Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 365

Thread: Some are still in the dark on Obama

  1. #241 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,384
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bravo View Post
    So then you were wrong when you said, "Why does it make any difference from where a person gets money? Income is money coming in. All money should be taxed the same. "


    Seems it does matter where the money comes from.....

    You can't have it both ways.....
    Taxes go to the government. What would be the purpose of the government giving the needy financial help and then asking for some of it back? Consider it this way. People receiving welfare declare that is the only income they receive. Based on that the government figures out the minimum income one requires and the amount necessary after taxes are taken into consideration.

    OK. Let's put out some numbers as an example. Let's say the government decides an individual requires $800/mth to survive and the current tax rate is 20%. So, every welfare recipient is eligible for $1,000/mth with 20%, or $200, going towards taxes. The net rate is $800/mth. so the government sends a check for $800.

    When it comes to pensions it's a different story. The government does not know the total income of people receiving SS so it sends out the full amount and people pay tax according to their total income from all sources. Because the government knows the total income of welfare recipients, which is declared in order to qualify for welfare, it doesn't make sense to send the full amount and then tax it later when they already know the amount of tax due.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  2. #242 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    19,832
    Thanks
    2,244
    Thanked 3,375 Times in 2,723 Posts
    Groans
    1,450
    Groaned 2,314 Times in 1,899 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    Like when he said we would not be involved in nation building or when he said he would cut spending?

    Or like when he said he would "close down the detention camp at Gitmo" and "we have run out of places in the US to drill for oil".....oh, wait,

    that was some other lying president

    Do you blabber, bluster, and blow smoke ?...then you're likely a Democrat
    Do you use
    'strawman' arguments' 95% of the time ?....then you're likely a Democrat





  3. The Following User Groans At NOVA For This Awful Post:

    The Dude (05-07-2012)

  4. #243 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    26,921
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 4,443 Times in 3,626 Posts
    Groans
    904
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,393 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    Obama has offered solutions but we saw the Repubs constantly blocking him. Look at ObamaCare. While trying to please the Repubs and getting rid of a government option the Repubs still fight against the plan. Obama learned a lesson. Just go ahead with a plan and never mind if the Repubs are on board. That's the hope and change you'll see if Obama wins a majority.

    At least be honest about it. Have the Repubs endorsed any Obama plan? Has Obama had the opportunity to implement any specific plan without the Repubs ranting and raving and demandng so many changes? The Repubs demand a number of changes and then blame Obama when the plan doesn't work, a plan that has been altered due to the Repub's demands.

    If Obama wins a majority you'll see change. Change made possible without the interference of the Repubs. Then if the plans do not work, then one can blame Obama. Of course, if reality is any judge we know a proper medical plan will be wildly embraced by the citizens just as every other government medical plan has been embraced by the respective citizens, without exception. And, of course, the Repubs are acutely aware of that. They know if/when Obama gets a chance to implement a proper medical plan the idea of a "pay or suffer" medical nightmare scheme will never be tolerated by the citizens again.

    You want to see solutions? Let Obama make the necessary changes without Repub interference. Don't judge good plans that are deliberately hijacked by the Repubs and their greedy backers.

    Use some common sense and logic. There is not one country with a government medical plan where the citizens are trying to revert to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one country. Not one exception out of dozens. The lies spread by the Republicans regarding government health care have absolutely no basis in reality.
    what puzzles me the most is why Canadians want to fuck us over.....

  5. #244 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,384
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    what puzzles me the most is why Canadians want to fuck us over.....
    Huh? Spit it out, Lad.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  6. #245 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    30,408
    Thanks
    2,345
    Thanked 4,526 Times in 3,317 Posts
    Groans
    191
    Groaned 601 Times in 547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bravo View Post
    Or like when he said he would "close down the detention camp at Gitmo" and "we have run out of places in the US to drill for oil".....oh, wait,

    that was some other lying president
    I'm not the one who said that president Obama always does what he says!
    HALL OF FAME

    "But what does it matter?" Superdervish on why we should not investigate Pat Tillmans death.




    " Happy day? Why is that, pinhead? " Dixie's reaction to OBL being killed.

    "Is that just math you use as a Republican to make yourself feel better?" - Fox News to Karl Rove

  7. #246 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    26,921
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 4,443 Times in 3,626 Posts
    Groans
    904
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,393 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    Huh? Spit it out, Lad.
    I can see why you furriners would be concerned about our furrin policy but why do you, or should you, have an opinion on our domestic policy?.....

  8. #247 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,049
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    With what are you having difficulty understanding? There is a minimum a person must receive or they qualify for financial assistance. Why would the government give money to such a person and then ask for part of it back? It wouldn't make any sense.
    Well sure it would, why doesn't it make sense? Doesn't the government ask for part of my earnings back? You yourself said, all income should be taxed the same, right?

    The same idea applies to the 48% who are working. Everyone gets the same minimum deductions.
    Well, that's not exactly true. Someone who earns over a certain amount, can't get the Earned Income Credit, or qualify for any number of other tax breaks available for low income families. Again, YOUR words... "All income should be taxed the same!" You even admitted you didn't misspeak, we heard you correctly.

    Those who don't pay any income tax don't earn over the minimum deduction level. They have nothing to put in the game.
    Well they earned income didn't they? I mean, if they didn't earn anything, okay, I understand... nothing earned, nothing owed.... but YOU SAID.... "All income should be taxed the same!" You said you didn't misspeak, so why are you now trying to run away from your very own principle?


    If, as you claim, they are benefiting the most why doesn't everyone work for low wages? If low wages and welfare are such good deals why don't we see people quitting their jobs?
    Okay, hold on to your pinhead seat, you may have trouble with this one.... MOST people, would rather have higher wages than government assistance. That's why.

    Again, common sense and logic just glide right past you.
    Nah... not really. My common sense and logic are just fine, it is YOU who is having a problem with a contradiction in principle here.

  9. The Following User Groans At Canceled For This Awful Post:

    The Dude (05-07-2012)

  10. #248 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,049
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    I'm not the one who said that president Obama always does what he says!
    LMAO... Of course you didn't! What kind of idiot would ever say such a thing?

  11. The Following User Groans At Canceled For This Awful Post:

    The Dude (05-07-2012)

  12. #249 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    30,408
    Thanks
    2,345
    Thanked 4,526 Times in 3,317 Posts
    Groans
    191
    Groaned 601 Times in 547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    LMAO... Of course you didn't! What kind of idiot would ever say such a thing?

    The same type that would say that Bush always did what he said.
    HALL OF FAME

    "But what does it matter?" Superdervish on why we should not investigate Pat Tillmans death.




    " Happy day? Why is that, pinhead? " Dixie's reaction to OBL being killed.

    "Is that just math you use as a Republican to make yourself feel better?" - Fox News to Karl Rove

  13. #250 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,049
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    The same type that would say that Bush always did what he said.
    Well I think it would take a lot more of an idiot to claim that about Obama. For the most part, when Bush said he was going to do it, he did it. Now, you want to throw out the "nation building" rhetoric again, but hey... let's take a look at that...

    When Bush said he was opposed to "nation building" it was well before 9/11, it was at a time when Democrats like Bill Clinton and John Kerry, were promoting a foreign policy with regard to Iraq, which called for US-backing of opposition forces to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and replace the regime with democratic government.... in other words, our hand-selected democratic leader for Iraq. Bush was opposed to that idea, and so was I, and it was referred to as "nation building" at the time. In spite of mine, and Bush's objections, the Democrat congress passed overwhelmingly, the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Of course, the funding for opposition never materialized, because Saddam killed all the opposition... so we never had the chance to "nation build" like the Democrats wanted to do in Iraq back in 1998.

    After 9/11/01, the entire chess board changed. Saddam was a chess piece Bush didn't think needed to remain in play, and he took him out. After Saddam was toppled, what happened next? The Bush Administration, in spite of the public pounding they took in the media, painstakingly set up and followed through with the democratic process of allowing the people of Iraq to elect a government of their choosing, form a constitution of their making, and eventually train a military of their own people to protect the citizens. This is not what Bush was talking about when he used the term, and was opposed to "nation building." While it can be construed as "nation building" it is not what he was referring to. We didn't install our own "puppet government" in Iraq, which is precisely what Democrats advocated back in 1998.

  14. The Following User Groans At Canceled For This Awful Post:

    The Dude (05-07-2012)

  15. #251 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,384
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I can see why you furriners would be concerned about our furrin policy but why do you, or should you, have an opinion on our domestic policy?.....
    Because many people in furrin countries have family and friends in the US.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  16. #252 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,384
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Well sure it would, why doesn't it make sense? Doesn't the government ask for part of my earnings back? You yourself said, all income should be taxed the same, right?

    Well, that's not exactly true. Someone who earns over a certain amount, can't get the Earned Income Credit, or qualify for any number of other tax breaks available for low income families. Again, YOUR words... "All income should be taxed the same!" You even admitted you didn't misspeak, we heard you correctly.

    Well they earned income didn't they? I mean, if they didn't earn anything, okay, I understand... nothing earned, nothing owed.... but YOU SAID.... "All income should be taxed the same!" You said you didn't misspeak, so why are you now trying to run away from your very own principle?

    Okay, hold on to your pinhead seat, you may have trouble with this one.... MOST people, would rather have higher wages than government assistance. That's why.

    Nah... not really. My common sense and logic are just fine, it is YOU who is having a problem with a contradiction in principle here.
    I'll try once again. If the government is giving a person money, such as with welfare, what would be the point of giving them more so they could send some back?

    For example, let's say a person earns $20,000. If one is permitted to deduct, say, $12,000 they would owe taxes on $8,000. ($20,000 - $12,000 = $8,000.) If a person is collecting $12,000 then they don't owe any tax.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  17. #253 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,133
    Thanks
    984
    Thanked 1,027 Times in 738 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 239 Times in 224 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    chicklet: The Dixie Dunce rides again! Here are the FACTS...

    The FACTS are as I stated, Obama and Liberals would completely ban guns if they could. To prance around claiming the Democrats are champions of the 2nd Amendment, is almost laughable, if it weren't so absolutely pathetic and such a blatant lie.

    Interesting how the Dixie Dunce IGNORES THE FACTS AND REPEATS HIS PERSONAL OPINION, SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE AS A SUBSTITUTION. Once again reality makes a chump out of Dixie: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

    chciklet: Obviously, Dixie is not aware that thanks to the Health Care Reform, you will have MORE options regarding health care insurance plan.

    Well, this is simply not true. Ideally, liberals want us to have only one choice and one option...single payer. And let me just pull the rug out from Dixie's long winded LIE. "Single Payer" DID NOT PASS THE CONGRESS OR THE SENATE. PERIOD. At present, people are losing their insurance left and right, because they are losing the jobs associated with their insurance, and they can't afford the COBRA option anymore, it has become ridiculous. Those who are fortunate enough to still have a job with health insurance, are watching their premiums increase an average of 150% or more, and they literally have no other option than to pay the higher premiums, and in most cases, for a reduced level of coverage and higher deductibles. I know of not one single American who has seen a DECREASE in health care insurance or cost. NADDA!

    And if the Dixie Dunce would look beyond his Drudge induced propaganda he would see that the Health Care Reform does not fully take affect until 2014. Here are some more facts for this Dunce to ignore: http://www.healthreform.gov/about/grandfathering.html If our Dixie Dunce is bitching about rates, then don't blame Obama, blame his vaunted free enterprise and the greed insurance lobby and their GOP cohorts.
    chicklet: WTF is Dixie babbling about? I talking about food quality (clean, disease free), and instead of just conceding that point he tries to change the subject by bitching about product cost and making some assinine insinuation that the federal gov't is manipulating prices instead of the consumer! Newsflash, my Dixie Dunce.....THE BRAND NAMES AND PRODUCERS OF THE PRODUCTS DETERMINE THE PRICES, AND ARE SUBJECT TO CONSUMER CHOICE/ADVOCACY. In other words, if enough people don't buy your product in favor of a cheaper one of equal quality (or just stop purchasing your product altogether), prices will change! In other words, you don't like prices, get off your duff and complain to your grocer or get active in consumer price regulation groups. Free enterprise, bunky....it's a two way street.

    It's nice to see you are trying to understand how capitalism works and how price is determined, but let me help you out here... The costs of complying with governmental mandates and regulations, has to be paid for by the company, who have to recover this cost when they determine the price a consumer will pay. Everything you purchase includes the cost of these mandates. Now, let's have an example to illustrate how it works: You are a company producing widgets... it costs you (normally) $1 to make a widget, pay your employees, benefits, insurance, etc. and have a reasonable profit for your shareholders. Now comes the government with a new mandate that widgets must meet in order to be produced.... whatever that costs the company, is simply divided by the number of widgets expected to sell. So now, the same $1 widget cost $2 because of the burden of the mandates. And maybe $2 is more than the market wants to pay for a widget? If so, the company eventually goes out of business because it has no market for $2 widgets.


    The same is true with meat or food. We pay a certain price, but that price includes paying for all the regulations and mandates. Now, I am not saying we don't need any government oversight on food quality, but the point is, the more we allow government to heap on mandates and guidelines, the more we cause the price to increase. If we are paying this cost with the expectations that all our food will always be safe, we are foolish, because the government can simply never make such a guarantee. They can institute guidelines and regulations, and they can fine people for not following them, but they can't ensure that everyone will always follow the guidelines and that all food is always safe.

    Notice how the Dixie Dunce blows a lot of smoke with his supposition and conjecture that has NOTHING to do with reality, nor does it change the fact based points and conclusions I made. Poor Dixie...he just babbles like an ass when he can't admit someone else is right. So essentially Dixie wants to recreate the FDA with some fantasy cross corporate consortium....as if that's going to get him a better deal? And where is Dixie’s documentation to back up his scenarios? Bottom line: to date, Dixie cannot provide evidence that there is massive cases of food poisoning let alone product failure....mind you, nothing is perfect and improvement can be made...but dummies like Dixie just use that as an excuse to fulfill some libertarian lunkhead utopian dream...when we have a history of why the FDA was created in the first place.

    chicklet: Ahhh, but ONLY if you're NOT a 1% that benefits from the Bush tax cuts!

    According to Obama, the Bush tax cuts needed to be extended "to avoid millions of middle class Americans from seeing a tax increase." Are you telling me he was LYING? I'm so sorry that you are so ignorant you believe the Bush tax cuts only benefited the top 1%, but it's a documented fact that the Bush tax cuts lowered the taxes for EVERY tax payer.

    Are you really this willfully ignorant, Dixie? The whole point of the Ryan Bill is a a repeat of the Bush tax cuts…which have NOT created JOBS! And only a FOOL would deny who benefitted from the Shrub's tax cuts. Here are more FACTS for your Dixie dumb ass to ignore: http://www.responsibletaxes.org/reso...omic-policies/

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/doe...-taxes-or-not/



    chicklet: And yet there's no nation wide cases of cholera or disintary. (spl) Someone needs to educate the Dixie Dunce as to how water quality control varies from STATE to STATE in COMPLIANCE with Fed regulatory law. If the Dixie Dunce is so concerned about his local water quality, then he'd best go bitch to his local rep in his State's gov't.

    LMAO... so now.... one of the big things you think we should give credit and praise to Obama for, you are now telling me is none of his business and I should go bitch to my State? I hate to point this out, but isn't this typical these days? Blame someone else when you can't get the job done using your own idiotic plan? Amazing!!

    What’s amazing here is the sheer intellectual dishonesty of this chuckling chowderhead Dixie Dunce, who initially alluded to a sole failure of the federal gov’t to guarantee clean water. I challenged him to document such a failure and explained to him that the federal gov’t works with State gov’t to insure water quality. Dixie is obviously ignorant of how things work in this country regarding State and Federal gov’t regulations, compliances, But rather than just concede a point, the Dixie Dunce LIES about what I stated…..an absurd move given the chronology of the post exposes Dixie attempts.


    chicklet: The Dixie Dunce rides again! Dixie just can't stand acknowledging a FACT that rips apart his Anti-Obama rhetoric, so he just relies on a neocon/teabagger wet dream of supposition and conjecture to substitute for FACT.

    Might help if you actually posted a fact.

    The chronology of the posts shows that I did, YOU and your like minded cohorts just IGNORE them in favor of your personal supposition and conjecture.
    chicklet: Newsflash for the Dixie Dunce: THAT IS WHAT AN ARREST AND TRIAL IS FOR, TO DETERMINE IF A FATAL SHOOTING WAS INDEED "ACCIDENTAL" OR A CASE OF MANSLAUGHTER OR SELF DEFENSE. And since Zimmerman ACTIVELY PURSUED a man he already profiled as a dangerous criminal AFTER HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE POLICE WERE ON THEIR WAY AND HE DID NOT HAVE TO PURSUE MARTIN, there is reasonable doubt to his claim of "accident" or "self defense". Would Dixie be so adamant in his knee -jerk assertion if Martin killed Zimmerman and claimed "accident" or "self defense" or envoked the Stand Your Ground Law? Hmmmmm?

    Don't you mean: since Zimmerman ALLEGEDLY perused a man that he had ALLEGEDLY profiled? And how do you know he continued to pursue Martin, were you there? How do you know Martin didn't attack him? YOU made the comment that people are entitled to a RIGHT to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, but is that what you have done for Zimmerman? Or have you already convicted the man in the court of public opinion?

    And yet another example of the Dixie Dunce’s revisionist bent. The timeline AS ESTABLISHED BY THE 911 CALL RECORD clearly has Zimmerman confirming that Martin was “running away”, and that the dispatch CONFIRMED that Zimmerman was STILL following Martin (“we don’t need you to do that” to which Zimmerman replies “okay”). To date NONE of Zimmerman's legal reps have stated that Martin RETURNED TO CONFRONT ZIMMERMAN WHEN HE STOPPED FOLLOWING HIM. A matter of fact, a matter of history that dopes like Dixie just want to ignore. Once put on trial, you get to bring in ALL THE EVIDENCE (foresnics, testimonies, recordings) and have a cross examination of the facts. Since the initial call was for Zimmerman to be arrested based on the preliminary evidence (and the evaluation of the Chief detective on the scene), we now have to see if Zimmerman even gets to trial. The Justice system…not perfect, but NOT the minority based bias debacle the neocon/teabagger/Confederate flag waving bumpkins would have us believe.
    chicklet: And yet another wild assertion that the Dixie Dunce swallowed from right wing mantras posted by Koch Brothers think tanks, Limbaugh and Drudge. To date, the GAO and the CBO DO NOT AGREE with the absurd assertion Dixie puts for here....especially since Social Security is received only by those who draw a paycheck.

    The aggregate total cost in dollar amount of all entitlement programs currently established by our government, is over $100 trillion. This is supported by anyone or any entity who has ever added up the total cost of all the government programs available. I don't know the Koch Brothers, or if they have said this, but it is a true statement, regardless.

    Facts addressed... chicklet PWNED.... AGAIN!
    Dixie has YET to produce documentation beyond what he pulls out of his flabby ass as proof of his assertions….a consistent flaw among jokers like Dixie.

    For those who want to see ALL the information I provided in the previous response to this Dixie Dunce

    http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...750#post987750
    Last edited by Taichiliberal; 04-27-2012 at 04:08 PM.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  18. #254 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    30,408
    Thanks
    2,345
    Thanked 4,526 Times in 3,317 Posts
    Groans
    191
    Groaned 601 Times in 547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Well I think it would take a lot more of an idiot to claim that about Obama. For the most part, when Bush said he was going to do it, he did it. Now, you want to throw out the "nation building" rhetoric again, but hey... let's take a look at that...

    When Bush said he was opposed to "nation building" it was well before 9/11, it was at a time when Democrats like Bill Clinton and John Kerry, were promoting a foreign policy with regard to Iraq, which called for US-backing of opposition forces to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and replace the regime with democratic government.... in other words, our hand-selected democratic leader for Iraq. Bush was opposed to that idea, and so was I, and it was referred to as "nation building" at the time. In spite of mine, and Bush's objections, the Democrat congress passed overwhelmingly, the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Of course, the funding for opposition never materialized, because Saddam killed all the opposition... so we never had the chance to "nation build" like the Democrats wanted to do in Iraq back in 1998.

    After 9/11/01, the entire chess board changed. Saddam was a chess piece Bush didn't think needed to remain in play, and he took him out. After Saddam was toppled, what happened next? The Bush Administration, in spite of the public pounding they took in the media, painstakingly set up and followed through with the democratic process of allowing the people of Iraq to elect a government of their choosing, form a constitution of their making, and eventually train a military of their own people to protect the citizens. This is not what Bush was talking about when he used the term, and was opposed to "nation building." While it can be construed as "nation building" it is not what he was referring to. We didn't install our own "puppet government" in Iraq, which is precisely what Democrats advocated back in 1998.

    So your point is that when Bush said he was going to do something he did it.... Except when he did not do it, and that was acceptable because the situation changed?
    HALL OF FAME

    "But what does it matter?" Superdervish on why we should not investigate Pat Tillmans death.




    " Happy day? Why is that, pinhead? " Dixie's reaction to OBL being killed.

    "Is that just math you use as a Republican to make yourself feel better?" - Fox News to Karl Rove

  19. #255 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,049
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jughead View Post
    So your point is that when Bush said he was going to do something he did it.... Except when he did not do it, and that was acceptable because the situation changed?
    Yes, again, that obviously HAS to be my point, because what I said was so totally and completely the opposite! My point is, when Bush said he was going to give everyone a tax break, he did. When Bush said he was going to take out Saddam, he did. Drill for more oil? Did it! Generally speaking, Bush did everything he said he was going to do, even when pinhead liberals didn't believe he would. To fortify this absolute truth of a point, is your pathetic attempts to take him out of context and PRETEND he didn't do what he said.... like with the "nation building" comments. You've taken what he said and applied your own interpretations, and this is how you conclude he didn't do what he said. Other than those sort of examples, you have nothing. It's really quite pathetic, but fun to watch!

  20. The Following User Groans At Canceled For This Awful Post:

    The Dude (05-07-2012)

Similar Threads

  1. Things are getting dark
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 08-22-2013, 12:22 PM
  2. Never look into mirrors in the dark
    By Myxomatosis in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 06:07 AM
  3. His Dark Materials
    By Benjamin Netanyahu in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 01:47 AM
  4. We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul.
    By Chapdog in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-25-2008, 03:59 PM
  5. As We Enter A New Dark Age.....
    By AnyOldIron in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-19-2006, 01:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •