Why the right hates liberals

You people are all fucking stupid. Stop fighting. Stop hating. Do something constructive, together. Is that possible? This country doesn't deserve to stand. I can't wait until it fails. It's a shit country where everyone fights and hates eachother and we call it the greatest country? Fuck off.

I was so with you until...

You (especially) cons have an antiquated notion of what America is and you can't let go of it. You are as bad as terrorists, trying to bring us back to the middle ages, or as I call it, the 80's when Reagan was prez. This USED to be a great country, the best, until people started tearing it apart from the inside. We blame everybody else for our problems, except us. Can we grow up a little here and stop being little children? Thank you. You may go back to class now...

What hypocrisy. "We blame everybody else for our problems." I am so glad you used "we" in that sentence, especially since you JUST finished blaming conservatives for yours.
 
Again can someone give me a cliffsnotes version of what the heck a progressive is?

Some people want to tell me it's the same as a liberal whilest others (such as CA girl) say they aren't.

So can someone help me out?

Mark Levin would be a great study on the topic. Think Statist. Government is the solution to every problem. Anti Constitutionalist, the Constitution is too restrictive on the progressive's lust for government expansion. This syndrome effects both sides of the aisle. Neo-Con, Moderates. The first thing they lose site of is individual choice and individual liberty. They like to construct elaborate solutions for simple problems.
 
Today's liberals are hiding in plain sight but they no longer refer to themselves as "liberal." They refer to themselves as "progressive."

There is nothing "progressive" about liberalism, which is another word for socialism or communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a phrase popularized by Karl Marx. S

Why the term 'secular progressive' is all wrong

Bill O'Reilly coined the term "secular progressive" which is simply a godless liberal.

I'm not a big fan of labels, but sometimes it's like hard core porn: "You know it when you see it". :eek:

O'Reilly is a progressive, with a vanity mirror in every room and hallway. ;) Too much focused on derailing other peoples efforts. Image and perception over substance almost every time. Control freak.
 
You people are all fucking stupid. Stop fighting. Stop hating. Do something constructive, together. Is that possible? This country doesn't deserve to stand. I can't wait until it fails. It's a shit country where everyone fights and hates eachother and we call it the greatest country? Fuck off. You (especially) cons have an antiquated notion of what America is and you can't let go of it. You are as bad as terrorists, trying to bring us back to the middle ages, or as I call it, the 80's when Reagan was prez. This USED to be a great country, the best, until people started tearing it apart from the inside. We blame everybody else for our problems, except us. Can we grow up a little here and stop being little children? Thank you. You may go back to class now...

What model do you recommend we use? Gore during the Bush years? Kerry? Hillary? LOL You are so full of shit.
 
You people are all fucking stupid. Stop fighting. Stop hating. Do something constructive, together. Is that possible? This country doesn't deserve to stand. I can't wait until it fails. It's a shit country where everyone fights and hates eachother and we call it the greatest country? Fuck off. You (especially) cons have an antiquated notion of what America is and you can't let go of it. You are as bad as terrorists, trying to bring us back to the middle ages, or as I call it, the 80's when Reagan was prez. This USED to be a great country, the best, until people started tearing it apart from the inside. We blame everybody else for our problems, except us. Can we grow up a little here and stop being little children? Thank you. You may go back to class now...

What model do you recommend we use? Gore during the Bush years? Kerry? Hillary? LOL You are so full of shit.

He is just mad because Obama's "get in everyone's face" technique isn't working out as planned.:eusa_shhh:
 
Today's liberals are hiding in plain sight but they no longer refer to themselves as "liberal." They refer to themselves as "progressive."

There is nothing "progressive" about liberalism, which is another word for socialism or communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a phrase popularized by Karl Marx. S

Why the term 'secular progressive' is all wrong

Bill O'Reilly coined the term "secular progressive" which is simply a godless liberal.

I'm not a big fan of labels, but sometimes it's like hard core porn: "You know it when you see it". :eek:

O'Reilly isn't smart enough to see the irony in his label. The founders of this country specifically gave us a secular government, and the history of this country is a history of great progressive movements, supporting great progressive ideals, and succeeding in making those ideals a reality. The NATION is a secular progressive nation.
 
Today's liberals are hiding in plain sight but they no longer refer to themselves as "liberal." They refer to themselves as "progressive."

There is nothing "progressive" about liberalism, which is another word for socialism or communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a phrase popularized by Karl Marx. S

Why the term 'secular progressive' is all wrong

Bill O'Reilly coined the term "secular progressive" which is simply a godless liberal.

I'm not a big fan of labels, but sometimes it's like hard core porn: "You know it when you see it". :eek:

O'Reilly isn't smart enough to see the irony in his label. The founders of this country specifically gave us a secular government, and the history of this country is a history of great progressive movements, supporting great progressive ideals, and succeeding in making those ideals a reality. The NATION is a secular progressive nation.

We are a Constitutional Republic. Progressivism has been trying to hi-jack it from conception.
 
In his time and day, the greatest American Progressive was Theodore Roosevelt. He gave us our National Parks over the stringent objections of the Conservatives of the day. He was also the first to propose universal health care, at least for the children of our nation. And he took the side of labor and the consumer against the Trusts.

Yes, there are many radical Progressive ideas that have been adapted in this nation. The vote for all white male citizens, regardless of whether they owned property. The vote for black men, that took a major war. The vote for women. And even voting rights for Native Americans.

Eight hour work day. 40 hour work week. Safe conditions at the work place.

Just of few of the radical Progressive ideas fought by Conservatives. For each, we were told that if it was enacted, the world would end. However, here we are in a better world for the enactment of these ideas. Anything that will improve the life of the average citizen will be fought tooth and nail by the Conservatives.
 
[No, he didn't.

Barack Obama's Iraq war speech 2002:



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.


And he was right. And not in hindsight.
 
[No, he didn't.

Barack Obama's Iraq war speech 2002:



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.


And he was right. And not in hindsight.

Is there some reason you chose this hard to read color?
 
Today's liberals are hiding in plain sight but they no longer refer to themselves as "liberal." They refer to themselves as "progressive."

There is nothing "progressive" about liberalism, which is another word for socialism or communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a phrase popularized by Karl Marx. S

Why the term 'secular progressive' is all wrong

Bill O'Reilly coined the term "secular progressive" which is simply a godless liberal.

I'm not a big fan of labels, but sometimes it's like hard core porn: "You know it when you see it". :eek:

O'Reilly isn't smart enough to see the irony in his label. The founders of this country specifically gave us a secular government, and the history of this country is a history of great progressive movements, supporting great progressive ideals, and succeeding in making those ideals a reality. The NATION is a secular progressive nation.

So how come the Left has to totally lie about their agenda before elections? Huh?

Why did Obama pretend to be a Fiscal Conservative? Huh?

I'm not understanding how it is if Progressivism is so fucking cool and good for us, why are you always lying about your real agenda?
 
Why the term 'secular progressive' is all wrong

Bill O'Reilly coined the term "secular progressive" which is simply a godless liberal.

I'm not a big fan of labels, but sometimes it's like hard core porn: "You know it when you see it". :eek:

O'Reilly isn't smart enough to see the irony in his label. The founders of this country specifically gave us a secular government, and the history of this country is a history of great progressive movements, supporting great progressive ideals, and succeeding in making those ideals a reality. The NATION is a secular progressive nation.

So how come the Left has to totally lie about their agenda before elections? Huh?

Why did Obama pretend to be a Fiscal Conservative? Huh?

I'm not understanding how it is if Progressivism is so fucking cool and good for us, why are you always lying about your real agenda?

After 8 years of Bush's bullshit the right shouldn't even begin to talk anything about being fiscally conservatives, they fucked the economy up, Clinton left the office with a budget surplus, Bush left the economy in a fucked up deficit, I don't need Republicans to run our economy. Its funny how you asshats on the right think all of the money from rising taxes is going to go to people who don't deserve it, do you even truly know where your tax money goes to? Your tax dollars went to a senseless war in Iraq but you don't complain about that, money blown on a country that will forever be unstable and you all supported throwing away the tax dollars of the country there, but you all bitch and complain about money that goes to few lazy ass people in OUR country, nice to know you all care more about Iraqis than poor Americans.
 
O'Reilly isn't smart enough to see the irony in his label. The founders of this country specifically gave us a secular government, and the history of this country is a history of great progressive movements, supporting great progressive ideals, and succeeding in making those ideals a reality. The NATION is a secular progressive nation.

So how come the Left has to totally lie about their agenda before elections? Huh?

Why did Obama pretend to be a Fiscal Conservative? Huh?

I'm not understanding how it is if Progressivism is so fucking cool and good for us, why are you always lying about your real agenda?

After 8 years of Bush's bullshit the right shouldn't even begin to talk anything about being fiscally conservatives, they fucked the economy up, Clinton left the office with a budget surplus, Bush left the economy in a fucked up deficit, I don't need Republicans to run our economy. Its funny how you asshats on the right think all of the money from rising taxes is going to go to people who don't deserve it, do you even truly know where your tax money goes to? Your tax dollars went to a senseless war in Iraq but you don't complain about that, money blown on a country that will forever be unstable and you all supported throwing away the tax dollars of the country there, but you all bitch and complain about money that goes to few lazy ass people in OUR country, nice to know you all care more about Iraqis than poor Americans.

Blah blah blah all off topic and too much of a fucking retard to know that Bush wasn't a fiscal Conservative.

Why do Progressives lie about their real agenda?
 
So how come the Left has to totally lie about their agenda before elections? Huh?

Why did Obama pretend to be a Fiscal Conservative? Huh?

I'm not understanding how it is if Progressivism is so fucking cool and good for us, why are you always lying about your real agenda?

After 8 years of Bush's bullshit the right shouldn't even begin to talk anything about being fiscally conservatives, they fucked the economy up, Clinton left the office with a budget surplus, Bush left the economy in a fucked up deficit, I don't need Republicans to run our economy. Its funny how you asshats on the right think all of the money from rising taxes is going to go to people who don't deserve it, do you even truly know where your tax money goes to? Your tax dollars went to a senseless war in Iraq but you don't complain about that, money blown on a country that will forever be unstable and you all supported throwing away the tax dollars of the country there, but you all bitch and complain about money that goes to few lazy ass people in OUR country, nice to know you all care more about Iraqis than poor Americans.

Blah blah blah all off topic and too much of a fucking retard to know that Bush wasn't a fiscal Conservative.

Why do Progressives lie about their real agenda?

House and Senate Republicans voted with Bush most if not every time on all of his initiatives so Republicans are not fiscally conservative either, but that isn't the issue here, the issue is that Republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative destroyed and disrupted the economy and I back Flaylo on that one 100%.
 
After 8 years of Bush's bullshit the right shouldn't even begin to talk anything about being fiscally conservatives, they fucked the economy up, Clinton left the office with a budget surplus, Bush left the economy in a fucked up deficit, I don't need Republicans to run our economy. Its funny how you asshats on the right think all of the money from rising taxes is going to go to people who don't deserve it, do you even truly know where your tax money goes to? Your tax dollars went to a senseless war in Iraq but you don't complain about that, money blown on a country that will forever be unstable and you all supported throwing away the tax dollars of the country there, but you all bitch and complain about money that goes to few lazy ass people in OUR country, nice to know you all care more about Iraqis than poor Americans.

Blah blah blah all off topic and too much of a fucking retard to know that Bush wasn't a fiscal Conservative.

Why do Progressives lie about their real agenda?

House and Senate Republicans voted with Bush most if not every time on all of his initiatives so Republicans are not fiscally conservative either, but that isn't the issue here, the issue is that Republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative destroyed and disrupted the economy and I back Flaylo on that one 100%.


Funny that Sangha blasted me in another thread for pointing out that Bush was no conservative, but here is the same thing pointed out. The dude was as liberal as they come with our money, but Obama is worse. MUCH worse.
 
Blah blah blah all off topic and too much of a fucking retard to know that Bush wasn't a fiscal Conservative.

Why do Progressives lie about their real agenda?

House and Senate Republicans voted with Bush most if not every time on all of his initiatives so Republicans are not fiscally conservative either, but that isn't the issue here, the issue is that Republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative destroyed and disrupted the economy and I back Flaylo on that one 100%.


Funny that Sangha blasted me in another thread for pointing out that Bush was no conservative, but here is the same thing pointed out. The dude was as liberal as they come with our money, but Obama is worse. MUCH worse.

Bullshit, Obama has not wasted any of our tax payer dollars, you don't even know where every cent of your taxpayer dollars even go to. Obama is not worse than Bush.
 
[No, he didn't.

Barack Obama's Iraq war speech 2002:



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.


And he was right. And not in hindsight.

Firstly, I don't read shit that's in any 'attention seeking' color. But, I know the speech.... just like I know the quote from Obama that his position on Iraq was 'very similar to that of the President'.

Politicians say all kinds of shit - play with words so as to make them meaningless - and out and out lie.

If you want to believe the words of a politician, fine. I'm smarter than to accept at face value the words of people who have proved that their words, their promises, their oaths, mean jack shit to them.

They - and you - can shove their words up their asses.
 
Bullshit, Obama has not wasted any of our tax payer dollars, you don't even know where every cent of your taxpayer dollars even go to. Obama is not worse than Bush.

You can't even get Barry, himself, to agree with you on that. :lol:
The government wasted 26 billion more in 2009 than in 2008
FOXNews.com - Gov't Wastes $98B in Taxpayer Dollars in 2009

You can't get Clueless Joe to agree either, who said regarding the government's "stimulus" spending.... "We know some of this money is going to be wasted".
Biden says some waste inevitable part of stimulus | Reuters

You can't get 76% of Americans to agree with you
76% Say Government Likely To Waste Stimulus Money - Rasmussen Reports


And frankly, if you can defend Hannity's Waste 102 list, I'm sure we'd all enjoy the comedy... ‘Waste 102′: The Final List The Great American Blog
 
House and Senate Republicans voted with Bush most if not every time on all of his initiatives so Republicans are not fiscally conservative either, but that isn't the issue here, the issue is that Republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative destroyed and disrupted the economy and I back Flaylo on that one 100%.


Funny that Sangha blasted me in another thread for pointing out that Bush was no conservative, but here is the same thing pointed out. The dude was as liberal as they come with our money, but Obama is worse. MUCH worse.

Bullshit, Obama has not wasted any of our tax payer dollars, you don't even know where every cent of your taxpayer dollars even go to. Obama is not worse than Bush.

You're kidding me right? There is absolutely NO way anyone can deny that Obama has spent more money than Bush did. He's spent more than every President before him combined, in 18 months. It's one thing to try to spin it and say the spending was necessary, its another thing entirely to deny the spending even occured. I suppose you also deny the holocaust occured?
 
Funny that Sangha blasted me in another thread for pointing out that Bush was no conservative, but here is the same thing pointed out. The dude was as liberal as they come with our money, but Obama is worse. MUCH worse.

Bullshit, Obama has not wasted any of our tax payer dollars, you don't even know where every cent of your taxpayer dollars even go to. Obama is not worse than Bush.

You're kidding me right? There is absolutely NO way anyone can deny that Obama has spent more money than Bush did. He's spent more than every President before him combined, in 18 months. It's one thing to try to spin it and say the spending was necessary, its another thing entirely to deny the spending even occured. I suppose you also deny the holocaust occured?



Post some facts and figures, I don't believe a word you say.
 

Forum List

Back
Top