Appealing to R-W'ers' "Objectivity"...

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama Fluffers are truly the planets most dedicated fundamentalists, they make AQ suicide bombers and Kamikaze pilots seem like slackers in comparison.

Truly frightening to imagine what these fuckers are capable of and is there anything they would say no to if ordered by their leaders

 

[BlindBoo]

Unlike how President Obama was treated during and after the Benghazi assault and the Arab riots of 2012.

Ahh, yes. Obama is always the victim. What you don't realize is that Bush didn't blame 9-11 on a video. He blamed it on terrorists.

What you don't realize is that all of the countries that were hosts to these riots were praised as success stories, but are now in turmoil and under threat from ISIS.

Hindsight is 20/20. For example we now know that President Bush was doing his best to blame it on Iraq from day 1. But that doesn't change the objective view that I, like most Americans stood behind the president on that day in the objective to .......

We know no such thing. Bush never blamed 9/11 on Iraq. Only idiots think that.

th demands for an investigation of the use or misuse of intelligence by the Bush administration mounting steadily, it seems clear that key officials and their conservative allies decided to use the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for war against Iraq within hours of the atrocities.

Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council and the State Department.

Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former CIA chief James Woolsey -- both members of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Center for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others.

PNAC, which is based on the fifth floor of ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) building, in downtown Washington, was founded in 1997 with a statement of principles calling for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," signed by 25 prominent neo-conservatives and right-wingers, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Libby, as well as several other senior Bush administration officials.

A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals -- both in and outside the administration -- were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the 9/11 attacks for an eventual attack on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al Qaeda.

7 16 2003 Bush Crowd Determined To Blame Saddam For 9 11

 

[nat4900]

Obama Fluffers are truly the planets most dedicated fundamentalists, they make AQ suicide bombers and Kamikaze pilots seem like slackers in comparison.

Truly frightening to imagine what these fuckers are capable of and is there anything they would say no to if ordered by their leaders

If you had graduated from3rd grade, you'd know that the O/P was NOT in praise of Obama....and just asking if any of you idiots had EVER spoken out against your fellow right wingers......

Of course, if you don't think they do anything wrong, then check your own idolatry (yeah, look that last word up.)

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unlike how President Obama was treated during and after the Benghazi assault and the Arab riots of 2012.

Ahh, yes. Obama is always the victim. What you don't realize is that Bush didn't blame 9-11 on a video. He blamed it on terrorists.

What you don't realize is that all of the countries that were hosts to these riots were praised as success stories, but are now in turmoil and under threat from ISIS.

Hindsight is 20/20. For example we now know that President Bush was doing his best to blame it on Iraq from day 1. But that doesn't change the objective view that I, like most Americans stood behind the president on that day in the objective to .......

We know no such thing. Bush never blamed 9/11 on Iraq. Only idiots think that.

th demands for an investigation of the use or misuse of intelligence by the Bush administration mounting steadily, it seems clear that key officials and their conservative allies decided to use the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for war against Iraq within hours of the atrocities.

Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council and the State Department.

Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former CIA chief James Woolsey -- both members of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Center for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others.

PNAC, which is based on the fifth floor of ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) building, in downtown Washington, was founded in 1997 with a statement of principles calling for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," signed by 25 prominent neo-conservatives and right-wingers, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Libby, as well as several other senior Bush administration officials.

A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals -- both in and outside the administration -- were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the 9/11 attacks for an eventual attack on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al Qaeda.

7 16 2003 Bush Crowd Determined To Blame Saddam For 9 11

"Bush Crowd"

And what kind of hack job is this? Jim Lobe is an editor for Alternet, is frequently cited by Truth-Out. He is obsessed with the "neo-conservative influence in the Bush Administration."

Boo, don't ever claim you are objective ever again. This is dishonest even for you.

IPS Inter Press Service News Agency Jim Lobe
Stories by Jim Lobe Alternet
Despite Public s War Weariness US Defense Budget May Rise by Jim Lobe -- Antiwar.com

 

[mikegriffith1]

Its no secret that right wingers.....especially on here.....have nothing but contempt for the Obama administration. Nonetheless, here's a small test to R-W'ers' objectivity:

1. If we had been attacked by terrorists during Obama's tenure, would you be bashing him?

2. If the stock market was in the gutter, would you be bashing him?

3. If gas prices were over $4.50 per gallon, would you be bashing him?

4. If unemployment were at about 10-11%, would you be bashing him?

5. If U.S. soldiers' body bags from Iraq had kept coming in at Dover AFB, would you be bashing him?

NOW, bear in mind that ALL of the above was happening under Cheney's (and, oh, yes, with his sidekick, Bush) administration.

What planet are you talking about? Some facts:

We have been attacked under Obama: Fort Hood attack, Arkansas attack, Benghazi, Boston Bombing.

The average unemployment rate for Bush's 8 years was under 5.5%.

The average price of gas for Bush's 8 years was under $2.50 per gallon.

The stock market is no reliable measurement of Main Street prosperity. Even so, on balance the stock market did well under Bush until literally his last 4 months in office due to factors that were mostly not his fault.

There are plenty of body bags in Iraq right now, and in Syria, and in Libya.

It is just unreal how you people can twist history.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unlike how President Obama was treated during and after the Benghazi assault and the Arab riots of 2012.

Ahh, yes. Obama is always the victim. What you don't realize is that Bush didn't blame 9-11 on a video. He blamed it on terrorists.

What you don't realize is that all of the countries that were hosts to these riots were praised as success stories, but are now in turmoil and under threat from ISIS.

Hindsight is 20/20. For example we now know that President Bush was doing his best to blame it on Iraq from day 1. But that doesn't change the objective view that I, like most Americans stood behind the president on that day in the objective to .......

We know no such thing. Bush never blamed 9/11 on Iraq. Only idiots think that.

th demands for an investigation of the use or misuse of intelligence by the Bush administration mounting steadily, it seems clear that key officials and their conservative allies decided to use the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for war against Iraq within hours of the atrocities.

Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council and the State Department.

Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former CIA chief James Woolsey -- both members of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Center for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others.

PNAC, which is based on the fifth floor of ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) building, in downtown Washington, was founded in 1997 with a statement of principles calling for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," signed by 25 prominent neo-conservatives and right-wingers, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Libby, as well as several other senior Bush administration officials.

A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals -- both in and outside the administration -- were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the 9/11 attacks for an eventual attack on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al Qaeda.

7 16 2003 Bush Crowd Determined To Blame Saddam For 9 11

Yeah a hit opinion piece that doesnt state Bush blamed Iraq for 9/11 is a total fail. You are a hater dem-dupe fail=o.

 

[nat4900]

[/QUOTE]

What planet are you talking about? Some facts:

We have been attacked under Obama: Fort Hood attack, Arkansas attack, Benghazi, Boston Bombing.

The average unemployment rate for Bush's 8 years was under 5.5%.

The average price of gas for Bush's 8 years was under $2.50 per gallon.

The stock market is no reliable measurement of Main Street prosperity. Even so, on balance the stock market did well under Bush until literally his last 4 months in office due to factors that were mostly not his fault.

There are plenty of body bags in Iraq right now, and in Syria, and in Libya.

It is just unreal how you people can twist history.[/QUOTE]


Beside the fact that if you didn't want to be unemployed you joined the war in Iraq, here are the facts that Obama inherited.
Unemployment Rate President George Walker Bush

Unemployment Rate
President : George Walker Bush
Term : January 20, 2001 - January 20, 2009

 

[Billy000]

Its no secret that right wingers.....especially on here.....have nothing but contempt for the Obama administration. Nonetheless, here's a small test to R-W'ers' objectivity:

1. If we had been attacked by terrorists during Obama's tenure, would you be bashing him?

2. If the stock market was in the gutter, would you be bashing him?

3. If gas prices were over $4.50 per gallon, would you be bashing him?

4. If unemployment were at about 10-11%, would you be bashing him?

5. If U.S. soldiers' body bags from Iraq had kept coming in at Dover AFB, would you be bashing him?

NOW, bear in mind that ALL of the above was happening under Cheney's (and, oh, yes, with his sidekick, Bush) administration.

What planet are you talking about? Some facts:

We have been attacked under Obama: Fort Hood attack, Arkansas attack, Benghazi, Boston Bombing.

The average unemployment rate for Bush's 8 years was under 5.5%.

The average price of gas for Bush's 8 years was under $2.50 per gallon.

The stock market is no reliable measurement of Main Street prosperity. Even so, on balance the stock market did well under Bush until literally his last 4 months in office due to factors that were mostly not his fault.

There are plenty of body bags in Iraq right now, and in Syria, and in Libya.

It is just unreal how you people can twist history.

Lol yes how convenient is it for you to ignore that the Great Recession started under Bush. We lost 8 million jobs in that recession. Starting with Obama's stimulus package which alone created about 3 million jobs, we regained all of those jobs and more. Over 11 million in total. Corporate profits have also never been higher.

 

[Papageorgio]

'Appealing to R-W'ers' "Objectivity".'..

One cannot appeal to something that doesn't exist.

Yeah because we all know the left wingers have no objectivity.

That is what is stupid about this thread, both sides are not objective.

You know what is objective? Facts. Not just facts, but facts with context. Putting social issues aside, the leftwing ideology is driven by factual information. The rightwing is almost purely emotional and philosophical.

First off, you are wrong, that is the silliest thing I have heard. Secondly, when the gas prices went way up under Bush the left, which includes Pelosi bitched and whined about the gas prices. Now, rational people realize Presidents don't have control over the gas prices unless they sign a tax in to law or put in some way stupid policy. Economies also ebb and flow in natural cycles and ebbs and flows, yet the left nut wings blame Bush, even though in the mid-2000's economist were forecasting such a crash.

So spare me you emotion and facts BS because that is all just plain nonsense.

 

[Billy000]

'Appealing to R-W'ers' "Objectivity".'..

One cannot appeal to something that doesn't exist.

Yeah because we all know the left wingers have no objectivity.

That is what is stupid about this thread, both sides are not objective.

You know what is objective? Facts. Not just facts, but facts with context. Putting social issues aside, the leftwing ideology is driven by factual information. The rightwing is almost purely emotional and philosophical.

First off, you are wrong, that is the silliest thing I have heard. Secondly, when the gas prices went way up under Bush the left, which includes Pelosi bitched and whined about the gas prices. Now, rational people realize Presidents don't have control over the gas prices unless they sign a tax in to law or put in some way stupid policy. Economies also ebb and flow in natural cycles and ebbs and flows, yet the left nut wings blame Bush, even though in the mid-2000's economist were forecasting such a crash.

So spare me you emotion and facts BS because that is all just plain nonsense.

Yes, you're right presidents don't have control over gas prices. I'm not sure what your point is. Pelosi is a democrat. Both repubs and dems play the politics game. Yes, it was dumb for to bitch about it but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

 

[Papageorgio]

That is what is stupid about this thread, both sides are not objective.

Doesn't that fence hurt your ass?

On another thread I posted why I don't like Hillary and wished that other dems. would step up...When was the last time you heard from your ilk that some repub. is an idiot who should have never been elected?

There are plenty of Republicans that have been bashing the GOP candidates, and Hillary hasn't been elected, it would mean more if you went after Obama's policies. I think Huckabee would be a disaster as a President, I thought McCain was a bad pick for a Republican candidate and didn't vote for him in 2008.

Also I was against NAFTA, I was against CFR, I was vocal against it, I was against the way the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were handled. I was against Bush's immigration policy. I was praised Obama for handling the Pirates and getting Osama. I don't blame
Presidents for gas prices or for the economy going bad, it is a cycle.

So I think you are wrong, but thanks for proving you were wrong.

 

[Papageorgio]

'Appealing to R-W'ers' "Objectivity".'..

One cannot appeal to something that doesn't exist.

Yeah because we all know the left wingers have no objectivity.

That is what is stupid about this thread, both sides are not objective.

You know what is objective? Facts. Not just facts, but facts with context. Putting social issues aside, the leftwing ideology is driven by factual information. The rightwing is almost purely emotional and philosophical.

First off, you are wrong, that is the silliest thing I have heard. Secondly, when the gas prices went way up under Bush the left, which includes Pelosi bitched and whined about the gas prices. Now, rational people realize Presidents don't have control over the gas prices unless they sign a tax in to law or put in some way stupid policy. Economies also ebb and flow in natural cycles and ebbs and flows, yet the left nut wings blame Bush, even though in the mid-2000's economist were forecasting such a crash.

So spare me you emotion and facts BS because that is all just plain nonsense.

Yes, you're right presidents don't have control over gas prices. I'm not sure what your point is. Pelosi is a democrat. Both repubs and dems play the politics game. Yes, it was dumb for to bitch about it but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

It was not fact but emotion that created all your liberals to whine and cry about Bush as his forcing gas prices up.

So, liberals don't base things on fact and conservatives don't use emotion. It is a bogus argument.

I figured you you dealing in facts and all would be able to figure that out, obviously the facts escape you and you are falling back on your emotion of fear because you were proved wrong.

 

[Muhammed]

NOW, bear in mind that ALL of the above was happening under Cheney's (and, oh, yes, with his sidekick, Bush) administration.

Ignorant people don't know the vice president's job.

 

[Billy000]

'Appealing to R-W'ers' "Objectivity".'..

One cannot appeal to something that doesn't exist.

Yeah because we all know the left wingers have no objectivity.

That is what is stupid about this thread, both sides are not objective.

You know what is objective? Facts. Not just facts, but facts with context. Putting social issues aside, the leftwing ideology is driven by factual information. The rightwing is almost purely emotional and philosophical.

First off, you are wrong, that is the silliest thing I have heard. Secondly, when the gas prices went way up under Bush the left, which includes Pelosi bitched and whined about the gas prices. Now, rational people realize Presidents don't have control over the gas prices unless they sign a tax in to law or put in some way stupid policy. Economies also ebb and flow in natural cycles and ebbs and flows, yet the left nut wings blame Bush, even though in the mid-2000's economist were forecasting such a crash.

So spare me you emotion and facts BS because that is all just plain nonsense.

Yes, you're right presidents don't have control over gas prices. I'm not sure what your point is. Pelosi is a democrat. Both repubs and dems play the politics game. Yes, it was dumb for to bitch about it but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

It was not fact but emotion that created all your liberals to whine and cry about Bush as his forcing gas prices up.

So, liberals don't base things on fact and conservatives don't use emotion. It is a bogus argument.

I figured you you dealing in facts and all would be able to figure that out, obviously the facts escape you and you are falling back on your emotion of fear because you were proved wrong.

Lol proved wrong on what? It's not like Pelosi's criticism of Bush had anything to do with believing in leftwing ideology. She's just a politician playing the politics game.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah because we all know the left wingers have no objectivity.

That is what is stupid about this thread, both sides are not objective.

You know what is objective? Facts. Not just facts, but facts with context. Putting social issues aside, the leftwing ideology is driven by factual information. The rightwing is almost purely emotional and philosophical.

First off, you are wrong, that is the silliest thing I have heard. Secondly, when the gas prices went way up under Bush the left, which includes Pelosi bitched and whined about the gas prices. Now, rational people realize Presidents don't have control over the gas prices unless they sign a tax in to law or put in some way stupid policy. Economies also ebb and flow in natural cycles and ebbs and flows, yet the left nut wings blame Bush, even though in the mid-2000's economist were forecasting such a crash.

So spare me you emotion and facts BS because that is all just plain nonsense.

Yes, you're right presidents don't have control over gas prices. I'm not sure what your point is. Pelosi is a democrat. Both repubs and dems play the politics game. Yes, it was dumb for to bitch about it but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

It was not fact but emotion that created all your liberals to whine and cry about Bush as his forcing gas prices up.

So, liberals don't base things on fact and conservatives don't use emotion. It is a bogus argument.

I figured you you dealing in facts and all would be able to figure that out, obviously the facts escape you and you are falling back on your emotion of fear because you were proved wrong.

Lol proved wrong on what? It's not like Pelosi's criticism of Bush had anything to do with believing in leftwing ideology. She's just a politician playing the politics game.

She and other liberals used emotion, not fact in their complaints about Bush influencing gas prices. Your statement is that liberals use facts and conservatives use emotion. I proved you wrong.

 

[nat4900]

Ignorant people don't know the vice president's job.

Try to find a grown-up to explain to you what "sarcasm" may be.

 

[Billy000]

You know what is objective? Facts. Not just facts, but facts with context. Putting social issues aside, the leftwing ideology is driven by factual information. The rightwing is almost purely emotional and philosophical.

First off, you are wrong, that is the silliest thing I have heard. Secondly, when the gas prices went way up under Bush the left, which includes Pelosi bitched and whined about the gas prices. Now, rational people realize Presidents don't have control over the gas prices unless they sign a tax in to law or put in some way stupid policy. Economies also ebb and flow in natural cycles and ebbs and flows, yet the left nut wings blame Bush, even though in the mid-2000's economist were forecasting such a crash.

So spare me you emotion and facts BS because that is all just plain nonsense.

Yes, you're right presidents don't have control over gas prices. I'm not sure what your point is. Pelosi is a democrat. Both repubs and dems play the politics game. Yes, it was dumb for to bitch about it but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

It was not fact but emotion that created all your liberals to whine and cry about Bush as his forcing gas prices up.

So, liberals don't base things on fact and conservatives don't use emotion. It is a bogus argument.

I figured you you dealing in facts and all would be able to figure that out, obviously the facts escape you and you are falling back on your emotion of fear because you were proved wrong.

Lol proved wrong on what? It's not like Pelosi's criticism of Bush had anything to do with believing in leftwing ideology. She's just a politician playing the politics game.

She and other liberals used emotion, not fact in their complaints about Bush influencing gas prices. Your statement is that liberals use facts and conservatives use emotion. I proved you wrong.

No, I said the ideology is driven by facts. What Pelosi said is completely irrelevant to what the leftwing ideology represents.

 

[nat4900]

She and other liberals used emotion, not fact in their complaints about Bush influencing gas prices. Your statement is that liberals use facts and conservatives use emotion. I proved you wrong.

You are harping...as a one-trick pony.... about the gas prices and there 4 other items mentioned in the O/P...Yes, presidents have little impact on gas prices....but THAT wasn't the original question......All I was getting at is that when prices DID go up under Obama, many of your ilk bitched....now you'll say that you "never did" and that's fine. My criticism is not aimed at one individual...especially with the anonymity of cyberspace.

 

[Papageorgio]

First off, you are wrong, that is the silliest thing I have heard. Secondly, when the gas prices went way up under Bush the left, which includes Pelosi bitched and whined about the gas prices. Now, rational people realize Presidents don't have control over the gas prices unless they sign a tax in to law or put in some way stupid policy. Economies also ebb and flow in natural cycles and ebbs and flows, yet the left nut wings blame Bush, even though in the mid-2000's economist were forecasting such a crash.

So spare me you emotion and facts BS because that is all just plain nonsense.

Yes, you're right presidents don't have control over gas prices. I'm not sure what your point is. Pelosi is a democrat. Both repubs and dems play the politics game. Yes, it was dumb for to bitch about it but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

It was not fact but emotion that created all your liberals to whine and cry about Bush as his forcing gas prices up.

So, liberals don't base things on fact and conservatives don't use emotion. It is a bogus argument.

I figured you you dealing in facts and all would be able to figure that out, obviously the facts escape you and you are falling back on your emotion of fear because you were proved wrong.

Lol proved wrong on what? It's not like Pelosi's criticism of Bush had anything to do with believing in leftwing ideology. She's just a politician playing the politics game.

She and other liberals used emotion, not fact in their complaints about Bush influencing gas prices. Your statement is that liberals use facts and conservatives use emotion. I proved you wrong.

No, I said the ideology is driven by facts. What Pelosi said is completely irrelevant to what the leftwing ideology represents.

My mistake, I still disagree with you.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Its no secret that right wingers.....especially on here.....have nothing but contempt for the Obama administration. Nonetheless, here's a small test to R-W'ers' objectivity:

1. If we had been attacked by terrorists during Obama's tenure, would you be bashing him?

2. If the stock market was in the gutter, would you be bashing him?

3. If gas prices were over $4.50 per gallon, would you be bashing him?

4. If unemployment were at about 10-11%, would you be bashing him?

5. If U.S. soldiers' body bags from Iraq had kept coming in at Dover AFB, would you be bashing him?

NOW, bear in mind that ALL of the above was happening under Cheney's (and, oh, yes, with his sidekick, Bush) administration.

My lord can never do anything wrong. I can prove it. I never disagree with him on anything.