Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Compare that bad publicity to the bad publicity Bush gets.
I guess you could say my boards have a balance, but it appears that more on the right posts than those of the left,..the left tends to get offended by facts, and figures? So they don't post as much.
Er... I want you to carefully read your post again... read it a second time... think about it carefully. Now see if you can't answer your own question about why people on the left side of the aisle might find arguing poltics with certain people on the right to be an exercise in futility.
I guess you could say my boards have a balance, but it appears that more on the right posts than those of the left,..the left tends to get offended by facts, and figures? So they don't post as much.
I see no question marks in that last statement I posted,...what are you saying? Are you left or right Jillian? Now,...there is a question!
Which EXACTLY proves my point. If this board was balanced then we'd see a dozen threads a day showing the stupidity of Bush and his cabinet. But instead we see a ton of threads showing the retardedness of the Hillary campaign.
And no, we shouldn't be seeing dozens of threads about Bush daily. Quite simply, he just isn't anywhere near as bad as you liberals try to make him out to be.
I see no question marks in that last statement I posted,...what are you saying? Are you left or right Jillian? Now,...there is a question!
Yes he is.
Yes he is.
Not even close.
I liken most Bush-basing threads to being on par with the "Hillary didn't tip a waitress" thread. I don't like Hillary Clinton, period. But I'm not going to lower myself to bashing her for petty-ass crap, and that's the majority of any Bush-bashing I've seen the past 7 years.
I'm thinking of changing my stance however, if a Democrat is elected President. Y'all have dished it out for 7+ years .... payback's a bitch.
Not even close.
I liken most Bush-basing threads to being on par with the "Hillary didn't tip a waitress" thread. I don't like Hillary Clinton, period. But I'm not going to lower myself to bashing her for petty-ass crap, and that's the majority of any Bush-bashing I've seen the past 7 years.
I'm thinking of changing my stance however, if a Democrat is elected President. Y'all have dished it out for 7+ years .... payback's a bitch.
When a Dem Prez gets up to the excesses of the BushCheney regime, I'll join you in condemnation.
I agree with you about the petty Clinton bashing, of the pres in the past and senator more recently. I think that is why if some of the newer members were to look back a year and a half or more, they'd find some of us spent a lot of time trying to get one or two members to knock it off. Now we just seem to ignore them.
Now some might be of the opinion that the former pardoned contributions thread is along those lines. I don't. For the simple reason, like my concern about Ron Paul's neo-nazi backers, there are some things that the candidate should have by now, told someone to watch for.
For Clinton, that certainly would be ties with any of those involved with those types of ties to the past. For any candidate, when significant contributions from sources that are seen by most to be hate groups or criminal groups, along with endorsements not rejected it is something that needs to be illuminated.
These are judgments that to me are deal breakers. As for Clinton, her husband also gave clemency to a bunch of FALN terrorists, basically tell them to go 'and sin no more.' They killed officers and innocents. What if instead that was who was sending in the contributions? How different than the Stormfront would that be? With the exception that we KNOW FALN committed acts, take a look at some of those backing Paul.
I agree with you about the petty Clinton bashing, of the pres in the past and senator more recently. I think that is why if some of the newer members were to look back a year and a half or more, they'd find some of us spent a lot of time trying to get one or two members to knock it off. Now we just seem to ignore them.
Now some might be of the opinion that the former pardoned contributions thread is along those lines. I don't. For the simple reason, like my concern about Ron Paul's neo-nazi backers, there are some things that the candidate should have by now, told someone to watch for.
For Clinton, that certainly would be ties with any of those involved with those types of ties to the past. For any candidate, when significant contributions from sources that are seen by most to be hate groups or criminal groups, along with endorsements not rejected it is something that needs to be illuminated.
These are judgments that to me are deal breakers. As for Clinton, her husband also gave clemency to a bunch of FALN terrorists, basically tell them to go 'and sin no more.' They killed officers and innocents. What if instead that was who was sending in the contributions? How different than the Stormfront would that be? With the exception that we KNOW FALN committed acts, take a look at some of those backing Paul.
So if you dislike petty partisan sniping, why use the opportunity as a bash bill fest? And, in referencing pardons, please show me where Clinton pardoned someone for not disclosing information about HIS ADMINISTRATION. And now think about good ole Scooter Libby.
Thanks.
No problem. I didn't intend a bash Bill, if you took it that way it probably was because of the circumstances. I'm usure of what you mean about, "not disclosing information about HIS ADMINISTRATION". Scooter got nailed, if I remember. What was that about Sandy Berger? Oh yeah, Bush, the leave no partisan behind...
Bill Clinton didn't pardon Sandy Berger.
Right, our 'compassionate conservative' did. He wanted to 'change the tone,' much like Obama. Dweeb.
So why don't I see right-wingers whining about Bush's pardons? Seems to be a favorite theme of theirs otherwise.
