Will Republicans ever admit the mess they left President Obama?

[healthmyths]

So here you are making a "judgement about Fox News" and you don't watch it!
And what other way would you be watching other than "personal"? GEEZ you pompous butts have such ignorance!
You obviously are NOT PAID to watch TV news! Idiot.

Again, I don't watch it because they've been caught telling lies. From portraying Republicans caught in scandals as Democrats to claiming there were no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil while Bush was president.

But even worse for your insanity... why would any rational person get their news from a news outlet with an ideological bent?

That's it? two incidents that YOU declare a LIE??? FACTS where are your facts? See not only is your credibility at question when YOU won't supply any
LINKS to substantiate your subjective opinion BUT by using YOUR standard, i.e. you get your news from Proven BIASED sources you are insane!
Refute these sources for their statements regarding BIASED MSM! Please refute them!
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks
In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Umm... I only mentioned two.

But again, since you didn't answer.... why would any rational person get their news from an outlet with an ideological bent?

Yes WHY would you get all your news from the above biased MSM!
Their bias is proven by the above statistics.
Bias proven by this graph:
View attachment 70901
Tell me you get your news from CNN maybe?
You obviously won't spot this biased news from CNN!
What possible journalistic integrity is evident by CNN news clip that glaringly, with great bias still blames the cop while ignoring the
fact Michael Brown was attacking the cop? Saying Brown was unarmed was NOT true.

These were the FACTS yet you and CNN continually like all Black Lives matter criminals as Bill Clinton calls you, ignore these FEDERAL FINDINGS!
Wednesday’s report said minor injuries to Wilson’s face and the officer’s DNA being found on one of Brown’s hands indicated that the 18-year-old had, indeed, reached into Wilson’s patrol vehicle during a struggle between the two.

The investigators also agreed that blood trail showed that after fleeing the confrontation, Brown “turned around and came back toward Wilson”. The officer alleged that he fired when Brown refused to stop charging at him. While witness accounts differed over whether Brown was stumbling after being shot or moving threateningly, federal officials sided with the latter.
Darren Wilson will not face federal charges in Michael Brown shooting

Prove me wrong but you are biased. You are also uninformed. And more importantly really a dumb f...k!
View attachment 70899
Definitely your biased opinion from this group for sure!

Imbecile.... I don't get my news from TV. Network or cable.

Oh... and Brown wasn't armed. WTF is wrong with you? Lemme guess.... you watch Fox News?

Well thank you for showing how totally ignorant YOU are because if you don't get it from TV then you get it from the BIASED newspapers!
AGAIN read these statistics you dummy about how BIASED the newspaper industry is!

• In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
• In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
• Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
• In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
• In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
• A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
• In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Among newspapers, The New York Times and USA Today ranked highest, but their numbers still didn't compare to those of the TV networks. Only 13% of respondents reported getting news from the Times in the past week, while 12% said they got news from USA Today.

The average Times reader identifies as mostly liberal, while USA Today is more mixed but still leaning left.
Here's How Liberal Or Conservative Major News Sources Really Are

So you are obviously a below average reader of the NYT and USA Today as you don't seem to see the bias that the the Pew Research Center breaks down the news consumption habits of Americans. Most say they get their news from local TV and Facebook,

Again your lack of providing supporting material show how truly subjective and ignorant you are of the news media bias!

Oh as far as Brown being unarmed... Check this picture of Michael Brown!
This is the "innocent" unarmed Brown!

Michael Brown the poor black boy choking the smaller store owner.
But of course he was "unarmed" also if you call being 6’5″ and 289 lbs. un-armed!

That narrative was supported by sources close to Wilson, who told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson said the “incredibly strong” teen punched him (the autopsy says that Brown was 6’5″ and 289 lbs.), pushed his gun against his hip, and tried to grab the trigger.
Revealed Autopsy Destroys 'Gentle Giant' Michael Brown 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Story - Breitbart

Really sounds "unarmed" to me!

 

[rdean]

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

perhaps congress didn't realize they were dealing with an ah who would lie and scare us into war

Ah, so now you're claiming that George W. "outsmarted", Hillary? That all those Democrats were too stupid to decide for themselves and got "scared" into voting for authorization?

And that's the woman you think should be President? Amusing concept, Eddie...really...

From the information that came from the White House, I decided for myself that Bush was letting our country know why he was protecting us.

Here is a 45 page PDF from Pew Research from Oct 2002 on what Americans believed. I believed what they believe.

file:///C:/Users/richwork/Downloads/Pew_iraw-war.pdf

Republicans think they can lie and trick America into believing something and then blame Americans for being so stupid for believing Republicans in the first place.

Not a good policy to run on.

 

[Faun]

Again, I don't watch it because they've been caught telling lies. From portraying Republicans caught in scandals as Democrats to claiming there were no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil while Bush was president.

But even worse for your insanity... why would any rational person get their news from a news outlet with an ideological bent?

That's it? two incidents that YOU declare a LIE??? FACTS where are your facts? See not only is your credibility at question when YOU won't supply any
LINKS to substantiate your subjective opinion BUT by using YOUR standard, i.e. you get your news from Proven BIASED sources you are insane!
Refute these sources for their statements regarding BIASED MSM! Please refute them!
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks
In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Umm... I only mentioned two.

But again, since you didn't answer.... why would any rational person get their news from an outlet with an ideological bent?

Yes WHY would you get all your news from the above biased MSM!
Their bias is proven by the above statistics.
Bias proven by this graph:
View attachment 70901
Tell me you get your news from CNN maybe?
You obviously won't spot this biased news from CNN!
What possible journalistic integrity is evident by CNN news clip that glaringly, with great bias still blames the cop while ignoring the
fact Michael Brown was attacking the cop? Saying Brown was unarmed was NOT true.

These were the FACTS yet you and CNN continually like all Black Lives matter criminals as Bill Clinton calls you, ignore these FEDERAL FINDINGS!
Wednesday’s report said minor injuries to Wilson’s face and the officer’s DNA being found on one of Brown’s hands indicated that the 18-year-old had, indeed, reached into Wilson’s patrol vehicle during a struggle between the two.

The investigators also agreed that blood trail showed that after fleeing the confrontation, Brown “turned around and came back toward Wilson”. The officer alleged that he fired when Brown refused to stop charging at him. While witness accounts differed over whether Brown was stumbling after being shot or moving threateningly, federal officials sided with the latter.
Darren Wilson will not face federal charges in Michael Brown shooting

Prove me wrong but you are biased. You are also uninformed. And more importantly really a dumb f...k!
View attachment 70899
Definitely your biased opinion from this group for sure!

Imbecile.... I don't get my news from TV. Network or cable.

Oh... and Brown wasn't armed. WTF is wrong with you? Lemme guess.... you watch Fox News?

Well thank you for showing how totally ignorant YOU are because if you don't get it from TV then you get it from the BIASED newspapers!
AGAIN read these statistics you dummy about how BIASED the newspaper industry is!

• In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
• In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
• Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
• In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
• In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
• A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
• In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Among newspapers, The New York Times and USA Today ranked highest, but their numbers still didn't compare to those of the TV networks. Only 13% of respondents reported getting news from the Times in the past week, while 12% said they got news from USA Today.

The average Times reader identifies as mostly liberal, while USA Today is more mixed but still leaning left.
Here's How Liberal Or Conservative Major News Sources Really Are

So you are obviously a below average reader of the NYT and USA Today as you don't seem to see the bias that the the Pew Research Center breaks down the news consumption habits of Americans. Most say they get their news from local TV and Facebook,

Again your lack of providing supporting material show how truly subjective and ignorant you are of the news media bias!

Oh as far as Brown being unarmed... Check this picture of Michael Brown!
This is the "innocent" unarmed Brown!
View attachment 70906

Michael Brown the poor black boy choking the smaller store owner.
But of course he was "unarmed" also if you call being 6’5″ and 289 lbs. un-armed!
View attachment 70907
That narrative was supported by sources close to Wilson, who told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson said the “incredibly strong” teen punched him (the autopsy says that Brown was 6’5″ and 289 lbs.), pushed his gun against his hip, and tried to grab the trigger.
Revealed Autopsy Destroys 'Gentle Giant' Michael Brown 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Story - Breitbart

Really sounds "unarmed" to me!

Too funny.

You actually referenced Breitbart while whining how biased the MS media is.



Oh, and I don't get my news from any of the sources you listed either. You remain a fucking idiot.

And Brown was not armed, no matter what Breitbart says.

Moron.... there was only one gun ... Wilson's. How did Wilson shoot Brown if Brown was armed? :eusa_doh?

Yep, you're a Fox News watcher alright. Dumbed down to a 4 year old's mentality.

 

[healthmyths]

That's it? two incidents that YOU declare a LIE??? FACTS where are your facts? See not only is your credibility at question when YOU won't supply any
LINKS to substantiate your subjective opinion BUT by using YOUR standard, i.e. you get your news from Proven BIASED sources you are insane!
Refute these sources for their statements regarding BIASED MSM! Please refute them!
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks
In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Umm... I only mentioned two.

But again, since you didn't answer.... why would any rational person get their news from an outlet with an ideological bent?

Yes WHY would you get all your news from the above biased MSM!
Their bias is proven by the above statistics.
Bias proven by this graph:
View attachment 70901
Tell me you get your news from CNN maybe?
You obviously won't spot this biased news from CNN!
What possible journalistic integrity is evident by CNN news clip that glaringly, with great bias still blames the cop while ignoring the
fact Michael Brown was attacking the cop? Saying Brown was unarmed was NOT true.

These were the FACTS yet you and CNN continually like all Black Lives matter criminals as Bill Clinton calls you, ignore these FEDERAL FINDINGS!
Wednesday’s report said minor injuries to Wilson’s face and the officer’s DNA being found on one of Brown’s hands indicated that the 18-year-old had, indeed, reached into Wilson’s patrol vehicle during a struggle between the two.

The investigators also agreed that blood trail showed that after fleeing the confrontation, Brown “turned around and came back toward Wilson”. The officer alleged that he fired when Brown refused to stop charging at him. While witness accounts differed over whether Brown was stumbling after being shot or moving threateningly, federal officials sided with the latter.
Darren Wilson will not face federal charges in Michael Brown shooting

Prove me wrong but you are biased. You are also uninformed. And more importantly really a dumb f...k!
View attachment 70899
Definitely your biased opinion from this group for sure!

Imbecile.... I don't get my news from TV. Network or cable.

Oh... and Brown wasn't armed. WTF is wrong with you? Lemme guess.... you watch Fox News?

Well thank you for showing how totally ignorant YOU are because if you don't get it from TV then you get it from the BIASED newspapers!
AGAIN read these statistics you dummy about how BIASED the newspaper industry is!

• In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
• In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
• Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
• In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
• In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
• A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
• In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Among newspapers, The New York Times and USA Today ranked highest, but their numbers still didn't compare to those of the TV networks. Only 13% of respondents reported getting news from the Times in the past week, while 12% said they got news from USA Today.

The average Times reader identifies as mostly liberal, while USA Today is more mixed but still leaning left.
Here's How Liberal Or Conservative Major News Sources Really Are

So you are obviously a below average reader of the NYT and USA Today as you don't seem to see the bias that the the Pew Research Center breaks down the news consumption habits of Americans. Most say they get their news from local TV and Facebook,

Again your lack of providing supporting material show how truly subjective and ignorant you are of the news media bias!

Oh as far as Brown being unarmed... Check this picture of Michael Brown!
This is the "innocent" unarmed Brown!
View attachment 70906

Michael Brown the poor black boy choking the smaller store owner.
But of course he was "unarmed" also if you call being 6’5″ and 289 lbs. un-armed!
View attachment 70907
That narrative was supported by sources close to Wilson, who told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson said the “incredibly strong” teen punched him (the autopsy says that Brown was 6’5″ and 289 lbs.), pushed his gun against his hip, and tried to grab the trigger.
Revealed Autopsy Destroys 'Gentle Giant' Michael Brown 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Story - Breitbart

Really sounds "unarmed" to me!

Too funny.

You actually referenced Breitbart while whining how biased the MS media is.



Oh, and I don't get my news from any of the sources you listed either. You remain a fucking idiot.

And Brown was not armed, no matter what Breitbart says.

Moron.... there was only one gun ... Wilson's. How did Wilson shoot Brown if Brown was armed? :eusa_doh?

Yep, you're a Fox News watcher alright. Dumbed down to a 4 year old's mentality.

When Brown was going after the gun he was armed... I didn't say so the coroner report indicated gunpowder residue. Can't have that unless you have
your hand on the gun!

Breitbart links the news... doesn't write the stuff. But hey anyone that has to resort to unsubstantiated comments as you have AS well as little juvenile
emojis like my teenage granddaughter does! Guess using them is simpler then logic to simpletons.
This is an adult board with adult substantiated links provided to prove credibility...none of which you have done but simple idiotic emojis!

 

[Faun]

Umm... I only mentioned two.

But again, since you didn't answer.... why would any rational person get their news from an outlet with an ideological bent?

Yes WHY would you get all your news from the above biased MSM!
Their bias is proven by the above statistics.
Bias proven by this graph:
View attachment 70901
Tell me you get your news from CNN maybe?
You obviously won't spot this biased news from CNN!
What possible journalistic integrity is evident by CNN news clip that glaringly, with great bias still blames the cop while ignoring the
fact Michael Brown was attacking the cop? Saying Brown was unarmed was NOT true.

These were the FACTS yet you and CNN continually like all Black Lives matter criminals as Bill Clinton calls you, ignore these FEDERAL FINDINGS!
Wednesday’s report said minor injuries to Wilson’s face and the officer’s DNA being found on one of Brown’s hands indicated that the 18-year-old had, indeed, reached into Wilson’s patrol vehicle during a struggle between the two.

The investigators also agreed that blood trail showed that after fleeing the confrontation, Brown “turned around and came back toward Wilson”. The officer alleged that he fired when Brown refused to stop charging at him. While witness accounts differed over whether Brown was stumbling after being shot or moving threateningly, federal officials sided with the latter.
Darren Wilson will not face federal charges in Michael Brown shooting

Prove me wrong but you are biased. You are also uninformed. And more importantly really a dumb f...k!
View attachment 70899
Definitely your biased opinion from this group for sure!

Imbecile.... I don't get my news from TV. Network or cable.

Oh... and Brown wasn't armed. WTF is wrong with you? Lemme guess.... you watch Fox News?

Well thank you for showing how totally ignorant YOU are because if you don't get it from TV then you get it from the BIASED newspapers!
AGAIN read these statistics you dummy about how BIASED the newspaper industry is!

• In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
• In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
• Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
• In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
• In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
• A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
• In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Among newspapers, The New York Times and USA Today ranked highest, but their numbers still didn't compare to those of the TV networks. Only 13% of respondents reported getting news from the Times in the past week, while 12% said they got news from USA Today.

The average Times reader identifies as mostly liberal, while USA Today is more mixed but still leaning left.
Here's How Liberal Or Conservative Major News Sources Really Are

So you are obviously a below average reader of the NYT and USA Today as you don't seem to see the bias that the the Pew Research Center breaks down the news consumption habits of Americans. Most say they get their news from local TV and Facebook,

Again your lack of providing supporting material show how truly subjective and ignorant you are of the news media bias!

Oh as far as Brown being unarmed... Check this picture of Michael Brown!
This is the "innocent" unarmed Brown!
View attachment 70906

Michael Brown the poor black boy choking the smaller store owner.
But of course he was "unarmed" also if you call being 6’5″ and 289 lbs. un-armed!
View attachment 70907
That narrative was supported by sources close to Wilson, who told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson said the “incredibly strong” teen punched him (the autopsy says that Brown was 6’5″ and 289 lbs.), pushed his gun against his hip, and tried to grab the trigger.
Revealed Autopsy Destroys 'Gentle Giant' Michael Brown 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Story - Breitbart

Really sounds "unarmed" to me!

Too funny.

You actually referenced Breitbart while whining how biased the MS media is.



Oh, and I don't get my news from any of the sources you listed either. You remain a fucking idiot.

And Brown was not armed, no matter what Breitbart says.

Moron.... there was only one gun ... Wilson's. How did Wilson shoot Brown if Brown was armed? :eusa_doh?

Yep, you're a Fox News watcher alright. Dumbed down to a 4 year old's mentality.

When Brown was going after the gun he was armed... I didn't say so the coroner report indicated gunpowder residue. Can't have that unless you have
your hand on the gun!

Breitbart links the news... doesn't write the stuff. But hey anyone that has to resort to unsubstantiated comments as you have AS well as little juvenile
emojis like my teenage granddaughter does! Guess using them is simpler then logic to simpletons.
This is an adult board with adult substantiated links provided to prove credibility...none of which you have done but simple idiotic emojis!

You're a complete imbecile. Gun powder residue on Brown's hand in no way indicates his hand was on the gun. By all accounts, his hand was several inches away from the gun when he was shot. Close enough to have residue sprayed on his hand and for his blood to splatter on the gun.

And Breitbart adds to stories they link. Demonstrable even in the link you gave where Breitbart falsely claims an autopsy suggests Brown attempted to take Wilson's gun. Only the autopsy suggests no such thing. Breitbart lied and you swallowed it. All that autopsy revealed in terms of a struggle was...

The deceased became belligerent towards Officer WILSON. As Officer WILSON attempted to exit out of his patrol vehicle the deceased pushed his door shut and began to struggle with Officer WILSON, during the struggle the Officers weapon was un-holstered. The weapon discharged during the struggle.

... there is no indication in there that the struggle was for the gun. There is certainly no indication there that Brown ever had possession of the gun.

There was a struggle and Brown struck Wilson in the face. Wilson justifiably fired his gun, hitting Brown in his right hand, which was inside the patrol car when struck.

And again, there was only one gun involved -- Wilson's. If Brown was armed, how did Wilson fatally shoot Brown? You didn't answer that....?

But again, I find it hysterical that you would actually link to breitbart.com while whining about the MSM being biased.

What wonderful irony, thanks!

 

[Oldstyle]

That's it? two incidents that YOU declare a LIE??? FACTS where are your facts? See not only is your credibility at question when YOU won't supply any
LINKS to substantiate your subjective opinion BUT by using YOUR standard, i.e. you get your news from Proven BIASED sources you are insane!
Refute these sources for their statements regarding BIASED MSM! Please refute them!
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks
In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Umm... I only mentioned two.

But again, since you didn't answer.... why would any rational person get their news from an outlet with an ideological bent?

Yes WHY would you get all your news from the above biased MSM!
Their bias is proven by the above statistics.
Bias proven by this graph:
View attachment 70901
Tell me you get your news from CNN maybe?
You obviously won't spot this biased news from CNN!
What possible journalistic integrity is evident by CNN news clip that glaringly, with great bias still blames the cop while ignoring the
fact Michael Brown was attacking the cop? Saying Brown was unarmed was NOT true.

These were the FACTS yet you and CNN continually like all Black Lives matter criminals as Bill Clinton calls you, ignore these FEDERAL FINDINGS!
Wednesday’s report said minor injuries to Wilson’s face and the officer’s DNA being found on one of Brown’s hands indicated that the 18-year-old had, indeed, reached into Wilson’s patrol vehicle during a struggle between the two.

The investigators also agreed that blood trail showed that after fleeing the confrontation, Brown “turned around and came back toward Wilson”. The officer alleged that he fired when Brown refused to stop charging at him. While witness accounts differed over whether Brown was stumbling after being shot or moving threateningly, federal officials sided with the latter.
Darren Wilson will not face federal charges in Michael Brown shooting

Prove me wrong but you are biased. You are also uninformed. And more importantly really a dumb f...k!
View attachment 70899
Definitely your biased opinion from this group for sure!

Imbecile.... I don't get my news from TV. Network or cable.

Oh... and Brown wasn't armed. WTF is wrong with you? Lemme guess.... you watch Fox News?

Well thank you for showing how totally ignorant YOU are because if you don't get it from TV then you get it from the BIASED newspapers!
AGAIN read these statistics you dummy about how BIASED the newspaper industry is!

• In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
• In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
• Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
• In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
• In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
• A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
• In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Among newspapers, The New York Times and USA Today ranked highest, but their numbers still didn't compare to those of the TV networks. Only 13% of respondents reported getting news from the Times in the past week, while 12% said they got news from USA Today.

The average Times reader identifies as mostly liberal, while USA Today is more mixed but still leaning left.
Here's How Liberal Or Conservative Major News Sources Really Are

So you are obviously a below average reader of the NYT and USA Today as you don't seem to see the bias that the the Pew Research Center breaks down the news consumption habits of Americans. Most say they get their news from local TV and Facebook,

Again your lack of providing supporting material show how truly subjective and ignorant you are of the news media bias!

Oh as far as Brown being unarmed... Check this picture of Michael Brown!
This is the "innocent" unarmed Brown!
View attachment 70906

Michael Brown the poor black boy choking the smaller store owner.
But of course he was "unarmed" also if you call being 6’5″ and 289 lbs. un-armed!
View attachment 70907
That narrative was supported by sources close to Wilson, who told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson said the “incredibly strong” teen punched him (the autopsy says that Brown was 6’5″ and 289 lbs.), pushed his gun against his hip, and tried to grab the trigger.
Revealed Autopsy Destroys 'Gentle Giant' Michael Brown 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Story - Breitbart

Really sounds "unarmed" to me!

Too funny.

You actually referenced Breitbart while whining how biased the MS media is.



Oh, and I don't get my news from any of the sources you listed either. You remain a fucking idiot.

And Brown was not armed, no matter what Breitbart says.

Moron.... there was only one gun ... Wilson's. How did Wilson shoot Brown if Brown was armed? :eusa_doh?

Yep, you're a Fox News watcher alright. Dumbed down to a 4 year old's mentality.

Brown got shot because he committed a strong arm robbery and assault and battery on a police officer who was attempting to arrest him for that robbery. Just as a helpful hint for all you kiddies out there? Punching a cop and going for his gun is not going to turn out well for you! Doh!

 

[JimBowie1958]

The failed economy.
The Iraq debacle.
The deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts.
The millions of jobs moved oversea.
The over 40,000 factories closed.
Medical bills becoming the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Not getting Bin Laden.

Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times which shows they controlled the entire government.
Will they ever take any responsibility for what happened on their watch?

Every PResident has left problems for the next President. Funny how the world doesnt fit itself into our Presidential administration terms, what a shame.

 

[Vigilante]

Another Meme TRUISM.....

 

[Oldstyle]

And if you'd like to give me a scenario that puts a standing Michael Brown's hand "inches" from Officer Wilson's gun as the officer is sitting in his squad car and Brown ISN'T going for that gun...I'd love to hear it! What exactly do you think Brown's hand was doing "inches" from a gun inside of that car?

 

[Faun]

Umm... I only mentioned two.

But again, since you didn't answer.... why would any rational person get their news from an outlet with an ideological bent?

Yes WHY would you get all your news from the above biased MSM!
Their bias is proven by the above statistics.
Bias proven by this graph:
View attachment 70901
Tell me you get your news from CNN maybe?
You obviously won't spot this biased news from CNN!
What possible journalistic integrity is evident by CNN news clip that glaringly, with great bias still blames the cop while ignoring the
fact Michael Brown was attacking the cop? Saying Brown was unarmed was NOT true.

These were the FACTS yet you and CNN continually like all Black Lives matter criminals as Bill Clinton calls you, ignore these FEDERAL FINDINGS!
Wednesday’s report said minor injuries to Wilson’s face and the officer’s DNA being found on one of Brown’s hands indicated that the 18-year-old had, indeed, reached into Wilson’s patrol vehicle during a struggle between the two.

The investigators also agreed that blood trail showed that after fleeing the confrontation, Brown “turned around and came back toward Wilson”. The officer alleged that he fired when Brown refused to stop charging at him. While witness accounts differed over whether Brown was stumbling after being shot or moving threateningly, federal officials sided with the latter.
Darren Wilson will not face federal charges in Michael Brown shooting

Prove me wrong but you are biased. You are also uninformed. And more importantly really a dumb f...k!
View attachment 70899
Definitely your biased opinion from this group for sure!

Imbecile.... I don't get my news from TV. Network or cable.

Oh... and Brown wasn't armed. WTF is wrong with you? Lemme guess.... you watch Fox News?

Well thank you for showing how totally ignorant YOU are because if you don't get it from TV then you get it from the BIASED newspapers!
AGAIN read these statistics you dummy about how BIASED the newspaper industry is!

• In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
• In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
• Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
• In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
• In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
• A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
• In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

Among newspapers, The New York Times and USA Today ranked highest, but their numbers still didn't compare to those of the TV networks. Only 13% of respondents reported getting news from the Times in the past week, while 12% said they got news from USA Today.

The average Times reader identifies as mostly liberal, while USA Today is more mixed but still leaning left.
Here's How Liberal Or Conservative Major News Sources Really Are

So you are obviously a below average reader of the NYT and USA Today as you don't seem to see the bias that the the Pew Research Center breaks down the news consumption habits of Americans. Most say they get their news from local TV and Facebook,

Again your lack of providing supporting material show how truly subjective and ignorant you are of the news media bias!

Oh as far as Brown being unarmed... Check this picture of Michael Brown!
This is the "innocent" unarmed Brown!
View attachment 70906

Michael Brown the poor black boy choking the smaller store owner.
But of course he was "unarmed" also if you call being 6’5″ and 289 lbs. un-armed!
View attachment 70907
That narrative was supported by sources close to Wilson, who told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson said the “incredibly strong” teen punched him (the autopsy says that Brown was 6’5″ and 289 lbs.), pushed his gun against his hip, and tried to grab the trigger.
Revealed Autopsy Destroys 'Gentle Giant' Michael Brown 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Story - Breitbart

Really sounds "unarmed" to me!

Too funny.

You actually referenced Breitbart while whining how biased the MS media is.



Oh, and I don't get my news from any of the sources you listed either. You remain a fucking idiot.

And Brown was not armed, no matter what Breitbart says.

Moron.... there was only one gun ... Wilson's. How did Wilson shoot Brown if Brown was armed? :eusa_doh?

Yep, you're a Fox News watcher alright. Dumbed down to a 4 year old's mentality.

Brown got shot because he committed a strong arm robbery and assault and battery on a police officer who was attempting to arrest him for that robbery. Just as a helpful hint for all you kiddies out there? Punching a cop and going for his gun is not going to turn out well for you! Doh!

I didn't say otherwise, now did I? Although, I disagree with you that he was shot for committing a strong armed robbery.

 

[Faun]

And if you'd like to give me a scenario that puts a standing Michael Brown's hand "inches" from Officer Wilson's gun as the officer is sitting in his squad car and Brown ISN'T going for that gun...I'd love to hear it! What exactly do you think Brown's hand was doing "inches" from a gun inside of that car?

You're too fucking retarded to deal with.

I never said Brown didn't go for Wilson's gun.

I said the autopsy Breitbart referred to did not indicate he did, though Breitbart lied and claimed the autopsy did in fact suggest he did.

Like I said earlier, and you confirm again... you don't argue what people actually say -- you argue what you think they say.

 

[easyt65]

Poor ol' Obama & those mean ol' GOP. .

I can't believe they armed the Mexican Drug Cartels & terrorists, drug the country into 2 civil wars betewwen terrorists & dictators without Congressional approval, allowed numerous terrorist attacks on US soil, used the IRS to target citizens, PREVENTED Obama from obeying the Constitution & from enforcing laws, framed him for that 'Lie of the Year', for the Syrian Red Line, and for setting a new record for 70% illegal viloations of the FOIA....

Poor man was the most inept, unsuccessful Presidents in history, overshadowed by the previous President and his fellow Democrats who held a near super majority in Congress - while controlling Congress, the budget, spending, & the economy....

Damn Republicans....

 

[Faun]

Poor ol' Obama & those mean ol' GOP. .

I can't believe they armed the Mexican Drug Cartels & terrorists, drug the country into 2 civil wars betewwen terrorists & dictators without Congressional approval, allowed numerous terrorist attacks on US soil, used the IRS to target citizens, PREVENTED Obama from obeying the Constitution & from enforcing laws, framed him for that 'Lie of the Year', for the Syrian Red Line, and for setting a new record for 70% illegal viloations of the FOIA....

Poor man was the most inept, unsuccessful Presidents in history, overshadowed by the previous President and his fellow Democrats who held a near super majority in Congress - while controlling Congress, the budget, spending, & the economy....

Damn Republicans....

And yet, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's at this point. In fact, at 86 months in office, you have to go back 56 years to Dwight Eisenhower to find a Republican president with a higher job approval rating than Obama's.

 

[OKTexas]

The failed economy.
The Iraq debacle.
The deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts.
The millions of jobs moved oversea.
The over 40,000 factories closed.
Medical bills becoming the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Not getting Bin Laden.

Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times which shows they controlled the entire government.
Will they ever take any responsibility for what happened on their watch?

We didn't leave maobama shit, he asked for the job and has been bitching about it ever since. His ignorance caused the worse economic recovery in history. Will you regressives ever hold him responsible for everything he fucked up? No need to respond, it was a rhetorical question, I know you won't.

 

[healthmyths]

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

perhaps congress didn't realize they were dealing with an ah who would lie and scare us into war

Ah, so now you're claiming that George W. "outsmarted", Hillary? That all those Democrats were too stupid to decide for themselves and got "scared" into voting for authorization?

And that's the woman you think should be President? Amusing concept, Eddie...really...

From the information that came from the White House, I decided for myself that Bush was letting our country know why he was protecting us.

Here is a 45 page PDF from Pew Research from Oct 2002 on what Americans believed. I believed what they believe.

file:///C:/Users/richwork/Downloads/Pew_iraw-war.pdf

Republicans think they can lie and trick America into believing something and then blame Americans for being so stupid for believing Republicans in the first place.

Not a good policy to run on.

Certainly understand why you are ignorant if you think I can access your computer at file:///C:/Users/richwork/Downloads/Pew_iraw-war.pdf

 

[healthmyths]

Poor ol' Obama & those mean ol' GOP. .

I can't believe they armed the Mexican Drug Cartels & terrorists, drug the country into 2 civil wars betewwen terrorists & dictators without Congressional approval, allowed numerous terrorist attacks on US soil, used the IRS to target citizens, PREVENTED Obama from obeying the Constitution & from enforcing laws, framed him for that 'Lie of the Year', for the Syrian Red Line, and for setting a new record for 70% illegal viloations of the FOIA....

Poor man was the most inept, unsuccessful Presidents in history, overshadowed by the previous President and his fellow Democrats who held a near super majority in Congress - while controlling Congress, the budget, spending, & the economy....

Damn Republicans....

And yet, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's at this point. In fact, at 86 months in office, you have to go back 56 years to Dwight Eisenhower to find a Republican president with a higher job approval rating than Obama's.

Which as the reason I added to this thread was because idiots like you approve an idiot like Obama BECAUSE you get your opinions formed by the
MSM that donated millions to Obama, wrote more positive stories about Obama and think Obama is a God. So YES no reason to doubt the masses
that depend on the BIASED MSM for information have that attitude. Fortunately more and more of us are understanding when we read Obama's autobiography
how Obama depended on the IGNORANCE of his voters and the stupidity of the American Voter.

From Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995 page 94 -95
Note these incidents predict his behavior and we ignored this. This is like Hitler's "Mein Kempf" that was also ignored and look at the consequences.

A) His total disdain and dislike of law enforcement officers
B) His disdain and disgust for his mother read his condescension towards her!
C) Finally this shows Obama predilection towards lying. Towards using tricks, tactics and fooling people as to his real attitudes and aspirations!

"Of course either way you needed some luck. That's what Pablo had lacked, mostly, not having his driver's license that day, a cop with nothing
better to do than to check the trunk of his car..
Or Bruce not finding his way back from too many bad acid trips, winding up in a funny farm.
Or Duke not walking away from that car wreck....

I had tried to explain some of this to my mother once, the role of luck in the world, the spin of the wheel.
It was at the start of my senior year in high school; she was back in Hawaii her field work completed and one day she had marched into my room
wanting to know the details of Pablo's arrest.
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid.
It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied.
They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Think about it... NOW we know why Obama has continually knocked the police...remember his statement in 2009...that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly"?
Doesn't this sound like when he was a senior in high school describing the "cop with nothing better to do"?

 

[Faun]

Poor ol' Obama & those mean ol' GOP. .

I can't believe they armed the Mexican Drug Cartels & terrorists, drug the country into 2 civil wars betewwen terrorists & dictators without Congressional approval, allowed numerous terrorist attacks on US soil, used the IRS to target citizens, PREVENTED Obama from obeying the Constitution & from enforcing laws, framed him for that 'Lie of the Year', for the Syrian Red Line, and for setting a new record for 70% illegal viloations of the FOIA....

Poor man was the most inept, unsuccessful Presidents in history, overshadowed by the previous President and his fellow Democrats who held a near super majority in Congress - while controlling Congress, the budget, spending, & the economy....

Damn Republicans....

And yet, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's at this point. In fact, at 86 months in office, you have to go back 56 years to Dwight Eisenhower to find a Republican president with a higher job approval rating than Obama's.

Which as the reason I added to this thread was because idiots like you approve an idiot like Obama BECAUSE you get your opinions formed by the
MSM that donated millions to Obama, wrote more positive stories about Obama and think Obama is a God. So YES no reason to doubt the masses
that depend on the BIASED MSM for information have that attitude. Fortunately more and more of us are understanding when we read Obama's autobiography
how Obama depended on the IGNORANCE of his voters and the stupidity of the American Voter.

From Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995 page 94 -95
Note these incidents predict his behavior and we ignored this. This is like Hitler's "Mein Kempf" that was also ignored and look at the consequences.

A) His total disdain and dislike of law enforcement officers
B) His disdain and disgust for his mother read his condescension towards her!
C) Finally this shows Obama predilection towards lying. Towards using tricks, tactics and fooling people as to his real attitudes and aspirations!

"Of course either way you needed some luck. That's what Pablo had lacked, mostly, not having his driver's license that day, a cop with nothing
better to do than to check the trunk of his car..
Or Bruce not finding his way back from too many bad acid trips, winding up in a funny farm.
Or Duke not walking away from that car wreck....

I had tried to explain some of this to my mother once, the role of luck in the world, the spin of the wheel.
It was at the start of my senior year in high school; she was back in Hawaii her field work completed and one day she had marched into my room
wanting to know the details of Pablo's arrest.
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid.
It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied.
They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Think about it... NOW we know why Obama has continually knocked the police...remember his statement in 2009...that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly"?
Doesn't this sound like when he was a senior in high school describing the "cop with nothing better to do"?

You're fucking nuts.

Of course, that was quite evident when you linked to breitbart.com while bitching & moaning about how biased the main stream media is.

Meanwhile, you can make up all of the silly excuses you want -- Obama has a higher job approval rating in his 87th month in office than every single Republican except for Eisenhower going as far back a Gallup collected such statistics.

 

[healthmyths]

Poor ol' Obama & those mean ol' GOP. .

I can't believe they armed the Mexican Drug Cartels & terrorists, drug the country into 2 civil wars betewwen terrorists & dictators without Congressional approval, allowed numerous terrorist attacks on US soil, used the IRS to target citizens, PREVENTED Obama from obeying the Constitution & from enforcing laws, framed him for that 'Lie of the Year', for the Syrian Red Line, and for setting a new record for 70% illegal viloations of the FOIA....

Poor man was the most inept, unsuccessful Presidents in history, overshadowed by the previous President and his fellow Democrats who held a near super majority in Congress - while controlling Congress, the budget, spending, & the economy....

Damn Republicans....

And yet, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's at this point. In fact, at 86 months in office, you have to go back 56 years to Dwight Eisenhower to find a Republican president with a higher job approval rating than Obama's.

Which as the reason I added to this thread was because idiots like you approve an idiot like Obama BECAUSE you get your opinions formed by the
MSM that donated millions to Obama, wrote more positive stories about Obama and think Obama is a God. So YES no reason to doubt the masses
that depend on the BIASED MSM for information have that attitude. Fortunately more and more of us are understanding when we read Obama's autobiography
how Obama depended on the IGNORANCE of his voters and the stupidity of the American Voter.

From Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995 page 94 -95
Note these incidents predict his behavior and we ignored this. This is like Hitler's "Mein Kempf" that was also ignored and look at the consequences.

A) His total disdain and dislike of law enforcement officers
B) His disdain and disgust for his mother read his condescension towards her!
C) Finally this shows Obama predilection towards lying. Towards using tricks, tactics and fooling people as to his real attitudes and aspirations!

"Of course either way you needed some luck. That's what Pablo had lacked, mostly, not having his driver's license that day, a cop with nothing
better to do than to check the trunk of his car..
Or Bruce not finding his way back from too many bad acid trips, winding up in a funny farm.
Or Duke not walking away from that car wreck....

I had tried to explain some of this to my mother once, the role of luck in the world, the spin of the wheel.
It was at the start of my senior year in high school; she was back in Hawaii her field work completed and one day she had marched into my room
wanting to know the details of Pablo's arrest.
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid.
It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied.
They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Think about it... NOW we know why Obama has continually knocked the police...remember his statement in 2009...that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly"?
Doesn't this sound like when he was a senior in high school describing the "cop with nothing better to do"?

You're fucking nuts.

Of course, that was quite evident when you linked to breitbart.com while bitching & moaning about how biased the main stream media is.

Meanwhile, you can make up all of the silly excuses you want -- Obama has a higher job approval rating in his 87th month in office than every single Republican except for Eisenhower going as far back a Gallup collected such statistics.

So you don't agree with this site:
Breitbart.com has liberal bias! Breitbart.com has liberal bias!

So what is this historical source bias? Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama

Then you have to show me differently from Gallup how Obama stacks up in approval...

Barack Obama 04/07/2016 04/09/2016

51%
Presidential Popularity Over Time

Again though you are not substantiating ANY of your statistics. Why? Because you are either too lazy or to dumb!

 

[Dragonlady]

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?

LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!

The more you try to deflect the responsibility for a the Iraq mess onto those who voted for it instead of the asshole who proposed it and executed it, the more you look foolish. The President made the decision to attack, and he made the decision to involve Haliburton, which caused no end of trouble.

You lot don't have the stones to accept responsibility for your stupidity.

 

[Faun]

So you don't agree with this site:
Breitbart.com has liberal bias! Breitbart.com has liberal bias!

Breitbart has Liberal bias!

You're such a dumbass. And you still haven't answered.... do you watch Fox News?