What Republicans Argue When They Have Nothing Left to Say

[Luddly Neddite]

WHO, in their right mind, would accept the R "budget" that is no budget at all.

Higher debt, raising the debt ceiling, no benefit to the country overall but great benefit to you-know-who ...

GAWD, I am SO sick of the gullible and foolish and incredibly naive right wing voters who just blindly obey their masters, even at the expense of their own futures and the futures of their children and their children's children.

Will they never learn to think for themselves?

Their race to the bottom gains speed and dammit, they will drag the rest of us over the cliff with them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The bombing of the Cole happened three weeks before the election of Bush.
What did you expect Clinton to do in the last ten weeks of his Presidency?
Bush had seven years and couldn't get Bin Laden

Clinton had since the 1993 WTC bombing.

He treated the first shot in a war as a police matter. He screwed up. Badly.

Clinton caught the guys who did WTC 1

It was Bush who treated the threat of terrorism as beneath him

Well now, to be fair, George II was awfully busy wildly spending money the country didn't have and drinking himself into a stupor. How could he be expected to take time out from making war on innocents in order to pursue the man who masterminded the deaths of more than 3000 Americans? And, of course, he was working so hard to line his own pockets as well as those of his owners and keepers.

Oh what a heavy mantle for such a useless and incompetent fool.

 

[The T]

Clinton had since the 1993 WTC bombing.

He treated the first shot in a war as a police matter. He screwed up. Badly.

Clinton caught the guys who did WTC 1

It was Bush who treated the threat of terrorism as beneath him

Well now, to be fair, George II was awfully busy wildly spending money the country didn't have and drinking himself into a stupor. How could he be expected to take time out from making war on innocents in order to pursue the man who masterminded the deaths of more than 3000 Americans? And, of course, he was working so hard to line his own pockets as well as those of his owners and keepers.

Oh what a heavy mantle for such a useless and incompetent fool.

And Obama tripled DOWN on it. Nothing to see here, right?

*MORON*

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Clinton had since the 1993 WTC bombing.

He treated the first shot in a war as a police matter. He screwed up. Badly.

Obama wished to continue that precident by trying combatants civilly in court rahter than execute them.

Bad move on Obama's part.

Democrats simply can't be trusted with national security.

Stupid thing to say.

Care to prove it?

NO???

Didn't think so.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Clinton caught the guys who did WTC 1

It was Bush who treated the threat of terrorism as beneath him

Well now, to be fair, George II was awfully busy wildly spending money the country didn't have and drinking himself into a stupor. How could he be expected to take time out from making war on innocents in order to pursue the man who masterminded the deaths of more than 3000 Americans? And, of course, he was working so hard to line his own pockets as well as those of his owners and keepers.

Oh what a heavy mantle for such a useless and incompetent fool.

And Obama tripled DOWN on it. Nothing to see here, right?

*MORON*

Tell it to bin Laden, al Awaki, Gaddafi as well as countless Taliban and al-Qeada leaders.

Care to post a list of terrorists that George took down?

LOL

 

[rightwinger]

Clinton had since the 1993 WTC bombing.

He treated the first shot in a war as a police matter. He screwed up. Badly.

Obama wished to continue that precident by trying combatants civilly in court rahter than execute them.

Bad move on Obama's part.

Democrats simply can't be trusted with national security.

That is why Republican Bush gave up the worst terrorist attack in history. But hey.......he only screwed up that one time

 

[The T]

Well now, to be fair, George II was awfully busy wildly spending money the country didn't have and drinking himself into a stupor. How could he be expected to take time out from making war on innocents in order to pursue the man who masterminded the deaths of more than 3000 Americans? And, of course, he was working so hard to line his own pockets as well as those of his owners and keepers.

Oh what a heavy mantle for such a useless and incompetent fool.

And Obama tripled DOWN on it. Nothing to see here, right?

*MORON*

Tell it to bin Laden, al Awaki, Gaddafi as well as countless Taliban and al-Qeada leaders.

Care to post a list of terrorists that George took down?

LOL

Lol? Nice retort.

Saddam Hussein...for starters...and several others not so famous.

Obama ACTED on a standing order of Bush and took UBL out.

It was a no-brainer. But a Mountain for YOU however to figure out.

 

[daveman]

The bombing of the Cole happened three weeks before the election of Bush.
What did you expect Clinton to do in the last ten weeks of his Presidency?
Bush had seven years and couldn't get Bin Laden

Clinton had since the 1993 WTC bombing.

He treated the first shot in a war as a police matter. He screwed up. Badly.

Clinton caught the guys who did WTC 1

It was Bush who treated the threat of terrorism as beneath him

Lying sure is easy for you, isn't it?

 

[daveman]

Obama wished to continue that precident by trying combatants civilly in court rahter than execute them.

Bad move on Obama's part.

Democrats simply can't be trusted with national security.

Stupid thing to say.

Care to prove it?

NO???

Didn't think so.

History proves me correct.

REAL history, not that leftist horseshit you believe in.

 

[daveman]

Obama wished to continue that precident by trying combatants civilly in court rahter than execute them.

Bad move on Obama's part.

Democrats simply can't be trusted with national security.

That is why Republican Bush gave up the worst terrorist attack in history. But hey.......he only screwed up that one time

Oh, you're talking about the attack that was planned on Clinton's watch.

 

[The T]

Democrats simply can't be trusted with national security.

That is why Republican Bush gave up the worst terrorist attack in history. But hey.......he only screwed up that one time

Oh, you're talking about the attack that was planned on Clinton's watch.

And as a reult of Clinton's handling of the prodding they were doing. Precisely.

They thought they could get away with it with Bush.

 

[rightwinger]

Sadly for our country.....

When it comes to fighting terrorism, Republicans talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Bush left us open for the worst terrorist attack in history and couldn't even be bothered to meet his top advisor on anti-terrorism

 

[The T]

Terrorists reward cowardice with attacks.

 

[The T]

Sadly for our country.....

When it comes to fighting terrorism, Republicans talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Bush left us open for the worst terrorist attack in history and couldn't even be bothered to meet his top advisor on anti-terrorism

^^Sewergas has eaten his brain...

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats simply can't be trusted with national security.

That is why Republican Bush gave up the worst terrorist attack in history. But hey.......he only screwed up that one time

Oh, you're talking about the attack that was planned on Clinton's watch.

Planned?

Bush had his pants down when they attacked us

 

[daveman]

That is why Republican Bush gave up the worst terrorist attack in history. But hey.......he only screwed up that one time

Oh, you're talking about the attack that was planned on Clinton's watch.

And as a reult of Clinton's handling of the prodding they were doing. Precisely.

They thought they could get away with it with Bush.

Of course. Clinton made sure the US was perceived as a paper tiger.

 

[daveman]

Sadly for our country.....

When it comes to fighting terrorism, Republicans talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Bush left us open for the worst terrorist attack in history and couldn't even be bothered to meet his top advisor on anti-terrorism

More lies. Thing is, you believe them.

Sad, really.

 

[rightwinger]

. At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."[8]

 

[AmericanFirst]

Robert Reich: What Republicans Argue When They Have Nothing Left to Say

Republicans are desperate. They can't attack Obama on jobs because the jobs picture is improving.

Their attack on the administration's rule requiring insurers to cover contraception has backfired, raising hackles even among many Republican women.

Their attack on Obama for raising gas prices has elicited scorn from economists of all persuasions who know oil prices are set in global markets and that demand in the United States has actually fallen.
Their presidential ambitions are being trampled in a furious fraternal war among Republican candidates.

Their Tea Party wing wants to reopen the budget deal forged with Democrats after Republicans got bloodied by threatening to block an increase in the debt limit.

So what are Republicans to do now? What they always do when they have nothing else to say.

Call for a tax cut, of course.

It doesn't matter that their new "tax reform" plan (leaked to the Wall Street Journal late Monday, to be released Tuesday morning) has as much chance of being enacted as Herman Cain has of being elected president.

It doesn't matter than the plan doesn't detail how they plan to pay for the tax cuts. Or whether an even bigger whack would have to be taken out of Medicare than Paul Ryan's original voucher plan -- which would drowned many elderly under rising medical costs.

It doesn't even matter that the plan would probably raise taxes on many lower-income Americans,

All that matters is the headlines.

LMAO!

Like reich knows anything. If I remember, wasn't he clinton's stooge? Yeah, goodbye.

 

[Listening]

Grasping at straws? Thats exactly the kind of shat you Repugs support, scaring the country with tales of utter collapse if we don't starve those who are not rich and give the rich tax cuts.

Robert Reich is great at economics.

When it comes to policy, he's an idiot.

Whose scaring the country ? When you have people talking about how Obama SAVED the country from the next GREAT DEPRESSION (which is all bullcrap), you have to wonder what they are putting in the weed you are smoking.