember that Bullshit!! [/quote]
Bush never said “Mission accomplished”.
I think Bush deserves to be hanged for his waste of the US dollar and crimes against humanity.
Just my 2 cents.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yep. Libs NEVER see themselves as wrong on anything. They’ll blame everything under the sun but themselves. They never question their premises.
Say to a lib: “Each person’s life, property, money, is sacred. They EARNED it or it was bequeathed to them by someone who earned it. What right do you have to take that away?”
Their answer is to call you a racist, a selfish bastard, on and on. They think they have a right to your money or time. They never question that and get mad if you do.
[/quote]
Yeah…and you’re the model citizen for admitting faults…and nothing you ever say comes off as racist bigotry. You generalize and instigate like a true idiot.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Odogg wrote:
Mission Accomplished!!!
Remember that Bullshit!!
Bush never said “Mission accomplished”.[/quote]
You are correct,sir…HOWEVER…what kind of speech was given…a victory speech?..yes. If that was not the case…what was the point of making that speech and allowing a “Mission Accomplished” banner to hang directly behind him??
“In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” You would have thought so many more lives would be lost after that speech.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Odogg wrote:
Mission Accomplished!!!
Remember that Bullshit!!
Bush never said “Mission accomplished”.
You are correct,sir…HOWEVER…what kind of speech was given…a victory speech?..yes. If that was not the case…what was the point of making that speech and allowing a “Mission Accomplished” banner to hang directly behind him??
“In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” You would have thought so many more lives would be lost after that speech.[/quote]
The “mission accomplished” banner was put up by the USS Abraham Lincoln signifying the end of their deployment in that particular operation. Yes, the USS Abraham Lincoln’s “mission” was “accomplished” . This was weeks before the President arrived on the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Bush’s speech was in fact a victory speech, signaling the end of major combat operations. This was true as well. MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS had ended in Iraq.
I don’t understand the confusion here.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Odogg wrote:
Mission Accomplished!!!
Remember that Bullshit!!
Bush never said “Mission accomplished”.
You are correct,sir…HOWEVER…what kind of speech was given…a victory speech?..yes. If that was not the case…what was the point of making that speech and allowing a “Mission Accomplished” banner to hang directly behind him??
“In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” You would have thought so many more lives would be lost after that speech.
The “mission accomplished” banner was put up by the USS Abraham Lincoln signifying the end of their deployment in that particular operation. Yes, the USS Abraham Lincoln’s “mission” was “accomplished” . This was weeks before the President arrived on the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Bush’s speech was in fact a victory speech, signaling the end of major combat operations. This was true as well. MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS had ended in Iraq.
I don’t understand the confusion here.[/quote]
I’m aware of the reasons behind the banner. Like I said…they should of thought twice of it being behind him during a victory speech…just like they thought twice about “mission accomplished” being taken out the original draft for his speech.
Oh…I get it! So that was just a half-time speech for the war. Ok…Ok…that takes care of the confusion. Yeah that was five years ago…nothing has happened between now and then…how dumb of me…just minor combat operations…with minimal casualties.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Odogg wrote:
Mission Accomplished!!!
Remember that Bullshit!!
Bush never said “Mission accomplished”.
You are correct,sir…HOWEVER…what kind of speech was given…a victory speech?..yes. If that was not the case…what was the point of making that speech and allowing a “Mission Accomplished” banner to hang directly behind him??
“In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” You would have thought so many more lives would be lost after that speech.
The “mission accomplished” banner was put up by the USS Abraham Lincoln signifying the end of their deployment in that particular operation. Yes, the USS Abraham Lincoln’s “mission” was “accomplished” . This was weeks before the President arrived on the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Bush’s speech was in fact a victory speech, signaling the end of major combat operations. This was true as well. MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS had ended in Iraq.
I don’t understand the confusion here.
I’m aware of the reasons behind the banner. Like I said…they should of thought twice of it being behind him during a victory speech…just like they thought twice about “mission accomplished” being taken out the original draft for his speech.
Oh…I get it! So that was just a half-time speech for the war. Ok…Ok…that takes care of the confusion. Yeah that was five years ago…nothing has happened between now and then…how dumb of me…just minor combat operations…with minimal casualties.[/quote]
Do you think mission accomplished is appropriate now considering level of violence over there now?
I always considered the mission to ensure that Saddam didn’t have and couldn’t obtain or manufacture WMDs and I thought that was accomplished back then.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Odogg wrote:
Mission Accomplished!!!
Remember that Bullshit!!
Bush never said “Mission accomplished”.
You are correct,sir…HOWEVER…what kind of speech was given…a victory speech?..yes. If that was not the case…what was the point of making that speech and allowing a “Mission Accomplished” banner to hang directly behind him??
“In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” You would have thought so many more lives would be lost after that speech.
The “mission accomplished” banner was put up by the USS Abraham Lincoln signifying the end of their deployment in that particular operation. Yes, the USS Abraham Lincoln’s “mission” was “accomplished” . This was weeks before the President arrived on the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Bush’s speech was in fact a victory speech, signaling the end of major combat operations. This was true as well. MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS had ended in Iraq.
I don’t understand the confusion here.
I’m aware of the reasons behind the banner. Like I said…they should of thought twice of it being behind him during a victory speech…just like they thought twice about “mission accomplished” being taken out the original draft for his speech.
Oh…I get it! So that was just a half-time speech for the war. Ok…Ok…that takes care of the confusion. Yeah that was five years ago…nothing has happened between now and then…how dumb of me…just minor combat operations…with minimal casualties.
Do you think mission accomplished is appropriate now considering level of violence over there now?
I always considered the mission to ensure that Saddam didn’t have and couldn’t obtain or manufacture WMDs and I thought that was accomplished back then.[/quote]
Yes. Iraqis seem to think its appropriate…they want an unconditional get-the-fuck out by 2011…and want “limited” jurisdiction over U.S. troops(a scary thought,IMO).
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Yes. Iraqis seem to think its appropriate…they want an unconditional get-the-fuck out by 2011…and want “limited” jurisdiction over U.S. troops(a scary thought,IMO).
[/quote]
Heck, I think they’re having trouble passing that over there. And not because they think 2011 is too soon, but too far in the future. It’s time to leave.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Yes. Iraqis seem to think its appropriate…they want an unconditional get-the-fuck out by 2011…and want “limited” jurisdiction over U.S. troops(a scary thought,IMO).
Heck, I think they’re having trouble passing that over there. And not because they think 2011 is too soon, but too far in the future. It’s time to leave.[/quote]
War is won. Time to go.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
War is won. Time to go.[/quote]
Great, so when the troops start to pull out and we see some resurgence of violence in Iraq, we can expect your continued statements supporting the troop draw down, right?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
War is won. Time to go.
Great, so when the troops start to pull out and we see some resurgence of violence in Iraq, we can expect your continued statements supporting the troop draw down, right?[/quote]
We will not see a significant resurgence of violence.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Good man, he made some mistakes but did well in many areas.
Care to name one? I’ll give you Stevens and Alito, but he even tried to fuck that up.
I think what he is doing in Africa is pretty good even though I am generally against give aways.
I think his recognition that we need to force change on the middle east is correct. Not all his tactics have worked but that is to be expected. I think it is shameful how it has been undercut at every turn.[/quote]
Well he has succeeded in undermining the constitution…stripping people of their civil liberties ,fucking up the economy …and inflating government (something republicans are supposed to be against) …his middle east tactics have only worked for his Haliburton friends and the military industrial complex, which is what they were designed to do…not to affect peace or spread democracy…so I guess that has been a success too.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
War is won. Time to go.
Great, so when the troops start to pull out and we see some resurgence of violence in Iraq, we can expect your continued statements supporting the troop draw down, right?
We will not see a significant resurgence of violence.[/quote]
Nope, just violence as usual.
The current belief that Bush is the worst president in history is propagated by the left-leaning (to put it mildly) media. Did everything go great? Of course not, but it never does. Within 9 months of taking office, President Bush was faced with the single largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history. To say that his tenure has been defined by that would be an understatement.
There have been NO successful terrorist attacks on the United States since September 11, 2001. That’s over 7 years now. An amazing feat considering the levels of hostility of certain terrorist groups against the U.S. have certainly not diminished over that time. If you are to look at this fact alone, you could consider his presidency successful. Could another president have done this? We don’t know, as there was no precedent, and hopefully, God willing, we never have to find out.
If you think it is such a travesty, perhaps you will change your thinking when we revert to Clinton era domestic security policies: the same policies that paved the way for 9/11.
I certainly hope that is not the case, but sometimes it is hard to do anything besides fear the worst.