Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All the mess that was created under Bush. The mess in Iraq, destabilizing the Middle East, the economy, the disastrous and deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts, protecting BP and so on. What do Republicans take responsibility for? Anything? Why do they think they can blame everything, even Iraq, on Obama and the Democrats?
Since you seem to be fixated on that "lie", I thought you might enjoy a little entertainment.To Hillary's credit, she has said it was a mistake.
OTOH, both sides voted based on the lies from Bush/Cheney.
No way would the right ever admit they made a mistake or that they outright lied.
Are you insinuating that Democrats are stupid??????It was Republicans who provided false information. Republicans who lied. Republicans who tricked the country into supporting them. Now it's the fault of Democrats because they should have known better than supporting the Republicans???????????????????????????????????? That's the GOP defense? What nerve those stains have.
All the mess that was created under Bush. The mess in Iraq, destabilizing the Middle East, the economy, the disastrous and deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts, protecting BP and so on. What do Republicans take responsibility for? Anything? Why do they think they can blame everything, even Iraq, on Obama and the Democrats?
All the mess that was created under Bush. The mess in Iraq, destabilizing the Middle East, the economy, the disastrous and deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts, protecting BP and so on. What do Republicans take responsibility for? Anything? Why do they think they can blame everything, even Iraq, on Obama and the Democrats?
Spoken like a true brainwashed Liberal Socialist... WHERE do we begin?! Oh yeah....
1. The economy:
Liberals love to blame the bad economy on Bush, declaring that the last 2 years of the Bush administration is where the economy began to nose-dive. These are the same Liberals who agree that it is Congress that cotrols the purse strings, not the President, and thus the economy. What you will NEVER hear them admit AFTER this, though, is how the economy started to nose dive under DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONTROL. The DEMOCRATS controlled Congress, thus the purse strings / the economy, during the last 2 years of the Bush administration.
The 1st law that effected the US economy under Obama was the disasterous 'STIMULUS' Bill. This nearly $1 TRILLION dollar nightmare consisted of over 7,000 pieces of DNC-ONLY pork (despite Obama's promise to NOT allow pork into legislation he would sign). It contained failed spending like 'shovel-ready' construction projects - that Obama was forced to admit did not exist, the 'used-car' bomb, and the socialistic act of 'nationalizing' GM (resulting in a partial sell-off of the US-owned car maker to a foreign owner, violating US Bankruptcy law..), and the eventual LOSS of millions of tax dollars when the govt sold off MOST of their GM stock at a loss. In the end, the failed 'jobs bill' ended up cost tax payers over $774,000 PER JOB reported as 'created' / 'saved'. )It was also reported by many companies that in its final talley the govt was falsely claiming numbers of jobs created / saved. One company Obama claimed to have SAVED more jobs at his company than total people who actually worked there.)
Prior to becoming President, Obama call Bush 'UN-Patriotic' for adding $4 Trillion in debt over 8 years during 9/11/01, the economic shutdown that followed, and during 8 (EIGHT) years of war. Ironically, after becoming President, Obama added OVER $6 TRILLION in debt in over 4 (FOUR) years! Obama set new U.S. RECORDS for 'monthly', 'annual', and 'total' deficit-spending during that time. Not long after Obama was warned that if he did not accept some of the GOP's recommended budget cuts as a sign that he took his growing debt seriously the bank would down-grade the US Credit rating. Obama - not the Republicans - rejected the proposed budget cuts ... and as promised, the Bank initiated the 1st down-grade of the US Credit Rating in U.S. History. How did Obama react? He sent several govt agencies to audit, inspeact, and intimidate the bank that had the NERVE to do what they warned they would do.
More people are now on Food Stamps, Welfare, and use other government social programs than any any other time in US history. Over 93 MILLION Americans are out of work, full-time employment is at its lowest in decades, the unemployment rate for blacks is more than DOUBLE that of whites (which is higher than reported because Obama refuses to use the numer of 93+ millions out of work to calculate his unemployment rate...so it isn't so high)..... The Obama administration has also passes a RECORD number of highly-restrictive business-destroying regulations... And let's not forget Obama's own personal illegal invasion and his recently granting approx 11 million Illegals the authority to compete with the 93+ million Americans for available jobs AND the massive finacial burden of supporting the millions of illegals Obama is responsible for having illegally brought / allowed into this country.
Hmmm....so WHY would the Liberals, who have been in control of the US Economy since the beginning of the last 2 years of Bush's last term in office, be blamed for the failing economy?
Since you seem to be fixated on that "lie", I thought you might enjoy a little entertainment.To Hillary's credit, she has said it was a mistake.
OTOH, both sides voted based on the lies from Bush/Cheney.
No way would the right ever admit they made a mistake or that they outright lied.
Since you seem to be fixated on that "lie", I thought you might enjoy a little entertainment.To Hillary's credit, she has said it was a mistake.
OTOH, both sides voted based on the lies from Bush/Cheney.
No way would the right ever admit they made a mistake or that they outright lied.
I thought you might enjoy what President Obama had to say.....
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 armchair, 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 U.S. 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-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
Since you seem to be fixated on that "lie", I thought you might enjoy a little entertainment.To Hillary's credit, she has said it was a mistake.
OTOH, both sides voted based on the lies from Bush/Cheney.
No way would the right ever admit they made a mistake or that they outright lied.
I thought you might enjoy what President Obama had to say.....
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 armchair, 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 U.S. 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-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
ur right leftardz, it's all bush's fault. the guy that has been President of the most powerful on country on the planet for the last almost 7 years is completely irrelevant.
The country rallied around President Bush after 9/11 and gave him complete trust and support. Most of the world did the same. No one ever expected he would let the snakes around him squander and abuse that trust and support. He took the powers given to him to wage war on terrorism and turned it into the longest wars in American history and budget busting nation building schemes as he borrowed trillions of dollars instead of suspending his tax cuts to the rich.
For those who continuously whine about blaming Bush, Presidents have impacts that last for generations. They don't just come and go. What they do in office can last decades and generations. Sometimes their legacies are positive and sometimes their legacies are negative. Bush doesn't have to many in the positive column, but he seems to have a lot in the negative column.
My opinion is that no matter who was in charge during the recession, that is not a good time to increase taxes and so by the time Obama and as you point out, the Democrats could have done away with the tax cuts, it was to late for serious consideration. The time to have done away with the tax cuts and in fact raise taxes was immediately following 9/11 when the nation would have supported whatever Bush called for. Who the heck goes to war without building a war chest? If you answered G W Bush you are correct. If you answered anyone else you would be wrong. He completely ignored and threw away American military tradition and doctrine.The country rallied around President Bush after 9/11 and gave him complete trust and support. Most of the world did the same. No one ever expected he would let the snakes around him squander and abuse that trust and support. He took the powers given to him to wage war on terrorism and turned it into the longest wars in American history and budget busting nation building schemes as he borrowed trillions of dollars instead of suspending his tax cuts to the rich.
For those who continuously whine about blaming Bush, Presidents have impacts that last for generations. They don't just come and go. What they do in office can last decades and generations. Sometimes their legacies are positive and sometimes their legacies are negative. Bush doesn't have to many in the positive column, but he seems to have a lot in the negative column.
I completely agree with your comments in the 1st column...except the part about the 'budget busting'. Bush added only $4 trillion to the debt in 8 years durig 9/11/01, the economic crash afterwards, and 2 wars...and Democrats controlling the purse strings his last 2 years in office. Obama added more than $6 trillion in his 1st 4 (FOUR) years, setting 'monthly'/'annual'/'total' deficit spending records. Obama added more debt than EVERY US ident from Washingto to Bush COMBI As far as his tax cuts, Democrats hald a 'Super Majority' control of the House and Senate or the last 2 years of Bush's admiistration through the end of Obama's second year in office - they could have RESCINDED or PASSED ANYTHING they wanted to.CHOSE not so. Yet, with all of theam power and failure to do anything but pass the failed Stimulus Bill and the Obamacare law opposed by the majority of the people at the time, Liberals still blame Bush...
And as bad as you point our Bush was, Obama - to Jimmy Carter's great relief - go down as the worst President n US history.
