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.
The right likes to ignore the past because it really doesn't look very good for them: Nixon and Watergate, Reagan and Iran-contra, Bush and missing WMDs. They've got to pretend these "scandals" are bad, because if the American people really thought about it, they'd never vote for a Republican again.
republicans demanded Nixon resign for his actions. koolaid drinking libs have their heads so far up obamas ass they will never admit to the total fuck up he is.
No they didn't.
Many circled the wagons to protect him. Seriously..who are you trying to fool?
Many of us were alive back then.
No. The kind that says the economy sucks because of what George W Bush did as president but September was a long time ago.
The economy does such because of what Bush did.
See, THAT's the kind of living in the past we're talking about. Bush hasn't been president for 5 years and it's like he left office yesterday.
Meanwhile Benghazi, where 4 Americans were killed and the administration covered the whole thing up because it didnt agree with its narrative, happened in September. Which was a long time ago.
republicans demanded Nixon resign for his actions. koolaid drinking libs have their heads so far up obamas ass they will never admit to the total fuck up he is.
They only did that because Nixon had to turn over the tapes and the tapes proved he was involved in illegal actions.
The Republicans still have nothing on President Obama.
Yet.
At this point in Watergate Nixon was promising a full investigation.
The economy does such because of what Bush did.
See, THAT's the kind of living in the past we're talking about. Bush hasn't been president for 5 years and it's like he left office yesterday.
Meanwhile Benghazi, where 4 Americans were killed and the administration covered the whole thing up because it didnt agree with its narrative, happened in September. Which was a long time ago.
If it is effecting us today, it is not in the past. How stupid are you?
They only did that because Nixon had to turn over the tapes and the tapes proved he was involved in illegal actions.
The Republicans still have nothing on President Obama.
Yet.
At this point in Watergate Nixon was promising a full investigation.
And at this point in Watergate who was calling for Nixons' impeachment and removal from office?
Ok quick questions?
What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?
What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?
What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?
Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.
Sounds like Iran Contra doesn't it?
See, THAT's the kind of living in the past we're talking about. Bush hasn't been president for 5 years and it's like he left office yesterday.
Meanwhile Benghazi, where 4 Americans were killed and the administration covered the whole thing up because it didnt agree with its narrative, happened in September. Which was a long time ago.
If it is effecting us today, it is not in the past. How stupid are you?
And Obama has not been in office since 2009 and didnt get a Democratic Congress to pass any legislation that might effect the economy, amiright?
If it is effecting us today, it is not in the past. How stupid are you?
And Obama has not been in office since 2009 and didnt get a Democratic Congress to pass any legislation that might effect the economy, amiright?
It takes 3 or 4 years for a Preident's policies to show that they are taking effect. The economy has certainly gotten better.
Ok quick questions?
What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?
What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?
What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?
Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.
First, With all do respect sir. The outrage over these overblown scandals seems silly when you consider that Republicans never seem to care when their side has similar "issues".
Second, Bush ignored the August 2011 memo that said Bin Laden was going to hijack planes. Bush failed to maintain basic defense protocols and have planes "scramble ready" so that he could at least engage these "flying bombs" before they entered high population airspace. He was also told to have airport security on ultra-high alert. He ignored all of this. Instead, he fired his terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, who was first hired by Reagan and begged Bush to focus on Bin Laden rather than Saddam. Bush had no patience for anybody who took the focus off Saddam because of a pre-planned attack on Iraq which stemmed from a longstanding neocon goal of regime change (supported by Clinton as well). After the attack Bush made special provisions to let members of Bin Laden family fly out of the country without being interrogated. And Then his administration used intelligence that they were told was extremely suspect to invade Iraq, where over 4,000 Americans were slaughtered. Had Obama done this, he would absolutely be in jail. Republicans would get more than an impeachment for this. It makes Watergate look like a parking violation.
Third, this post is kind of hard to swallow given Iran-Contra. Reagan said he didn't know that his administration was selling massive amounts of weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation - than he continued to support many of the people in his administration who were involved.
Ok quick questions?
What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?
What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?
What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?
Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.
Really?
You folks have the stones to ask these sorts of questions?
Video: Reagan and Lying: Arms for Hostages | Watch American Experience Online | PBS Video
"We did not..I repeat, did not, trade arms for hostages."
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2T7u8yxRE]George W Bush :The Big Lier - YouTube[/ame]
Ok quick questions?
What would you think if ANY President announced he did not know what his justice Department was doing on two HIGH Profile cases, that he was never informed and he never heard about it? And then he announced after being informed of two serious offenses committed by the Justice Department that he had complete faith still in his Attorney General?
What would you think if ANY President was purposefully and willingly kept in the Dark about any suspect action by his Administration? And then claimed that he never knew but that it was a regular practice to have his aides and handlers keep him in the dark?
What would you think if ANY President not only did not know that his Ambassador was being denied security but when the shit hit the fan he claimed for 3 weeks the murder of the Ambassador was due to a video and a street riot, AFTER being briefed within hours of the attack and informed in no uncertain terms that it was a pre planned terror attack coinciding with the date it was carried out?
Well we know what most Liberals think, they find nothing wrong with the President being clueless, out of touch and leaderless. Much better he be these things then an obvious criminal.
Sounds like Iran Contra doesn't it?
It takes 3 r 4 years if you've failed miserably during the time. It takes as long as it takes until the economy finally shows some life and the president can take credit.If it is effecting us today, it is not in the past. How stupid are you?
And Obama has not been in office since 2009 and didnt get a Democratic Congress to pass any legislation that might effect the economy, amiright?
It takes 3 or 4 years for a Preident's policies to show that they are taking effect. The economy has certainly gotten better.
Yet.
At this point in Watergate Nixon was promising a full investigation.
And at this point in Watergate who was calling for Nixons' impeachment and removal from office?
Today who is calling for Obama's impeachment and removal?
And at this point in Watergate who was calling for Nixons' impeachment and removal from office?
Today who is calling for Obama's impeachment and removal?
GOP nutters, teabags......
GOP Congressman: Calls for Impeachment "Will Likely Increase" | Mother Jones
I have yet to read honest, objective evaluation that doesn't put President Obama near the head of the class of US Presidents.
This is terrible, terrible news for Republicans who clearly are at an ebb due to their addiction to the votes tied to the conservative business and political philosophies that are Rush and Rupert's (et al) business case.
Truly a dramatic time in American history just as Lincoln's time was. In his time it was the business case for slavery that devastated the country. He maneuvered the populace then to rise above that business case just as Obama is leading the current populace above the hate and anger that is making political entertainers wealthy.
