Question: why do liberals always say Bush started TWO unwarranted wars?

[The T]

So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.

Actually it is since Obama shut down Iraq, claimed success and we are now dealing with the residuals there now, and Afghanistan will be worse when we leave in 2016.

The ME is on fire for short-sightedness...and YOU don't get it? Rhetoric indeed.

 

[Kosh]

Clinton was weak, but not as weak as what we have now. Even Carter would have been better than Obama. Obama is a weak leader and not the right man for the job. After six years he and the far left have managed to destroy this nation and thus destroy the world.

No wonder the far left is celebrating, they finally get what they want.

This thread also proves that the far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they were wrong.

 

[Discombobulated]

So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.

Actually it is since Obama shut down Iraq, claimed success and we are now dealing with the residuals there now, and Afghanistan will be worse when we leave in 2016.

The ME is on fire for short-sightedness...and YOU don't get it? Rhetoric indeed.

Which has exactly what to do with the OP?

 

[The T]

Clinton was weak, but not as weak as what we have now. Even Carter would have been better than Obama. Obama is a weak leader and not the right man for the job. After six years he and the far left have managed to destroy this nation and thus destroy the world.

No wonder the far left is celebrating, they finally get what they want.

This thread also proves that the far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they were wrong.

Yep.

 

[Camp]

So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.

Well, yes, basically the argument is that if you put a fresh apple in the basket it is the same apple months later when it has gotten rotten. One side says it is the same apple and the other side says it is a different apple because it has gone rotten.

 

[Kosh]

So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.

Actually it is since Obama shut down Iraq, claimed success and we are now dealing with the residuals there now, and Afghanistan will be worse when we leave in 2016.

The ME is on fire for short-sightedness...and YOU don't get it? Rhetoric indeed.

Well Obama did nothing in Syria which started many event around the world, including the Russian invasion into the Ukraine.

Weak leadership in the US is the cause for much of what is happening.

However it is des not stop the celebration of the far left as they want the world to burn.

 

[The T]

So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.

Actually it is since Obama shut down Iraq, claimed success and we are now dealing with the residuals there now, and Afghanistan will be worse when we leave in 2016.

The ME is on fire for short-sightedness...and YOU don't get it? Rhetoric indeed.

Well Obama did nothing in Syria which started many event around the world, including the Russian invasion into the Ukraine.

Weak leadership in the US is the cause for much of what is happening.

However it is des not stop the celebration of the far left as they want the world to burn.

And their belief, their guilt, their hatred of America and we need to be knocked down a few pegs on the world stage to make the world more EQUAL...nevermind who gets killed in the process...until it gets in their backyard...then what?

 

[Discombobulated]

So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.

Well, yes, basically the argument is that if you put a fresh apple in the basket it is the same apple months later when it has gotten rotten. One side says it is the same apple and the other side says it is a different apple because it has gone rotten.

Republicans have been sorely disappointed by the Obama Administration's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan; they were hoping he would withdraw all our forces immediately so he could be blamed for the resulting disaster. When the President announced the surge 2009 GOP lawmakers acted like they'd never even heard of Afghanistan. The devolving situation in Iraq gives them new hope.

 

[Kosh]

So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.

Well, yes, basically the argument is that if you put a fresh apple in the basket it is the same apple months later when it has gotten rotten. One side says it is the same apple and the other side says it is a different apple because it has gone rotten.

Republicans have been sorely disappointed by the Obama Administration's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan; they were hoping he would withdraw all our forces immediately so he could be blamed for the resulting disaster. When the President announced the surge 2009 GOP lawmakers acted like they'd never even heard of Afghanistan. The devolving situation in Iraq gives them new hope.

You have exposed yourself as a far left Obama drone.

Congratulations.

 

[The T]

So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.

Well, yes, basically the argument is that if you put a fresh apple in the basket it is the same apple months later when it has gotten rotten. One side says it is the same apple and the other side says it is a different apple because it has gone rotten.

Republicans have been sorely disappointed by the Obama Administration's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan; they were hoping he would withdraw all our forces immediately so he could be blamed for the resulting disaster. When the President announced the surge 2009 GOP lawmakers acted like they'd never even heard of Afghanistan. The devolving situation in Iraq gives them new hope.

Disappointed Gracie? You really love incompetence don't you? The ME was relatively stable, and Obama lit the fires with the "ARAB SPRING" beginning with the World Apology Tour in 2009 in Cairo. You applaud it.

Just stop it

 

[Discombobulated]

Well, yes, basically the argument is that if you put a fresh apple in the basket it is the same apple months later when it has gotten rotten. One side says it is the same apple and the other side says it is a different apple because it has gone rotten.

Republicans have been sorely disappointed by the Obama Administration's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan; they were hoping he would withdraw all our forces immediately so he could be blamed for the resulting disaster. When the President announced the surge 2009 GOP lawmakers acted like they'd never even heard of Afghanistan. The devolving situation in Iraq gives them new hope.

You have exposed yourself as a far left Obama drone.

Congratulations.

You might not find yourself at such a disadvantage if you had a thought that didn't originate with FOX News or Rush Limbaugh.

 

[kaz]

That's Not True! - YouTube

WTF dude, you didn't know Obama had a veto proof, filibuster proof majority? Seriously? That's how he got Obamacare though.

A SUPER MAJORITY is not the same as filibuster proof. And a SUPER MAJORITY must be in both houses. A SUPER MAJORITY never existed in either the Senate or the House. Romney told that lie and suckers still believe it.

Obama had both houses and a filibuster proof Senate, he could do anything his party agreed to and Republicans could do nothing to stop him. I don't get what point you think you're making that's relevant to anything. You are pointing out a distinction without a difference.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have been sorely disappointed by the Obama Administration's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan; they were hoping he would withdraw all our forces immediately so he could be blamed for the resulting disaster. When the President announced the surge 2009 GOP lawmakers acted like they'd never even heard of Afghanistan. The devolving situation in Iraq gives them new hope.

You have exposed yourself as a far left Obama drone.

Congratulations.

You might not find yourself at such a disadvantage if you had a thought that didn't originate with FOX News or Rush Limbaugh.

Outside of " far left Obama drone" he doesn't have many thoughts

http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=8048507

20 pages worth

 

[Discombobulated]

You have exposed yourself as a far left Obama drone.

Congratulations.

You might not find yourself at such a disadvantage if you had a thought that didn't originate with FOX News or Rush Limbaugh.

Outside of " far left Obama drone" he doesn't have many thoughts

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results

Sounds like he's found his comfort zone.

 

[The T]

Republicans have been sorely disappointed by the Obama Administration's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan; they were hoping he would withdraw all our forces immediately so he could be blamed for the resulting disaster. When the President announced the surge 2009 GOP lawmakers acted like they'd never even heard of Afghanistan. The devolving situation in Iraq gives them new hope.

You have exposed yourself as a far left Obama drone.

Congratulations.

You might not find yourself at such a disadvantage if you had a thought that didn't originate with FOX News or Rush Limbaugh.

Project much?

 

[Camp]

WTF dude, you didn't know Obama had a veto proof, filibuster proof majority? Seriously? That's how he got Obamacare though.

A SUPER MAJORITY is not the same as filibuster proof. And a SUPER MAJORITY must be in both houses. A SUPER MAJORITY never existed in either the Senate or the House. Romney told that lie and suckers still believe it.

Obama had both houses and a filibuster proof Senate, he could do anything his party agreed to and Republicans could do nothing to stop him. I don't get what point you think you're making that's relevant to anything. You are pointing out a distinction without a difference.

Oh no, not this again. Kennedy was unable to vote for a four month period, Bird had to be wheeled into the Senate for a vote because he was old and dying and Frankel was not allowed to be a Senator until all the court crap got done to prove he won the election. Hence, the Senate didn't have the Super majority the way you are implying, which is for a filibuster, not the original broad statement of a Super Majority made by the original post that started this nonsense.
The important lesson to learn from this is that Democrats often voted against Obama and refused to give him a rubber stamp or tow the party line no matter what. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats in these modern times.

 

[Discombobulated]

You have exposed yourself as a far left Obama drone.

Congratulations.

You might not find yourself at such a disadvantage if you had a thought that didn't originate with FOX News or Rush Limbaugh.

Project much?

Is it my fault some people always resort to the same kind of rhetorical nonsense when they don't have a point to make? Maybe they could think a little more clearly if their knees weren't jerking so hard.

 

[kaz]

A SUPER MAJORITY is not the same as filibuster proof. And a SUPER MAJORITY must be in both houses. A SUPER MAJORITY never existed in either the Senate or the House. Romney told that lie and suckers still believe it.

Obama had both houses and a filibuster proof Senate, he could do anything his party agreed to and Republicans could do nothing to stop him. I don't get what point you think you're making that's relevant to anything. You are pointing out a distinction without a difference.

Oh no, not this again. Kennedy was unable to vote for a four month period, Bird had to be wheeled into the Senate for a vote because he was old and dying and Frankel was not allowed to be a Senator until all the court crap got done to prove he won the election. Hence, the Senate didn't have the Super majority the way you are implying, which is for a filibuster, not the original broad statement of a Super Majority made by the original post that started this nonsense.
The important lesson to learn from this is that Democrats often voted against Obama and refused to give him a rubber stamp or tow the party line no matter what. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats in these modern times.

Then how did Obamacare get through since every Republican voted against it?

 

[kaz]

Republicans have been sorely disappointed by the Obama Administration's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan; they were hoping he would withdraw all our forces immediately so he could be blamed for the resulting disaster. When the President announced the surge 2009 GOP lawmakers acted like they'd never even heard of Afghanistan. The devolving situation in Iraq gives them new hope.

You have exposed yourself as a far left Obama drone.

Congratulations.

You might not find yourself at such a disadvantage if you had a thought that didn't originate with FOX News or Rush Limbaugh.

This always cracks me up. So liberals think independently. You have the same position using the same talking points on every issue. It's just through analysis and thought, you all arrived at the same answer for the same reason on every position. It's because of your diversity of thinking you are all the same.

On the other hand, Fox and Rush are programming neocons, socons, institutional Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers. Diverse groups who agree on pretty much nothing are all programmed by the same people. Those devious bastards, programming us all to be different.

LOL, you're a sheep, now baa-ck to what you were saying?

 

[Camp]

Obama had both houses and a filibuster proof Senate, he could do anything his party agreed to and Republicans could do nothing to stop him. I don't get what point you think you're making that's relevant to anything. You are pointing out a distinction without a difference.

Oh no, not this again. Kennedy was unable to vote for a four month period, Bird had to be wheeled into the Senate for a vote because he was old and dying and Frankel was not allowed to be a Senator until all the court crap got done to prove he won the election. Hence, the Senate didn't have the Super majority the way you are implying, which is for a filibuster, not the original broad statement of a Super Majority made by the original post that started this nonsense.
The important lesson to learn from this is that Democrats often voted against Obama and refused to give him a rubber stamp or tow the party line no matter what. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats in these modern times.

Then how did Obamacare get through since every Republican voted against it?

Over 30 Dems voted against in the House, the tally was 218 to 212, officially listed as a simple majority. The Senate is also listed as a simple majority with a tally of 60 to 39 with one Republican non vote. In this context of the use of the term Super Majority the votes would have to have indicated a "veto proof" vote. It is unlikely Obama would have vetoed the ACA if it came to his desk with Super Majority votes.