Question for libs

OK liberals is this the kind of government you want to live under? A government that just deems important major legislation as law without a vote, is this what all you aging hippies marched for? did you invision living under a dictatorship where our representatives don't represent us but they represent the president.

Is this the government that my best friend lost his life for in the disgusting filthy streets of Baghdad? A government that tells the people what to do and how to do it and to sit down and shut up if you don't agree with IT. What in the world are our schools teaching people that leads to a neocomunist taking over our country without a shot.

So come on libs tell me this is what you've always wanted, now you've got it and now we all have to live with it.

no vote? what are you talking about? there have been votes. both chambers have already passed versions of health care reform. the house will vote again on Sunday.

and yes... this is the government I voted for.

I didn't vote for Bush and I had to suffer through eight years of that incompetent moron fucking up everything he touched. It clearly didn't bother you all that much. Turn about is fair play.

Don't like Obama's presidency? you got a few options: you can get the fuck out... or you can shut the fuck up until you can try to unseat him in 2012... or you can whine like a little bitch starting now.

My guess is, you'll pick that last option.
 
[However, as I also pointed out, back in 2002 - when the Senate was voting for war - Obama went on the record as saying that his position was 'not far from that of the President'. That means, had he been a Senator, he would have voted FOR the war.

I now need to consider whether I move you from 'stupid' to 'cretin'.

Here's Barack Obama's Iraq speech from October 2002. I want to see how you get from this to Obama would've voted FOR the war:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.


Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource
 
See, you and I are polls apart on a lot of issues - probably not as many as we both might think though. I think the progressives don't like to think of themselves as 'socialist' or 'marxist' or 'communist' but, they believe that the government is responsible for 'caring' for its people. Therefore, they are actually socialists etc. The semantics don't matter.

I think the problem we have had over the past couple of decades is that we have lost sight of the fact that we run the country, not the government. We got lazy. That is dangerous because a lot of the lazies have suddenly woken up and found that someone's trying to steal the ground out from under them. It's not about left or right to me, it's about government.

And right here is where you and I disagree. Socialist, Marxist and Communist are terms with specific meanings, they are not interchangeable nor synonyms for the belief there are things government is best suited to do.

We can disagree on whether government or private sector is better suited to do certain things - or which one is to be trusted less for that matter. It's about two competing schools of thought over who should do what and how it should be accomplished. We can also disagree over foreign policy and when we should or should not act in certain ways in order to pursue our interests. None of that makes us enemies - or shouldn't. It makes us opponents in an ongoing debate that will probably last longer than either of us is alive. And that's exactly the way it should be.

I agree a lot of people have been apathetic or lazy as you call it, and it's more than time for people to wake up and take control of what's going on. But a lot of interest and passion with a lack of understanding is just as dangerous as the apathy - if not more so IMO. It just makes me sad when I see so much hate and so many baseless acusations getting thrown around on both sides with so little understanding of what it's really about or willingness to listen to what the other guy thinks.

Just my two cents, fwiw. I don't exactly expect the usual suspects will listen to me either. :lol:

I view them all as 'totalitarianism' because, whether they be socialist, marxist, or communist, that is the outcome - I don't mean an extreme 'totalitarian' state, I mean something more like Europe - where governments have far more control over its citizens. We were founded as an alternative to that way. Our way is the way of a free people. Yea, that makes things harder for us. It also makes things much better. We should be able to live our lives without being told how to live it by some faceless idiot in DC.

I am for health care reform, I am against handing control for health care to government. Nowhere with a single payer system works any better than our system... I know we can all quote figures to back up our own argument but the fact is that their systems only look better because we think they are.

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But there are different types of freedom, different sets of values and different things people tend to internalize from history.

I live in an area where the memories of the abuses inherent in the old company town and the coal barons' fiefdoms are still very much alive, and that affects my idea of "freedom". That doesn't invalidate yours. But it doesn't make mine wrong either. We need both, and the tension between the two, to keep from going too far to either extreme.

What you call totalitarianism can take more than one form, and it's not only government that can infringe on individual liberty. Balance is needed to keep any one side from getting strong enough to seize control of individual freedoms. We can go round about specifics all day long, but at the core what you consider "freedom" and what I consider "freedom" are probably just two different things.
 
Why should 'people like you' stop whining? Did liberals not whine during the previous admin? Was that ok and now it's not ok? Why seek to silence people because they disagree? Why is having your say 'whining' now? Was it 'whining' when it was the left disapproving of Bush?

People died to defend our right to speak freely. Did they die for nothing?

So that is your answer?? We did it so now you can to?? I thought you people were better than us?? Now your telling me that because liberals whined now you can to..

Liberals didn't whine.. We went unheard for 8 years and that killed the economy, and over 4000 american soldiers and countless innocent people.. Liberals went unheard and our telephones were illegally wire tapped and innocent people tortured.. TORTURED!!

We never whined and we had a lot to be upset about.. Bush and the republican party destroyed this nation and our constitution..

If Obama is half as bad as Bush, we would still be better off..

At least liberals are listenging to you.. We don't like what you say cause you are always wrong.. But we are listening.. You never listened to us..

Conservatives whine cause they don't understand enough to have anything usefull to say.. Like death panels.. Was that usefull? Is that what you morons call end of life choices?? When have you ever had anything usefull to say?? Conservatives have done nothing of any benefit to this nation or to the people of this nation.. That is a fact..

Maj, since you just agreed with a post stating that 'Obama voted against the Iraq war', you are a laughing stock to anyone with above a grade school education.

That is a fact.

The only laughing stock here is you and other conservatives.. Obama didn't vote for the Iraq war.. What of it?? Your point is??

Oh you have no point as usual..

You are a laughing stock.. Period!!:eusa_whistle:
 
[However, as I also pointed out, back in 2002 - when the Senate was voting for war - Obama went on the record as saying that his position was 'not far from that of the President'. That means, had he been a Senator, he would have voted FOR the war.

I now need to consider whether I move you from 'stupid' to 'cretin'.

Here's Barack Obama's Iraq speech from October 2002. I want to see how you get from this to Obama would've voted FOR the war:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.


Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource

How he would have voted is neither here nor there, you dumb fuck. Fact: Gilbert claimed Obama VOTED AGAINST the war in 2002. He did not vote against the war.
 
So that is your answer?? We did it so now you can to?? I thought you people were better than us?? Now your telling me that because liberals whined now you can to..

Liberals didn't whine.. We went unheard for 8 years and that killed the economy, and over 4000 american soldiers and countless innocent people.. Liberals went unheard and our telephones were illegally wire tapped and innocent people tortured.. TORTURED!!

We never whined and we had a lot to be upset about.. Bush and the republican party destroyed this nation and our constitution..

If Obama is half as bad as Bush, we would still be better off..

At least liberals are listenging to you.. We don't like what you say cause you are always wrong.. But we are listening.. You never listened to us..

Conservatives whine cause they don't understand enough to have anything usefull to say.. Like death panels.. Was that usefull? Is that what you morons call end of life choices?? When have you ever had anything usefull to say?? Conservatives have done nothing of any benefit to this nation or to the people of this nation.. That is a fact..

Maj, since you just agreed with a post stating that 'Obama voted against the Iraq war', you are a laughing stock to anyone with above a grade school education.

That is a fact.

The only laughing stock here is you and other conservatives.. Obama didn't vote for the Iraq war.. What of it?? Your point is??

Oh you have no point as usual..

You are a laughing stock.. Period!!:eusa_whistle:

Sweetie..... Just cuz some of the terminally stupid don't get the point, doesn't mean the point doesn't exist. It means you don't get it.

Obama

Did

Not

Vote

Against

The

War.

Is that clear enough for you?
 
OK liberals is this the kind of government you want to live under? A government that just deems important major legislation as law without a vote, is this what all you aging hippies marched for? did you invision living under a dictatorship where our representatives don't represent us but they represent the president.

Is this the government that my best friend lost his life for in the disgusting filthy streets of Baghdad? A government that tells the people what to do and how to do it and to sit down and shut up if you don't agree with IT. What in the world are our schools teaching people that leads to a neocomunist taking over our country without a shot.

So come on libs tell me this is what you've always wanted, now you've got it and now we all have to live with it.

It's despicible that you would even use the life of a dead friend to score cheap political points on an anonymous internet message board.:evil:
 
yo fuck head, the process has been around for years, ask your repuke buddies, but then again when I served LBJ was no better

Oh....I see you've explained it so well, now I see where I was wrong. I'm so glad smart folks like you are calling the shots these days.

Yours truly,
Fuck Head.,
PS. You may consider going back to school, but if I were you I would choose a non LBJ school because the institution you attended fucked you in your ass.

LBJ, hippes? WTF do you come from/ You must be an old and nasty retired fool collecting a big government pension.

Give it back asshole
 
[However, as I also pointed out, back in 2002 - when the Senate was voting for war - Obama went on the record as saying that his position was 'not far from that of the President'. That means, had he been a Senator, he would have voted FOR the war.

I now need to consider whether I move you from 'stupid' to 'cretin'.

Here's Barack Obama's Iraq speech from October 2002. I want to see how you get from this to Obama would've voted FOR the war:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.


Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource

How he would have voted is neither here nor there, you dumb fuck. Fact: Gilbert claimed Obama VOTED AGAINST the war in 2002. He did not vote against the war.

Oh really? Then why did you say this:

That means, had he been a Senator, he would have voted FOR the war.

jeezus. Think before you post. That quote is right out this string.
 
I'd like to consider myself fairly liberal, but then that is mostly because I lack respect for the alternative.

For example, what's with this "Without a vote nonsense?" I mean, what rock were you under throughout 2008 when Obama made it his campaign's cornerstone? Now I didn't vote for Obama because I had enough of Washington's running up the debt with Bush's expanded healthcare entitlements. But as I said, I simply prefer to consider myself liberal.

You say you lost your best friend in Baghdad. Well I couldn't vote for McCain because concerning all those that voted for that war, I don't consider their hands all that much cleaner than those of bin Laden. I was particularly upset with Bush, from the start it seemed to me he was backtracking from the statement made during the 2000 debate when he said he would be careful about nation building. I think we need to get back to what the Constitution says about war. My only relief in seeing Obama win was that at least I had heard he voted against Bush on Iraq.


Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a fucking Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

Can you source that quote from 2002?

Second request. Can you source that quote from 2002?
 
"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron


Let me answer what kind of society or nation I would not want to live under: a conservative one. But in truth there has never been a conservative nation because when all you are is reactionary, there is no form or substance without the other. Conservatives are sponges that live off the liberal democracies, social democracies, or democratic republics they live in. Or constitutional monarchy or really any form of government, no conservative formula has ever moved a nation or the world forward, so the question is not relevant. A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla


http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HIRRHE.html


"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls
 
Last edited:
I'd like to consider myself fairly liberal, but then that is mostly because I lack respect for the alternative.

For example, what's with this "Without a vote nonsense?" I mean, what rock were you under throughout 2008 when Obama made it his campaign's cornerstone? Now I didn't vote for Obama because I had enough of Washington's running up the debt with Bush's expanded healthcare entitlements. But as I said, I simply prefer to consider myself liberal.

You say you lost your best friend in Baghdad. Well I couldn't vote for McCain because concerning all those that voted for that war, I don't consider their hands all that much cleaner than those of bin Laden. I was particularly upset with Bush, from the start it seemed to me he was backtracking from the statement made during the 2000 debate when he said he would be careful about nation building. I think we need to get back to what the Constitution says about war. My only relief in seeing Obama win was that at least I had heard he voted against Bush on Iraq.


Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a fucking Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

Can you source that quote from 2002?

You want to read it, you source it for yourself.
 
Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a fucking Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

Can you source that quote from 2002?

You want to read it, you source it for yourself.

I googled it and the only hit I got was your post. :lol::lol::lol:
 
Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a fucking Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

Can you source that quote from 2002?

You want to read it, you source it for yourself.

I thought so, but I waited for her to hang herself as usual. The hypocrite is lying as usual. Thanks for outing CalTwit, NYCarbineer.
 
Libs don't care about you, your buddy who died serving his country or anything else unless they can exploit it for political gain. This is their battle cry...."me me me me me me me me me me me me me I I I I I I I I I I I I I I gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme...... Bush did it."

Substitute "it's Obama's fault" for the last 3 words and you'd have the Cons rallying cry down pat.

Some things never change.
 
OK liberals is this the kind of government you want to live under? A government that just deems important major legislation as law without a vote, is this what all you aging hippies marched for? did you invision living under a dictatorship where our representatives don't represent us but they represent the president.

Is this the government that my best friend lost his life for in the disgusting filthy streets of Baghdad? A government that tells the people what to do and how to do it and to sit down and shut up if you don't agree with IT. What in the world are our schools teaching people that leads to a neocomunist taking over our country without a shot.

So come on libs tell me this is what you've always wanted, now you've got it and now we all have to live with it.


your talking about the Patriot Act, right?

~S~
 
OK liberals is this the kind of government you want to live under? A government that just deems important major legislation as law without a vote, is this what all you aging hippies marched for? did you invision living under a dictatorship where our representatives don't represent us but they represent the president.

Is this the government that my best friend lost his life for in the disgusting filthy streets of Baghdad? A government that tells the people what to do and how to do it and to sit down and shut up if you don't agree with IT. What in the world are our schools teaching people that leads to a neocomunist taking over our country without a shot.

So come on libs tell me this is what you've always wanted, now you've got it and now we all have to live with it.

Libs don't care about you, your buddy who died serving his country or anything else unless they can exploit it for political gain. This is their battle cry...."me me me me me me me me me me me me me I I I I I I I I I I I I I I gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme...... Bush did it."

SAD BUT TRUE, not a single scumbag lib said I'm sorry you lost your friend.

You don't suppose it might - just might - be because that brief phrase about your buddy was lost in paragraphs of neo-commie aging hippy dictatorship crappola?

Kind of hard to be sympathetic to a dude that's in the midst of attacking you. But...maybe that's just me.
 
Why should 'people like you' stop whining? Did liberals not whine during the previous admin? Was that ok and now it's not ok?

Did I say that....?

Why seek to silence people because they disagree? Why is having your say 'whining' now? Was it 'whining' when it was the left disapproving of Bush?

I'm not silencing him because he "disagrees".

I'm not silencing him period.

But if he is going to throw around words like communist, dictatorship etc he better damn well learn what they mean or be called upon it.

When the left was throwing out terms like Fascist and Nazi towards the Bush Administration then yup....they were acting like a bunch of ignorant whiners.

People died to defend our right to speak freely. Did they die for nothing?

Sometimes....when I hear the drivel that passes for free speech (troofers and birfers comes to mind)...I wonder...

...still just because they want to speak freely doesn't mean I need to listen to their spew...right?
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top