Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Bush made no mistakes while in office, the cause of all our current economic and foreign policy problems lies at the feet of the Democrats and liberals...under Pelosi & Reid's guidance we've had "change, until we have none left..."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2083768/posts
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:14:51 PM

In 2006 America voted for change

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over two years ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But Americans wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) The Dow is probing another low ~11,300
7) $2.5 trillion dollars has evaporated from stocks, bonds and mutual fund investment portfolios.

Yep, in 2006 America voted for change. And we got it! A Democratic congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

Please, don't try to defend Bush...

A war we should not have started (IRAQ)...with a Secretary of Defense (Rumsfield) who refused to listen to his military experts...A President who was so stubbornly faithful to that SECDEF that he allowed this SECDEF to run over the State Department when it came to diplomatic issues...that he supported this SECDEF even after equipment issues were brought to his attention...

This same president refused to pay for the war with taxes, and instead ran up a huge deficit borrowing the money by funding the war "off budget"...

This thread is the outlet for folks who wish to blame Bush for everything that's happened, including SARS, potholes, and Brady's injury...

...rather than hijacking memorial threads.

The kudos are just counterpoint to begin the debate. Having said that, I don't put ALL the blame on Bush, but will agree the war shenanigans smell of imperialism/globalization agendas. Bush was a textbook, "I don't know, what I don't know" Texan, whose pious, close-minded views will be written about in history books for centuries.

travelinman67 wrote:This thread is the outlet for folks who wish to blame Bush for everything that's happened, including SARS, potholes, and Brady's injury...

...rather than hijacking memorial threads.

The kudos are just counterpoint to begin the debate. Having said that, I don't put ALL the blame on Bush, but will agree the war shenanigans smell of imperialism/globalization agendas. Bush was a textbook, "I don't know, what I don't know" Texan, whose pious, close-minded views will be written about in history books for centuries.

Historians will speak his name with the same hushed and reverent tones reserved for such Presidential titans as Chester Arthur and Millard Fillmore.

Liberal Bush supported the bailout, nuff said.

Gil Dobie wrote:Cognitive dissonance communist Bush supported the bailout, nuff said.

...quite a bit of truth to that...neither liberal or conservative...just a political expediter in denial.

travelinman67 wrote:This thread is the outlet for folks who wish to blame Bush for everything that's happened, including SARS, potholes, and Brady's injury...

...rather than hijacking memorial threads.

The kudos are just counterpoint to begin the debate. Having said that, I don't put ALL the blame on Bush, but will agree the war shenanigans smell of imperialism/globalization agendas. Bush was a textbook, "I don't know, what I don't know" Texan, whose pious, close-minded views will be written about in history books for centuries.

Yep....remove all the BS out of a dead Texan, and you can bury 'em in a matchbox....

Thank God we finally have some "intellects" guiding America...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/s ... rs-co.html

On Dupont Circle, a crowd gathered to chuck shoes at an inflatable Bush dummy (pictured here);

http://shoebush.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... poster.pdf

Note the list of supporting groups...two of whom have publicly advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, are openly anti-semitic, and are led by Communist Party USA leaders/organizers, some of whom have communist party ties going back decades.

And this is the Obama generation "New Patriot"?

It's not only unpatriotic, hate-driven, anti-Americanism, folks, it's seditious.

travelinman67 wrote:Bush made no mistakes while in office, the cause of all our current economic and foreign policy problems lies at the feet of the Democrats and liberals...under Pelosi & Reid's guidance we've had "change, until we have none left..."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2083768/posts
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:14:51 PM

In 2006 America voted for change

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over two years ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But Americans wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) The Dow is probing another low ~11,300
7) $2.5 trillion dollars has evaporated from stocks, bonds and mutual fund investment portfolios.

Yep, in 2006 America voted for change. And we got it! A Democratic congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

I was looking for this on AGS but no one posted anything like it. Thank you.

travelinman67 wrote:Thank God we finally have some "intellects" guiding America...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/s ... rs-co.html

On Dupont Circle, a crowd gathered to chuck shoes at an inflatable Bush dummy (pictured here);

http://shoebush.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... poster.pdf

Note the list of supporting groups...two of whom have publicly advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, are openly anti-semitic, and are led by Communist Party USA leaders/organizers, some of whom have communist party ties going back decades.

And this is the Obama generation "New Patriot"?

It's not only unpatriotic, hate-driven, anti-Americanism, folks, it's seditious.

No Tman, it's not.

You gotta get over this rage or you're gonna have a stroke or heart attack. Relax my friend.

Travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:Note the list of supporting groups...two of whom have publicly advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, are openly anti-semitic, and are led by Communist Party USA leaders/organizers, some of whom have communist party ties going back decades.
It's not only unpatriotic, hate-driven, anti-Americanism, folks, it's seditious.

No Tman, it's not.

Go back to school.

The conspiratorial actions to develop and organize the demonstration took place while Bush was still President.

Sedition Act of 1798

SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government

Unless you're willing to research something before you shoot your mouth off, maybe you should refrain from commenting.

travelinman67 wrote:

Travelinman67 wrote:
No Tman, it's not.

Go back to school.

The conspiratorial actions to develop and organize the demonstration took place while Bush was still President.

Sedition Act of 1798

SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government

Unless you're willing to research something before you shoot your mouth off, maybe you should refrain from commenting.

Sorry, but I'm from the Thomas Jefferson school of thought, not John Adams....this law is NEVER enforced as it is contrary to our constitution IMHO.....

march that shit through Charleston and see what happens.

citdog wrote:march that shit through Charleston and see what happens.

yeah.....whatever...that's what they said to Sherman as well .....and, after seeing how the Princeton band man-handeled your recruits on the quad not too mention the fact you couldn't kee a woman outside the walls....well, I'd put my money on the hippies in THAT battle....

travelinman67 wrote:

Travelinman67 wrote:
No Tman, it's not.

Go back to school.

The conspiratorial actions to develop and organize the demonstration took place while Bush was still President.

Sedition Act of 1798

SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government

Unless you're willing to research something before you shoot your mouth off, maybe you should refrain from commenting.

You're simply a bitter, know-it-all windbag.

You infer that the actions of a fringe group(s) are representative of the whole, and of course you're wrong, again. That's all I commented on, old man.

D1B wrote: You're simply a bitter, know-it-all windbag.

You infer that the actions of a fringe group(s) are representative of the whole, and of course you're wrong, again. That's all I commented on, old man.

Negative, Medea-Benjamin-thatch-mouth. I'm simply intolerant of listening to know nothing pus spitters like yourself.

I did not imply (you inferred) that the actions of a fringe group are representative of the whole. I mocked the liberal's rhetorical theme of representing the "intellectuals" of America, by citing a demonstration of purely moronic, ignorant behaviour.

I am not the one suggesting, promoting, publishing, organizing, participating or hailing a "shoe throwing" demonstration to insult, demean, and defame the outgoing President.
Yet consistent with your "blindfolded" hatred of all things American, you defend that behavior by attacking their critics (again, and again, and again, and again...).

Grow up and grow a pair. Maturity has nothing to do with how many threats you can make over the internet, it has everything to do with developing a consistent set of defensible moral values, and living by them.

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote: You're simply a bitter, know-it-all windbag.

You infer that the actions of a fringe group(s) are representative of the whole, and of course you're wrong, again. That's all I commented on, old man.

Negative, Medea-Benjamin-thatch-mouth. I'm simply intolerant of listening to know nothing pus spitters like yourself.

I did not imply (you inferred) that the actions of a fringe group are representative of the whole. I mocked the liberal's rhetorical theme of representing the "intellectuals" of America, by citing a demonstration of purely moronic, ignorant behaviour.

I am not the one suggesting, promoting, publishing, organizing, participating or hailing a "shoe throwing" demonstration to insult, demean, and defame the outgoing President.
Yet consistent with your "blindfolded" hatred of all things American, you defend that behavior by attacking their critics (again, and again, and again, and again...).

Grow up and grow a pair. Maturity has nothing to do with how many threats you can make over the internet, it has everything to do with developing a consistent set of defensible moral values, and living by them.

Yeah, sure thing Dad. Two things:

Uh, nice rationalization. You should choose your words more carefully, like these:

Originally posted by Bitterwindbag67: And this is the Obama generation "New Patriot"?

and

D1B wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Negative, Medea-Benjamin-thatch-mouth. I'm simply intolerant of listening to know nothing pus spitters like yourself.

I did not imply (you inferred) that the actions of a fringe group are representative of the whole. I mocked the liberal's rhetorical theme of representing the "intellectuals" of America, by citing a demonstration of purely moronic, ignorant behaviour.

I am not the one suggesting, promoting, publishing, organizing, participating or hailing a "shoe throwing" demonstration to insult, demean, and defame the outgoing President.
Yet consistent with your "blindfolded" hatred of all things American, you defend that behavior by attacking their critics (again, and again, and again, and again...).

Grow up and grow a pair. Maturity has nothing to do with how many threats you can make over the internet, it has everything to do with developing a consistent set of defensible moral values, and living by them.

Yeah, sure thing Dad. Two things:

Uh, nice rationalization. You should choose your words more carefully, like these:

And this is the Obama generation "New Patriot"?

Earth to dipsh!t! That's called a rhetorical question, not a statement.

Give it up, D1B...you're wasting everyones time, again...

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Yeah, sure thing Dad. Two things:

Uh, nice rationalization. You should choose your words more carefully, like these:

Earth to dipsh!t! That's called a rhetorical question, not a statement.

Give it up, D1B...you're wasting everyones time, again...

Yeah, you'd have a point if you didn't constantly make statements matching the tone of your "question". In your world, anyone who strongly supports Obama is a domestic terrorist.

You sir are a dumbass .

D1B wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Earth to dipsh!t! That's called a rhetorical question, not a statement.

Give it up, D1B...you're wasting everyones time, again...

Yeah, you'd have a point if you didn't constantly make statements matching the tone of your "question". In your world, anyone who strongly supports Obama is a domestic terrorist.

You sir are a dumbass .

And we'll find, one day, that he was right. Or that they were idiots. Whatever.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
Yeah, you'd have a point if you didn't constantly make statements matching the tone of your "question". In your world, anyone who strongly supports Obama is a domestic terrorist.

You sir are a dumbass .

And we'll find, one day, that he was right. Or that they were idiots. Whatever.

Shut the fukc up drug addict.

D1B wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Earth to dipsh!t! That's called a rhetorical question, not a statement.

Give it up, D1B...you're wasting everyones time, again...

Yeah, you'd have a point if you didn't constantly make statements matching the tone of your "question".

But I didn't. You *implied* I did, and were wrong...again.

D1B wrote: In your world, anyone who strongly supports Obama is a domestic terrorist.

You sir are a dumbass .

Again, you *imply" a position to my statements which is unsupportable. The topic of my post was that scum eating anti-Americans had planned, recruited, and carried out a demonstration against a seated President, that had no purpose but to thoughtlessly and hatefully defame that President. The groups acted in concert to carry out that demonstration, obtaining an iconic inflatable Nazi like effigy of the President (investing money to complete the act), publishing a poster and establishing an electronic notification system to recruit participants, scheduling it on the inaugural date, somehow obtaining a complicit landowner's permission to execute that demonstration, and executed said demonstration.

Since two of the groups associated with that defamatory demonstration have publicly stated their mission is the overthrow of the U.S. government, one openly advocating use of violence to accomplish that goal, then the act of planning, conspiring with others to execute, and executing an anti-U.S. President, defamatory, demonstration can easily be categorized as an act of sedition under Section 2.

In my world, D1B, any citizen who acts against the interests of our country, in a manner intended to overthrow (emphasis added, Misconstrueman...), the U.S. government REGARDLESS OF WHO'S IN POWER, is committing a seditious act. And, by definition, I am correct. I have NEVER, EVER AT ANY TIME STATED OR *IMPLIED* that Obama supporters are domestic terrorists, if for no other reason than...

...sit down, D1B, this one may hurt...

...(if you fail to forget since I posted it at AGS), I voted for Obama in the California primary.

In the ill researched, emotionally charged world of D1B, if you hate someone (which is frequent), you routinely ignore all reason and law to falsely allege defamatory postions and actions against the target of your hate. Hence, and you may infer whatever you wish from this statement, you often attribute to the advocate opposite you in a debate, illogical positions which are more often than not, reflections upon yourself.

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:

Tman, let's get a few things straight here. Nothing you say to or about me hurts. In fact it's often quite humorous. I enjoy it and I enjoy being your puppet master, pulling your strings and causing you to frequently make an ass out of yourself.

I don't hate you, like you hate me. On this site, you made the choice to position yourself as the alpha dog, King Konk. You crave attention and the spotlight, not unlike a C list hollywood celebrity or talk show blowhard. This being the case, you're gonna have to take some shots, cheap ones too at times. That's just how the world works.

In the short time since this site has lit up you've exposed yourself as whack job militant pro-lifer, a know-it-all expert in EVERY SUBJECT and a raving and bitter conk apologist.

There's no debating you on anything. You compensate for lack of confidence and intelligence by including massive volumes of right wing blog crap and psychotic rants. When that doesn't sway the people (me primarily) you so desperately desire to rehabilitate, you inevitably concoct a story that involves you either working in or having "inside" direct knowledge of the subject matter or you're a close personal friend of one of the primaries. I and other posters jacked you for exaggerating your life experience or outright lying.

In your world you win. To others, you're a windbag like Rush Limbaugh.

Mission Accomplished.

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Yeah, you'd have a point if you didn't constantly make statements matching the tone of your "question".

But I didn't. You *implied* I did, and were wrong...again.

D1B wrote: In your world, anyone who strongly supports Obama is a domestic terrorist.

You sir are a dumbass .

Again, you *imply" a position to my statements which is unsupportable. The topic of my post was that scum eating anti-Americans had planned, recruited, and carried out a demonstration against a seated President, that had no purpose but to thoughtlessly and hatefully defame that President. The groups acted in concert to carry out that demonstration, obtaining an iconic inflatable Nazi like effigy of the President (investing money to complete the act), publishing a poster and establishing an electronic notification system to recruit participants, scheduling it on the inaugural date, somehow obtaining a complicit landowner's permission to execute that demonstration, and executed said demonstration.

Since two of the groups associated with that defamatory demonstration have publicly stated their mission is the overthrow of the U.S. government, one openly advocating use of violence to accomplish that goal, then the act of planning, conspiring with others to execute, and executing an anti-U.S. President, defamatory, demonstration can easily be categorized as an act of sedition under Section 2.

In my world, D1B, any citizen who acts against the interests of our country, in a manner intended to overthrow (emphasis added, Misconstrueman...), the U.S. government REGARDLESS OF WHO'S IN POWER, is committing a seditious act. And, by definition, I am correct. I have NEVER, EVER AT ANY TIME STATED OR *IMPLIED* that Obama supporters are domestic terrorists, if for no other reason than...

...sit down, D1B, this one may hurt...

...(if you fail to forget since I posted it at AGS), I voted for Obama in the California primary.

In the ill researched, emotionally charged world of D1B, if you hate someone (which is frequent), you routinely ignore all reason and law to falsely allege defamatory postions and actions against the target of your hate. Hence, and you may infer whatever you wish from this statement, you often attribute to the advocate opposite you in a debate, illogical positions which are more often than not, reflections upon yourself.

There aren't many who would willingly assume the tedious task of deconstructing your pompous bullshit; that doesn't mean we don't recognize it for what it is. The flimsier your case, the longer your post, so predictable it could be named "T'man's Law of Verbal Flatulence".

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And we'll find, one day, that he was right. Or that they were idiots. Whatever.

Shut the fukc up drug addict.

He says, while smoking a doobie.