Court: Uncle Sam Must Hand Over Immunity Lobbying Docs > Not surprised

reply to Time

Re: Not surprised

I agree. So why would one side tell the other to stop bringing the other up? No matter who is in office, the minute something bad happens, the previous admin will be blamed by the new ones fans.

Clinton was blamed for everything under the sun that went down during Bush's terrible 2 terms. Bush will be blamed for everything under the sun that goes down during Obama's....well, we will see what his term or terms bring.

reply to Van

reply to Van
There's one big difference between Bush and Clinton: Bush went after Bin Laden. Clinton had the chance to kill him, and let him get away.

As far as I'm concerned, some of the blood that was shed on 9/11 is on Clinton's hands.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter.

reply to Time
He has not even been President for 1 freakin year. Let me repeat that....not 1 freakin year.

The fact that some are already calling him a failure, etc....shows they have motives that reach far behind what he actually does.

It's comical....2 years in? Sure....not even 1 year? Could people show their bias any more?

I DID NOT EVEN VOTE FOR THE DAMN MAN

reply to NOVA_Guy
Clinton went after him...and failed

Much like Bush

People want to give Bush credit for "trying" which is odd to me as a more calculated approach to Iraq's situation may have in fact netted Bin Laden

Instead, we went in guns blazing and screwed it all up from the start.

reply to Time
Personally I find Beck more libertarian.

reply to Time
Do you really expect a community organizer or his lemmings to take responsibility?

reply to Van
Appearantly that was long enough to surpass Bush's deficiet by a factor of three.

And he did it in less than 1 freakin year. Let me repeat that....in less than 1 freakin year.

reply to Van

reply to Van
What I recall most is Clinton electing to not expend significant resources going after him after he tried to bring down the WTC the first time. We knew where he was, and could have killed him much quicker and easier than now.

But Clinton didn't have the balls to deal with him in that manner, much like Carter couldn't deal with hostage takers. So far it seems like Obama is shaping up to be from the same mold-- he seems to care more about getting the world to like us than doing the tasks of a man charged with acting in the best interests of the United States. We don't need to win popularity contests among the nations of the world, and we shouldn't have a president who acts as though we do.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter.

reply to Time
1. I rush to fight stupidity.
2. Well no, I mocked them 3 times in this thread. Is that the best people have now? 3 times = Vote for Obama? Pass on the book detailing the exact number of times needed.

As for me not voting for Obama, I didn't. I wouldn't have the slightest problem saying otherwise. The fact that you are stuck on it tells me you have nothing else to say. It's a common attack online when people are faced with their idiotic arguments.

Again, you want to cry about Obama after less than 1 year tells me you have little to no actual interest in anything he has to do. You are the type who gets to work (if you work) and first thing first goes to some extreme blog and finds the bashing article of the day. You read how much Obama sucks and think to yourself, "Yea, that will teach him"

It's sad, It's pathetic, and it's why so many people are running away from both parties.

reply to NOVA_Guy
Bush had the chance to go after him too, he received a memo prior to the attacks warning him about impending attacks by terrorist organizations, he chose to do nothing before the attacks as with Clinton, neither of them was any better at dealing with Bin Laden. Bush also had a second chance at Bin Laden in Afghanistan, he gave up to go after Iraq because Iraq was no longer going to use the US dollar for oil trading. The whole use of that Iraq supports terrorist, and them having weapons of mass destruction was found out to be a farce put on by the Bush administration. Even if it was true, well we have known for years that Saudi Arabia does support terrorist activities, almost every person who took part on the attacks on 9/11 on the planes held Saudi citizenship, but we don't do anything there. I wonder why, maybe because they still accept the US dollar for oil trading?

Hey look Iran started talking about scrapping the dollar in favor of the Euro and Yen about two years ago, hmmm about the same time the whole Iran has weapons of mass destruction stories started to pop up in the news, coincidence? I think in that case Americans took to the Bush notion of, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

reply to Uncle Paul

reply to Van
If I work? I'm serving active duty in the USAF as a 62EX.

I don't read blogs, but I'm sure you read garbage like the Daily Kos and formulate your opinions around the dribble that is posted.

You're right, I don't have an interest in anything he has to do. Everything is a publicity stunt - like running to grab the Olympics for Chicago, but giving General McChrystal only thirty minutes of his time to discuss Afghanistan on Air Force One. Since when is it "one year" that defines how long I have to be able to criticize a President? Things aren't going to be any different in January. He's not going to magically change everything in January. It is you, who needs a reality check away from your ignorance.

It doesn't matter in the end, he built up too much inertia and too many broken promises to recover from. He will be a one term President - just like Jimmy Carter. I think he has good intentions, but when you make promises, you need to own up to them if they cannot be met.
--
"If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson