It's about time it was said

what's the matter, hack, it hurt your feelings that i called you what you are?

too bad, so sad, life is filled with pain.

Explain carefully for us Idiots how 5.7 trillion in 8 years was just horrible but 3 trillion in 2 years is such a good deal?

ONCE AGAIN....you love saying that, the Lord only knows why....but this is simply NOT true....

fiscal year 2009 with the 1.5 TRILLION Deficit is President Bush's budget that began oct 1 2008...this includes his bail out for the banks TARP, and fannie and freddie bail outs and the bail out for AIG and the first bail out for the auto industry and goldman sachs bailout ALL OF WHICH HAPPENED IN 2008 and under president Bush...

PLEASE for the love of God, stop lying.

president obama's first fiscal budget ends sept 30, 2010....obama has not had 1 full fiscal budget year yet rgs, so he HAS NOT added 3 trillion to the national debt....

i am not saying that he won't add 3 trillion after 2 years of his budgets, but you got another year and 2 months, before we will know.

president bush's last budget attributed to HIM is fiscal 2009, nearly $1.5 trillion dollar deficit....obama's budget deficit that HE BEGAN WITH starts there, while president bush began his budget with a 70 billion budget surplus, left him.... by the clinton budget.

facts ARE facts....

care
yet you ignore that the budget is controlled by CONGRESS

of which Obama was a member when it was done
 
I guess these nutters ignore the claims by Clinton era officials of Iraqi WMD's back in the nineties in lieu of... it's all Bush's fault, Bush lied, kids died, or some other suitable self-delusional goofiness.
 
Explain carefully for us Idiots how 5.7 trillion in 8 years was just horrible but 3 trillion in 2 years is such a good deal?

ONCE AGAIN....you love saying that, the Lord only knows why....but this is simply NOT true....

fiscal year 2009 with the 1.5 TRILLION Deficit is President Bush's budget that began oct 1 2008...this includes his bail out for the banks TARP, and fannie and freddie bail outs and the bail out for AIG and the first bail out for the auto industry and goldman sachs bailout ALL OF WHICH HAPPENED IN 2008 and under president Bush...

PLEASE for the love of God, stop lying.

president obama's first fiscal budget ends sept 30, 2010....obama has not had 1 full fiscal budget year yet rgs, so he HAS NOT added 3 trillion to the national debt....

i am not saying that he won't add 3 trillion after 2 years of his budgets, but you got another year and 2 months, before we will know.

president bush's last budget attributed to HIM is fiscal 2009, nearly $1.5 trillion dollar deficit....obama's budget deficit that HE BEGAN WITH starts there, while president bush began his budget with a 70 billion budget surplus, left him.... by the clinton budget.

facts ARE facts....

care

I don't think that will happen. Actually it's getting worse.

I agree. Why do liberals lie so damn much?
 
And then you have Righnut chiming in that yeah, but nothing hapenned in the five years since their statements back in the nineties... which I guess means that Clinton cleaned out all the WMD's he claimed were there? Or, was Clinton et al just full of shit? Or did they... <gulp> just get it wrong?

Good grief.
 
Meanwhile Clinton and Reno take a flamethrower to American Citizens... no problem!
 
Yup. Both are acts of war.

how many americans died launching the missiles, ace?

oh please, is that the moral equivalence game you want to play? :eusa_hand:

Okay, how many Israelis died when they and gaza went at it, and all the caterwauling as to disproportionate response....hum, this kind of sounds like that to eh?

you wanna explore that?

We didn't lose anyone and we bombed Sudanese and Iraqi 'factories' camp sites etc. killing folks....and hey how about those predator strikes we employ now.....blam!!!!! some goat herder and his family giving safe haven to a Talibani and pooof...gone... how much angst are you into on that? :rolleyes:

if i piled up all my angst, i still wouldn't be able to see it next to the pile of stupid you just posted, corky.

here's a hint- i don't give a ratfuck about dead iraqis, kuwaitis, sauds, syrians, israelis, palis, pakis, qattaris or yemenis.

see if you can figure it out

oh, and get yourself a dictionary
 
ONCE AGAIN....you love saying that, the Lord only knows why....but this is simply NOT true....

fiscal year 2009 with the 1.5 TRILLION Deficit is President Bush's budget that began oct 1 2008...this includes his bail out for the banks TARP, and fannie and freddie bail outs and the bail out for AIG and the first bail out for the auto industry and goldman sachs bailout ALL OF WHICH HAPPENED IN 2008 and under president Bush...

PLEASE for the love of God, stop lying.

president obama's first fiscal budget ends sept 30, 2010....obama has not had 1 full fiscal budget year yet rgs, so he HAS NOT added 3 trillion to the national debt....

i am not saying that he won't add 3 trillion after 2 years of his budgets, but you got another year and 2 months, before we will know.

president bush's last budget attributed to HIM is fiscal 2009, nearly $1.5 trillion dollar deficit....obama's budget deficit that HE BEGAN WITH starts there, while president bush began his budget with a 70 billion budget surplus, left him.... by the clinton budget.

facts ARE facts....

care

I don't think that will happen. Actually it's getting worse.

I agree. Why do liberals lie so damn much?

Because they're liberals
 
can you be at war with only one side deploying troops in battle?

can you be at war with another country where no one fights back? i dunno?
 
Because they're liberals

POINT out my lie, PLEASE...;)

i'll be waiting....

care
how about the fact you want to blame only Bush for the 2009 budget when it was approved by CONGRESS and that Obama was a MEMBER of congress at the time
and that congress had been in the hands of democrats for nearly 2 years

pleaseeeeeeee, cut me a break....

budgets are prepared by the president, due to congress by the end of february by law/rule, for the following oct 1 fiscal year.

yes congress has to pass the president's budget before it can become law and the PRESIDENT MUST sign off on it, or VETO it.

yes, other things not in the president's budget comes up throughtout the year....with president bush, he KEPT the cost of the 2 wars out of the budget, they were passed via a supplemental spending bill and signed by him.

yes, natural disasters and things like TARP bailout of the banks were not in initial presidential budget, they too were supplemental spending, of which the president ASKED FOR, and SIGNED.

yes congress appropriates, does the nitty gritty to fit in to the president's budget, the president can agree with them and sign off or veto.

why do you think the president HAS TO GIVE Congress the budget?
 
ONCE AGAIN....you love saying that, the Lord only knows why....but this is simply NOT true....

fiscal year 2009 with the 1.5 TRILLION Deficit is President Bush's budget that began oct 1 2008...this includes his bail out for the banks TARP, and fannie and freddie bail outs and the bail out for AIG and the first bail out for the auto industry and goldman sachs bailout ALL OF WHICH HAPPENED IN 2008 and under president Bush...

PLEASE for the love of God, stop lying.

president obama's first fiscal budget ends sept 30, 2010....obama has not had 1 full fiscal budget year yet rgs, so he HAS NOT added 3 trillion to the national debt....

i am not saying that he won't add 3 trillion after 2 years of his budgets, but you got another year and 2 months, before we will know.

president bush's last budget attributed to HIM is fiscal 2009, nearly $1.5 trillion dollar deficit....obama's budget deficit that HE BEGAN WITH starts there, while president bush began his budget with a 70 billion budget surplus, left him.... by the clinton budget.

facts ARE facts....

care

I don't think that will happen. Actually it's getting worse.

I agree. Why do liberals lie so damn much?

Gee!!! What a clever response!!! You got me good, you devil!! :rolleyes:
 
Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much | Crooks and Liars

July 05, 2008 08:30 PM
Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much
By Logan Murphy


This article from the AP was posted yesterday, reporting the sale and transport of 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada. Some of the leading right wing blogs were quick to hail the find as a significant victory for the Bush administration and proof of Saddam's WMD program, but as Daniel De Groot at Open Left Points out, their celebrations may be a bit premature, if not dishonest:

I noted last night that a supply of uranium from Iraq had been successfully moved to Montreal in secrecy.

If you check into this, you'll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam's government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.

I wondered if the right wing echo chamber would use this as "proof" that the WMD claims were true after all. I got even better than I hoped, as not only do they use it that way, but they reveal how dishonest they are by the way they have done this.
 
15th post
Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much | Crooks and Liars

July 05, 2008 08:30 PM
Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much
By Logan Murphy


This article from the AP was posted yesterday, reporting the sale and transport of 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada. Some of the leading right wing blogs were quick to hail the find as a significant victory for the Bush administration and proof of Saddam's WMD program, but as Daniel De Groot at Open Left Points out, their celebrations may be a bit premature, if not dishonest:

I noted last night that a supply of uranium from Iraq had been successfully moved to Montreal in secrecy.

If you check into this, you'll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam's government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.

I wondered if the right wing echo chamber would use this as "proof" that the WMD claims were true after all. I got even better than I hoped, as not only do they use it that way, but they reveal how dishonest they are by the way they have done this.
so, thats not WMD unless it was given to them during the reagan administration, then it transforms again into not WMD


:eusa_whistle:
 
POINT out my lie, PLEASE...;)

i'll be waiting....

care
how about the fact you want to blame only Bush for the 2009 budget when it was approved by CONGRESS and that Obama was a MEMBER of congress at the time
and that congress had been in the hands of democrats for nearly 2 years

pleaseeeeeeee, cut me a break....

budgets are prepared by the president, due to congress by the end of february by law/rule, for the following oct 1 fiscal year.

yes congress has to pass the president's budget before it can become law and the PRESIDENT MUST sign off on it, or VETO it.

yes, other things not in the president's budget comes up throughtout the year....with president bush, he KEPT the cost of the 2 wars out of the budget, they were passed via a supplemental spending bill and signed by him.

yes, natural disasters and things like TARP bailout of the banks were not in initial presidential budget, they too were supplemental spending, of which the president ASKED FOR, and SIGNED.

yes congress appropriates, does the nitty gritty to fit in to the president's budget, the president can agree with them and sign off or veto.

why do you think the president HAS TO GIVE Congress the budget?
because CONGRESS gets the final say on the budget
 
Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much | Crooks and Liars

July 05, 2008 08:30 PM
Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much
By Logan Murphy


This article from the AP was posted yesterday, reporting the sale and transport of 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada. Some of the leading right wing blogs were quick to hail the find as a significant victory for the Bush administration and proof of Saddam's WMD program, but as Daniel De Groot at Open Left Points out, their celebrations may be a bit premature, if not dishonest:

I noted last night that a supply of uranium from Iraq had been successfully moved to Montreal in secrecy.

If you check into this, you'll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam's government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.

I wondered if the right wing echo chamber would use this as "proof" that the WMD claims were true after all. I got even better than I hoped, as not only do they use it that way, but they reveal how dishonest they are by the way they have done this.

I understand your mentally challenged and all and I really hate to take advantage of that fact. But huh... there were WMDS found in Iraq back in '03 and '04. I posted the links once already. Here's a website I believe you idiots use, so I'll use it.


Saddam's WMD have been found. New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic arms.
 
Back
Top Bottom