Originally posted by sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Whose the one getting screwed?
This time, yes; as noted, the Dems had no choice, it was the proverbial "stuck between a rock and a hard place".
This isn't about sides you pawn... I'm on America's side; what's best for America, as I live here... that's why I don't blindly follow and not ask questions of Bush or any president when my "bullshit" meter goes off.
We're all getting screwed and you agreed (was it a Freudian?) when you said I was "spot on" about my assessment... you're just to blinded to see it or even think of seeing it.
You didn't answer any of my three questions though, just responded with 'MY SIDE BEAT YOUR SIDE, NANANANA!'
Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^As I said, that is the true question of the thread.I apologize for the photoshop, as it seems to have everybody up in arms. (My conservative sense of humor, sorry.)
No, the photoshopped picture is a perfect metaphore for your devotion to this administration. And again, I'd love to hear what you think about the religious right being a punchline to the leaders of this administration?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I've seen a few good responses, mostly that the Dems don't want to screw the troops whilst having Bush give up the war.
You like this answer because you think it validates everything you say about Bush. It does not. What the democrats have decided to do is wait until Sept., when the military commanders of the Iraq situation release their report.
But let me say this to you, and it's something I've said before. If this war ends before Bush leaves office, there can be no argument that this war was to serve his ends, not those of American security or Iraqi freedom.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So they didn't fight the funding bill.I can understand that. 👆
But they had a version of it that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
Again, until the very military commanders that Bush appointed are willing to tell the country it's a cluster fu*k themselves. It isn't because the surge is working.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
And maybe you shold ask yourself why?
You could send another 500,000 troops into Iraq and it might calm things down, but it wouldn't bring this to an end.
As for the "sweeping" part, I recall you saying the republicans were going to slam dunk it, that the democrats would be so shut down that by this point we should have been living in a country with no abortion where we'd removed the teaching of evolution from schools. That is why it was "sweeping", because every republican talking head said that it would be a shut out. Also as I've said before, a slight majority is no majority. It was a mandate from the people, but it wasn't the over whelming mandate it was made out to be.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
What? Are you joking? Does it have anything to do with declassified information that was relevant 3 years ago? I think not, if it was ever true in the first place.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Who is the one getting screwed?
I mentioned it before, how do you feel about the bible thumpers being little more than a punchline to this president when he's stood out on the stage and told you he's deeply religious?
Or better yet, how do you feel about the fact that your boy Bush is doing so well in your opinion, but not one Republican presidential candidate is willing to even invoke his name while being on the campaigne trail?
Originally posted by Devil King
I mentioned it before, how do you feel about the bible thumpers being little more than a punchline to this president when he's stood out on the stage and told you he's deeply religious?Or better yet, how do you feel about the fact that your boy Bush is doing so well in your opinion, but not one Republican presidential candidate is willing to even invoke his name while being on the campaigne trail?
To be fair, one guy did once during the GOP convention. It was a Ronald Reagan rimjob-circus for the most part though.
Originally posted by Robtard
To be fair, one guy did once during the GOP convention. It was a Ronald Reagan rimjob-circus for the most part though.
Oh, you mean the debate? 1 instance, out of a 2 hour debate involving 10 men and only [i]once[i/] is the sitting president envoked? But, he's such a badass that he gets an entire political party to roll over and take it like that pic of him and his dog?
I think not.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Who is the one getting screwed?
The soldier fighting and dying for Bush's "side". All while Bush sits there ****ing up whatever next speech he's going to give.
Originally posted by Schecter
GOMETSDUBYA!!!*drinks beer*
*farts*
*posts stupid pictures*
I'm a Giants fan.
YAY AREA! 😛
Meh, close the thread then.
Just thought it was interesting that after years of Bush bashing, and both the House and Senate now run by Dems that he still gets what he wants.
I have my own opinions on this of course, I was just wondering what you people thought.
Originally posted by Devil King
Don't forget, Star Wars at 30 tonight on g4, and monday there's a history of Star Wars on the History channel. I think it's the history channel.
Poking fun at me, or being serious?
Yeah, it's on History channel on Mon. night.
Didn't know about a G4 show thought, thanks Cap. 👆 😎
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
what the hell is the matter with you, thats just sick...you Nazi commy
Oh but its ok to bomb Iranian's for ''entertainment''.
If bombing Iranians is entertaining for you, then bombing Americans is super entertaining for me.
Originally posted by chithappens
And what would bombing Iran accomplish exactly?
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
entertainmentwe need another good world war to reboot the system
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Poking fun at me, or being serious?
How could it be poking fun at you? I'll be watching it myself.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh but its ok to bomb Iranian's for ''entertainment''.
If bombing Iranians is entertaining for you, then bombing Americans is super entertaining for me.
No one in the US public thinks bombing Iran would be "for fun". It would be a descision the president makes, and the result would be dead, innocent Iranian citizens. And the reverse would be true. If Iran bombs the US, it will be innocent American citizens that would be killed, maybe even some people on this forum, how could that be super entertaining for you?
Again, I think you need to seperate American citizens from the current administration.