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.
You're an extremist Right-Winger - of course you're going to say that. Obama whipped your asses in two straight elections.Who cares about any of that ?
I've always said...I'd love to have a trangendered femal black muslim president if she pushed conservative views and repealed Obamacrapcare.
Obama sucks as a leader and as a president....and yes that is a bad thing.
Keep telling yourself that!
the entire world is saying that as they laugh at our stupid ineffective foreign policy implemented by incompetents like obama and kerry.
Yeah, you don't see the conservatives here doing much in the way of denouncing an invasion of another country...do you?
To all Republicans the significance of events around the world are measured by how damage can be done to the president if the administration is blamed for the event. Benghazi: attacking Obama by claiming he let four people die needlessly causes a lot of political damage, very significant event; Gunwalking operation gets out of control and border guard dies: claim Obama administration was directly involved and practically pulled the trigger, very significant event; IRS flags 501(c)(4) applications by key words due to massive inflow of requests and lack of staff: Obama administration abuse of power, significant event; Hundreds of thousands of people running out of unemployment benefits: can not place blame effectively, non-event; Millions of illegal immigrants and no systemic way to address the problem: possibility damaging to party, event does not exist; ACA helps millions: event is good but can change image of event to fit needs, create new event.
Now we have; Putin invades Ukraine: event is significant as blame can be applied to Obama, significant event as defined by the right-wing, for the time being.
Republicans don't care about right and wrong, morality and ethics, or any of those other nuances which might make an event complicated. They are self-serving for their own political power and in turn what wealth and power they can bring to the people who bankroll their reelections. I watched the latest House Budget Committee session yesterday, all two hours of it. One of the Republican Representatives, I can remember exactly which one of two it was, stated that while working out the language of the bi-annual budget resolution that it was he best day in Congress they had ever had. If he enjoys working together as a team so much he should leave the Republican party. Of course he is not used to communicating and working together to solve problems, he's a Republican. They don't do that kind of thing. It distracts from determining the significance of events.
Both parties are using this for political gain.
we should not give a flying fuck if Ukraine returns to being part of Russia. It has zero affect on the USA.
It is not our role in the world to decide who is right and wrong in every territorial dispute.
None of this has any relevance. Bush already had the authorization to invade Iraq from the Afghanistan resolution, which authorized him to root out terrorists.What you really mean is you don't give a fuk because it was Bush. Did you see one US interest in the Balkins when we bombed those people for 72 days killing Chinese nationals in the process? What were the US interests in Lybia and Syria? Sure those three are good examples of liberal wars, no risks to our side just slaughter the other into submission. And what did we get for it Lybia???? Benghazi. I see your point with the Sudan why do you think a black president apparently doesn't give a crap? At least Bush helped and was loved by the African people. I am sure Obama is too but only for one reason.
What is really a pile of dung is that the left is claiming the right is rooting Putin on when they are not but the left had/has no problem using the Iraq war, which they voted for, as political fodder. Our men didn't die for nothing no matter how low the liberals want to go.
As for Iraq, let us start by saying I would not have voted for war in Iraq if I were to have a chance but let us see what those who did had to say, I know this is a rehash but apparently liberals have ADD.
Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video
"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *
"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *
"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *
"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. *
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. *
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. *
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. *
Now go here and see what else you have forgotten:
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
That was his rationale, and what he promised to rely on if Congress didn't go through the motions of giving him the authority to use force in Iraq.
They did not vote to use force in Iraq.
Can't imagine someone contradicting themselves so well in three sentences.
I am not going to say you are not telling the truth. I am going to say that your are a droid repeating what you want to believe and what you handlers told you. I think you believe it to be true just like a lunatic believes the sky not to be blue.
Here is the title of what they voted on: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
H.J.Res.114
Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq
Are you going to pull a Clinton and say that it depends on ones definition of force?
I thought this country had hit rock bottom with all the teabagger and birther nonsence the past six or so years.
But no, the wholesale love affair between the right and The Pootin the Beloved is simply amazing. And scary as hell.
So, I bothered to get some sleep last night.
Has anybody yet posted any link showing anyone openly cheering on Russia's aggression in Ukraine?
Oh bag lady, what is it that you think the right wingers are all glad about concerning this situation with the Russians? Will you not admit you hate Obama? Will you not admit that Obama is your enemy?
And will you not embrace the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Sure you like that idea. All you with Obama derangement syndrome like that idea.
It does mean that you are cheering for Putin. And you are a traitor.
Other than that, who gives a fuck.
I thought this country had hit rock bottom with all the teabagger and birther nonsence the past six or so years.
But no, the wholesale love affair between the right and The Pootin the Beloved is simply amazing. And scary as hell.
Where is the proof?
Who is saying they love Putin?
You mistake respect for love.I thought this country had hit rock bottom with all the teabagger and birther nonsence the past six or so years.
But no, the wholesale love affair between the right and The Pootin the Beloved is simply amazing. And scary as hell.
Where is the proof?
Who is saying they love Putin?
Try reading every other post on this forum started by you guys.
It's a Pootin lovefest!
Saddam was committing genocide the same as in Yugoslavia. We bombed ever bridge over the Danube and then paid to rebuild them. Don't you think there might have been some other way? Certainly you think so because you support Saddam and say he should not have been taken out. Yet he actually proved to be a threat to our interests or do you forget Kwuit and his eco damage by blowing the well heads?
But it is really ahoot when you ADMIT that we bombed a country because of oil. Really quite hypocritical. Iraq caused Syria? Really, you need a link to that connection.
I see concerning the Iraq war you are invoking the "democrats are too stupid to know the truth or find it for themselves. Who lied to the Clinton's before Bush? Who lied to Kerry before the turn coat changed his mind? No one lied except those on the left that wish to belittle the sacrifice of our brave volunteers who served their country.
Saddam was committing genocide the same as in Yugoslavia. We bombed ever bridge over the Danube and then paid to rebuild them. Don't you think there might have been some other way? Certainly you think so because you support Saddam and say he should not have been taken out. Yet he actually proved to be a threat to our interests or do you forget Kwuit and his eco damage by blowing the well heads?
But it is really ahoot when you ADMIT that we bombed a country because of oil. Really quite hypocritical. Iraq caused Syria? Really, you need a link to that connection.
I see concerning the Iraq war you are invoking the "democrats are too stupid to know the truth or find it for themselves. Who lied to the Clinton's before Bush? Who lied to Kerry before the turn coat changed his mind? No one lied except those on the left that wish to belittle the sacrifice of our brave volunteers who served their country.
Actually, Iraq wasn't involved in any fighting when the US invaded. Saddam Hussien had been pretty cowed. And the "crimes" that were committed by Saddam Hussien, generally had some US instigation behind it. The US instigated a war with Iran. The US urged the People of Iraq rise up and revolt. The US gave permission to invade Kuwait.
And Iraq's invasion cause much of the turmoil in the middle east. The Bush administration held that Iraq would bring about a "flowering of Democracy" to the region. What exactly do you think that was going to look like?
To all Republicans the significance of events around the world are measured by how damage can be done to the president if the administration is blamed for the event. Benghazi: attacking Obama by claiming he let four people die needlessly causes a lot of political damage, very significant event; Gunwalking operation gets out of control and border guard dies: claim Obama administration was directly involved and practically pulled the trigger, very significant event; IRS flags 501(c)(4) applications by key words due to massive inflow of requests and lack of staff: Obama administration abuse of power, significant event; Hundreds of thousands of people running out of unemployment benefits: can not place blame effectively, non-event; Millions of illegal immigrants and no systemic way to address the problem: possibility damaging to party, event does not exist; ACA helps millions: event is good but can change image of event to fit needs, create new event.
Now we have; Putin invades Ukraine: event is significant as blame can be applied to Obama, significant event as defined by the right-wing, for the time being.
Republicans don't care about right and wrong, morality and ethics, or any of those other nuances which might make an event complicated. They are self-serving for their own political power and in turn what wealth and power they can bring to the people who bankroll their reelections. I watched the latest House Budget Committee session yesterday, all two hours of it. One of the Republican Representatives, I can remember exactly which one of two it was, stated that while working out the language of the bi-annual budget resolution that it was he best day in Congress they had ever had. If he enjoys working together as a team so much he should leave the Republican party. Of course he is not used to communicating and working together to solve problems, he's a Republican. They don't do that kind of thing. It distracts from determining the significance of events.
Both parties are using this for political gain.
we should not give a flying fuck if Ukraine returns to being part of Russia. It has zero affect on the USA.
It is not our role in the world to decide who is right and wrong in every territorial dispute.
Why would you want Russia to become a World Power again?
This is about Russia taking over the port in Crimea where they can ship their gas and oil. Right now they are weak economically and if they took over control of that port which they have, that gives them the money that they need.
It's is the same thing in Syria it is all about Russia making money in oil and gas.
That is what would happen if they took Ukraine back and that does have a great affect on the U.S.A.
Yeah, you don't see the conservatives here doing much in the way of denouncing an invasion of another country...do you?
To all Republicans the significance of events around the world are measured by how damage can be done to the president if the administration is blamed for the event. Benghazi: attacking Obama by claiming he let four people die needlessly causes a lot of political damage, very significant event; Gunwalking operation gets out of control and border guard dies: claim Obama administration was directly involved and practically pulled the trigger, very significant event; IRS flags 501(c)(4) applications by key words due to massive inflow of requests and lack of staff: Obama administration abuse of power, significant event; Hundreds of thousands of people running out of unemployment benefits: can not place blame effectively, non-event; Millions of illegal immigrants and no systemic way to address the problem: possibility damaging to party, event does not exist; ACA helps millions: event is good but can change image of event to fit needs, create new event.
Now we have; Putin invades Ukraine: event is significant as blame can be applied to Obama, significant event as defined by the right-wing, for the time being.
Republicans don't care about right and wrong, morality and ethics, or any of those other nuances which might make an event complicated. They are self-serving for their own political power and in turn what wealth and power they can bring to the people who bankroll their reelections. I watched the latest House Budget Committee session yesterday, all two hours of it. One of the Republican Representatives, I can remember exactly which one of two it was, stated that while working out the language of the bi-annual budget resolution that it was he best day in Congress they had ever had. If he enjoys working together as a team so much he should leave the Republican party. Of course he is not used to communicating and working together to solve problems, he's a Republican. They don't do that kind of thing. It distracts from determining the significance of events.
Both parties are using this for political gain.
we should not give a flying fuck if Ukraine returns to being part of Russia. It has zero affect on the USA.
It is not our role in the world to decide who is right and wrong in every territorial dispute.
So, I bothered to get some sleep last night.
Has anybody yet posted any link showing anyone openly cheering on Russia's aggression in Ukraine?
Oh bag lady, what is it that you think the right wingers are all glad about concerning this situation with the Russians? Will you not admit you hate Obama? Will you not admit that Obama is your enemy?
And will you not embrace the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Sure you like that idea. All you with Obama derangement syndrome like that idea.
It does mean that you are cheering for Putin. And you are a traitor.
Other than that, who gives a fuck.
To sum it up in a short answer:
Anytime an individual, media, or party questions or critiques President Obama and his administration, you are labeled and viewed as an "enemy" by the left.
Saddam was committing genocide the same as in Yugoslavia. We bombed ever bridge over the Danube and then paid to rebuild them. Don't you think there might have been some other way? Certainly you think so because you support Saddam and say he should not have been taken out. Yet he actually proved to be a threat to our interests or do you forget Kwuit and his eco damage by blowing the well heads?
But it is really ahoot when you ADMIT that we bombed a country because of oil. Really quite hypocritical. Iraq caused Syria? Really, you need a link to that connection.
I see concerning the Iraq war you are invoking the "democrats are too stupid to know the truth or find it for themselves. Who lied to the Clinton's before Bush? Who lied to Kerry before the turn coat changed his mind? No one lied except those on the left that wish to belittle the sacrifice of our brave volunteers who served their country.
Actually, Iraq wasn't involved in any fighting when the US invaded. Saddam Hussien had been pretty cowed. And the "crimes" that were committed by Saddam Hussien, generally had some US instigation behind it. The US instigated a war with Iran. The US urged the People of Iraq rise up and revolt. The US gave permission to invade Kuwait.
And Iraq's invasion cause much of the turmoil in the middle east. The Bush administration held that Iraq would bring about a "flowering of Democracy" to the region. What exactly do you think that was going to look like?
Oops. It is amazing. It's like you watched the Iraq war as a movie made by Michael Moore rather than living through the actual events.
Why 'No-Fly' Zone Clashes Won't Trigger an Iraq War - TIME
The problem is, the flyers aren't enforcing a Council resolution. The U.S., Britain and France began in 1991 denying Iraq the right to fly in parts of its own airspace as a way of implementing UN resolutions urging protection for the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiites in the south from the wrath of Saddam. But the "no-fly" zone was never specifically mandated by the UN Security Council, and was rejected from the outset by Iraq as a violation of its sovereignty. Iraq's objections were backed by Russia and China, and in 1996 France withdrew its participation.
I thought this country had hit rock bottom with all the teabagger and birther nonsence the past six or so years.
But no, the wholesale love affair between the right and The Pootin the Beloved is simply amazing. And scary as hell.
Where is the proof?
Who is saying they love Putin?
Try reading every other post on this forum started by you guys.
It's a Pootin lovefest!
I never heard anything about a boxing match. I question that happned, but i do remember Okiefest....
Not once? I remember those days as well, when you all were siding with the phrench against Bush. There were others as well, though they've been deposed now...Might have been that Eye-tallian fuck..can't recall his name...
Funny how your opposing Iraq is not treason, but our opposing Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine is treasonous.
BTW....the torture wasn't exactly hair splitting stuff and it was done on the enemy, you know, those guys willing to kill us all? The Patriot Act? The one that the Democrats voted for, and have been modifying to use against political groups in the USA? And I remember right, both Liability and Myself were pretty much skeptical of the Patriot Act. We both said it was legal, but walked the razors edge and worried about it in the hands of a Democrat....turns out we were yet again, correct to fear that. But then, the made up and phoney Bush Doctrine thing was something that was tossed around a lot, but never proven.
So much for that....
The point is, for every vile and vitriolic thing you and the left said about Bush, you have zero room to complain when it is hurled (rightly) at Obama. Kettle, met pot.
Oh, Sallow will bring up the Patriot Act and calling conservatives "pro-torture" on measures used against "Muslim extremists" to extract information used to keep the United States safe from further terrorist attacks ( as I have been unable to find any cases where water boarding was used on American citizens ). Yet Obama has decided to up the ante by turning to drones, as a measure to kill off our threats overseas. Drones that have, by the way, met no resistance from this administration as an added tool to be used against our own citizens. Then Sallow wants to lecture conservatives about Constitutionality?
Water boarding wasn't the only form of torture used by the American Military and Special Ops. They killed a Iraqi Military Officer in Iraq by suffocating him with a sleeping bag.
U.S. Officer Convicted in Death of Iraqi General : NPR
Killed a cab driver at Bagram Airport by hanging him from the ceiling and beating him to death.
Bagram torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And had a real party at Abu Gharib.
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And you "not remembering" Americans were tortured doesn't mean it didn't happen:
As was the case with Jose Padillia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/opinion/beyond-debate.html?_r=0
And John Walker Lindh:
John Walker Lindh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My point stands. The US Constitution holds that rights be extended to prisoners captured by US forces.
Who would have thought one would see the day when the 'Conservatives' would be cheering for the naked aggression of Russia? It seems that if they think that it might in any way be a detriment to our President, they are for it. Even to the extent of cheering for the re-instatement of the old Russian and Soviet empire.
There is a name for this, and it is treason. To work against the interests of the United States and, indeed, the civilized world, is treason of the highest sort. These are the people that would have joined the Bund. An embarrassment to our nation, an embarrassment to humanity.
