Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:54 pm
Ya it is. I'll respond but I'm at work and this one might take a while 
just because its the only reason YOU can think of doesn't mean there were not others. the left wanted to make the last election Obama vs Palin. it was never Obama Palin, I voted for McCain. I personally didnt like initially like the choice of Palin. I wanted Fred Thompson, ot Romney. I felt that would have been a stronger ticket. but to say that the ONLY reason YOU can think of why men would vote for Palin, is stereotyping mentunnelcat wrote:This is the ONLY reason I can think of that men would even vote for Palin. She's demonstrated a complete lack of any brain power in ANY interview she's done in the media, so sex appeal MUST be the answer for her popularity with men. However, that doesn't account for popularity among women. I have no idea there. Show me a SMART conservative woman and I would seriously consider her as a viable candidate for public office. That's my ONLY gripe with Palin, so please don't take offense.CUDA wrote:and the little snide comment you made about us men thinking with our pants brain and lusting after Palin was uncalled for too. just a little two faced aren't you
I think you need to learn the difference between a lie and bad intel. manipulation? sure I'll give you that, he used the power of his office to influence others to follow his lead.TC wrote:tunnelcat wrote:4)Going to war on false pretenses and running up the national debt to pay for said war and leaving it as a legacy for the next administration.Bush invaded the WRONG country based on lies, manipulation and deception and went after the WRONG perceived enemy. Last I heard, Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. He had almost 8 years in office, went to war in 2 countries which ramped up the military spending, multiplyed the debt he began with into massive proportions and he STILL didn't even get Bin Laden! I want my money back! However, Obama's going to have his own Vietnam the way things are turning out, so he needs to remember the lessons of history as well before deja vous hits him in the face.CUDA wrote:are you really that uninformed of are you just trying to be stupid???
OH and by the way, Mr. Obama has run up the debt more in 8 months in office than the previous 43 president combined!!!!, or was that not in your how to be a liberal handbook???
Deception is another word for Lying. if the DNC had PROOF the President had lied to get us into a war they would have impeached him so fast the world would have stopped on its axis.
so IF there was so much lying why was it the CONGRESS approved the war with a BI PARTISAN vote. were there not democrats in congress?? not to mention Democrats on the intelligence committee who had access to the same intel as the President???
not to mention the Iraqi Liberation act was initiated by Bill ClintonWiki wrote:With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush Administration with the legal basis for the U.S. invasion under US law. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States violence. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by US President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
what your saying here is PURE partisan rhetoric on your part. NEITHER party has EVER controlled spending or EVER will. they BOTH will do what ever is beneficial to say in power. can you not see that?????TC wrote:tunnelcat wrote:5)Partially privatizing Medicare to make part of it a-for-profit enterprise and timing the end of the subsidies that made Medicare Advantage look cheaper than it really was, so that it just happened to run out after the next President took office and the rates would go up on his watch. Also for setting up manna from heaven for pharma so that the government COULDN'T negotiate for lower drug prices for seniors.I didn't say illegal, but those nice little subsidies the Republicans demanded for passing the original bill are coming to an end this year which will add to the soaring costs with Medicare. You tell me if this was JUST a strategic move by Republicans to destroy Medicare. That's the Republican way, put a government program into so much debt, it has to fail. All those older Americans at those town hall meetings LIKED their Medicare when they were asked about it and they also didn't want it taken away, so they have no idea that the Republican-controlled Congress under Bush, with the idiot Dems help of course, have probably sped up it's demise.CUDA wrote:and this is Illegal?!?!?!? cmon you can do better than that
Uhm choke on thisTC wrote:tunnelcat wrote:6)Removing the final vestiges of financial regulation that allowed and propagated an economic crash of almost epic Depression-era proportions.Congress was under Republican control for most of the 8 years under Bush, so WHY didn't they do something about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Oh, that's right. The Republicans don't like regulating the free market, so they left the mess on the next administration's doorstep. I agree the Dems are just as culpable here. But McCain had Phil Gramm as his advisor, the architect of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, so I already knew he was a bad choice beforehand. However, Obama and his choice of economic advisors turned out just peachy for us.CUDA wrote:proposed by Barney frank and Chris Dodd and the democratically controlled congress, or was that not in your how to be a liberal handbook???
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.
A series of allegations....TC wrote:tunnelcat wrote:7)Privatizing the military and using mercenaries to do military dirty work in the name of Christian Crusading.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 740735.eceCUDA wrote:WTF are you talking about. I think you forgot your prozac on this one
The accusations, including a claim that the company founder.....
The accusations against Mr Prince are being made by two former employees....
CMON TC you cannot be serious your accusing the former President of a "Christian Crusade" against Muslims based on unsubstantiated and anonymous accusations?!?!?!?!?!?!
how do I even attempt to respond to this. to say that the Former President was running a Christian Crusade, based on the unsubstantiated and unproven acts of a few individual is contrary to all reason and common sense
to say that an adviser to the President that "happens" to be a religious man or even a Pastor is a violation of the 1st amendment tells me that you need a refresher course in civics. what you are infact saying is that NO MAN that has a profession of faith should have any plce in our governmental system. if that is the case then 90% of our government should be removed.TC wrote:tunnelcat wrote:Allowing powerful Evangelical Christian leaders to influence public policy in violation of the separation of church and state.
Well, apparently you don't see the blurring of the separation of church and state that been going on in our public schools. Tax dollars are being siphoned off from the public schools to fund these 'charter schools', which turn out to be mostly 'Christian run schools'. What happens when say for example, Muslim groups, decide they want to have some tax dollars to fund their schools or 'madrassas'? What would your reaction or that of most Americans be then? If you're going to give tax dollars to religious organizations for charter schools, you have to be fair to all religions. Frankly, I don't want MY tax dollars to even fund Christian schools. It would be better spent on improving our secular public school system, which is being slowly bled dry by the charter system.CUDA wrote:see my response to the last question.
PLUS you apparently have no Idea what the 1st amendment is about. maybe you should try reading up on it in the current thread we have going
As for Charter schools has it ever Occurred to you that the parents that send their children to a Charter school do so because the public school education SUCKS. Do you realize in Oregon, the parents of a charter school child are required to work 40 hours per year AT THE SCHOOL just to be able to have their child attend said school??? Granted Many charter schools are held at churches. do you want to know why??? Because few places have a facilities to host a school. churches have kitchen, classroom, play area's meeting halls. and since a Charter school is a business, the Church's USUALLY dont gouge them for rent. so it makes them more profitable.
you really do stereotype allot of people.
TC wrote:No, but he really started this mess! And one more item I forgot about, Bush eliminating Habius Corpus, which, by the way, Obama has not reinstated. His bad!CUDA wrote:yes please do because the way I see it. I've point out more illegal things that Obama has done in 4 months that you have Bush doing in 8 years,
comon just say it you know you want to. ITS ALL BUSH'S FAULT
one COULD argue that the terrorists fall under the public safety clause. that's for legal experts to decide,which apparently by there still being detainee's in Gitmo, both President Obama and the SCOTUS don't feel that wayDefinition: Habeas Corpus, literally in Latin "you have the body" is a term that represents an important right granted to individuals in America. Basically, a writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate requiring that a prisoner be brought before the court to determine whether the government has the right to continue detaining them. The individual being held or their representative can petition the court for such a writ.
According to Article One of the Constitution, the right to a writ of habeas corpus can only be suspended "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety." Habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War and Reconstruction, in parts of South Carolina during the fight against the Ku Klux Klan, and during the War on Terror.
you do realize that President Bush was not the first president to suspend Habeas Corpus don't you???
I disagree. your opinions fit the definition of sexist so perfectly I'm surprised that your picture isn't next to the word. you have stated again and again that men are so stupid that if any woman even looks their direction that they become drooling idiots. God forbid that she shows a little leg or cleavagetunnelcat wrote:Spidey, you can't tell me that little 'wink' is meant to just be nice. Men practically drooled and fell over themselves when she did that one. I'm not 'sexist', I just don't like women who use sex to gain status or power under false pretenses. Same goes for men as well.
Why???? just because we disagree?????TC wrote: it's GOT to have an racist underpinnings.
you mean like the kind of hatred shown toward our last WHITE president and still harbored by you?????If Obama were a white man, I bet you wouldn't see all this outright public hatred from Americans,
Plz don't make me post these long responses again, this one took over an hour