Skip to main content

As voters around the country continue to voice their anger at town halls over the Republican plan to end Medicare, Republican congressmen are using a range of tactics to try to avoid constituent wrath. In a heated Orlando town hall yesterday, Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) largely ignored contentious questions, leading many in the crowd to demand the congressman “answer the question!” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the architect of the GOP budget, even ducked out a back entrance during his town hall last night and left in a police car rather than his own vehicle.

 

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) took a different approach: pre-screening all questions. Not only were all questions pre-approved by the congressman’s staff, but the attendees were not even permitted to ask the screened questions themselves; staff members read the questions instead, lest a constituent ask an unscripted question.

 

Still, a few upset voters attempted to circumvent West’s screening process and make their voices heard. These town hall attendees were thrown out by security and at least one woman, a former Air America radio host, was arrested.

 

The growing dissension in the GOP will lead to a complete abandonment of the Ryan Plan, ensuring the continuation of the implementation of the ACA.

 

 

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

So interesting that the Republicans rode the horse of "Obama will destroy your medicare" to death against the President's Healthcare initiative and now, after they fooled a lot of people into voting for them, based on that, now they introduce and pass, in the House of Representatives, a bill that will effectively kill Medicare as we know it! And the Republicans ran on JOBS JOBS JOBS. Where are the jobs Mr Boehner? All i have seen from the Republicans is "No to Everything" that might possible be construed as a success introduced by the President, to the detriment of the country! Not one jobs bill. Nothing but culture wars. Nothing but tax breaks for the rich. Ideas that peel MORE money from the poor and middle classes and give it to the very rich. TALK ABOUT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION! We've had oh, 'bout 30 years now to see that "trickle down" economics DOES NOT WORK. The uber rich are, for the most part, inherently greedy; thats how they got that way! Give them more tax breaks and they WILL NOT MAGICALLY DECIDE to HIRE MORE PEOPLE - they'll still send the jobs overseas and they'll say thank you very much to their Republican whipping boys in the Senate and the House and they'll be making that much more money! 

I think Harry Reid SHOULD bring the Ryan Plan to a Senate vote today, get the Senate Republicans on record as to who wants to kill Medicare; we already have the House of Representatives on record (all of them i believe). Mr Norquist will ensure that the all vote for it of course and this will be well publicized. People really do want the government to leave Medicare and Social Security alone and the Republicans will find this out in 2012! If you keep them in Congress, they will be coming after our Social Security next with a new pack of lies.

Originally Posted by peeler:

So interesting that the Republicans rode the horse of "Obama will destroy your medicare" to death against the President's Healthcare initiative and now, after they fooled a lot of people into voting for them, based on that, now they introduce and pass, in the House of Representatives, a bill that will effectively kill Medicare as we know it! And the Republicans ran on JOBS JOBS JOBS. Where are the jobs Mr Boehner? All i have seen from the Republicans is "No to Everything" that might possible be construed as a success introduced by the President, to the detriment of the country! Not one jobs bill. Nothing but culture wars. Nothing but tax breaks for the rich. Ideas that peel MORE money from the poor and middle classes and give it to the very rich. TALK ABOUT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION! We've had oh, 'bout 30 years now to see that "trickle down" economics DOES NOT WORK. The uber rich are, for the most part, inherently greedy; thats how they got that way! Give them more tax breaks and they WILL NOT MAGICALLY DECIDE to HIRE MORE PEOPLE - they'll still send the jobs overseas and they'll say thank you very much to their Republican whipping boys in the Senate and the House and they'll be making that much more money! 

I think Harry Reid SHOULD bring the Ryan Plan to a Senate vote today, get the Senate Republicans on record as to who wants to kill Medicare; we already have the House of Representatives on record (all of them i believe). Mr Norquist will ensure that the all vote for it of course and this will be well publicized. People really do want the government to leave Medicare and Social Security alone and the Republicans will find this out in 2012! If you keep them in Congress, they will be coming after our Social Security next with a new pack of lies.

Obama care will be the death of this nation.

You show me where in the Constitution that it gives the power to the Federal Gov't

to inact this massive Nation Killer, you can't anywhere. The Constitution gives certain

enumerated powers to the Federal Gov't and all other powers go to the States. Let's see,

who has had both houses and the Presidency the first half of Obama's term? I'll help

you the Socialists(Democrats). What did the promise? Change? Jobs? A better economy?

No my friend not one thing has changed except for the worse. Where are the jobs after

two years? Where are the good times promised? Where is the Peace promised? The

last time I checked we are still in Iraq, Afganistan and yea let's not forget Obama's very

own war Lybia. Why are we in Lybia and not in other places where citizens are in

danger? Who are the rebels in Lybia? Why are we in trillions more in  debt since

Obama took charge. Sorry pal all this crap is on the Socialists, you know you guys.

Skippy

I think you are just another thinly disguised racist that cannot stand the fact that a black man is President. How about trying to help the country, over partisan politics or paltry racism? The Republicans are not interested in helping the country, otherwise they would have introduced their own jobs bill by now. And I'll show you where the Federal government is empowered to "inact" into law the things its sees fit to - see, that happens when both houses of congress vote to pass a bill into law and the president signs the bill. Most people learn that on approximately the first day of Social Studies class in about 8th grade. Many things were promised, some were passed, including Healthcare, some were never tried, others were tried but failed in the first 2 years. Much MORE would have been accomplished had the Republicans been less interested in voting against everything proposed by the President, because of partisan politics. You see, the Republicans also had the chance to introduce bills of their own in the first 2 years. They didnt b/c they thought they would not pass; i understand that but, now, 6 months into the Republicans control of the house and virtual control of the Senate, they have only tried to pass culture war laws. Now,  are those things more important than jobs or the economy? I think not but, its the ONLY thing coming out of the Republicans now and for the forseeable future. The other Republican agenda seems to be to redistribute the wealth to the Super Rich in the form of tax breaks, corporate subsidies and outright giveaways. You think because these things are not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution that they are right and should be done? Thats what you're voting for, with the Republicans! If you'd like to give your money to the super rich, go ahead, mail them a check directly, dont force me to do it too. Corporate Welfare will be the death of this country.That, and wars started when we cannot pay for them! You Republicans say we need to lower the tax rates, NEVER vote for a tax increase! That is stupid - why do think the country's infrastructure is failing?Do you really think private business will just step right in and do the right thing somehow? Start fixing the roads and bridges out of the goodness of their hearts? If thats what you think, then you are more naive than you could ever accuse me! If the Govt could be "allowed" by the Republicans to cut the defense and pentagon budgets, instead of social security and medicare, we'd be on our way out of Iraq and Afghanistan now and we would not have Republicans lying to use about SS and Medicare! The Republicans wont let defense get cut, no, not one penny. But, hypocritically accuse the President of being disingenuous somhow because we arent out of the 2 big wars that Mr Bush decided to invade under false pretense and inability to pay. If we left Afghanistan and Iraw tomorrow, you'd be accusing the President of being soft on defense, you mark my words, hypocrite.

Peeler,

you forgot to tell me why the Demacrats havn't improved the country in

two whole years. The Republicans havn't been in charge at all. Your lame

socialists couldn't even get a budget passed for this year. The Republicans

now controll the house and soon the senate. Then in 2013 will have change

alright. Remember you socialists still have the senate and the veto of Obama.

Recovery is ahead once we boot you socialists out of the gov't. So be patient.

Change is on the way.

 

Skippy

TWO WHOLE YEARS indeed...it only took George Bush and **** Cheney 8 years to completely RUIN the US economy!

 

Which begs the question that YOU fail to explain - how DID the economy got so bad between the year 2000, when the government had no deficit, in fact a SURPLUS, and 2009, when Bush was exiting office, leaving the country on the brink of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?

 

"Then in 2013 will have changealright." 

Yes- I agree, change will be coming if Republicans like those found in Congress today are elected in mass numbers... just not the change you expect - it will be the collapse of the entire economy (again)...

 

One other question, do you believe the world is divided into 2 political groups, "yours" and "Socialist"?

I agree with you peeler. Bill Clinton, in 8 years, repaired 200 years worth of economic problems and left office with a surplus of money.

 

George W. must be the smartest man alive. He managed in, only 8 short years, to put this country deeper in debt than anyone ever dreamed possible and his followers blame it on Obama. Even if you do hate Obama,you gotta admit, he had a full plate when he took office. It ain't got no better for him, and he ain't gettin any help...from anybody. Anyone out there who thinks they can do a better job..run for the office. I wouldn't have the job even if I were qualified. I doubt very many of you would either.

It was Quite easy for Mr PANTS on the GROUND Clinton. He had no wars, except

his botched attept in Somalia. He could of had Bin Ladin, but discided it was to

much trouble to pick him up. He stripped the Military to bare bones. Yea it all

looks good on paper. Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out.

Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.

Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford

it. With the thugs in the unions and pay-offs. People like Van Jones, Jeff Immelt

and on and on you socialists are edgeing closer to Communism. From Wilson,

FDR, Clinton, Carter and now Obama you really have a claim to fame. You've had

more than two years because you had the congress befor Obama. Instead of focasing

on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care. And

let's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia. And what about energy? He has no idea

what to do about our energy problems. Go by an electric car from Gov't Motors you

can always plug it in to a windmill for a charge.

 

Skippy

Heh."He had no wars"

Bush only had the one war that he started against Iraq under complete and false pretenses and

the other one in Afghanistan, started after 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH!

He could of had Bin Ladin , but discided it was to much trouble to pick him up. 

(sort of like it's too much trouble for you use spell checker?)

And the REPUBLICANS, who ccontrolled congress for SIX of the FINAL NINE years of the clinton admin had nothing to do with Intelligence? If Congress is so powerful, and can of course fix the economy single handedly, why did the Republican congree in the Clinton years not have Bin Laden picked up?

"He stripped the Military to bare bones."

A FAT LIE that you have quoted because you heard it on Fox? But you failed to fact check it; you just repeat it b/c it sounds good:

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html>

Clinton cut the Army by 16% over a period of his 8 years in office. George Bush Senior and his vice President Cheney, cut the army's number by a WHOPPING 25%! In fact, it was Cheney who first bragged aboutt he so called "peace dividend", a fancy phrase that George Bush Sr came up with to describe cuts to the military!

"Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out."

Purely a matter of personal opinion. Not only that, Republican's efforts in the so called culture wars do not produce jobs or an improved economy - those issues only distract from the real issues. So, shut up about "morals". Besides, I bet you're polly purebread in the morals department also, huh? "those who live in glass houses..."

Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.

Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford

it."

"You've had more than two years because you had the congress befor Obama."

If you want to blame the financial meltdown on Clinton, you cannot have it both ways - REPUBLICANS were in charge of Congress for the final SIX YEARS of CLINTON's administration! And then, under Dubya's administration, REPUBLICANS had control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress until 2007!

Why didnt they stop the mess before it started?

"Instead of focasing on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care"

A matter of personal opinion. I assume you're talking about the 2 years the Democrts were in charge, after republican control for over 10 years before that? . To that i'd say, where ARE the jobs Mr Boehner - you ran for Speaker on a campaign long on rhetoric and short of actual plans to creaate jobs. Whie the Democrats havent done much to improve the economy for you and me, the republicans have NOT offered any plan of their own. Same with Healthcare, short of radical, right wing, partisan agenda driven healthcare plans.

Andlet's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia.

Boy, you are just full of Fox News talking points today arent you? I think any President who is not a complete heartless ******* would go to war ro protect innocent people. I'd be willing to bet, if a Republican President was in office, going to war in Libya, you'd be telling us all what great humanitarian he was!

"And what about energy?"

What about it? You got any  better ideas? How bout George Bush - HE was clueless with respect to energy too - go buy a 50,000 fuel cell car that hasnt even been developed yet! Ha! Send him over to Saudi Arabia to pal around with his Arab good buddies, let them plan how to steal the rest of our money? When you get some better ideas, come back to the table; until then, put a cork in it.

 

You keep serving up the Whopper's - i'll keep hittin em out

 

 

Originally Posted by peeler:

Heh."He had no wars"

Bush only had the one war that he started against Iraq under complete and false pretenses and

the other one in Afghanistan, started after 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH!

He could of had Bin Ladin , but discided it was to much trouble to pick him up. 

(sort of like it's too much trouble for you use spell checker?)

And the REPUBLICANS, who (ccontrolled)SIC congress for SIX of the FINAL NINE years of the (clinton)

SIC admin had nothing to do with Intelligence? I Congress is so powerful, and can of course fix the economy single handedly, why did the Republican (congree)SICin the Clinton years not have Bin Laden picked up?

"He stripped the Military to bare bones."

A FAT LIE that you have quoted because you heard it on Fox? But you failed to fact check it; you just repeat it b/c it sounds good:

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html>

Clinton cut the Army by 16% over a period of his 8 years in office. George Bush Senior and his vice President Cheney, cut the army's number by a WHOPPING 25%! In fact, it was Cheney who first bragged (aboutt)SIC he so called "peace dividend", a fancy phrase that George Bush Sr came up with to describe cuts to the military!

"Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out."

Purely a matter of personal opinion. Not only that, Republican's efforts in the so called culture wars do not produce jobs or an improved economy - those issues only distract from the real issues. So, shut up about "morals". Besides, I bet you're polly purebread in the morals department also, huh? "those who live in glass houses..."

Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.

Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford

it."

"You've had more than two years because you had the congress (befor )SICObama."

If you want to blame the financial meltdown on Clinton, you cannot have it both ways - REPUBLICANS were in charge of Congress for the final SIX YEARS of CLINTON's administration! And then, under Dubya's administration, REPUBLICANS had control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress until 2007!

Why didnt they stop the mess before it started?

"Instead of focasing on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care"

A matter of personal opinion. I assume you're talking about the 2 years the (Democrts)SIC were in charge, after republican control for over 10 years before that? . To that i'd say, where ARE the jobs Mr Boehner - you ran for Speaker on a campaign long on rhetoric and short of actual plans to (creaate)SIC jobs. (Whie)SIC the Democrats (havent)SIC done much to improve the economy for you and me, the republicans have NOT offered any plan of their own. Same with Healthcare, short of radical, right wing, partisan agenda driven healthcare plans.

Andlet's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia.

Boy, you are just full of Fox News talking points today (arent)SIC you? I think any President who is not a complete heartless ******* would go to war ro protect innocent people. I'd be willing to bet, if a Republican President was in office, going to war in Libya, you'd be telling us all what great humanitarian he was!

"And what about energy?"

What about it? You got any  better ideas? How bout George Bush - HE was clueless with respect to energy too - go buy a 50,000 fuel cell car that (hasnt )SICeven been developed yet! Ha! Send him over to Saudi Arabia to pal around with his Arab good buddies, let them plan how to steal the rest of our money? When you get some better ideas, come back to the table; until then, put a cork in it.

 

You keep serving up the Whopper's - i'll keep hittin em out

 

Skippy --

first off my illiterate friend. Check your own spelling before you go pointing

out others. You get an big fat F. Next Cheney wasn't Bush Sr.'s Vice President.

It was Quail. You socialists are a bunch of babeling fools. Why did your man

Obama choose Lybia rather than any of the many other countries that have

people under attack by thier gov't? You guys are nothing but a bunch of

hippocrites. And as far as the time wasted on Obama care, it is totally Un-

Constitutional. You or any of your misguided friend I challange to tell me

where in the US Constitution (not the socialists handbook) where it gives the

power to the federal gov't to enact Obama care? You can't it's not there. Hint

check the enumerated powers of the fed. gov't. And as far as FOX, it's the only

news that gives the whole truth. None of that THRILL UP YOUR LEG REPORTING.

Looking back at your rambelings, I see some more grammer mistakes. I'll let

em go this time.

 

Skippy

 

 

 

Originally Posted by peeler:

TWO WHOLE YEARS indeed...it only took George Bush and **** Cheney 8 years to completely RUIN the US economy!

 

Which begs the question that YOU fail to explain - how DID the economy got so bad between the year 2000, when the government had no deficit, in fact a SURPLUS, and 2009, when Bush was exiting office, leaving the country on the brink of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?

 

"Then in 2013 will have changealright." 

Yes- I agree, change will be coming if Republicans like those found in Congress today are elected in mass numbers... just not the change you expect - it will be the collapse of the entire economy (again)...

 

One other question, do you believe the world is divided into 2 political groups, "yours" and "Socialist"?

 

 

I would be curious to hear your breakdown of the "surplus".

Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

Peeler,

you forgot to tell me why the Demacrats havn't improved the country in

two whole years. The Republicans havn't been in charge at all. Your lame

socialists couldn't even get a budget passed for this year. The Republicans

now controll the house and soon the senate. Then in 2013 will have change

alright. Remember you socialists still have the senate and the veto of Obama.

Recovery is ahead once we boot you socialists out of the gov't. So be patient.

Change is on the way.

 

Skippy

Yes it is. The Democrats need only 25 seats to take back the House. They won't even have to campaign to achieve that.

Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by peeler:

Heh."He had no wars"

Bush only had the one war that he started against Iraq under complete and false pretenses and

the other one in Afghanistan, started after 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH!

He could of had Bin Ladin , but discided it was to much trouble to pick him up. 

(sort of like it's too much trouble for you use spell checker?)

And the REPUBLICANS, who (ccontrolled)SIC congress for SIX of the FINAL NINE years of the (clinton)

SIC admin had nothing to do with Intelligence? I Congress is so powerful, and can of course fix the economy single handedly, why did the Republican (congree)SICin the Clinton years not have Bin Laden picked up?

"He stripped the Military to bare bones."

A FAT LIE that you have quoted because you heard it on Fox? But you failed to fact check it; you just repeat it b/c it sounds good:

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html>

Clinton cut the Army by 16% over a period of his 8 years in office. George Bush Senior and his vice President Cheney, cut the army's number by a WHOPPING 25%! In fact, it was Cheney who first bragged (aboutt)SIC he so called "peace dividend", a fancy phrase that George Bush Sr came up with to describe cuts to the military!

"Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out."

Purely a matter of personal opinion. Not only that, Republican's efforts in the so called culture wars do not produce jobs or an improved economy - those issues only distract from the real issues. So, shut up about "morals". Besides, I bet you're polly purebread in the morals department also, huh? "those who live in glass houses..."

Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.

Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford

it."

"You've had more than two years because you had the congress (befor )SICObama."

If you want to blame the financial meltdown on Clinton, you cannot have it both ways - REPUBLICANS were in charge of Congress for the final SIX YEARS of CLINTON's administration! And then, under Dubya's administration, REPUBLICANS had control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress until 2007!

Why didnt they stop the mess before it started?

"Instead of focasing on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care"

A matter of personal opinion. I assume you're talking about the 2 years the (Democrts)SIC were in charge, after republican control for over 10 years before that? . To that i'd say, where ARE the jobs Mr Boehner - you ran for Speaker on a campaign long on rhetoric and short of actual plans to (creaate)SIC jobs. (Whie)SIC the Democrats (havent)SIC done much to improve the economy for you and me, the republicans have NOT offered any plan of their own. Same with Healthcare, short of radical, right wing, partisan agenda driven healthcare plans.

Andlet's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia.

Boy, you are just full of Fox News talking points today (arent)SIC you? I think any President who is not a complete heartless ******* would go to war ro protect innocent people. I'd be willing to bet, if a Republican President was in office, going to war in Libya, you'd be telling us all what great humanitarian he was!

"And what about energy?"

What about it? You got any  better ideas? How bout George Bush - HE was clueless with respect to energy too - go buy a 50,000 fuel cell car that (hasnt )SICeven been developed yet! Ha! Send him over to Saudi Arabia to pal around with his Arab good buddies, let them plan how to steal the rest of our money? When you get some better ideas, come back to the table; until then, put a cork in it.

 

You keep serving up the Whopper's - i'll keep hittin em out

 

Skippy --

first off my illiterate friend. Check your own spelling before you go pointing

out others. You get an big fat F. Next Cheney wasn't Bush Sr.'s Vice President.

It was Quail. You socialists are a bunch of babeling [SIC]fools. Why did your man

Obama choose Lybia rather than any of the many other countries that have

people under attack by thier gov't? You guys are nothing but a bunch of

hippocrites. And as far as the time wasted on Obama care, it is totally Un-

Constitutional. You or any of your misguided friend I challange to tell me

where in the US Constitution (not the socialists handbook) where it gives the

power to the federal gov't to enact Obama care? You can't it's not there. Hint

check the enumerated powers of the fed. gov't. And as far as FOX, it's the only

news that gives the whole truth. None of that THRILL UP YOUR LEG REPORTING.

Looking back at your rambelings, I see some more grammer mistakes. I'll let

em go this time.

 

Skippy


Thank you Skipper, I stand corrected. my spelling is wholly inadequate and completely invalidates all of my arguments. But, again, you're throwing stones from a glass house (but so am i) so, since its got zip to do with the current arguments, i should not have brought it up and i will not again...

And, you're right, Cheney wasnt the vice to Bush Sr, he was ONLY his Defense Secretary, i'm sure not responsible at all for ANY of the 25 % troop cuts occurring under Bush Sr's administration, compared to the 16% cuts under Clintons... Again, you served up a FAT LIE about clintons administration cutting the military to the bare bones.Probably another Foxism.

 

So yeah, it is as i expected - you cant or wont reply to any of my arguments except to say that, since the Constitution doesnt explicitly grant power to the federal government to enact healthcare, then it must not be legal. That is a load of crap. Not to mention that healthcare in 1789 or so, looked nothing like it looks today - no Big Insurance, Big Hospital and Big Pharma to lobby the Congress with their bilions.

 

With regard to Libya then you'd suggest that we help out every country with a tinpot dictator and a population that disagrees with him? Cuz I sure wouldnt. And I cant speak for the President wither. I will say this - if it were President Mccain, my guess is that he'd be in Libya too but would not be in Syria. And you'd be crowing about what a patriot he was. Just a hunch though.

 

Oh, i challenge YOU Skippy, tell me the name and author of that Socialist handbook you are referring to? 

I also challenge you to tell me the Republican better ideas on energy? How you's lower gas prices? The Trump way? Look tthem in the eye and tell em not to lower those prices. I'm sure they'll listen...

And i told you who was in harge of COngress in all the years where you blame Democrats - but you seem to think that the congress is so powerful that it solves ALL problems except when republicans are in charge....The its always the democrats fault. Talk about hypocrisy...

 

"thrill up your leg reporting?

 

I was once told,and i believed it that, you cannot reason with someone who did not arrive at their own position(s) by reason. You are convincing me that the aphorism is true...

 

Boy, Fox yeah, a whole 'nother world. Fair and balanced are NOT 2 adjectives i'd use to describe Fox.

 

 

Originally Posted by peeler:

Heh."He had no wars"

Bush only had the one war that he started against Iraq under complete and false pretenses and

the other one in Afghanistan, started after 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH!

He could of had Bin Ladin , but discided it was to much trouble to pick him up. 

(sort of like it's too much trouble for you use spell checker?)

And the REPUBLICANS, who ccontrolled congress for SIX of the FINAL NINE years of the clinton admin had nothing to do with Intelligence? If Congress is so powerful, and can of course fix the economy single handedly, why did the Republican congree in the Clinton years not have Bin Laden picked up?

"He stripped the Military to bare bones."

A FAT LIE that you have quoted because you heard it on Fox? But you failed to fact check it; you just repeat it b/c it sounds good:

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html>

Clinton cut the Army by 16% over a period of his 8 years in office. George Bush Senior and his vice President Cheney, cut the army's number by a WHOPPING 25%! In fact, it was Cheney who first bragged aboutt he so called "peace dividend", a fancy phrase that George Bush Sr came up with to describe cuts to the military!

"Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out."

Purely a matter of personal opinion. Not only that, Republican's efforts in the so called culture wars do not produce jobs or an improved economy - those issues only distract from the real issues. So, shut up about "morals". Besides, I bet you're polly purebread in the morals department also, huh? "those who live in glass houses..."

Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.

Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford

it."

"You've had more than two years because you had the congress befor Obama."

If you want to blame the financial meltdown on Clinton, you cannot have it both ways - REPUBLICANS were in charge of Congress for the final SIX YEARS of CLINTON's administration! And then, under Dubya's administration, REPUBLICANS had control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress until 2007!

Why didnt they stop the mess before it started?

"Instead of focasing on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care"

A matter of personal opinion. I assume you're talking about the 2 years the Democrts were in charge, after republican control for over 10 years before that? . To that i'd say, where ARE the jobs Mr Boehner - you ran for Speaker on a campaign long on rhetoric and short of actual plans to creaate jobs. Whie the Democrats havent done much to improve the economy for you and me, the republicans have NOT offered any plan of their own. Same with Healthcare, short of radical, right wing, partisan agenda driven healthcare plans.

Andlet's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia.

Boy, you are just full of Fox News talking points today arent you? I think any President who is not a complete heartless ******* would go to war ro protect innocent people. I'd be willing to bet, if a Republican President was in office, going to war in Libya, you'd be telling us all what great humanitarian he was!

"And what about energy?"

What about it? You got any  better ideas? How bout George Bush - HE was clueless with respect to energy too - go buy a 50,000 fuel cell car that hasnt even been developed yet! Ha! Send him over to Saudi Arabia to pal around with his Arab good buddies, let them plan how to steal the rest of our money? When you get some better ideas, come back to the table; until then, put a cork in it.

 

You keep serving up the Whopper's - i'll keep hittin em out

 

 

Great post, keep up the good work.

Skippy's only knowledge is to keep calling everybody "socialist" and doesn't even know what a socialist philosophy is. No clue.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by peeler:

Heh."He had no wars"

A tipical Demacrat(socialist) responce. Lybia isn't a war it's a police action like Korea.

Bush only had the one war that he started against Iraq under complete and false pretenses and

the other one in Afghanistan, started after 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH!

Obama was elected partially by promising to end Iraq and Afganistan. He started Lybia.

Face it he had no idea what he was in for. President Bush had a little thing called 9-11.

He could of had Bin Ladin , but discided it was to much trouble to pick him up. 

(sort of like it's too much trouble for you use spell checker?)

And the REPUBLICANS, who ccontrolled congress for SIX of the FINAL NINE years of the (clinton)SIC (admin )had nothing to do with Intelligence? If Congress is so powerful, and can of course fix the economy single handedly, why did the Republican (congree)SIC in the Clinton years not have Bin Laden picked up?

Sorry wrong again. Yeman had Bin Laden. And Clinton declined to take custody. And where

did I say Congress by it's self could do anything. Your the one blameing Bush exclusivly.

Clinton had the veto and he used it. Plus I'm talking now. The economy is tanking because

of 9-11, fuel prices houseing crash. Clinton didn't have any of that to deal with. 2 years

wasted.

"He stripped the Military to bare bones."

A FAT LIE that you have quoted because you heard it on Fox? But you failed to fact check it; you just repeat it b/c it sounds good:

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html>

Clinton cut the Army by 16% over a period of his 8 years in office. George Bush Senior and his vice President Cheney, cut the army's number by a WHOPPING 25%! In fact, it was Cheney who first bragged aboutt he so called "peace dividend", a fancy phrase that George Bush Sr came up with to describe cuts to the military!

If you even remember or was born yet, President Bush Sr. Had the first Gulf War. The cuts

are atributed to the draw down of the Military after that war, Dahhh. FOX is FACT.

"Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out."

Purely a matter of personal opinion. Not only that, Republican's efforts in the so called culture wars do not produce jobs or an improved economy - those issues only distract from the real issues. So, shut up about "morals". Besides, I bet you're polly purebread in the morals department also, huh? "those who live in glass houses..."

Look what happened after the Carter experiment. Clinton was a discrace. Mr. Pants on the

Ground himself.

Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.

Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford

it."

The policies that wrecked us were both Republican and Demacrat policies that began

in the Clinton era.

"You've had more than two years because you had the congress (befor )SICObama."

If you want to blame the financial meltdown on Clinton, you cannot have it both ways - REPUBLICANS were in charge of Congress for the final SIX YEARS of CLINTON's administration! And then, under Dubya's administration, REPUBLICANS had control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress until 2007!

Why didnt they stop the mess before it started?

I blame everyone then. I blame Obama and the Demacrats now. The Republicans are the only

ones that want to try to knock down the debt. The Demacrates want to keep spending and

spending. Again Obama Care will the death of our country. It's to darned expensive, not to

mention Un-Constitutional. But you Socialists don't seem to care about the Constitution any-

way.

"Instead of focasing on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care"

A matter of personal opinion. I assume you're talking about the 2 years the (Democrts)SIC were in charge, after republican control for over 10 years before that? . To that i'd say, where ARE the jobs Mr Boehner - you ran for Speaker on a campaign long on rhetoric and short of actual plans to (creaate)SIC jobs. (Whie)SIC the Democrats havent done much to improve the economy for you and me, the republicans have NOT offered any plan of their own. Same with Healthcare, short of radical, right wing, partisan agenda driven healthcare plans.

 

And let's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia.

Boy, you are just full of Fox News talking points today arent you? I think any President who is not a complete heartless ******* would go to war ro protect innocent people. I'd be willing to bet, if a Republican President was in office, going to war in Libya, you'd be telling us all what great humanitarian he was!

That's just it. You guys continued to critisize President Bush about Iraq and Afganistan all

thru his Presidency. We were attacked by Bin Laden and Sadam H.(I no we can't say the H.

word because of you know who.) not only had chemical weapons that he used on his own

people, But was constantly massacring his own people. And now this President is doing the

same exact thing and now it's ok? Never mind the latest air strike killed 3 of Kadafi's

innocent grandchildren. And who really are the rebels? Are they our future enemy like

Iraq? And what about the other places in the world where people were massacred? You

guys are hypocrites. Maybe a republican President would have done the same thing. But

Obama might have done the same thing as Bush if he were president then. As a Senator

he's said and done one thing, but as President he has done the opposite. The debt sealing

for example.

"And what about energy?"

What about it? You got any  better ideas? How bout George Bush - HE was clueless with respect to energy too - go buy a 50,000 fuel cell car that hasnt even been developed yet! Ha! Send him over to Saudi Arabia to pal around with his Arab good buddies, let them plan how to steal the rest of our money? When you get some better ideas, come back to the table; until then, put a cork in it.

 President Bush was discrasful when he went to Saudi Arabia. Obama didn't do us any justice

when he went on his apology tour thru the Middle East. And bowing before forein leaders,

no other President of the United States has ever discrased us like that. And again you dwell in the past. We MUST get ourselves together and realize we have got a severe crises. Unemployment near 10%. The dollar hitting new lows. The Chinese lecturing us about our

debt. And no plans to retreave our own energy resoures. We are the richest in the world in

resources, yet we have a policy that is dictated to by people like Van Jones. What about our

borders? Is it want you want to open them wide open and let the cartels and terrorists have

their way with us? ************************

Your a fool. Talk about my spelling. I'll also finish checking your spelling. Where's your spell check?          *********************************

You keep serving up the Whopper's - i'll keep hittin em out

 Actually I like Whoppers', there pretty tastey. (You can make mine with extra pickle.)

 

Great post, keep up the good work.

Skippy's only knowledge is to keep calling everybody "socialist" and doesn't even know what a socialist philosophy is. No clue.

Like I've said before, "I call um the way I see em. Your a Socialist. I'm a Constitutionalist. You would like nothing more than the federal gov't. to controll everything. You can't deny it..
Your Pal Skippy

 

Last edited by skippy delepepper
Wow - it is truly difficult to have an argument of wits with an unarmed person!
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by peeler:

Heh."He had no wars"

Bush only had the one war that he started against Iraq under complete and false pretenses and

the other one in Afghanistan, started after 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH!

Obama was elected partially by promising to end Iraq and Afganistan. He started Lybia.

Face it he had no idea what he was in for. President Bush had a little thing called 9-11.

 

Oh yes, i forgot, the Bush"argument" that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. A lie, a false pretense to try to get us to go to war there. The argument said that , since Al Quaeda was in Iraq therefore Saddam must have been working with Al Quaeda somehow to cause 9/11.  Funny thing, Al Quaeda was only in IRAQ AFTER George Bush started the Iraq War. And it turns out, Saddam wasnt Muslim enough for Bin Laden and as a result, they didnt get along at all. Lie #1 to get the US into war in Iraq.  Ooops. Well,  "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction". Lie #2.  Ooops - that one turned out to be a lie never did find those WMD. Iraq had chemical weapons that he might use against his neighbors. OOps - untrue - he had chemical weapons but he used them against his own people, years before. AHA! He used Chemical weapons to kill HIS OWN PEOPLE! Yes, he did, i agree. That was a good reason to go on and topple him, right? Sorry - that invalidates YOUR OWN ARGUMENT that you state below (its ok for Bush to go into Iraq to prevent civilian deaths but not ok for Obama. Hows that work again? (oh yeah, just call me a socialist ) that it's a mistake to go to war in Libya! Pick a position and stand on it hypocrite.


He could of had Bin Ladin , but discided it was to much trouble to pick him up. 

(sort of like it's too much trouble for you use spell checker?)

And the REPUBLICANS, who ccontrolled congress for SIX of the FINAL NINE years of the (clinton)SIC (admin )had nothing to do with Intelligence? If Congress is so powerful, and can of course fix the economy single handedly, why did the Republican (congree)SIC in the Clinton years not have Bin Laden picked up?

Sorry wrong again. Yeman had Bin Laden. And Clinton declined to take custody. And where

did I say Congress by it's self could do anything. Your the one blameing Bush exclusivly.

Clinton had the veto and he used it. Plus I'm talking now. The economy is tanking because

of 9-11, fuel prices houseing crash. Clinton didn't have any of that to deal with. 2 years

wasted.

 

Truly a gem, considering that President Obama gave the order to go in and kill Osama Bin Laden just a couple of days ago. Hows that work again Skippy? A democrat, socilist commie muslim loving american gave the final order to go ahead and kill Osama? I cant hear you.....

 

So, why didt the all powerful Republican  Congress jusy "have Yemen pick up Bin Laden" for us, that would have been so much easier. Oh, Clinton vetoed the Congress from that? What?

 

Here's a little gem - a well known fact - the Bush administration had its own chance at Osama. Remember how we had OBL "cornered" in Tora Bora? We just knew it, only a matter of time before we found him hiding in the mountains. Ooops - Bush let him escape though, somehow - days before he just WALKED RIGHT out of Tora Bora into Pakistan. Hmmm. How'd that happen? Maybe clinton tried to kill OBL with the cruise missile attack too and missed him by just hours. Maybe both presidents tried plenty hard to get OBL but just had a little bad luck?

 

more bad news for ya Skippy - fuel prices are up b/c worldwide demand for gasoline is up and b/c of speculators on wall street whom, both republican and democratic administrations refuse to reign in. Face it, regulations are needed for Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Insurance and Big Healthcare - the free market doesnt work 100% for the same reason pure communism doesnt work - greed! Now, democrats are at least working for financial reform and the republicans are blocking their every move, as they are obeying their own corporate paymasters in big oil, big pharma, big insurance and wll street. This is why the economy is in the tank.


"He stripped the Military to bare bones."

A FAT LIE that you have quoted because you heard it on Fox? But you failed to fact check it; you just repeat it b/c it sounds good:

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html>

Clinton cut the Army by 16% over a period of his 8 years in office. George Bush Senior and his vice President Cheney, cut the army's number by a WHOPPING 25%! In fact, it was Cheney who first bragged aboutt he so called "peace dividend", a fancy phrase that George Bush Sr came up with to describe cuts to the military!

If you even remember or was born yet, President Bush Sr. Had the first Gulf War. The cuts

are atributed to the draw down of the Military after that war, Dahhh. FOX is FACT.

 

So, stop the lies where you try to slime Bill Clinton and by extension, all Democrats somehow with the "soft on defense" crapola. President Barack HUSSEIN Obama, DEMOCRAT, planned for, executed and gave the final order to take out Osama Bin Laden.I bet Fox News loves that one. I'm sure they'll come up with some conspiracy crapola anyways.

 

I was born during the Kennedy administration myself, so i remember the 1st gulf war just fine.


"Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out."

Purely a matter of personal opinion. Not only that, Republican's efforts in the so called culture wars do not produce jobs or an improved economy - those issues only distract from the real issues. So, shut up about "morals". Besides, I bet you're polly purebread in the morals department also, huh? "those who live in glass houses..."

Look what happened after the Carter experiment. Clinton was a discrace. Mr. Pants on the

Ground himself.

Whats the Carter administration got to do with Clinton? Nothing. I think your arguments are called "argument ad hominem" - when you cant figure any substantial objection, so you attack the individual's character which has nothing to do with anything here.

 


Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.

Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford

it."

The policies that wrecked us were both Republican and Demacrat policies that began

in the Clinton era.

"You've had more than two years because you had the congress (befor )SICObama."

If you want to blame the financial meltdown on Clinton, you cannot have it both ways - REPUBLICANS were in charge of Congress for the final SIX YEARS of CLINTON's administration! And then, under Dubya's administration, REPUBLICANS had control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress until 2007!

Why didnt they stop the mess before it started?

I blame everyone then. I blame Obama and the Demacrats now. The Republicans are the only

ones that want to try to knock down the debt. The Demacrates want to keep spending and

spending. Again Obama Care will the death of our country. It's to darned expensive, not to

mention Un-Constitutional. But you Socialists don't seem to care about the Constitution any-

way.

 

Changing your story, now that you are pinned down a bit?

 

Yes, the republicans care about the deficit. Congressman Ryans plan blows another hole in the deficit by again LOWERING taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, most of whom dont even pay taxes anyway (Gneral Electric...). Dont forget 4 BILLION dollars in subsidies to the oil companies, who are even now, declaring RECORD profits in the TRILLIONS of dollars!


"Instead of focasing on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care"

A matter of personal opinion. I assume you're talking about the 2 years the (Democrts)SIC were in charge, after republican control for over 10 years before that? . To that i'd say, where ARE the jobs Mr Boehner - you ran for Speaker on a campaign long on rhetoric and short of actual plans to (creaate)SIC jobs. (Whie)SIC the Democrats havent done much to improve the economy for you and me, the republicans have NOT offered any plan of their own. Same with Healthcare, short of radical, right wing, partisan agenda driven healthcare plans.

 

And let's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia.

Boy, you are just full of Fox News talking points today arent you? I think any President who is not a complete heartless ******* would go to war ro protect innocent people. I'd be willing to bet, if a Republican President was in office, going to war in Libya, you'd be telling us all what great humanitarian he was!

That's just it. You guys continued to critisize President Bush about Iraq and Afganistan all

thru his Presidency. We were attacked by Bin Laden and Sadam H.(I no we can't say the H.

word because of you know who.) not only had chemical weapons that he used on his own

people, But was constantly massacring his own people. And now this President is doing the

same exact thing and now it's ok?

 

We were never attacked by Saddam Hussein and SADDAM had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.  Yes, in 1990 he occupied Kuwait and we kicked him out. Fine, Bush Sr was certainly within his rights to kick him out of Kuwait. But Saddam Hussein NEVER ATTACKED AMERICA! Bush was first caught in this lie.

 

So, which one is your position Skippy? Is it:

A) NOT OK to go into Libya with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Gaddhafi (sorry NOBODY knows how to spell this one ) AND its NOT OK to go into Iraq with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Saddam?

or

B) is it fully OK  to do both?

 

All i hear from you is that you argue that it IS ok to go into Iraq with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Saddam (as long as Bush as President did it and that its NOT ok to go into Libya fro the same reasons (as long as a Democratic President Obama does it. 

PICK ONE OR THE OTHER!

 

Never mind the latest air strike killed 3 of Kadafi's

innocent grandchildren. And who really are the rebels? Are they our future enemy like

Iraq? And what about the other places in the world where people were massacred? You

guys are hypocrites. Maybe a republican President would have done the same thing. But

Obama might have done the same thing as Bush if he were president then. As a Senator

he's said and done one thing, but as President he has done the opposite. The debt sealing

for example.

"And what about energy?"

What about it? You got any  better ideas? How bout George Bush - HE was clueless with respect to energy too - go buy a 50,000 fuel cell car that hasnt even been developed yet! Ha! Send him over to Saudi Arabia to pal around with his Arab good buddies, let them plan how to steal the rest of our money? When you get some better ideas, come back to the table; until then, put a cork in it.

 President Bush was discrasful when he went to Saudi Arabia. Obama didn't do us any justice

when he went on his apology tour thru the Middle East. And bowing before forein leaders,

no other President of the United States has ever discrased us like that. And again you dwell in the past.

 

 

I dont suppose it counts that George Bush bowed and kissed both cheeks of Saudi King Abdullah in this video?:

<http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/player.swf?streamer=rtmp://isfms.cnn.com/vod&file=mp4:895/05281895&type=video&controlbar=none&autostart=true&width=480&height=324>


"He who cannot remember the past is condemmed to repeat it" - George Santayana (google it)

George Bush's lies must be exposed; "trickle down economics" must not be repeated, it must be stamped out! It only means rich people. peeing on us peons from above! If we give them tax break after tax break they'll just say thank you - iy doesnt mean they'll create any more jobs, or stop sending jobs overseas! They've proven this over and over yet the Republicans continue to kowtow to this bogus philosophy in the name somehow, of deficit reduction!

 

We MUST get ourselves together and realize we have got a severe crises. Unemployment near 10%. The dollar hitting new lows. The Chinese lecturing us about our

debt. And no plans to retreave our own energy resoures. We are the richest in the world in

resources, yet we have a policy that is dictated to by people like Van Jones. What about our

borders? Is it want you want to open them wide open and let the cartels and terrorists have

their way with us? ************************

Your a fool. Talk about my spelling. I'll also finish checking your spelling. Where's your spell check?          *********************************

 

I agree, lets get together. Do not join the party of "no". This country has been using compromise as an effective means of government for over 200 years yet, the republicans refuse to compromise on anything at all - this is NOT what the founding fathers intended - they wanted everyone to have to compromise at some point! If you decide to opt out of that, as the republicans have, then you opt out of the democratic form of government and you should be considered the traitors that you are. Just my humble opinion. Call me a socialist if you want, it will still be untrue.

 


You keep serving up the Whopper's - i'll keep hittin em out

 Actually I like Whoppers', there pretty tastey. (You can make mine with extra pickle.)

 

Great post, keep up the good work.

Skippy's only knowledge is to keep calling everybody "socialist" and doesn't even know what a socialist philosophy is. No clue.

 

Socialist to Skippy means "everyone who doesnt agree with him

Like I've said before, "I call um the way I see em. Your a Socialist. I'm a Constitutionalist. You would like nothing more than the federal gov't. to controll everything. You can't deny it..
So there are Socialists and Constitutionalists. Whatever. YOU Skippy, are a right wing wacko who has decided to give the Constitution whatever meaning you want it to have instead of taking it as face value, as the rest of the country has for over 200 years now. If you want to modify it, fine - get an amendment and go through the process like everyone else.
Dude - this will be my last post to you; i refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man any longer. I have destroyed your arguments several times over with facts - apparently, you are unwilling to google some simple statements made by Fox - you simply swallow them up just like them Whoppers you like so much. Well, have it your way dude. I'll stick to real grass fed beef, home grown butterbeans, cornbread and a habanero pepper myself.
your pal
peeler

Your Pal Skippy

 

Originally Posted by peeler:
Wow - it is truly difficult to have an argument of wits with an unarmed person!
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by peeler:

Heh."He had no wars"

Bush only had the one war that he started against Iraq under complete and false pretenses and

the other one in Afghanistan, started after 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH!

Obama was elected partially by promising to end Iraq and Afganistan. He started Lybia.

Face it he had no idea what he was in for. President Bush had a little thing called 9-11.

 

Oh yes, i forgot, the Bush"argument" that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. A lie, a false pretense to try to get us to go to war there. The argument said that , since Al Quaeda was in Iraq therefore Saddam must have been working with Al Quaeda somehow to cause 9/11.  Funny thing, Al Quaeda was only in IRAQ AFTER George Bush started the Iraq War. And it turns out, Saddam wasnt Muslim enough for Bin Laden and as a result, they didnt get along at all. Lie #1 to get the US into war in Iraq.  Ooops. Well,  "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction". Lie #2.  Ooops - that one turned out to be a lie never did find those WMD. Iraq had chemical weapons that he might use against his neighbors. OOps - untrue - he had chemical weapons but he used them against his own people, years before. AHA! He used Chemical weapons to kill HIS OWN PEOPLE! Yes, he did, i agree. That was a good reason to go on and topple him, right? Sorry - that invalidates YOUR OWN ARGUMENT that you state below (its ok for Bush to go into Iraq to prevent civilian deaths but not ok for Obama. Hows that work again? (oh yeah, just call me a socialist ) that it's a mistake to go to war in Libya! Pick a position and stand on it hypocrite.


He could of had Bin Ladin , but discided it was to much trouble to pick him up. 

(sort of like it's too much trouble for you use spell checker?)

And the REPUBLICANS, who ccontrolled congress for SIX of the FINAL NINE years of the (clinton)SIC (admin )had nothing to do with Intelligence? If Congress is so powerful, and can of course fix the economy single handedly, why did the Republican (congree)SIC in the Clinton years not have Bin Laden picked up?

Sorry wrong again. Yeman had Bin Laden. And Clinton declined to take custody. And where

did I say Congress by it's self could do anything. Your the one blameing Bush exclusivly.

Clinton had the veto and he used it. Plus I'm talking now. The economy is tanking because

of 9-11, fuel prices houseing crash. Clinton didn't have any of that to deal with. 2 years

wasted.

 

Truly a gem, considering that President Obama gave the order to go in and kill Osama Bin Laden just a couple of days ago. Hows that work again Skippy? A democrat, socilist commie muslim loving american gave the final order to go ahead and kill Osama? I cant hear you.....

 

So, why didt the all powerful Republican  Congress jusy "have Yemen pick up Bin Laden" for us, that would have been so much easier. Oh, Clinton vetoed the Congress from that? What?

 

Here's a little gem - a well known fact - the Bush administration had its own chance at Osama. Remember how we had OBL "cornered" in Tora Bora? We just knew it, only a matter of time before we found him hiding in the mountains. Ooops - Bush let him escape though, somehow - days before he just WALKED RIGHT out of Tora Bora into Pakistan. Hmmm. How'd that happen? Maybe clinton tried to kill OBL with the cruise missile attack too and missed him by just hours. Maybe both presidents tried plenty hard to get OBL but just had a little bad luck?

 

more bad news for ya Skippy - fuel prices are up b/c worldwide demand for gasoline is up and b/c of speculators on wall street whom, both republican and democratic administrations refuse to reign in. Face it, regulations are needed for Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Insurance and Big Healthcare - the free market doesnt work 100% for the same reason pure communism doesnt work - greed! Now, democrats are at least working for financial reform and the republicans are blocking their every move, as they are obeying their own corporate paymasters in big oil, big pharma, big insurance and wll street. This is why the economy is in the tank.


"He stripped the Military to bare bones."

A FAT LIE that you have quoted because you heard it on Fox? But you failed to fact check it; you just repeat it b/c it sounds good:

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html>

Clinton cut the Army by 16% over a period of his 8 years in office. George Bush Senior and his vice President Cheney, cut the army's number by a WHOPPING 25%! In fact, it was Cheney who first bragged aboutt he so called "peace dividend", a fancy phrase that George Bush Sr came up with to describe cuts to the military!

If you even remember or was born yet, President Bush Sr. Had the first Gulf War. The cuts

are atributed to the draw down of the Military after that war, Dahhh. FOX is FACT.

 

So, stop the lies where you try to slime Bill Clinton and by extension, all Democrats somehow with the "soft on defense" crapola. President Barack HUSSEIN Obama, DEMOCRAT, planned for, executed and gave the final order to take out Osama Bin Laden.I bet Fox News loves that one. I'm sure they'll come up with some conspiracy crapola anyways.

 

I was born during the Kennedy administration myself, so i remember the 1st gulf war just fine.


"Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out."

Purely a matter of personal opinion. Not only that, Republican's efforts in the so called culture wars do not produce jobs or an improved economy - those issues only distract from the real issues. So, shut up about "morals". Besides, I bet you're polly purebread in the morals department also, huh? "those who live in glass houses..."

Look what happened after the Carter experiment. Clinton was a discrace. Mr. Pants on the

Ground himself.

Whats the Carter administration got to do with Clinton? Nothing. I think your arguments are called "argument ad hominem" - when you cant figure any substantial objection, so you attack the individual's character which has nothing to do with anything here.

 


Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.

Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford

it."

The policies that wrecked us were both Republican and Demacrat policies that began

in the Clinton era.

"You've had more than two years because you had the congress (befor )SICObama."

If you want to blame the financial meltdown on Clinton, you cannot have it both ways - REPUBLICANS were in charge of Congress for the final SIX YEARS of CLINTON's administration! And then, under Dubya's administration, REPUBLICANS had control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress until 2007!

Why didnt they stop the mess before it started?

I blame everyone then. I blame Obama and the Demacrats now. The Republicans are the only

ones that want to try to knock down the debt. The Demacrates want to keep spending and

spending. Again Obama Care will the death of our country. It's to darned expensive, not to

mention Un-Constitutional. But you Socialists don't seem to care about the Constitution any-

way.

 

Changing your story, now that you are pinned down a bit?

 

Yes, the republicans care about the deficit. Congressman Ryans plan blows another hole in the deficit by again LOWERING taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, most of whom dont even pay taxes anyway (Gneral Electric...). Dont forget 4 BILLION dollars in subsidies to the oil companies, who are even now, declaring RECORD profits in the TRILLIONS of dollars!


"Instead of focasing on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care"

A matter of personal opinion. I assume you're talking about the 2 years the (Democrts)SIC were in charge, after republican control for over 10 years before that? . To that i'd say, where ARE the jobs Mr Boehner - you ran for Speaker on a campaign long on rhetoric and short of actual plans to (creaate)SIC jobs. (Whie)SIC the Democrats havent done much to improve the economy for you and me, the republicans have NOT offered any plan of their own. Same with Healthcare, short of radical, right wing, partisan agenda driven healthcare plans.

 

And let's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia.

Boy, you are just full of Fox News talking points today arent you? I think any President who is not a complete heartless ******* would go to war ro protect innocent people. I'd be willing to bet, if a Republican President was in office, going to war in Libya, you'd be telling us all what great humanitarian he was!

That's just it. You guys continued to critisize President Bush about Iraq and Afganistan all

thru his Presidency. We were attacked by Bin Laden and Sadam H.(I no we can't say the H.

word because of you know who.) not only had chemical weapons that he used on his own

people, But was constantly massacring his own people. And now this President is doing the

same exact thing and now it's ok?

 

We were never attacked by Saddam Hussein and SADDAM had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.  Yes, in 1990 he occupied Kuwait and we kicked him out. Fine, Bush Sr was certainly within his rights to kick him out of Kuwait. But Saddam Hussein NEVER ATTACKED AMERICA! Bush was first caught in this lie.

 

So, which one is your position Skippy? Is it:

A) NOT OK to go into Libya with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Gaddhafi (sorry NOBODY knows how to spell this one ) AND its NOT OK to go into Iraq with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Saddam?

or

B) is it fully OK  to do both?

 

All i hear from you is that you argue that it IS ok to go into Iraq with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Saddam (as long as Bush as President did it and that its NOT ok to go into Libya fro the same reasons (as long as a Democratic President Obama does it. 

PICK ONE OR THE OTHER!

 

Never mind the latest air strike killed 3 of Kadafi's

innocent grandchildren. And who really are the rebels? Are they our future enemy like

Iraq? And what about the other places in the world where people were massacred? You

guys are hypocrites. Maybe a republican President would have done the same thing. But

Obama might have done the same thing as Bush if he were president then. As a Senator

he's said and done one thing, but as President he has done the opposite. The debt sealing

for example.

"And what about energy?"

What about it? You got any  better ideas? How bout George Bush - HE was clueless with respect to energy too - go buy a 50,000 fuel cell car that hasnt even been developed yet! Ha! Send him over to Saudi Arabia to pal around with his Arab good buddies, let them plan how to steal the rest of our money? When you get some better ideas, come back to the table; until then, put a cork in it.

 President Bush was discrasful when he went to Saudi Arabia. Obama didn't do us any justice

when he went on his apology tour thru the Middle East. And bowing before forein leaders,

no other President of the United States has ever discrased us like that. And again you dwell in the past.

 

 

I dont suppose it counts that George Bush bowed and kissed both cheeks of Saudi King Abdullah in this video?:

<http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/player.swf?streamer=rtmp://isfms.cnn.com/vod&file=mp4:895/05281895&type=video&controlbar=none&autostart=true&width=480&height=324>


"He who cannot remember the past is condemmed to repeat it" - George Santayana (google it)

George Bush's lies must be exposed; "trickle down economics" must not be repeated, it must be stamped out! It only means rich people. peeing on us peons from above! If we give them tax break after tax break they'll just say thank you - iy doesnt mean they'll create any more jobs, or stop sending jobs overseas! They've proven this over and over yet the Republicans continue to kowtow to this bogus philosophy in the name somehow, of deficit reduction!

 

We MUST get ourselves together and realize we have got a severe crises. Unemployment near 10%. The dollar hitting new lows. The Chinese lecturing us about our

debt. And no plans to retreave our own energy resoures. We are the richest in the world in

resources, yet we have a policy that is dictated to by people like Van Jones. What about our

borders? Is it want you want to open them wide open and let the cartels and terrorists have

their way with us? ************************

Your a fool. Talk about my spelling. I'll also finish checking your spelling. Where's your spell check?          *********************************

 

I agree, lets get together. Do not join the party of "no". This country has been using compromise as an effective means of government for over 200 years yet, the republicans refuse to compromise on anything at all - this is NOT what the founding fathers intended - they wanted everyone to have to compromise at some point! If you decide to opt out of that, as the republicans have, then you opt out of the democratic form of government and you should be considered the traitors that you are. Just my humble opinion. Call me a socialist if you want, it will still be untrue.

 


You keep serving up the Whopper's - i'll keep hittin em out

 Actually I like Whoppers', there pretty tastey. (You can make mine with extra pickle.)

 

Great post, keep up the good work.

Skippy's only knowledge is to keep calling everybody "socialist" and doesn't even know what a socialist philosophy is. No clue.

 

Socialist to Skippy means "everyone who doesnt agree with him

Like I've said before, "I call um the way I see em. Your a Socialist. I'm a Constitutionalist. You would like nothing more than the federal gov't. to controll everything. You can't deny it..
So there are Socialists and Constitutionalists. Whatever. YOU Skippy, are a right wing wacko who has decided to give the Constitution whatever meaning you want it to have instead of taking it as face value, as the rest of the country has for over 200 years now. If you want to modify it, fine - get an amendment and go through the process like everyone else.
Dude - this will be my last post to you; i refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man any longer. I have destroyed your arguments several times over with facts - apparently, you are unwilling to google some simple statements made by Fox - you simply swallow them up just like them Whoppers you like so much. Well, have it your way dude. I'll stick to real grass fed beef, home grown butterbeans, cornbread and a habanero pepper myself.
your pal
peeler
Peeler old boy please don't respond. Stick to your guns if you think your right. Your just a baby and havn't lived enough life experiance to have much an oppinion on anything. You rant on and on about things you know nothing about. that's ok, so your tired of debating. It's funny you pick and choose which questions or statements you want to respond to. Fact of the matter is you are a Socialist. Borderline Communist, what can ya say?  When you respond out of your anger, please use a color more readable. Your last comments are making me hungry, love cornbread and hamhocks and beans simmered with habaneros from my garden.   Sorry to long and hard to read so I didn't.

Your Pal Skippy

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×