Old Dead Lies of Leftists

[rightwinger]

Way to go Rabbi!

 

[I.P.Freely]

And see. The brain dead leftists cling to those notions, writing "its been proven" or "its true" for things that were debunked a brazilian times over.
Bush didnt lie
Obama owns this economy.
Admit it.

bush did lie. sadam hussein had no active wmd program, there were no mobile chemical labs, and the aluminum tubes weren't, according to our intelligence agency, for nuclear centrifuges but were instead intended for small rockets.

Look if a pressure cooker full of firecracker powder is a WMD, then Saddam had WMD's.

End of story.

Saddam is dead, and the Bush's are alive.

Praise God!

Bush, fransn zol esn zayn layb

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And see. The brain dead leftists cling to those notions, writing "its been proven" or "its true" for things that were debunked a brazilian times over.
Bush didnt lie
Obama owns this economy.
Admit it.

bush did lie. sadam hussein had no active wmd program, there were no mobile chemical labs, and the aluminum tubes weren't, according to our intelligence agency, for nuclear centrifuges but were instead intended for small rockets.

Bush was going off the intelligence he had. The same intelligence the Democrat controlled Congress assessed before giving Bush the green light to take Saddam out.

Give a rest already. The lies about Bush lying isn't working.

well no, he wasn't. he was going off of the intelligence he was choosing.
take for instance the aluminum tubes. they were claimed by the administration to be proof of nuclear centrifuges. they were, according to the cia, most likely intended for small rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?_r=0

So there was a dispute. What does that prove? Not a damn thing. It merely shows there was a disagreement and no matter what the disagreement was, it was decided by a Democrat controlled Congress to go ahead and take Saddam out.

You morons try to lead people to believe that Bush acted on his own forgetting he had the full support of Congress.

there was no real dispute. nuclear scientists and upper level analysts said they were for rockets. a junior analyst said they were for a centrifuge. they selected the intelligence that supported their pre-determined positions and ignored the analysis of experts and senior officials because it didn't. they then presented the centrifuge theory as if it was the only, the most supported, and indisputable.

that move was dishonest to say the least.

So they selected intelligence that wasn't accurate in regards to the centrifuges. Still doesn't mean anyone lied, it means they got it wrong. And again, it wasn't just Bush that got it wrong but the entire Congress that gave the approval to act militarily.

Do you know how many Democrats up to and including Bill Clinton that has publically stated that Saddam had WMD's and he needed to be taken out?

You morons are so fixated on Bush that you let Obama take this country apart piece by piece.

Get your head out of the past and focus on the present.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many more times are we going to have to read these things? I see the lefties here trotting out these lies over and over. And no matter how many times they're shown to be false, they repeat them in the nexxt thread.
1) Bush lied about WMD
2) Republicans caused the bad economy because they obstructed Obama's agenda
3)The Rich support Republicans
4) The 90% top tax rate under Eisenhower caused prosperity
5) Republicans represent old white guys
6) The stimulus prevented a Depression
7) The stimulus created <insert number> jobs
8) Republicans worked to make Obama a one term president
9) The stock market and the price of gasoline are under presidential control
10) Consumer spending drives the economy
11) A higher min wage brings prosperity

We're not a consumer driven economy? So why do people like you keep saying we can boost the economy by cutting taxes and putting more money in the hands of consumers?

I've never said that. I've said the opposte many times.
You're just striking out all over here, arent you?

How many more times are we going to have to read these things? I see the lefties here trotting out these lies over and over. And no matter how many times they're shown to be false, they repeat them in the nexxt thread.
1) Bush lied about WMD
2) Republicans caused the bad economy because they obstructed Obama's agenda
3)The Rich support Republicans
4) The 90% top tax rate under Eisenhower caused prosperity
5) Republicans represent old white guys
6) The stimulus prevented a Depression
7) The stimulus created <insert number> jobs
8) Republicans worked to make Obama a one term president
9) The stock market and the price of gasoline are under presidential control
10) Consumer spending drives the economy
11) A higher min wage brings prosperity

We're not a consumer driven economy? So why do people like you keep saying we can boost the economy by cutting taxes and putting more money in the hands of consumers?

I've never said that. I've said the opposte many times.
You're just striking out all over here, arent you?

You've said the opposite? You've said that the economy would be boosted if consumers had less to spend?

lol, let's hear about that.

Wow, you're doubling down on stupid. Havent you been humiliated enough for one day?

You just conceded your #8 is horseshit and you don't even know you did it. Good one.

No, idiot. I proved my case.
The Democrats all claim Obama's failures are because Republicans worked to make him a one term president. Like that was something new and special. In fact both sides do it all the time. It was nothing new or special.
You are a new and special brand of stupid, though.

All Democrats claim that? How would you be able to accumulate a record of ALL Democrats saying that?

I didnt see the word "all" in my post. Perhaps you'd care to point where it is. Or else shut the fuck up. You've already beclowned yourself enough in this thread.

The Rabbi didn't see the 'all' in his post, this post:

"The Democrats all claim Obama's failures are because Republicans worked to make him a one term president."

First one to find it wins.

Please post an example of a Democrat not saying that.

Every Democrat who has not been shown to have said that is an example. At this point in the thread that's every Democrat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

bush did lie. sadam hussein had no active wmd program, there were no mobile chemical labs, and the aluminum tubes weren't, according to our intelligence agency, for nuclear centrifuges but were instead intended for small rockets.

Bush was going off the intelligence he had. The same intelligence the Democrat controlled Congress assessed before giving Bush the green light to take Saddam out.

Give a rest already. The lies about Bush lying isn't working.

well no, he wasn't. he was going off of the intelligence he was choosing.
take for instance the aluminum tubes. they were claimed by the administration to be proof of nuclear centrifuges. they were, according to the cia, most likely intended for small rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?_r=0

So there was a dispute. What does that prove? Not a damn thing. It merely shows there was a disagreement and no matter what the disagreement was, it was decided by a Democrat controlled Congress to go ahead and take Saddam out.

You morons try to lead people to believe that Bush acted on his own forgetting he had the full support of Congress.

there was no real dispute. nuclear scientists and upper level analysts said they were for rockets. a junior analyst said they were for a centrifuge. they selected the intelligence that supported their pre-determined positions and ignored the analysis of experts and senior officials because it didn't. they then presented the centrifuge theory as if it was the only, the most supported, and indisputable.

that move was dishonest to say the least.

So they selected intelligence that wasn't accurate in regards to the centrifuges. Still doesn't mean anyone lied, it means they got it wrong. And again, it wasn't just Bush that got it wrong but the entire Congress that gave the approval to act militarily.

Do you know how many Democrats up to and including Bill Clinton that has publically stated that Saddam had WMD's and he needed to be taken out?

You morons are so fixated on Bush that you let Obama take this country apart piece by piece.

Get your head out of the past and focus on the present.

See that's the point. Nothing Obama has done has harmed this country more than Bush's perpetration of the Iraq disaster.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Bush was going off the intelligence he had. The same intelligence the Democrat controlled Congress assessed before giving Bush the green light to take Saddam out.

Give a rest already. The lies about Bush lying isn't working.

well no, he wasn't. he was going off of the intelligence he was choosing.
take for instance the aluminum tubes. they were claimed by the administration to be proof of nuclear centrifuges. they were, according to the cia, most likely intended for small rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?_r=0

So there was a dispute. What does that prove? Not a damn thing. It merely shows there was a disagreement and no matter what the disagreement was, it was decided by a Democrat controlled Congress to go ahead and take Saddam out.

You morons try to lead people to believe that Bush acted on his own forgetting he had the full support of Congress.

there was no real dispute. nuclear scientists and upper level analysts said they were for rockets. a junior analyst said they were for a centrifuge. they selected the intelligence that supported their pre-determined positions and ignored the analysis of experts and senior officials because it didn't. they then presented the centrifuge theory as if it was the only, the most supported, and indisputable.

that move was dishonest to say the least.

So they selected intelligence that wasn't accurate in regards to the centrifuges. Still doesn't mean anyone lied, it means they got it wrong. And again, it wasn't just Bush that got it wrong but the entire Congress that gave the approval to act militarily.

Do you know how many Democrats up to and including Bill Clinton that has publically stated that Saddam had WMD's and he needed to be taken out?

You morons are so fixated on Bush that you let Obama take this country apart piece by piece.

Get your head out of the past and focus on the present.

See that's the point. Nothing Obama has done has harmed this country more than Bush's perpetration of the Iraq disaster.

Only an idiot aka an Obama sheep, would believe that Obama hasn't harmed this country.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ever notice how obsessed cons are with the past? Is it they don't have any current accomplishments upon which to hang their hats?

This is why every criticism of Obama is met with "but BOOOSH"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush was going off the intelligence he had. The same intelligence the Democrat controlled Congress assessed before giving Bush the green light to take Saddam out.

Give a rest already. The lies about Bush lying isn't working.

well no, he wasn't. he was going off of the intelligence he was choosing.
take for instance the aluminum tubes. they were claimed by the administration to be proof of nuclear centrifuges. they were, according to the cia, most likely intended for small rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?_r=0

So there was a dispute. What does that prove? Not a damn thing. It merely shows there was a disagreement and no matter what the disagreement was, it was decided by a Democrat controlled Congress to go ahead and take Saddam out.

You morons try to lead people to believe that Bush acted on his own forgetting he had the full support of Congress.

there was no real dispute. nuclear scientists and upper level analysts said they were for rockets. a junior analyst said they were for a centrifuge. they selected the intelligence that supported their pre-determined positions and ignored the analysis of experts and senior officials because it didn't. they then presented the centrifuge theory as if it was the only, the most supported, and indisputable.

that move was dishonest to say the least.

So they selected intelligence that wasn't accurate in regards to the centrifuges. Still doesn't mean anyone lied, it means they got it wrong. And again, it wasn't just Bush that got it wrong but the entire Congress that gave the approval to act militarily.

Do you know how many Democrats up to and including Bill Clinton that has publically stated that Saddam had WMD's and he needed to be taken out?

You morons are so fixated on Bush that you let Obama take this country apart piece by piece.

Get your head out of the past and focus on the present.

See that's the point. Nothing Obama has done has harmed this country more than Bush's perpetration of the Iraq disaster.

Credit cowngrade.
Record debt
Smallest military since before WW2
Waning influence in foreign polic
Stagnant economy
Record government dependence.

Yeah, none of that was Bush.

 

[ogibillm]

bush did lie. sadam hussein had no active wmd program, there were no mobile chemical labs, and the aluminum tubes weren't, according to our intelligence agency, for nuclear centrifuges but were instead intended for small rockets.

Bush was going off the intelligence he had. The same intelligence the Democrat controlled Congress assessed before giving Bush the green light to take Saddam out.

Give a rest already. The lies about Bush lying isn't working.

well no, he wasn't. he was going off of the intelligence he was choosing.
take for instance the aluminum tubes. they were claimed by the administration to be proof of nuclear centrifuges. they were, according to the cia, most likely intended for small rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?_r=0

So there was a dispute. What does that prove? Not a damn thing. It merely shows there was a disagreement and no matter what the disagreement was, it was decided by a Democrat controlled Congress to go ahead and take Saddam out.

You morons try to lead people to believe that Bush acted on his own forgetting he had the full support of Congress.

there was no real dispute. nuclear scientists and upper level analysts said they were for rockets. a junior analyst said they were for a centrifuge. they selected the intelligence that supported their pre-determined positions and ignored the analysis of experts and senior officials because it didn't. they then presented the centrifuge theory as if it was the only, the most supported, and indisputable.

that move was dishonest to say the least.

So they selected intelligence that wasn't accurate in regards to the centrifuges. Still doesn't mean anyone lied, it means they got it wrong. And again, it wasn't just Bush that got it wrong but the entire Congress that gave the approval to act militarily.

Do you know how many Democrats up to and including Bill Clinton that has publically stated that Saddam had WMD's and he needed to be taken out?

You morons are so fixated on Bush that you let Obama take this country apart piece by piece.

Get your head out of the past and focus on the present.

you have no problem with the selective presentation of intelligence known to be of questionable quality over intelligence of significantly better quality because it will help justify a predetermined course of action?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Ever notice how obsessed cons are with the past? Is it they don't have any current accomplishments upon which to hang their hats?

This is why every criticism of Obama is met with "but BOOOSH"?

I don't go after wounded prey.

 

[2aguy]

4) The 90% top tax rate under Eisenhower caused prosperity

They forgot the second part of that equation...destroy the industrial base of every other industrial country with a World War...

 

[ogibillm]

well no, he wasn't. he was going off of the intelligence he was choosing.
take for instance the aluminum tubes. they were claimed by the administration to be proof of nuclear centrifuges. they were, according to the cia, most likely intended for small rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?_r=0

So there was a dispute. What does that prove? Not a damn thing. It merely shows there was a disagreement and no matter what the disagreement was, it was decided by a Democrat controlled Congress to go ahead and take Saddam out.

You morons try to lead people to believe that Bush acted on his own forgetting he had the full support of Congress.

there was no real dispute. nuclear scientists and upper level analysts said they were for rockets. a junior analyst said they were for a centrifuge. they selected the intelligence that supported their pre-determined positions and ignored the analysis of experts and senior officials because it didn't. they then presented the centrifuge theory as if it was the only, the most supported, and indisputable.

that move was dishonest to say the least.

So they selected intelligence that wasn't accurate in regards to the centrifuges. Still doesn't mean anyone lied, it means they got it wrong. And again, it wasn't just Bush that got it wrong but the entire Congress that gave the approval to act militarily.

Do you know how many Democrats up to and including Bill Clinton that has publically stated that Saddam had WMD's and he needed to be taken out?

You morons are so fixated on Bush that you let Obama take this country apart piece by piece.

Get your head out of the past and focus on the present.

See that's the point. Nothing Obama has done has harmed this country more than Bush's perpetration of the Iraq disaster.

Credit cowngrade.

falls squarely on the shoulders of republican 'leadership' in congress and their failure to control the tea party idiots.

Record debt

but the deficits are shrinking, and as a percentage of gdp they weren't records.

Smallest military since before WW2

and yet our military's capability isn't measured by numbers alone

Waning influence in foreign polic

according to whom?

Stagnant economy

nope.

Record government dependence.

that doesn't exactly paint the complete picture, does it?

Yeah, none of that was Bush.

you're right. bush had no hand in setting up the recession, no part in harming our foreign relations, and certainly no part in driving up debt by cutting taxes during war

 

[The Rabbi]

Ever notice how obsessed cons are with the past? Is it they don't have any current accomplishments upon which to hang their hats?

This is why every criticism of Obama is met with "but BOOOSH"?

I don't go after wounded prey.

I like pancakes.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Ever notice how obsessed cons are with the past? Is it they don't have any current accomplishments upon which to hang their hats?

This is why every criticism of Obama is met with "but BOOOSH"?

I don't go after wounded prey.

I like pancakes.

Our's or the goyim's version?

 

[boedicca]

Here are some more:

- The GOP opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s
- We need to increase spending on education
- Taxing the rich is so that the government can invest in the middle class

I haven't seen anyone claim that the GOP opposed civil rights legislation. We all know that it was a bipartisan effort lead by ideological Liberals and opposed by ideological Conservatives.

Would you cut spending on education? Then don't cry when students from Sweden and South Africa score higher than American students. Cutting education is like cutting off the gas in the winter.

If the rich don't want to invest in the middle class (and they certainly have shown that they won't) perhaps the government can redress the balance.

1. If you haven't noticed how the GOP is accused of opposing civil rights legislation in the 1960s, then you haven't been listening to the more strident faction of the leftwing. Good for you for ignoring them.

2. On education: I don't recall posting that we should cut spending. Spending in constant dollars per pupil has far outpaced inflation, however, and with very poor results.

Where does the money go? Perhaps this tragic nonsense will explain:


More "zero tolerance" injustice, this time from the Dearborn Heights school district in Detroit, Michigan. Atiya Haynes, an honors students and college-bound 17-year-old, was emerging from the bathroom at a high school football game when school officials decided to search her. (It's not clear why this was done, but I take it that such searches are merely routine at school events—in other words, there was no specific suspicion that Haynes had done something wrong.)

Officials found a pocketknife in Haynes' purse. She told them she had forgotten that she was carrying the knife, which was a gift from her grandfather. In a sane world, it would be completely reasonable for her to carry a pocketknife for protection; she biked long distances across southwest Detroit to get to her job last summer, for instance.

But because it is illegal to carry any weapon on school grounds for any reason—even with good reason, or by accident—she was promptly expelled. The Board of Education eventually relented, but only slightly: Haynes is still suspended for the rest of the year, but will be able to take online classes and graduate. That's hardly an improvement, given that Haynes is actively involved in extracurricular activities at her school....

Odious District Expels Teen Girl For Carrying Grandpa s Pocketknife - Hit Run Reason.com


It's important to keep the bloated education employee base busy! As most of them are do-nothing administrators, it's only to be expected that they spend their time on mind-numbing rules designed to turn children into passive sheeple.

 

[initforme]

If the deems use Kansas as an example of abject failure they have some ammo. What a disaster. I would like to see the GOP come out and speak on behalf of the worker, not of big business.