Obama directly responsible for Oregon shooting

[Uncensored2008]

has obamae ever done anything wrong leftard??

Jake5000 thinks that Obama is god.

 

[bedowin62]

most of the left-wingers on these boards are simply cowards who wallow in their own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty; then try to project their own brainwashing and conditioning on others

just mindless hypocrites

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oohh, is Bill Clinton involved? Is this more of the Bill Clinton body count 'theory'?

Does it hurt to be that stupid? I mean actual, physical pain?

I suppose you couldn't be a deranged sycophant if you had an IQ above 20...

No doubt Obama loves you. I don't know how useful you are, but you're sure an idiot.

 

[bedowin62]

the idiotic Left is actually saying their larger majority didnt matter and was helpless while a smaller republican majority was able to committ so many nefarious deeds on the helpless Democrats

THIS is their idea of debate

 

[Faun]

i'm offering them for others to read and decide for themselves

dont be a pussy

what you afraid of/????

So far, all the ones I have fact checked are falsehoods.

Why do you copy and paste such bullshit? Seriously, rube. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

That one is mentally retarded. Just the other day he said Democrats had a larger majority in Congress in 2007 than Republicans did in Bush's earlier years. He's beyond help.

the actual numbers are part of historical record idiot

are you man enough to admit when you're wrong???

Why would I admit I was wrong when you were?

bedwetter: by the way from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD

Faun: Is that true or is bedwetter just another rightarded imbecile? Let's check it out, shall we....?

Senate majority:
2001: Republican: 49/50; Democrat: 50 (control switched several times)
2003: Republican: 51
2005: Republican: 55
2007: Democrat: 49 (+2 Independents who caucused with Democrats)

Bedwetter was wrong about the Senate.

House majority:
2001: Republican: 220
2003: Republican: 229
2005: Republican: 233
2007: Democrat: 233

And bedwetter was wrong about the House.​

Reaffirming that bedwetter is a flaming moron who knows nothing about that of which he speaks. ​

... jeez, you're a glutton for embarrassment.

2003 was Bush's first term, and thus the "earlier years". 2005 was his second term.

It is true the Democrats had a larger majority in 2007 than the Republicans did in Bush's earlier years.

However, it is a difference without a distinction. Once you have 50 percent plus one, it doesn't matter how many above that figure you have until you reach the two-thirds figure.

It is not true as the numbers I showed indicate.

Republicans had 51 Senators during the 108th session of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 55 Senators during the 109th osession of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 233 House members during the 109th session of Congress -- not more than the 233 Democrats had in 2007.

 

[bedowin62]

So far, all the ones I have fact checked are falsehoods.

Why do you copy and paste such bullshit? Seriously, rube. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

That one is mentally retarded. Just the other day he said Democrats had a larger majority in Congress in 2007 than Republicans did in Bush's earlier years. He's beyond help.

the actual numbers are part of historical record idiot

are you man enough to admit when you're wrong???

Why would I admit I was wrong when you were?

bedwetter: by the way from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD

Faun: Is that true or is bedwetter just another rightarded imbecile? Let's check it out, shall we....?

Senate majority:
2001: Republican: 49/50; Democrat: 50 (control switched several times)
2003: Republican: 51
2005: Republican: 55
2007: Democrat: 49 (+2 Independents who caucused with Democrats)

Bedwetter was wrong about the Senate.

House majority:
2001: Republican: 220
2003: Republican: 229
2005: Republican: 233
2007: Democrat: 233

And bedwetter was wrong about the House.​

Reaffirming that bedwetter is a flaming moron who knows nothing about that of which he speaks. ​

... jeez, you're a glutton for embarrassment.

2003 was Bush's first term, and thus the "earlier years". 2005 was his second term.

It is true the Democrats had a larger majority in 2007 than the Republicans did in Bush's earlier years.

However, it is a difference without a distinction. Once you have 50 percent plus one, it doesn't matter how many above that figure you have until you reach the two-thirds figure.

It is not true as the numbers I showed indicate.

Republicans had 51 Senators during the 108th session of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 55 Senators during the 109th osession of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 233 House members during the 109th session of Congress -- not more than the 233 Democrats had in 2007.

who are the Independents you idiot?

isnt one running for president right now?

who does he caucus with??

youre an ignorant loser

 

[bedowin62]

108th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free ...
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia108th_United_States_Congress

• Cached

Wikipedia
Loading...
1 Major events; 2 Major legislation .... See also: List of Acts of the 108th United States Congress. March 11 ... 1 Independent Senator, caucusing with Democrats.

 

[Faun]

the idiotic Left is actually saying their larger majority didnt matter and was helpless while a smaller republican majority was able to committ so many nefarious deeds on the helpless Democrats

THIS is their idea of debate

You said you were gonna post the numbers in Congress to show you're not as retarded as I say you are?

What are ya waitin' for, sport?

 

[bedowin62]

one is sanders

isnt the other one Leiberman moron?

what party did he belong to in congress for DECADES/??

 

[Faun]

That one is mentally retarded. Just the other day he said Democrats had a larger majority in Congress in 2007 than Republicans did in Bush's earlier years. He's beyond help.

the actual numbers are part of historical record idiot

are you man enough to admit when you're wrong???

Why would I admit I was wrong when you were?

bedwetter: by the way from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD

Faun: Is that true or is bedwetter just another rightarded imbecile? Let's check it out, shall we....?

Senate majority:
2001: Republican: 49/50; Democrat: 50 (control switched several times)
2003: Republican: 51
2005: Republican: 55
2007: Democrat: 49 (+2 Independents who caucused with Democrats)

Bedwetter was wrong about the Senate.

House majority:
2001: Republican: 220
2003: Republican: 229
2005: Republican: 233
2007: Democrat: 233

And bedwetter was wrong about the House.​

Reaffirming that bedwetter is a flaming moron who knows nothing about that of which he speaks. ​

... jeez, you're a glutton for embarrassment.

2003 was Bush's first term, and thus the "earlier years". 2005 was his second term.

It is true the Democrats had a larger majority in 2007 than the Republicans did in Bush's earlier years.

However, it is a difference without a distinction. Once you have 50 percent plus one, it doesn't matter how many above that figure you have until you reach the two-thirds figure.

It is not true as the numbers I showed indicate.

Republicans had 51 Senators during the 108th session of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 55 Senators during the 109th osession of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 233 House members during the 109th session of Congress -- not more than the 233 Democrats had in 2007.

who are the Independents you idiot?

isnt one running for president right now?

who does he caucus with??

youre an ignorant loser

You don't know what "plus" means, do ya, rightard?

 

[bedowin62]

the idiotic Left is actually saying their larger majority didnt matter and was helpless while a smaller republican majority was able to committ so many nefarious deeds on the helpless Democrats

THIS is their idea of debate

You said you were gonna post the numbers in Congress to show you're not as retarded as I say you are?

What are ya waitin' for, sport?

I ALREADY DID YOU SAD PATHETIC LOSER

you just arent enough of a man to concede; even worse than g5000 apparently

lol

 

[bedowin62]

the actual numbers are part of historical record idiot

are you man enough to admit when you're wrong???

Why would I admit I was wrong when you were?

bedwetter: by the way from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD

Faun: Is that true or is bedwetter just another rightarded imbecile? Let's check it out, shall we....?

Senate majority:
2001: Republican: 49/50; Democrat: 50 (control switched several times)
2003: Republican: 51
2005: Republican: 55
2007: Democrat: 49 (+2 Independents who caucused with Democrats)

Bedwetter was wrong about the Senate.

House majority:
2001: Republican: 220
2003: Republican: 229
2005: Republican: 233
2007: Democrat: 233

And bedwetter was wrong about the House.​

Reaffirming that bedwetter is a flaming moron who knows nothing about that of which he speaks. ​

... jeez, you're a glutton for embarrassment.

2003 was Bush's first term, and thus the "earlier years". 2005 was his second term.

It is true the Democrats had a larger majority in 2007 than the Republicans did in Bush's earlier years.

However, it is a difference without a distinction. Once you have 50 percent plus one, it doesn't matter how many above that figure you have until you reach the two-thirds figure.

It is not true as the numbers I showed indicate.

Republicans had 51 Senators during the 108th session of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 55 Senators during the 109th osession of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 233 House members during the 109th session of Congress -- not more than the 233 Democrats had in 2007.

who are the Independents you idiot?

isnt one running for president right now?

who does he caucus with??

youre an ignorant loser

You don't know what "plus" means, do ya, rightard?

you're couting one chamber arent you dummy?

i said Dems had a larger majority and they did

you're pathetic

loser, go cry

 

[bedowin62]

you're a moron lacking in a sense of shame; if you knew what was good for you then you would slink away and salvage your reputation idiot

 

[bedowin62]

the capacity of a Progressive to embarrass him/herself is appalling!!

 

[bedowin62]

the actual numbers are part of historical record idiot

are you man enough to admit when you're wrong???

Why would I admit I was wrong when you were?

bedwetter: by the way from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD

Faun: Is that true or is bedwetter just another rightarded imbecile? Let's check it out, shall we....?

Senate majority:
2001: Republican: 49/50; Democrat: 50 (control switched several times)
2003: Republican: 51
2005: Republican: 55
2007: Democrat: 49 (+2 Independents who caucused with Democrats)

Bedwetter was wrong about the Senate.

House majority:
2001: Republican: 220
2003: Republican: 229
2005: Republican: 233
2007: Democrat: 233

And bedwetter was wrong about the House.​

Reaffirming that bedwetter is a flaming moron who knows nothing about that of which he speaks. ​

... jeez, you're a glutton for embarrassment.

2003 was Bush's first term, and thus the "earlier years". 2005 was his second term.

It is true the Democrats had a larger majority in 2007 than the Republicans did in Bush's earlier years.

However, it is a difference without a distinction. Once you have 50 percent plus one, it doesn't matter how many above that figure you have until you reach the two-thirds figure.

It is not true as the numbers I showed indicate.

Republicans had 51 Senators during the 108th session of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 55 Senators during the 109th osession of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 233 House members during the 109th session of Congress -- not more than the 233 Democrats had in 2007.

who are the Independents you idiot?

isnt one running for president right now?

who does he caucus with??

youre an ignorant loser

You don't know what "plus" means, do ya, rightard?

YOU DO realize Congress has two chambers dontcha leftard??

 

[Faun]

now you want to cry that it is a difference without a distinction. but earlier you simply tried to say it wasnt true didnt you?


man up moron

I said nothing about any distinctions. You really are fucking retarded. You prove again and again and again.

 

[bedowin62]

now you want to cry that it is a difference without a distinction. but earlier you simply tried to say it wasnt true didnt you?


man up moron

I said nothing about any distinctions. You really are fucking retarded. You prove again and again and again.

that was for your domestic partner g5000; HE KNEW who it was directed at.

too bad he's a bit more of an adult than you and knew when to admit defeat, or at least go away for a while

you're making a fool of yourself

 

[Faun]

Why would I admit I was wrong when you were?

bedwetter: by the way from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD

Faun: Is that true or is bedwetter just another rightarded imbecile? Let's check it out, shall we....?

Senate majority:
2001: Republican: 49/50; Democrat: 50 (control switched several times)
2003: Republican: 51
2005: Republican: 55
2007: Democrat: 49 (+2 Independents who caucused with Democrats)

Bedwetter was wrong about the Senate.

House majority:
2001: Republican: 220
2003: Republican: 229
2005: Republican: 233
2007: Democrat: 233

And bedwetter was wrong about the House.​

Reaffirming that bedwetter is a flaming moron who knows nothing about that of which he speaks. ​

... jeez, you're a glutton for embarrassment.

2003 was Bush's first term, and thus the "earlier years". 2005 was his second term.

It is true the Democrats had a larger majority in 2007 than the Republicans did in Bush's earlier years.

However, it is a difference without a distinction. Once you have 50 percent plus one, it doesn't matter how many above that figure you have until you reach the two-thirds figure.

It is not true as the numbers I showed indicate.

Republicans had 51 Senators during the 108th session of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 55 Senators during the 109th osession of Congress -- not more than the 49 Democrats plus 2 Independents in 2007.

Republicans had 233 House members during the 109th session of Congress -- not more than the 233 Democrats had in 2007.

who are the Independents you idiot?

isnt one running for president right now?

who does he caucus with??

youre an ignorant loser

You don't know what "plus" means, do ya, rightard?

YOU DO realize Congress has two chambers dontcha leftard??

Holyfuckingshit!

How could you not notice I posted the numbers from both chambers?

Proving again that bedwetter is fucking retarded beyond any help.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Obama directly responsible for Oregon shooting"

The unmitigated partisan ignorance and stupidity of this warrants pointing out again that this is in fact partisan ignorance and stupidity, as well as being wrong beyond dispute.

 

[bedowin62]

hasnt it ever occured to you; even in your progressive arrogance, that you can lose once in a while dummy??

stop with the wounded pride routine, salvage your dignity instead. I promise it's going to be allright Faun!!!