Video – Bush: Obama doesn’t need me criticizing him

Former President Bush sat down with Oprah for an interview set to air on November 9 and said that he is treating President Obama as he would have liked former Presidents to have treated him, which is why he has never criticized Obama. Despite how you may feel about it, it’s very classy, which is much more than I can say for Obama, the most divisive president I’ve ever known.



Oprah also asks him if Palin could be the one. I’ll let you watch for his answer:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

359 thoughts on “Video – Bush: Obama doesn’t need me criticizing him

  1. I do not care to watch Oprah but because of an interview with former President Bush I will. As always, President Bush is absolutely first-class, even about his comments regarding Obama (I agree Obama is the most divisive Prez in my lifetime). Many things bothered me about Obama’s “reflections” on why his party had historical losses — he is thin-skinned about himself but thick-skinned about Americans and feels our emotions like Spock. His comments about “feeling bad” for those in his Democratic Party who lost their jobs were shocking! How about “feeling bad” for those millions of Americans who have suffered for two years without jobs in this economy while he wasted that time behind closed doors doing “secret” signing and spending unprecedented debt! How about “feeling bad” for those seniors ending up their lives in this country with this type of un-American environment in our own White House?

  2. He was, is and always will be a class act. He’s right, what a thankless job. The POTUS will never be able to please everyone. Why anyone would want to do it is beyond me. As for Sarah Palin…who knows….time will tell. I wish GWB the very best.

  3. True he may not have been the best president as far as the economy is concerned. But you have to look at the whole picture of what this man did as president. The biggest thing he did, and the greatest thing any president did in a long time, was he handled the attack on the USA very well. He got the fight back off of our soil and took it to their own land. You can be safe in your homes today, 10 full years later, because of the action President Bush took in the time of crisis.

  4. Actually, it’s Fascism. The Federal Gov’t trying to force the States to do what it wants through Nationalization. So, look up the word Revolution and understand how America feels about it.

  5. “In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession.” –George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

  6. “You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.” –to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

  7. “Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.” –Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

  8. “I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.” –Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

  9. “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” –Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003

    “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!” –joking about his administration’s failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents’ Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 24, 2004

  10. “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” –Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002

  11. “So what?” –President Bush, responding to a an ABC News correspondent who pointed out that Al Qaeda wasn’t a threat in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded, Dec. 14, 2008

    1. Dude, stop posting just quotes or you are banned. This isn’t a quote archive. It’s a comment section and if you have something reasonable to say then say it.

  12. “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” –Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

    “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” –Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

  13. “People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in’s house and say I love you.” –Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002

  14. “I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right.” –Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

  15. “You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” –interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

  16. “You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.” -Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

  17. Jimmy Carter: Take note! George W. Bush has class.
    Barack Obama: This is what “presidential” behavior. You don’t pit citizens against each other.

    And Bravo to Oprah for being gracious to President Bush–at least what I saw of this interview. I’m guessing she’s not willing to become a Socialists any day soon?

  18. I like George W. I liked the way he talked to ME/us, I liked his banter, I felt he liked/loved us, too. I just liked W. and alot of his politics, not all, but alot.

  19. Thank God (not Allah) that Pres. Bush was not an Obama. I have never met either of them but I truly believe Mr. Bush did not and does not view as an enemy.

  20. at least a simpleton like bush did’nt need a teleprompter,, even the people in india are laughing.. first time ever a teleprompter been used in india,, president tele let’s see your scores from college,, talk about dumb, it’s gotta be president teleprompter himself.. o yeah let’s collect our welfare checks and make the rich pay for us because we don’t want to work, and were lazy.. has anyone seen my ruffles.. talk about being fuc-in dumb.. president tele// hahahahahah

  21. Who Lied About Iraq?
    By Randall Hoven
    Do not believe that post-invasion intelligence invalidates our justification for using military force against Saddam’s Iraq. The truth is the exact opposite. The US was fully justified to use military force against Iraq, even knowing what we know now — especially knowing what we know now. We should not allow the false story — almost accepted as fact — as we head into a Presidential election, to go unchallenged.

    The False Story

    “The United States invaded Iraq based on false premises. The administration orchestrated a public relations drive to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections to the 9/11 terrorists – both proved false.” USA Today

    While these two sentences came from USA Today, they describe the words behind the music of the “Bush lied, people died” meme echoing throughout the media chambers since at least 2004. The lies in just these two sentences are almost Shakespearian in their layered texture. The statement even lays out a false premise in accusing the Bush administration of using false premises. If lying is an art, our media have mastered it.

    The Premise

    Our invasion of Iraq was not based on a public relations drive; it was based on Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, passed by the 107th Congress in October of 2002 . (Herein referred to as the “Authorization”.) It passed the House with a vote of 296 to 133 (by 69%) and the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 (by 77%), including 58% of Senate Democrats. In short, it was overwhelming; it was bipartisan; and it was law.

    Did the Authorization try to “prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction”? Was that proved false?

    No and no.

    The Authorization has 23 “whereas” clauses, or reasons to justify military invasion, only some of which mention WMD. Here is a prime example.

    “Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated.” [Emphasis added.]

    There are several things to notice in that clause. First is the tense of the verb “had.” The clause does not claim that Iraq has WMD now (in 2002), but that it at one time had them. Secondly, the only stockpiles mentioned are of chemical weapons. Of biological and nuclear weapons it mentions only programs. At no place does the Authorization say that any WMD are current (post-1991).

    Another clause states Iraq continues “to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability” (my emphasis). Again, capabilities and potential capabilities are mentioned, but not ready-to-use weapons or even weapon programs, much less large stockpiles of modern WMD.

    Feel free to read all 23 clauses. The Authorization never claims that Iraq had large stockpiles of modern WMD in 2002, which later became, for no good reason, the threshold used for validation by the media and administration critics. (The logical fallacy employed by Bush’s critics here is the “straw man.”)

    Am I being hyper-technical in parsing the grammar of the Authorization — wallowing in what the meaning of “is” is? No.

    It is the media that is spinning by demanding that only finding large stockpiles of modern WMD would legitimize the war. I am using the actual law as clearly stated. Such an authorization, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, was not just cobbled together willy-nilly. It was the law of the land — carefully crafted, debated and passed. Words matter.

    So what was found post-invasion? The Duelfer Report noted that 53 chemical weapons were found.

    “Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.” (Found on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3.)

    That number later grew to over 500 chemical weapons. You can now check the “large stockpiles of chemical weapons” off your checklist (even though the Authorization did not claim they existed in 2002 or later).

    What about biological and nuclear programs?

    “Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq’s BW [Biological Warfare] program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program. In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.” [Emphasis added.]

    You may now also check the biological and nuclear weapons programs off your checklist. At one time he had them. The only question was how active such programs were in 2002. But we know that he had them at one time and that he also concealed them later. Were these programs still active, but concealed, in 2002 or had he put them on hiatus? For the purpose of the Authorization, the answer doesn’t matter, but let’s examine it anyway.

    As to concealment, note the following Duelferisms.

    * The word “conceal” is found 57 times in Volume 1 alone.
    * “Many locations associated with previous WMD programs and sites under monitoring by the United Nations have been completely looted… Often there is nothing but a concrete slab at locations where once stood plants or laboratories.”
    * “We cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.”
    * “ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq.”

    You can make what you will of those statements. What I make of them is that Duelfer and his fellow inspectors really have no idea what happened with Saddam’s WMD, facilities or programs. They didn’t look everywhere. Where they did look was mostly “looted,” where “looting” could mean cleaned out to conceal evidence. Saddam consistently concealed what he was up to. And Duelfer cannot make a statement about what might have been transported out of Iraq.

    The Duelfer Report is three volumes of “I don’t know.” Post-invasion intelligence is no more trustworthy than pre-invasion intelligence.

    In any case, Duelfer makes clear that Saddam had every intention of restoring the programs as soon as he could get sanctions lifted. His very first finding, echoed often throughout the report, states his fundamental conclusion.

    “[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.”

    In short, the Authorization did not try to “prove that Iraq had WMD.” Inasmuch as the Authorization mentioned WMD, such statements were fully validated by post-war intelligence. And Duelfer went even further than Authorization claims by finding that Saddam had every intention of reconstituting his WMD has soon as he could bribe his way out of sanctions.

    Did the Authorization try to “prove that Iraq had connections to the 911 terrorists”? Was that proved false?

    Again, no and no.

    The Authorization mentions the September 11 attacks in five of the 23 “whereas” clauses. Here is what it says in three such clauses, with the other two being repeats of the same sentiments.

    * “Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for the attacks … are known to be in Iraq.”
    * The “attacks… underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of WMD by international terrorist organizations.”
    * “… necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those … who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

    One clause mentions 9/11 only to provide a background of the gravity of the situation. Another clause explicitly says that all terrorists are to be targeted, noting that the 9/11 terrorists are only a subset of that larger threat.

    There is only one statement in all of the Authorization that connects Iraq with al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks, and then only indirectly. All it says is that some al Qaida members were known to be in Iraq.

    Note that nowhere in the Authorization is there any claim of even a logistical, training or strategic relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, much less an operational or planning one for the 9/11 attacks in particular. Again for no good reason, this latter claim became the only legitimate threshold for military action per administration critics.

    Were any al Qaida members in Iraq at the time of the Authorization? Yes, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his cell. The most recent Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the matter concluded the following .

    “[Pre-war administration] statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country.

    “Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al-Qa’ida was present in northern Iraq.”

    This report is the product of a Democrat-controlled Senate committee, chaired by John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), in a Democrat-controlled Senate. Moreover, more extensive Iraq-al-Qaida links have also been substantiated. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report,

    “One of the reported contacts [between Iraq and al-Qa’ida before the war] has been confirmed, and two other meetings have since been identified.”

    Judge Harold Baer ruled in Federal court that Iraq was indeed partially responsible for the September 11 attacks, enough so that the plaintiffs could be awarded damages against Saddam’s Iraq . The judge ruled there was “a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences”

    “that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda…. Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda’s terrorist acts of September 11… Iraq provided materiel support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda’s criminal acts.”

    Judge Harold Baer is not some 10-Commandment-Displaying Reaganite; he was appointed by President Clinton. Significant testimony in the case came from James Woolsey, President Clinton’s CIA chief from 1993 to 1995.

    In short, not only was the language of the Authorization validated, but significantly more involvement between Iraq and al Qaida has been substantiated by a Democrat-controlled Senate, a Clinton-appointed federal judge and a Clinton-appointed former CIA chief.

    So what was the terrorist-WMD reason for military action in Iraq?

    The September 11 attacks demonstrated to all of us that terrorist threats are not empty. Those of us who doubted the seriousness of such threats (and I was one of them) had our heads cleared on 9/11. Moreover, the attacks demonstrated just how deadly terrorists could be with only box-cutters and other low-tech tools. Between their words and their actions, we knew we could not let terrorists get their hands on WMD.

    On the other hand, hostile states could use terrorists as covert or plausibly-deniable WMD delivery devices. The nightmare nexus would be a hostile state with both WMD and terrorist connections.

    Iraq had both WMD and terrorist connections. In short, as the Authorization puts it in its sixth “whereas,”

    “Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.”

    It was also not obvious that Saddam would not use WMD himself, without resorting to terrorists as middlemen. He had already used them “against other nations and [his] own people.” He had expressed his hatred of the US in word and deed by, among other things, attempting “to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces.”

    What are some of those “other things” that made Iraq in “materiel and unacceptable breach of its international obligations”?

    * Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when it surrendered in Desert Storm in 1991. It was in “direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire.”
    * Iraq agreed to eliminate its WMD programs in 1991. It was later caught continuing those programs, concealing them and thwarting weapons inspectors to the point of kicking them out of the country.
    * Iraq agreed to “end its support for international terrorism” in 1991. It continued to “aid and harbor” international terrorist organizations, including those “that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.”
    * Iraq “engaged in brutal repression of its civilian population.”
    * Iraq refused “to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman.”
    * Iraq failed “to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.”
    * Iraq attempted “to assassinate former President Bush.”
    * Iraq fired “on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.”
    * Iraq persisted in violating multiple United Nations resolutions. Congress authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 674, and 677.”

    If Saddam’s Iraq was not an “outlaw regime,” then there is no such thing.

    Regardless of the careful wording of the Authorization, did the Bush administration orchestrate a “public relations drive” that was “proved false”?

    Inasmuch as a public relations drive was mounted, it was examined by a Democrat-controlled Senate Committee on Intelligence and largely found to be “substantiated by intelligence.” This biased report from Chairman John Rockefeller’s committee analyzed various statements by Bush administration officials and compared them to post-war intelligence. Here is what they found (emphasis added).

    * “Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.”
    * “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of biological agents, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information.”
    * “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information.”
    * “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves.”
    * “Statements … regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence.”
    * “Statements … that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be use to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements or evolving views that existed in the intelligence community.”
    * “Statements … regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information.”
    * “Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.”

    Substantiated, substantiated, substantiated by the intelligence. And these conclusions from some of the most ardent Bush-bashers in the Senate. About the worst they could come up with was that the Bush administration made claims with more confidence than seemed warranted by the intelligence community.

    Tell me, if military action is considered necessary and legal, by both Congress and the Executive branch, is it OK for the President to muster domestic and international support for such action by using rhetorical persuasion? I dare say, he would be negligent if he didn’t.

    The True Story

    The Bush administration did not lie. Saddam’s Iraq was a threat to the US that demanded the use of military force. That was not just Bush’s “cowboy” opinion; that was the written law, passed by huge and bipartisan margins in both houses of Congress. That opinion was supported by both pre-war intelligence and post-war intelligence.

    Moreover, the “legal case” was solid and Iraq was given chance after chance after chance.

    * The authorization noted at least 10 UN resolutions, spread out over a decade, to justify the use of US military force.
    * The Authorization noted that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in … Public Law 107-40.” [Emphasis added.]
    * The Authorization noted Public Law 105-235 (passed under President Clinton) that urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”

    The invasion of Iraq was arguably the most justified case of military action the US has ever taken in its history, based on national defense, validated intelligence and legal authority, not to mention morality. Articles of impeachment would have made more sense if Bush had not invaded.

    That the exact opposite story is what a majority of Americans appear to believe, and a super-majority of non-Americans, is a scary thought. The truth has been sabotaged, and not by President Bush or his allies.

      1. Miss ‘Trudy’,

        CM Sackett here. We’ve never been introduced (and I’ve been away/busy for a while), but I feel as though we know each other already.

        …so let me get right to the point.

        You either CLASS UP (W A Y UP), and CLEAN UP your act… or you’re GONE.

        …see, no need for 4-5 syllable words mixed with tiny, twisted pissy attitudes to get a point across. If you could ever master that concept, you could stick around “big people” conversations.

        Choice is yours.

        CM Sackett

  22. I sure do miss President Bush……class act…..someone this sorehead excuse for a prez should learn from.

  23. For our liberal friends – Anything worth saying is worth repeating: Posted on FoxNation.com –

    If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

    If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD’s, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

    If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

    If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless?

    If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk?

    If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

    If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

    If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

    If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

    If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

    If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
    If George W. Bush had said I think the police behaved stupidly for arresting a b l a c k friend of his before he had any of the facts would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had said all legislation will be available for comment for 4 days prior to presidential signature and then reneged on this promise would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had said all debate on the health care take over bill would be televised live on C-Span and then reneged on this promise would you have approved?

    1. I heard a Muslin man say when PO made the 57 states in US, he messed up because there are 57 Muslin countries. Yet when Sarah Palin did something similiar the press went wild.

    2. Do I hear an ECHO?
      Is anyone talking here? Or is that the Ministry of Truth coming from the speaker in the corner there?

    3. Do I hear an ECHO?
      Is anyone talking here? Or is that the Ministry of Truth coming from the speaker in the corner there?

  24. When Bush left office unemployment was at 5-7 %, Obama 10-17% depending on what state. Bush had 1.5 trillion deficit. Obama’s 13 trillion. Obama and his Senate working on deal to bring cargo planes to St. Louis, Mo from China to sell their goods to the American people instead of getting our manufacturing jobs going in US. With all that lead paint China uses in kids toys and the poisons in their baby milk, after all they poisoned a lot of their own children a while back, and the US housing got stuck with dangerous sheet rock that was making our own people sick from China. Obamacare is regulating medicines and treatments for the elderly, what better way for Obama to get jobs going. Let us buy our products from China and kill off the youth, health care kill off the elderly, and Trudy there will be plenty of jobs that you will be able to get so you don’t have time to write and tell us how great Obama is… You will be working so much to give your paycheck to the Government and you know you aren’t going to make that middle class because when you get that paycheck there will be so many hands out waiting to get their share. Somebody has to pay for those illegal immigrants and their kids. Don’t expect any one to follow laws because if it is right for people to invade the US illegally and the Government won’t enforce the laws that they made, they won’t enforce any laws when you are hurt, stolen from. It’s fair right? Double standards. Don’t be mean to the Muslims either because the Muslims don’t take crap when their laws are broken. Their course of action is Death under their laws. They aren’t like Obama.

    1. This is an absolute jewel: “Bush had 1.5 trillion deficit. Obama’s 13 trillion.”
      Does anyone here want to help out Holden’s babe? Come on, give it a try.
      Kind of perfect start to all the other silliness that follows.
      Hey Girl, do you that one copyrighted, because I’d love to offer it the site as a motto.

  25. Like Bush doesnt already know. Palin and Bush are cousins along with Cousin Obama, Kerry, and the rest of the evil rulers. Palin will be told what to do just like Obama. Both get their walking orders from Bush. papa Bush that is.

    1. Whoaaaa now Buford. Come on down now son. Sit a bit….thats a good chair there…now sit and rest while I make a call…….

  26. I really miss that guy. Crying out loud, we really blew it this time. Next time, we won’t blow it.

  27. Bush made sure we were safe after 911. Need a cowboy to protect the country. History will credit him for this. Also, least recognized Bush act the will benifit US interests is the NUKE deal with democratic India and making a historic military alliance with India against communist China. This will reap in economic and military dividends in this century. Compare this to Obama who is on the visit to India with no vision, worse, prostrates to China and sides with Pakistani army that supports muslim terrorists in Kasmir, Taliban, even Al Queda (gave billions of aid to Pakistani military).

    1. LOL. This guy also lets a little jewel squeeze out.
      Bush and Pervez, what a team. And his not liking India and blocking arms sales to it because it used to be a leader of that pesky unaligned movement. And all that time he spent on China and most of all his China hand from GoldmanSach, Paulson. Shipping him over there to make sure the debt spigot didn’t get turned off.
      I love these! It’s like going to the history fun house here!

          1. Actually, you are. You manage to distort everything you see and hear, to comport with your twisted conceptions of human nature and the world around you.

  28. Bush made sure we were safe after 911. Need a cowboy to protect the country. History will credit him for this. Also, least recognized Bush act the will benifit US interests is the NUKE deal with democratic India and making a historic military alliance with India against communist China. This will reap in economic and military dividends in this century. Compare this to Obama who is on the visit to India with no vision, worse, prostrates to China and sides with Pakistani army that supports muslim terrorists in Kasmir, Taliban, even Al Queda (gave billions of aid to Pakistani military).

  29. DMK don’t be so stupid. Bush inherited no such thing as a positive deficit. Well I take that back he did because Clinton raped SSN to pay down the debt. I guess in the eyes of a Demowit robbing Peter to pay Paul is balancing the budget.

    1) Deregulation of the investment banking industry, more than any single factor, led us to the mess we’re in. Which was supported, encouraged and promoted by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Company so “Everyone could buy a home” whether they could afford it or not.
    2) The federal government had an absolute right to sue Arizona. That’s why we have the division of powers – they don’t get to nullify the Arizona law, they have to go through the court system, who may not decide in their favor. Because enforcing the current immigration laws was just too messy, wouldn’t allow more illegally registered voters and is just plain “Insensitive”
    3) The entire tea party movement has been built around the notion of voting against their “enemies” Once again clueless one, It was built around a premise of smaller, less intrusive Government that actually lives within it’s means like the rest of us have to. What a concept.
    4) Demonized AIG? Are you aware of the crazy sh*t that AIG was pulling in order to make themselves appear solvent? You mean the same sh*t Freddie and Fannie did? oh that’s right Elmer Fudd couldn’t hem them up, then how would he finance his campaigns?
    5) NOBODY IS DEMONIZING THE RICH! Really?! “We will not allow tax cuts for the rich” WTH is that then? Drink your koolaid and quit spiking it, may help you think clearer.

    You do realize that the only reason that you didn’t think Bush was divisive was because you agreed with him, right? The man won his second term by the smallest margin of any sitting wartime president in history… Hey the Raiders only won by one field goal….Still see the “W” on the board though huh? But then again, half the country was still asleep at the wheel then as well. After all, many were still buying into the “Climate BS” then too.

  30. Trudy is clearly of the “He’s the Messiah” bunch. Well Trudy tell us all about the Hauvaud theory? You know, the one where we all sit around expanding on our intellectual thoughts and patting ourselves on the back all the while unable to cross the street on our own without getting hit by a bus. You are no more intellectual than anyone here, you just happen to have more time on your hands no doubt because others are paying your bills (Taxpayers I’d guess). While you spend your days opining over the annointed one, just remember the rest of us live and breathe life every day, on our own, without the crutch and we prefer it that way. Beholden to know one, least of all some silver spoon fed, carried through life, clown lecturing us on what is and isn’t while not having a clue. Since you are so bloody intellegent, who finances these wars? What? congress, not the President? really? Who essentially runs the country? What? Congress, not the President? Who has had the majority since 1996? What? Demowits and Liberals? Those same tools that told us Fannie and Freddie wheren’t an issue? The same tools that write the checks and earmark the bills? Kind of hard to put the blame on anyone else when you’ve been driving the parochial car now isn’t it? While you’re looking down your nose, wipe the crap off it; We’ll ask Obama to give you a little more warning before he stops next time

  31. History and facts are going to treat this man well. You may not like his accent nor his pronunciation of some of his words or some of his policies/decisions but he did a lot of things right. He took our national security seriously and kept us safe. Sometimes it takes a stark contrast to appreciate someone. I’m glad to count myself as one of the many Americans see him get the respect he deserves. I may have to watch Oprah again. Dang, that will be twice in two weeks. Way past my limit.

    1. I know what you mean with watching Oprah. I stopped watching her when she went to religionizing others, doing so many positive thinking shows and endorcing B O.

  32. GW is smart not to criticize Obama. The backlash would add fuel to the shellacked Dems. I will give GW the benefit of the doubt and say that this is a class act for him to say what he said to Orphah.

  33. Dear West Wing staffers,
    Please direct President Obama to watch this video,
    it is a lesson on the definition of true charector.

    Thank You.

    Love and kisses,

    one concerned citizen of the United States Of America

  34. President George W. Bush was not the eloquent speaker that Barack Obama is, but you always knew his heart when he DID speak. You could see his emotion in his expressive eyes. Looking into Barack’s eyes is like looking into the deadness of a shark’s eyes. No emotion. Blank. Mr. Bush was quite open about his love and respect for our military and always seemed quite comfortable being around them, and they loved him. Barack is rigid around the troops and exhibits a disdain for them that borders on contempt. The troops appear to tolerate him since they must. President Bush knew what it means to be an American. He new that as the greatest country in the history of the world, we were responsible for spreading liberty throughout the world. He understood the notion of “American Exceptionalism” and conducted the nations business accordingly. Finally, President George W. Bush answered History’s call on September 11, 2001 when he stood on the site of “Ground Zero”, picked up a bull horn and took command of a nation under siege. He rallied the troops and the citizenry, and he vowed to keep America safe. He honored that vow. For all his perceived faults, and there were many, President George W. Bush will be remembered as a great president, who guided our nation through some of the most turbulent times in our history. And I thank him.

    1. Well said, Bimmcorp. I also thank President George W. Bush. He made me proud to be an American. No man is perfect, and hind sight is always 20/20. You are right….you could see the compassion, hear it in his voice and see it in his eyes. Mr. Obama is cold, scary. Almost like there isn’t a soul in there. I miss W. Badly. And he is the classiest of all the living presidents, hands down. He greatly respects the office of the presidency, and is not going to dishonor it by a comment.

      1. Maybe President Palin will restore the dignity to the Office of the President…..We can only hope!!!!….

    2. Well said, Bimmcorp. I also thank President George W. Bush. He made me proud to be an American. No man is perfect, and hind sight is always 20/20. You are right….you could see the compassion, hear it in his voice and see it in his eyes. Mr. Obama is cold, scary. Almost like there isn’t a soul in there. I miss W. Badly. And he is the classiest of all the living presidents, hands down. He greatly respects the office of the presidency, and is not going to dishonor it by a comment.

  35. God Bless you President George W. Bush!

    Always a class act and a whole whole lot smarter than our nations super-biased lefty media and the Liberal ilk ever gave you credit for, sir.

    I’m certain that Barack Hussein Obama, being that he is the Great Divider and all, will lay plenty of blame and do plenty of finger-pointing when he is finally and inevitably gone from the White House. After all, he’s been doing exactly that the whole entire time he’s been failing while residing in the White House.

  36. “Wade back into the swamp”. I was never a fan of “W”, but that was classic, and by classic I mean class act. Compared to all we have heard from January 2009 from PBO. I see “fair and balanced” Olbermann got canned today.

  37. “which is much more than I can say for Obama, the most divisive president I’ve ever known”

    Bush was far and away a more divisive president

  38. “which is much more than I can say for Obama, the most divisive president I’ve ever known”

    Bush was far and away a more divisive president

  39. “which is much more than I can say for Obama, the most divisive president I’ve ever known”

    Bush was far and away a more divisive president

    1. OH YEAH, your right DMK. I remember all those times where Bush just demonized the Democrats and their failed policies, saying they drove the economy in the ditch and that they were just drinking slurpees while he and the Republicans were pushing it out.

      Oh and I remember Bush said that Democrats could ride in the back of the car too. And that time when he sued the state of Arizona for trying to protect itself? That was hilarious! Oh yeah and that other time when he told the Latinos that vote against their enemies!

      Oh yeah, and I sooo remember how Bush demonized AIG, the insurance companies, the rich, and of course those who disagreed with him. Yeah, he did that alot!

      Yeah, you are right, Bush was definitely the most divisive president evah!

      1. lol liberals dont actually know the definition of most words they throw around. to liberals, divisive = yucky. also to “tolerant” liberals, conservatives are subhuman. democrats actually, genuinely, sincerely believe that obama is loved by actual people. only subhuman evil cretin racists from the mountains and the south dislike him, and their opinions dont matter any more than a fleas. look at the democrats insisting they passed shitcare for the “american people”, yet 60% of citizens were unambiguously opposed to it. how do democrats square that in their pea-brains? well, the 40% is the “american people”, the 60% majority are simply tools of corporations or haliburton or foreign money or whatever dumb shit liberals’ latest boogeyman is. but they aren’t people. not as far as liberals are concerned. and thats how their psychotic brains can actually make them think bush was decisive but not obama. THEY think bush is yucky, so they call him divisive, and THEY think obama is super cool, so they call him a uniter.

        (note: even the iraq war resolution had a MAJORITY of democrat senators voting in favor of it. bush got bipartisan votes on EVERY significant legislation he did. compare to the leftists super duper “communicator”, who’s biggest votes are purely partisan (and he cant even get all the democrats to vote in favor, rofl))

        but as everyone reading this page has noticed by now, democrats like turdy, dmk, etc. possess about as much critical thinking skills as does their comrade alvin greene. legally retarded – the democrat base.

      2. Oh, right, Scoop, I remember when Bush inherited a strong economy and an economic surplus which renders literally all of your arguments completely moot.1) Deregulation of the investment banking industry, more than any single factor, led us to the mess we’re in.2) The federal government had an absolute right to sue Arizona. That’s why we have the division of powers – they don’t get to nullify the Arizona law, they have to go through the court system, who may not decide in their favor.3) The entire tea party movement has been built around the notion of voting against their “enemies”4) Demonized AIG? Are you aware of the crazy sh*t that AIG was pulling in order to make themselves appear solvent? 5) NOBODY IS DEMONIZING THE RICH!You do realize that the only reason that you didn’t think Bush was divisive was because you agreed with him, right? The man won his second term by the smallest margin of any sitting wartime president in history…

      3. Oh, right, Scoop, I remember when Bush inherited a strong economy and an economic surplus which renders literally all of your arguments completely moot.1) Deregulation of the investment banking industry, more than any single factor, led us to the mess we’re in.2) The federal government had an absolute right to sue Arizona. That’s why we have the division of powers – they don’t get to nullify the Arizona law, they have to go through the court system, who may not decide in their favor.3) The entire tea party movement has been built around the notion of voting against their “enemies”4) Demonized AIG? Are you aware of the crazy sh*t that AIG was pulling in order to make themselves appear solvent? 5) NOBODY IS DEMONIZING THE RICH!You do realize that the only reason that you didn’t think Bush was divisive was because you agreed with him, right? The man won his second term by the smallest margin of any sitting wartime president in history…

        1. wow dmk. you, like all your fellow democrat posters, certainly have brought new insights to the table. youve sure converted me with your fresh and original thoughts.

          oh wait, ive seen that exact post about 5 million times already. democrats, once again stunning the world with their individuality, creativity, and free thinking spirit. through 3 year old talking point emailed to them every morning from dailykos. pathetic.

          hey, name the source of this quote: “the elections over, john. i won.”
          was it:
          a) george w bush to john kerry in 2005, as bush and the republicans rushed to pass reviled legislation amid the protests of the entire democrat caucus?
          or
          b)ballsack obama to john mccain in 2009, as obama and the democrats rushed to pass reviled legislation amid the protests of the entire republican caucus?

          yeah, that sure is statesman-like.

        2. “I remember when Bush inherited a strong economy and an economic surplus…” You do, of course, remember wrong. The economy wasn’t strong at the end of 2000 (look it up; it’s easy to do, surely even leftists can do it).

        3. DMK… you have a really bad memory. In late 2000, early 2001, right when Bush came into office, there was this thing called “.com bubble” that burst and put our economy into a major recession. I am acutely aware of this because my brother lost HIS job and lost his house behind that recession. He and his family lived with me during 9/11/2001. So, the idea that the economy was all peachy when Bush took office is complete BS.

    2. And, unlike President Obama, Bush was never depicted as a Nazi. Nobody ever joked or publicly fantasized about assassinating Bush. Nor was Bush ever accused of plotting terrorist attacks on the United States.

      Forged documents were never advanced against Bush in order harm his electoral prospects. Unlike President Obama, no one ever accused Bush of a history of alcohol or drug abuse, with speculation about how this history might affect presidential decision making.

  40. Oprah knows Obama polls best against Palin, which is why she wants to see Palin get the nomination.

  41. There is no politician who becomes President who is perfect. They all have flaws just like all of us. Some do a good job and some don’t, but who the heck defines that anyway? As long as they don’t totally screw up, it all balances out in the end.
    Afghanistan – ok Iraq – if explained better and then run better in the beginning would look better to us, but they blew running the country right from the beginning… just shows the military can get job done, but its one thing to beat your enemy, its a totally different thing when you get stuck ruling the defeated enemy.

  42. Heather — It’s ridiculous to say President Bush’s non-answer was a no on Palin just as it is equally riduculous to say that his unwillingness to critique President Obama means he likes what President Obama is doing. How about we take him at his word?

  43. Look, that is the trick question by the liberals to try to define a target to attack…
    Sarah Palin herself has recognized it and says she has not decided and will check out the lay of the land…
    all these questions by the liberals (Oprah is a prominent liberal) to everyone on the Republican side about Sarah Palin are designed to corner people so they can be attacked.
    Best answer is like Guiliani and even Jeb Bush…. no 1… she has not said she is running no 2…. there will be a lot of good candidates and if she runs, the people will decide and whoever wins, I will wholeheartedly support.
    Simple. Ends further questions.
    Why get cornered at this point anyway?
    Besides, Sarah has her documentary series coming out that will run through Xmas season and into the New Year and her new book is coming out in a week or so and there should be a book tour with that. 🙂

    1. Sadly, that’s not saying much.

      I think Bush has a lot of class. Obama has done but blame him from day 1 and Bush refuses to criticize him.

      1. Why would Bush want to draw attention to his failures by criticizing Obama?
        Unfortunately, Obama held off on the history lesson for too long. Part of curing a problem is identifying its cause. That came too late and so the bamboozlers got out and ran amok.

        1. You’re saying Obama failed to blame Bush ENOUGH?

          HAHAHAHAHAHA

          Oh man, turn off MSNBC. HAHAHAHAHA. Believe me, America has heard the case against Bush. Most of them appear to be rejecting it.

          1. Would that be the same America that ranks near the bottom of the list of every measure of an advanced, developed democracy?
            Or maybe only all those red electoral districts that evidence the highest levels of debt and home foreclosures?

          2. Would that be the same America that ranks near the bottom of the list of every measure of an advanced, developed democracy?
            Or maybe only all those red electoral districts that evidence the highest levels of debt and home foreclosures?

            1. What measures would those be? You mean lists compiled by leftists in the coastal media? You do know that the vast majority of us just grimace in derision at the pretension of those know-nothings, right?

              1. Yes. Grimacing in derision for you guys seems to come way easier than reading a book or doing a PDE. For that reason, yes, we think you’re a bunch of yahoos. And it’s not an inexplicable coincidence that the majority of the the US GDP is generated on the coasts near all overwhelming majority of the best universities in the country and even some still best in the world. But there are those pretty blue districts around UTAustin and Duke and WashU and UCDenver. You know, where that knowledge stuff is?

                1. Fine. We think you’re a bunch of culturally illiterate poseurs whose smug arrogance over your assumed superiority makes you objects of derision to us normal folks.

                  As for the rest of your claims, they are crap, of course. Lies you tell yourselves to reinforce your self-importance.

                2. The usual fact and figure filled posting here.
                  The usual “you are a bunch of fill-in-the-blank” and “ah that’s all crap” and “you’re just a fill-in-the-blank”.
                  I mean, it’s always good fun to just attack the person and say what they’re saying is crap, and I enjoy a good swat like everyone else here, but I never see a single (non-FakeNews, non-GlennBeckian) fact or figure here. It’s amazing.

                3. You say, “it’s always good fun to just attack the person and say what they’re saying is crap.” So that’s why you do it continually?

                4. You say, “it’s always good fun to just attack the person and say what they’re saying is crap.” So that’s why you do it continually?

                5. The media influence has hit mainstream America. This is what they do. You can tell who watch these liberal stations as well as the sensationalism too. They just keep echoing someone elses words, never thinking for themselves, needing a leader to follow never a leader.

                6. The usual fact and figure filled posting here.
                  The usual “you are a bunch of fill-in-the-blank” and “ah that’s all crap” and “you’re just a fill-in-the-blank”.
                  I mean, it’s always good fun to just attack the person and say what they’re saying is crap, and I enjoy a good swat like everyone else here, but I never see a single (non-FakeNews, non-GlennBeckian) fact or figure here. It’s amazing.

            2. “……ranks near the bottom of the list of every measure of an advanced, developed democracy”

              Trudy, show me the list.
              Trudy, you should move to somewhere higher on the list – take olbermann with you when you go.

              1. You can use the sites below for reference on the various locations where the U.S. is in: Education. Infrastructure. Health/Healthcare. Patents. Cars. Aircraft. Engineering graduates. High tech manufacturing. Corruption (U.S. 22 LOL). Chemicals. Cryogenics. Happiness. You name it.
                It should be pointed out that the U.S. leads only in government subsidized enterprises. Primarily military, military manufacture and export, agriculture and basic scientific research. The latter of course, also thanks to all the foreign born students.
                https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
                http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
                http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/happy-planet-index
                http://www.worldbank.org/
                http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm

                1. And would you like to elaborate?
                  I can make it simple for you. We’re a continent sized country of 310mm people with vast natural resources and haven’t had a threat in this hemisphere since, well, we fought ourselves.
                  So you can start listing all the things that people mean every time they start shouting “We’re #1” (and not Govt subsidized) and those who talk about the “City on the Hill”?

                2. 310 mm people? About a foot high? Dear, if you need someone to explain why America is exceptional to you, you’ll never understand. There’s no point in trying to teach a pig to sing; you’ll never succeed, and it just annoys the pig. That’s why we don’t bother trying to teach you about the greatness of this country.

                3. Does a threat to us require it to happen in this hemisphere? The sinking of the Lusitania ushered us into the Great War. The attack on one of our naval bases got us involved in WW2. You could certainly argue what led up to those events, but do they not count as threats?
                  I’d be one of the first to say the USA could use some well meant constructive criticism, but American exceptional-ism can’t be denied. I could provide a list, but I trust you’re smart enough to know what that list contains. Developing countries seem to be re-writing that list, though. They are giving us some competition in that arena. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, it just is.

                4. I know I stopped with “threats” against the US in the 1940s. There’s certainly been other threats since then. But, I’m curious, does 9/11 make your list as a “threat”?

            3. Perhaps you should look at the crime levels and dependence on government handouts in the Blue electoral districts first?

              1. I prefer to look at the amount of prosperity we afford all types up here in Bluest of NY. And, of course, our crime is surging…. to 1960 levels. It’s awful.

            4. Perhaps you should look at the crime levels and dependence on government handouts in the Blue electoral districts first?

              1. I know you’re conservative in a literal sense. Which means, change is inherently bad and anyone who wants to change anything for the better should go elsewhere. Well, I understand. I understand that, for all you know, it would have been better to go elsewhere every time there was human progress. And sometimes that happened. There used to be this place they used to go called America. Weird. The only tradition that seems to be surviving of those change-for-the-better-driven folks among your sort is now you want them to go away. Beautiful irony.

                1. Oh Trudy, you are SO deluded. You really DO think you’re smarter and better than the rest of us, don’t you? Poor little child, so afraid of the rest of the world that you have to construct such delusions.

                2. Wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance! This is the first time I’ve visited this site, and I see that roughly half the posts here are from you. Maybe you need to find something constructive to do, instead of merely hating those who disagree with you and screaming at them.

          3. Would that be the same America that ranks near the bottom of the list of every measure of an advanced, developed democracy?
            Or maybe only all those red electoral districts that evidence the highest levels of debt and home foreclosures?

        2. Echoes of anothers words, lack of thinking for ones self. Can’t take the heat get out of the Kitchen T.

        1. I believe FP bush will not criticize because that is the gentleman he is and he knows that eventually the historians will reveal the truth with his leadership. He can sat back and wait for the glory train express to enlighten the world.

          1. LOL! Shadowwriter60 is one of those RubyRidgeBranchDavidian nuts!!
            HAHA!
            This place is even funnier than I thought. We got this character and the Illuminati dude here! Ted Kaczynski is coming next!

            1. Evidently you don’t know that you’re non sequiturs are laugh-inducing. Trudy, this last comment of yours is crazy even by YOUR standards.

    2. I agree. Upper Class. George II. All that New England white aristocracy, blue blood, Skull and Bones stuff.
      As opposed to those poor lower class pull-up-yourself-by-the-bootstrap sorts.
      Well, I myself and my fellow progressives have always liked integrity, intelligence and compassion more and, yes, we are aware that those are way down the list on Conservative values. Or maybe they’re not on the list at all. Or possibly just below religion or race.

        1. Always been there at the top.
          I would highly recommend adding it to yours. Even it it is just below “sexual orientation” or “gun owner”.

            1. Sorry. I thought this might be flattery.
              But Democrats are the party first and foremost of justice, fairness, civil rights and compassion.
              Republicans are for social values, law and order, less taxes, and less government.
              David Vitter, Ken Mehlman, John Ensign, Tom DeLay, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2.

              Case closed. (Although I could go on and on with the parade of hypocrites with regard to the party’s stated values that the Republicants have produced in just the last 10 years)

              1. You have the wrong idea about conservatives- I think most of us could care less- It is a topic pushed by media to polarize the people. It is like asking a progressive liberal if they think all babies should live- If it were used by the media it would force some to admit that they are not pro-babies in all instances and would repel a lot of people. Gay rights are just a line in the sand- by definition most conservatives are small government-libertarian types that would prefer less intrusion into personal choices- not more.

                You used that word (integrity) as though it’s a Democrat/Liberal exclusive trait- It is not- Most of this country’s people have more integrity than any politician- 2nd, most of this country’s people are conservatives…. which means that most people with integrity are conservative- Then you also claimed this of politicians (one group over another, but still politicians) which rank at the bottom of the pit for ownership of that word. I can only think of one off the top of my head, and he is a conservative. I think you listed what you call hypocrites because you do realize that it is impossible to point to a politician (especially from the left) that demonstrates integrity at a level that would make Americans proud. The current POTUS is an example of how not to act.

                Former President Bush had much more class (NM Homey was on the right track) than a POTUS that flips his opponents the bird during speeches, while in office- A POTUS that routinely if not exclusively governs by attack of his enemies (verbal and through power)- A POTUS that attacks businesses, attacks private citizens, attacks his (well not even his) former politicians. Yes, Bush has more class than him- Even out of office and out of the spotlight, Obama still finds him, brings him forward and beats on his character, and Bush has so much more class that he wouldn’t even verbally denounce the man that attacks him as a hobby. Out of respect for the office, he quietly takes a public beating handed to him by the current POTUS and others.

              2. You have the wrong idea about conservatives- I think most of us could care less- It is a topic pushed by media to polarize the people. It is like asking a progressive liberal if they think all babies should live- If it were used by the media it would force some to admit that they are not pro-babies in all instances and would repel a lot of people. Gay rights are just a line in the sand- by definition most conservatives are small government-libertarian types that would prefer less intrusion into personal choices- not more.

                You used that word (integrity) as though it’s a Democrat/Liberal exclusive trait- It is not- Most of this country’s people have more integrity than any politician- 2nd, most of this country’s people are conservatives…. which means that most people with integrity are conservative- Then you also claimed this of politicians (one group over another, but still politicians) which rank at the bottom of the pit for ownership of that word. I can only think of one off the top of my head, and he is a conservative. I think you listed what you call hypocrites because you do realize that it is impossible to point to a politician (especially from the left) that demonstrates integrity at a level that would make Americans proud. The current POTUS is an example of how not to act.

                Former President Bush had much more class (NM Homey was on the right track) than a POTUS that flips his opponents the bird during speeches, while in office- A POTUS that routinely if not exclusively governs by attack of his enemies (verbal and through power)- A POTUS that attacks businesses, attacks private citizens, attacks his (well not even his) former politicians. Yes, Bush has more class than him- Even out of office and out of the spotlight, Obama still finds him, brings him forward and beats on his character, and Bush has so much more class that he wouldn’t even verbally denounce the man that attacks him as a hobby. Out of respect for the office, he quietly takes a public beating handed to him by the current POTUS and others.

                1. As far as “gay issues” are concerned, please consult the the last 3 RNC platforms and replay the 2004 presidential election.
                  Apart from that, you didn’t address my characterization of the 2 parties’ central/stated values and how reliable their leading politicians have been on living and representing them.
                  That is integrity. Not claiming to be for “small government” and then be Reagan or Bush2 and presiding over unprecedented growth of the govt. Of course, their preferred areas of growth. Talking the talk but not walking the walk, as usual.
                  Same goes for “family/social values”. Who needs comedy central when you have such a cast of hypocrites (=lack of integrity) as populate high office on the Republican side. John McCain, a guy who used to have integrity got taught a lesson in its usefulness by Bush2 in S. Carolina. Now he’s on hopped on board the HypocrisyExpress called the Republican Party.
                  And I don’t even bring up what I assume is this crowd’s all-time favorite and future presidential candidate, Mitt the Snit.

                  Yeah. Republicans’ values and integrity are not just decimals, not just repeating decimals, but downright imaginary numbers. (Sorry, having a little number wordplay!)

                2. Conservative =/= Republican

                  What Republican party members are does not always equal conservative, much like Democrats are not all 1 specific ideology.

                  A basic point I made is that politicians rank low on the scale of integrity- I would never look to a politician to define integrity. The fact that you would ignore such a basic idea that politicians are almost all trash (but most especially from the side that would choose to govern against the majority of Americans and lie about what’s in the bills they pass- because they themselves never read them-) to be where they are in the first place tells me that you are not being honest- or maybe you are willfully ignoring the trashiness of you political side. Whatever the case- you will not find integrity in politicians and you really shouldn’t use it as a wedge to differentiate between parties because it’s really like saying who’s the most honest liar. It’s arguing a defeated point because there is no defense for that, and the only way out is to attack the other side to create a false image of superiority for the side you defend.

                  P.S.- Nobody likes Mitt (at least not conservatives- Republicans, maybe)

                3. I was being a little bit facetious about Mitt, so I agree with you. Of course, his real nemesis in getting nominated will be the fact that Evangelicals don’t like Mormons. But that’s a typical Republican issue.

                  But I’m not commenting on “trashiness” of politicians. We get what we deserve in them and the system we support. And that’s really what integrity is about when it comes to electing someone to office. If I support campaign reform, I know I can rely on a Democrat. Feingold. If I’m a Republican and want that, I get John McCain. Feingold is going to deliver not just when the wind blows for him on the issue, but always. McCain, well, we know.
                  If I want to avoid a collapse of the financial system this one time and for the future, I go with a Barney Frank. He’ll not cover up his vote for TARP and then bow to Wall Street lobbyists. Like our new speaker Boehner. Who begged, tears in his teary eyes for Paulson’s TARP and then those turned crocodile when he thought taking the opposite position would get him elected, particularly with such big donations coming in.
                  Now, not EVERY Democrat is a reliable on principle. But you can look at the record (a painful exercise you small govt types) and see who has integrity. Until you can address my first posting, you just trying to convince yourself.

                4. OMG, Trudy, please. Barney Frank, really? You’ve got to watch this video, although I don’t expect that you’ll believe it, even when it’s in their own words. It’s voters with ideologue blinders on that got us in this mess.
                  For the money quote from Frank, skip to 6:02. For a real education on corruption, start @ 6:18. Then get back with us on integrity.

                5. It’s a CSPAN congressional hearing investigating corruption at Fan/Fred. Doesn’t get more factual than that. These people should be in prison. Did you listen up to the point where the auditor found they cooked the books to within a couple of dollars to to meet their bonus goals!!! That starts at the 6:18 mark.

                6. SoldiersMom:
                  First I would like to express my sincere gratidue for your sons great sacrifice of service and your family’s as well. God Bless you.

                  For years I have spoken about the C Span Congress hearing of Ruby Ridge and the Davidian Compound and no one new about them. Recently the verdict against the unethical proceeding of Govt has resurfaced. I know you are right about these hearings too.

                  I hope Trudy will watch an actively listen as I did so many years ago about Ruby Ridge and the Davidian Compound, these were not in the media much after other than the sensationalism, nor did they tell the Govts wrong doings, these were on C Span. I like many watched how the media made these out to be armed and dangerous and in the real truth they embolished the truth. Still happening today.

                7. Conservative =/= Republican

                  What Republican party members are does not always equal conservative, much like Democrats are not all 1 specific ideology.

                  A basic point I made is that politicians rank low on the scale of integrity- I would never look to a politician to define integrity. The fact that you would ignore such a basic idea that politicians are almost all trash (but most especially from the side that would choose to govern against the majority of Americans and lie about what’s in the bills they pass- because they themselves never read them-) to be where they are in the first place tells me that you are not being honest- or maybe you are willfully ignoring the trashiness of you political side. Whatever the case- you will not find integrity in politicians and you really shouldn’t use it as a wedge to differentiate between parties because it’s really like saying who’s the most honest liar. It’s arguing a defeated point because there is no defense for that, and the only way out is to attack the other side to create a false image of superiority for the side you defend.

                  P.S.- Nobody likes Mitt (at least not conservatives- Republicans, maybe)

              3. Oh. Case Closed. Everyone shut up now, Trudy has spoken. Democrats are not hypocritical at all and Republicans are. Everyone shut up. EVERYONE SHUT UP.

                1. Wow. I didn’t know I was intimidating to a woman with a patch on her eye and a mean-girl look on her face.
                  But, then again, you’re right. Pretty hard to argue against the facts.

                2. Yes, the Democrats. The party of slavery, segregation, patronage and identity politics. You should study some history. A higher percentage of Republicans voted FOR the CRA than Democrats. In fact, it wouldn’t have passed without them. Ike sent the Guard in to desegregate. Lincoln was a Republican assinated by a Democrat. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.

                3. Gee. I guess you’re still reading newspapers from 1963.
                  Richard Nixon couldn’t get elected today. His creation of the EPA alone would have doomed him.
                  And Teddy TrustBuster? Yeah. The RepublicanKochBrothersGoldmanSachsMobilOilBankOfAmericaNewsCorp may have even defeated him.
                  Welcome to 2010: Republicans won the Southern Strategy, racism and all. And they ARE the trusts they once busted.

                4. If by “Southern Strategy” you mean “appeal to all normal Americans who are tired of the European-style socialism/fascism the far left is attempting to ram down their throats,” then I agree with you. If you don’t mean that, you’re just the silly little woman we all have you pegged as.

                5. Typical progressive liberal – hate, hate, hate then make fun of and smear your critics because it’s the only thing you have. Glad I’m not in that swamp.

                6. Guys, guys! no matter how far or how long you go to explain things to liberals/ socialist/ leftist/ democrats whatever…they will never understand conservatives, repubs, christians. you know they are the only intelligent people and high tech brain as well, sooo smart that their puppet master want them to be just like robots.

                7. All the liberals have is abortion and gay rights. The republicans don’t really care about these 2 issues as much as you think. The media keeps harping about these two issues because they are divisive. Look at what just happened in S.F. You can kill a child through the 9 months of pregnancy or even if it is in the birth canal, but heaven forbid if you give the child a “happy meal”. These dems are so hypocritical. If they cared about children why abort them thru the 9th month………does this make sense.

                8. …and they think they are more compassionate because they want to volunteer other peoples’ money for their charities/social programs rather than giving to and supporting them themselves. That’s not “compassion” at all. Most conservatives I know give their own money and time to causes they believe in.

                9. All the liberals have is abortion and gay rights. The republicans don’t really care about these 2 issues as much as you think. The media keeps harping about these two issues because they are divisive. Look at what just happened in S.F. You can kill a child through the 9 months of pregnancy or even if it is in the birth canal, but heaven forbid if you give the child a “happy meal”. These dems are so hypocritical. If they cared about children why abort them thru the 9th month………does this make sense.

              4. Democrats are the party of drunk drivers who let women drown in order to save their own skin; men who sexually use young women who are interns; men who belong to the Klu Klux Klan; and on and on.

                Read: Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and that mummy from WV who just died.

                1. So let’s see if I can work with your logic:
                  Ted Kennedy belonged to a party one of whose key values was opposing driving drunk off a bridge late at night.
                  Bill Clinton belonged to a party one of whose key values was not taking blow jobs from interns.
                  Robert Byrd belonged to a party that was once the racist party in the south, a position now occupied by the republican party, which is why all the southern racists (such as Trent Lott) responded to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan’s “southern strategy” and all the “states’ rights” code words and joined up. And he then decided the easiest way to uphold his racist views was be one of the fiercest advocates and sponsors of civil rights legislation.
                  Got it.

                2. Oh dear. Not only did you not “get it,” it seems that you’re so far from understanding basic logic and even recognizing reality that you’ll NEVER “get it.” It’s sad really.

              5. Wow! Just imagine if we had not already known that career politicians put party first not American’s we would have been educated today. Fairness to special interst groups maybe but not the whole USA. look at the B Panthers for instance, reverse discrimination has occurred and your party is afraid to take on the issue.

              6. As someone who voted for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, & Gore – I cringe when I read your words because I hear those words in my own voice – I spoke them for years. The difference between us may be that I knew they were lies but I thought the “ends justified the means.” I was so wrong. I’ll never make that mistake again.

            2. because Nancy Pelosi told her it would be the most ethical Congress evah!
              Trudy, you’re an idiot. You say WMDs don’t exist, but you won’t read the docs that say they do. Know why? Because if you read them, your carefully constructed artificial world would explode!

          1. So now I understand you want to get rid of the constitution and the rights of the American citizens so you can glory in your causes. You have said it all mam

      1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrity
        in·teg·ri·ty
           /ɪnˈtɛgrɪti/ Show Spelled[in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
        –noun
        1.
        adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
        2.
        the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
        3.
        a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship’s hull.

      2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrity
        in·teg·ri·ty
           /ɪnˈtɛgrɪti/ Show Spelled[in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
        –noun
        1.
        adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
        2.
        the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
        3.
        a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship’s hull.

      3. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrity
        in·teg·ri·ty
           /ɪnˈtɛgrɪti/ Show Spelled[in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
        –noun
        1.
        adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
        2.
        the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
        3.
        a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship’s hull.

      4. “As opposed to those poor lower class pull-up-yourself-by-the-bootstrap sorts.”

        Surely you’re not implying that Obama is a member of that group. Seriously, give me a break! Obama has never anything in his life. He was given everything by virtue of his membership in the people of color class. Why do you suppose his college transcripts have been locked away? He hasn’t accomplished squat and we the people are suffering because he was neither prepared nor qualified to be POTUS.

        1. Please forgive my typo:

          There is no evidence that Obama has ever worked hard for anything in his life.

          1. As long as you keep your eyes closed and your ears stopped, you may even be able to convince yourself that you’re really queen of england, too!

      5. We love Bush here in Texas, his actual home state! He is cheered loudly wherever he goes because he’s our guy for the most part. This class warfare crap of yours is just meant to dupe people into voting straight democrat for free goodies. You don’t need to think that way anymore, partly because we’re out of money for your free goodies.

        You still have to take care of your self. Obama can’t pay your mortgage.

        1. Yeah. Class warfare. I love how you guys have a bumper sticker for everything. It really is a handy replacement for a fully formed thought. And they are great for duping people into thinking a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, handed all his degrees paid for, dodged out of VietNam in the famed as the Champagne squadron and the place where many a promi got out of having to serve on the ground over there, and he didn’t even fulfill his commitment because, hell, daddy made sure. And then this good ole boy scion was given a few things to fail at before setting him up in baseball.
          Yeah. You Texans sure love someone who’s a real salt of the earther. Nope, no sirreee. Not duped, y’all.
          We’re doing fine up here in NYC with mortgages. Even NY generally is ranked 39th in the nation. But, as usual, you Texans always have to be better. You’re 28th. Damn. Maybe Obama will pay your mortgage?

        2. Yeah. Class warfare. I love how you guys have a bumper sticker for everything. It really is a handy replacement for a fully formed thought. And they are great for duping people into thinking a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, handed all his degrees paid for, dodged out of VietNam in the famed as the Champagne squadron and the place where many a promi got out of having to serve on the ground over there, and he didn’t even fulfill his commitment because, hell, daddy made sure. And then this good ole boy scion was given a few things to fail at before setting him up in baseball.
          Yeah. You Texans sure love someone who’s a real salt of the earther. Nope, no sirreee. Not duped, y’all.
          We’re doing fine up here in NYC with mortgages. Even NY generally is ranked 39th in the nation. But, as usual, you Texans always have to be better. You’re 28th. Damn. Maybe Obama will pay your mortgage?

          1. I got all Texaned up and shucks, lost ma damn train o’ thought. I mean mortgage foreclosures. So you lucky dogs get to be 11 spots ahead of us New Yawkuhs in number of foreclosures.
            Gosh. I completely forgot how this was relevant. You sneaky little armadillo, you! Duped me again!

            1. mam have you changed your position, or is it you just like to argue? Remember the foreclosures are the DEMs not the Reps they had no party. Is it you have seen the light or just like to argue and play the devils advocate, if it is the later, go to law school and you can get paid to do it.

          2. I got all Texaned up and shucks, lost ma damn train o’ thought. I mean mortgage foreclosures. So you lucky dogs get to be 11 spots ahead of us New Yawkuhs in number of foreclosures.
            Gosh. I completely forgot how this was relevant. You sneaky little armadillo, you! Duped me again!

            1. Those alarming thoughts about hard work and helping helping people. I’m in a cold sweat. How about you?

            2. Those alarming thoughts about hard work and helping helping people. I’m in a cold sweat. How about you?

              1. I think your cold sweat is from the slowly-dawning realization that you’ve been recognized as the anti-American you’ve always been, secretly. Now you can’t blend in with the normal folks anymore; what will you do?

                1. You’ve got that only partly right dougie.
                  I am definitely not a “my country right or wrong” like you and rest of the right. So, by your definition, you are spot on. I am as anti-american as it comes. And, quite frankly, I pretty much anti-all the rest of countries/people who want to go backwards to some time when women didn’t vote, slaves were slaves, civil rights were for only fill-in-the-blank, gay people were killed or imprisoned, no 40 hour week, no child labor laws, no regulation of predatory capitalism, no social security, no medicare, no unemployment insurance.
                  Let’s just say I’m anti-inhumane-backward society. And if that’s America, put me down as a rock-ribbed Anti-American. (which i’m sure you will).

                2. Let’s just say you’re anti-anyone-who’s-for-individual-liberty and leave it at that. Of course I’ll put you down as anti-American. You prove it over and over.

        3. Well said! Truth too and that is why the medicine taste so bad going down, their free goodies is diminishing right before their very eyes.

        1. Except in countries like Iran, the great thing is the U.S. and western europe keep progressing. So, we have some folks wanting always to take us back to a past their little minds thought would be better. And so it’s a step or two back. Don’t worry you’ll be forgotten in a decade. Or maybe remembered like Herbert Hoover or Confederacy supporters.

          1. Dear, you can’t possibly be as obtuse as you’re portraying yourself to be. “Progressive” is the name of a political movement that started at the end of the 19th Century and was known under various guises during the 20th Century. It had nothing really to do with actual progress. But you lefty “Progressives” do so like to play with the word progress as though what you’re trying to do is to move toward something better than what we have now. Clear thinking people can see that what you call “progress” is just a tropism toward control by you all of the rest of society. As we don’t particularly want to be controlled by you or anyone else, we’re obstacles to your “progress” and must be excoriated and ultimately destroyed. You’ll pardon us if we resist you. And beat you, which is OUR ultimate goal.

            1. “just a tropism toward control by you all of the rest of society”
              “we’re obstacles to your “progress” and must be excoriated and ultimately destroyed”
              “You’ll pardon us if we resist you.”
              “And beat you, which is OUR ultimate goal.”
              A wannabe right wing deconstructionist? A third rate rural thespian? A paranoid sports fan?
              This one’s hard to figure out. But he’s definitely one of yours!

      6. you know mam nobody likes a know it, arrogant holier than thou elitest, no disrespect intended.

  44. That would be a no in response to the Palin question.

    Yep, I like the man. Don’t like his spending on domestic issues, such as Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind.

    And don’t like so-called Bushies, such as Rove and Perino who still are in the swamp, and wading thick on behalf of whoever their candidate is … which they will not say … but which is definitely not Palin.

    1. I disagree. I think it’s a non-answer solely to keep the heat off of Sarah Palin. I mean, the Left would have loved for him to go one way or the other on that and it would have been the top headline for the next year.

      1. I agree but Sarah Palin may only have to step back and wait to be one of the candidates. You would have thought leftist and media liberals would have learned a lesson with the TEA Party. They caused them to rise to the National scene with their negative publicity. This made people look into the matter of what we stand for and brought the party forth. It will be interesting to see if the TEA PARTY is added as a new party…. I believe it may be coming soon.

        I also believe FP Bush was not giving the leftist any amunition to use.

    2. They don’t have to support Palin, but no, this wasn’t a no to Palin… it was a refusal to answer.

      This is the last President. He can’t just go endorsing people at this stage, when it’s not clear who is even running.

    3. The Bush family are New England liberal Republicans. He may have campaigned as a ‘compassionate conservative’, but George W. Bush – like his father – is not conservative; he’s a Rockefeller Republican. As for those calling him a “dim bulb” and ridiculing his intellect please remember that a stupid man does not get elected President of the United States twice (Barack Obama will serve one term). Also, Bush made better grades at Yale than John “D-Student” Kerry. How do we know that Obama is so smart? He won’t release any grades from Occidental College, Columbia, Harvard or any of his legal writings. Obama is aloof, something Bush never was.

      1. You’re correct somewhat about George 1. George 2 was a good people person and loyal to the core. He had all those folks his dad had help him out and Karl Rove. Most of all Karl Rove. How you get to the top is never a function of smarts. If that were the case, we would see all the really smart people running things.
        That Bush had better grades (slightly) than Kerry just points out that Yale at the time still primarily ran on legacy admissions and although I believe Kerry would have made a far better president, I wouldn’t suggest he was “smarter” by much.
        Even if (as I assume most of this crowd is either thinking or maybe even ready to say) you assume Barack received some help as an affirmative action beneficiary, no one gets into Harvard Law who isn’t one of the brightest lights in the room. And certainly no one becomes editor of the Law Review without being one of the brighter lights at Harvard Law. And no one is invited to teach at U. Chicago unless they are..well, you get the idea. And this guy was raised by a slightly nutty, peripatetic single mother with no money, no connections and a half black child in the 60s and 70s.
        So I think you can put away your jealousy and resentment and just accept Bush couldn’t carry Barack Obama’s bags and neither could you. And, who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and find out you’ve got cancer when you’re between jobs and be able to still get health insurance and it will all be clear to you where your dislike of the guy is coming from.

        1. Facts not in evidence, dear. Your claims that “no one” gains these positions in academia without “being one of the brightest lights” is just your dogmatic belief that this is the case, not the truth. And Obama wasn’t raised by “a slightly nutty, peripatetic single mother with no money, no connections.” She shipped him off to be raised by HER mother. And your wild-eyed assertion that “Bush couldn’t carry Barack Obama’s bags” is risible. And your hope that Darren gets cancer is pretty disgusting, you know?

          1. Geez, it’s not dogmatic belief. It’s common knowledge to anyone who has gone to HLS, or for that matter anyone familiar with how law schools and the legal academy works.

            1. “Common knowledge,” eh? In other words, you can’t demonstrate any evidence to back up the claims. This is sort of like anthropogenic global warming being “settled science” and how dare anyone question the assertions made by its proponents! Just because you choose to believe something without any proof doesn’t make it true. Considering the left’s track record for truthfulness it’s rather the opposite–anything you claim should be automatically disbelieved until evidence is shown.

              1. God, you farm folk are retarded. Go speak to any graduate of HLS (or, since it’s clear you don’t get off the potato farm that often, pick up the phone and see if you can speak to one), there are plenty of conservative ones. They’ll all confirm it for you.

                1. I see. You can’t provide evidence for your claims, so you insist that I find the evidence for you. And you call us retarded? Son, you come across as a spiteful, petty teenager.

        2. I’m really resisting the urge to encourage a troll but I just have to know what is wrong with you? I’ve always been fascinated by people that post such antagonistic ugly things. It doesn’t matter what your politics are, I’ve seen Conservatives do it too but you’re really more pathetic than most. I mean you’ve spent a good deal of your day (or the last two) in a masturbatory frenzy of stupidity. I’m dying to know what a person like you does for a living, what your educational background is? Are you the stereotypical troll living in her mother’s basement or do you drive a BMW and road rage at all idiots that can’t drive as good as you imagine you do? Are you really a woman? If so I’m surprised because it’s usually men that behave this way. I mean, don’t pat yourself on the back or anything, it isn’t you I’m interested in but this whole mindset that seems to come from the internet. Do you talk to people you disagree with like this face to face? I can’t imagine you do, otherwise you’d have no friends or spend a lot of time in the ER. Do you really feel like you’re accomplishing something meaningful here? If everyone here is so beneath your contempt this couldn’t be very gratifying for you.

          Thanks, hope to hear from you soon.

          1. I hurt my hip and am a bit house-bound and I’m tired of reading equations lately, so I need some hands-on entertainment. And, who knows, I also have a project to search for intelligent life out on the right wing internet. Faint signs. Very faint. But, go ahead, dude. Read some of what I wrote. Apart from my having fun with the real yahoos here, occasionally I tried to lure them into a serious discussion. Tyler was the only one.
            Today’s the last day for a while, so you guys can all go back to your echo chamber. Enjoy!

            1. Dear, we’ve read what you wrote. To search for intelligence, one would think you’d need something to compare your specimens to. So far you haven’t really demonstrated any such example.

            2. So far all I’ve been able to deduce for sure is you like the phrase “echo chamber”. And if you’re telling the truth about the hip you may be living on Social Security disability. As for attempting to lure people into a serious discussion do you find it counter productive to wish cancer on the people you want to debate? I think you’ll find that isn’t the best way to endear yourself to people. I’ll admit the bit with you and Mr Schoenheit had it’s moments. You’re probably a pretty smart person which makes this behavior even more perplexing. Maybe you should get a hobby like knitting.

              Good luck with the hip, hope you make it back to the land of the productive some day.

      2. You’re making the assumption that the average American is bright. He / she is no such thing. He / she is actually quite stupid, just like the average person anywhere.

        As for proof Obama is bright, well, law review focuses on grades, Sidley is a very respectable firm and firm recruitment focuses on grades, and one doesn’t get hired as a law professor at a top law school with lousy law school grades.

        1. Oh, another standard leftist claim. The average person is stupid (presumably because the average person rejects your beliefs and your natural right to rule). And then you make the laughable claim that success in academia and the legal profession is based on grades. You haven’t spent any time in academia, that’s clear. You offer nothing but standard leftist claims without proof or even evidence. Do you wonder that no one believes you?

          1. “Success” in the long-run is based on a number of things, agreed, but getting a placement in a top US law firm or a top US law school depends quite heavily on grades. Actually, I’ve spent time in both.

          2. Also, I don’t question that your stupidity gives you a natural right to work a farm, so why you should you question that my intelligence gives me a natural right to rule?

            1. Sonny, your intelligence is greatly in question, given the evidence of your posts. As to your natural right to rule, yeah, go ahead and try to assert THAT one to your betters (that’d be us, the ordinary American people).

              1. Wait, so ordinary Americans that drop out of high school and follow pa’s footsteps on the farm are better than educated high-income earning Americans that pay everyone else’s taxes? I have a great idea! Let’s just abolish schools and cities and all become farmers! Then we can all bask in our collective ignorance.

  45. People can critisize, make fun of, blame, and beat this man down all they want, but one thing is for certain, he is a very respectful human being who has the countries bwest intrests at heart. I still love this man even though he did do some questionable things as president. I will say he never did anything as questionable as what the Obama Administration has put us through!!

    1. LOL!
      Never mind that optional war thingy. WMD, Saddam bad guy hates my father, New Islamic democracy, whatever.
      Yeah. Of course, you may be right. He was a pretty dim light, so maybe he did think he was doing the best for the country as Rove and all those Neo-cons were telling him all the time. Republican voters definitely go for the amiable dunces or people who hide their smarts.

      1. LOL!
        Oh, you mean the war Obama continues to this day, but no longer gets barely any media coverage? The one that Obama decided to send more troops over for? The one that continues to have huge casualties to this day? That war?

        Add that to the skyrocketing unemployment and I’m sure you’re very glad Obama is in office right now.

        1. Yeah. That war that Bush screwed up. Oh, and that economy Bush screwed up. Definitely a hard job fixing that crap. At least he’s trying rather than just squatting there like the republicants. Should’ve given Bush an automatic 3rd term and let him keep the congress. That way you guys could focus on refinancing your trailers with the last of the funny money he was spreading around from his friend, former Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary Paulson.
          Go for it!

          1. Like was said Bush made mistakes but has class, You like Obama have no class or honor. I can refute the WMD and the rest of your BS but why? You are lost and will just have to sit in the back seathing as we take over, Bye Bye Marxist.

              1. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what class is, Trudy, that’s very clear from your posts here.

                1. Class is selling out your country for world gvnmt. Class is destroying the economy through NAFTA and GAT. Class is ignoring the constitution and dictating through exec orders and the like. Class is taking away the rights of individuals to run their own lives and live free. Class is ignoring the fact that they all, and both, have the same agenda. Class is arguing for and against these traitors in a meaningless conversation. Lets make sure we support these people who are taking away evrything that America used to stand for. Lets make sure that our unemployment checks and food stamps keep on a coming. Lets make sure that our debt and tax burden keep going right up. Lets make sure that our currency is severely devalued. They have all done it. Wake up! They have the same agendas.

            1. Do you even know what a Marxist is, what Marxism is? This obsession with labelling Democrats as Marxists reveals the idiocy of those who make up the “populist” right.

              1. Evidently you don’t realize that an increasing number of Democrats are actually admitting they’re socialists. Yes, we know what Marxists are. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the Democrats don’t meet the definition.

                1. “Socialist” is as broad a term as “capitalist”. If you want to call Democrats “socialists” generally, well, maybe you can under some particularly outlandish understanding of the term stripped of any real historical context. “Marxist” though is quite a bit more specific. Not a whole lot of Marxists left in the world, and certainly none of note amongst the Democrats.

                  In the end, call people whatever you like. My only objection is to the dumbing down of the debate…

                2. This is of course, a lie. Rather, two lies. There are many Marxists left in the world, and rather a large cohort of them are in the Democrat party. And of course, the other lie is that your only objection is to the dumbing down of the debate. First, all you’re really objecting to is me disagreeing and challenging you; second, you have loads more objections to what we have to say and you know it.

                3. No, it’s not a lie. It’s a simple fact. To be a socialist per your understanding is not to be a Marxist. Is Canada Marxist? Are all our Western European allies Marxist? Is Israel Marxist? No, of course not. They are all capitalist economies with varying degrees of government intervention in the economy to mitigate the excesses of the business cycle. Guess what, that’s America too since the 1930s. In your mind, that seems to make them all socialist and Marxist. The former is plausible under a particularly strained definition of “socialist”. The latter reveals a simple lack of education. Time to venture of the farm bubba, maybe to a library or community college.

                4. Oh Jimbo, of COURSE it’s a lie. You evidently don’t understand the details of political philosophy very well. But it’s obvious that you consider yourself much more intelligent and educated than the rest of us. You lefties always do, even in the face of voluminous evidence to the contrary. Whine all you want, there are certainly Marxists in the Democrat Party today.

                5. definition of Marxism
                  –noun
                  the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

                  If the shoe fits….

          2. Oh, screw you you stupid twit. There was a lot I didn’t like about Bush, but Obama is way, way worse. And by the way, in case you didn’t notice on Tuesday, I’M NOT ALONE.

              1. If the rest of us are crazy and your the only sane one here doesn’t that make you the one that has actually lost it?

            1. You are alone. That other person isn’t really there. But sorry, we can’t help you here.
              But thanks for that informed and detailed comment.

              1. Trudy, Trudy, Trudy…you make less and less sense as you go on. Surely even you can realize just how inaccurate and limited your kvetches are. At least one would hope you have that minimal level of self-awareness.

                1. funny, i watch the banter back and forth and something stands out that I think she is missing, notice the number of likes versus the lack of likes near her or any libs comment? that should tell them something, but I am sure it wont tell them the same thing it tells everyone else… lol

          3. The economy Bush screwed up. Let’s not forget that under Bush there was almost 4 years of growth and a strong GDP. Let’s not forget Slarney Frank and his other crony Dodd who almost twisted the banks to loan money out to people who couldn’t afford a TV let alone a house. bush made mistakes and spent like crazy but no where near this administration and everything under the disguise of “we needed to do that to save the economy”. Why is it that European counties are coming out of the recession and they haven’t spent the way we have? Just spending money aimlessly doesn’t solve the problem and this Pres has no clue. When has he ever worked in the private sector to even know what payroll is? Stop blaming bush and start holding this press accountable for his failures.

            1. Yes. 4 years of the growth based on the “ownership society” thanks to piles of debt.
              First, let me correct you. The U.S. is out of the recession and has a 2.2% growth rate. Europe has about the same. I hope you understand the meaning of recession first.
              Now, let me give you a quick education on my favorite European country. Germany. The country has an automatic “stimulus” program in place that Barack tried to and partially succeeded in getting into his stimulus, whereby nearly every company can continue to maintain its workforce in place for up to 24 months before workers are thrown into the regular system. In addition to a permanent infrastructure improvement program the regular unemployment help is such that Americans could only dream of. So, apart from the 40% of stimulus that was tax cuts, the rest looks a lot like what Germany already has in place.
              But I’m pleased to see one person on this site who (however ill-informed) looks beyond the U.S. navel.

              1. Its too bad that you look at GDP as an economic indicator. The GDP #s are manipulated and don’t reflect direcct productivity. We have been continuously shedding jobs. That never ended. Although the media tells you that we have job growth. No, we are still losing more than are created. Gvnmt jobs are not growth or real for that matter. Growth through debt spending is not growth. As the fed monitizes debt, they devalue it. As the currency is devalued, we pay more for everything. Eventually we end up in hyper inlation. If you think the mortage crisis is behind us, you have been fooled to be sure. It is just starting. Within the next couple of years you will see property values drop to a third of current. When this happens, local gvnmts will be failing and laying off. Its called reduced property tax revenue. Local gvnmts will be seeking bailouts. In the process they will give up the right to control anything locally. This is how big gvnmt becomes dictatorial in a free nation. It all started with the creation of the private federal reserve in 1913. This was the purpose of the fed. They knew that a truly free market would secure other freedoms. They want dictatoral world gvnmt. They have to destroy our freedom and our economy first. All of our presidents have been doing this since at least Kenedy. He was killed for going against the global controllers. Americans are stupid. They actually think that our federal gvnmt is doing what they think is best for us. Yeah, and the tooth fairy and peter pan got married and tinker bell was actually their child.

              2. Only a fellow traveler would compare this country to the Euro-weenies, say their anemic growth is good and want the same.

                If you like it so much and hate America so much, then WTF are you doing slobbering all over us here. Leave. Go. Cya.

            2. Bush did everything he could politically to grow gvnmt. Obama is able to do more as a liberal democrat. They both have the same agenda.

          4. My dear wife, Trudy. Please stop trolling right wing blogs, at least for our marriage’s sake. Barry needs to remove the Nobel Peace prize from his real end and use it. So far he’s been a HUGE failure by continuing Bush’s policies. Come back to bed and let’s enjoy the weekend together.

            1. Dear,
              You know we don’t have that type of marriage anymore. And I don’t want you using that double bathtub thing.
              But, honestly, so what is this “trolling” thing?
              Is that like “bringing light to the savages” type of thing?
              I have to say, generally speaking, I don’t understand the fun of sticking with your “own kind”. I mean, if you already agree with each other, what’s the fun of that? I mean, if you’ve got a weak personality, I could perhaps understand. But even then, you’d think it would still be more interesting to hear what’s on the other side of the wall. Oh well.
              Turn out the light, please, dear.

          5. Yeah mom, dad is right. You need to get back on your meds and start being our mom again. All this anger is making you real ugly mom.

            Your children (remember us?)

          6. Bush was an excellent President…please remember all the money the Bush administration had to spend for 9/11 that inhuman attack by neurotic muslims against the defensless & the money spent for homeland security to keep America safe from further attacks…President Bush should be commended for keeping our country SAFE!

          7. Please remember that the economy started a downward turn because of Clinton and his mortgage revisions where he was trying to help people buy houses – – many bought more than they could afford. Then as far as the budget, please remember the budget is set by Congress and guess who controlled the house and Senate? DEMOCRATS! So democrats are to blame. Bush couldn’t do much when he was president because the democrats controlled the house and senate. But look what happened when they got all three. Their libral policies nearly killed the nation.

            1. When you open mortgages to derivative trading, in the same bill that forced banks to loan to people who can’s afford it, you are not trying to get poor people in housing. What you are doing is setting the stage to inflate property values. If you inflate, then the bankers make much more money on the derivatives market. If you do all of this, then you know that the day will come that it all crashes. When it all crashes the fed threatens congress, with economic collapse, to pass bailouts for the banks. They hold up values for a little while longer so that speculators can milk the system and the wealth of the country a little more. Then when that doesn’t work, you go for a take over of private property. See how that works? The federal reserve is the master of it all. The “private” central bank “federal reserve”. Did you notice the quoteations? A private company os devaluing our currency as the print away, along with our gvnmt. They are sucking the wealth out of the middle class to make us all dependent on them. When this happens, they will own everything. Then they will switch to a world denominated fiat currency controlled by the IMF. Our new owners an controllers. We will not have national sovereignty any longer. We will have a world fiancial constitution, and will be legally obligated to it. Through this they will continue to control policy in the US. I am going to wait now for the replys of “that can never happen in the United States”. Duh.

          8. One word-SURGE-yeah W really screwed it up-and how well might it have gone if a few of your traitors, especially Reid were swinging from lamp posts instead of spouting your vile hate about our country

          9. Really , Obama is trying, he is traveling the world spending Billions during a US Recession.. come one, he tripled the deficit Bush left, and double Unemployment with his commnist ways.. he is only traveling the world to feel good about people wanting to see him now that the Americans know he is a bullsh*t Artist. Obama is a joke

      2. LOL!
        Oh, you mean the war Obama continues to this day, but no longer gets barely any media coverage? The one that Obama decided to send more troops over for? The one that continues to have huge casualties to this day? That war?

        Add that to the skyrocketing unemployment and I’m sure you’re very glad Obama is in office right now.

      3. We found WMDs in Iraq. That talking point if dead now. That’s why you only see it raised by commenters who are completely deranged.

        The chattering pundit class never got around to apologizing for their ‘where’s the WMDs!’ but we indeed found quite a lot of germ warfare, chem warfare weapons.

        You obviously can’t understand why someone would vote GOP, but that slur only reflects on you. Bush wasn’t stupid… he had different opinions than you, but he wasn’t stupid. the people who vote GOP are easy to understand and are not crazy or horrible. You should stop focusing on how much better you are, and attend a Tea Party and pay attention.

        1. I’m telling Cheney and Rumsfeld. And Gaffney! They will be overjoyed you found those WMDs. Actually, maybe George will be, too, if he can remember what WMD stands for.
          Attend a Tea Party! Why, I’d love visiting the disabled. Please post the address.

          1. You really are a fool. Yes, we did find WMDs. That is beyond dispute. Pretending the truth doesn’t exist because you don’t want it to is toddler logic, dear.

            1. As I keep saying PLEASE tell Dick Cheney. And George probably wouldn’t mind hearing about them too. It would really make a lot of the folks who made the stuff up in the first place happy. No. Wait a minute. Maybe you guys are right! Bush, Cheney and all the neo-cons DID MAKE IT UP. So no wonder they’re silent now that you super sleuths have found them. That would look REEEEEALLY BAD. So… shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Quiet! We’ll have to arrest them if this gets found out!

              1. I’m sure you don’t realize it, but you’re not making any sense, even by your very low standards.

            2. As I keep saying PLEASE tell Dick Cheney. And George probably wouldn’t mind hearing about them too. It would really make a lot of the folks who made the stuff up in the first place happy. No. Wait a minute. Maybe you guys are right! Bush, Cheney and all the neo-cons DID MAKE IT UP. So no wonder they’re silent now that you super sleuths have found them. That would look REEEEEALLY BAD. So… shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Quiet! We’ll have to arrest them if this gets found out!

          2. Trudy, before you dig yourself any deeper about WMDs, you might want to check those Wikileaks documents. You know, the ones the Pentagon didn’t want released? Just sayin…

            1. Shorthorn dont argue with the sheep. I was a huge Bush Sheep until I studied 911 and found that Bin Laden was working for the CIA. I wondered about Tim McVeigh also and guess what, he was working for the CIA also after he got out of the Desert Storm. Papa Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama are all corrupt as hell. They are all related except for Clinton but he is so far up the NWO illuminati ass he might as well be related. Palin is also with them so please dont vote for her. Mitt Romney is another and so is Newt. Ask any of them about 911 and watch the blood wash from their face. All of our government is corrupt with Satanic worshippers.

                1. I don’t believe Buford but before you call him a fool, you may want to refute his statement with solid proof first.

                2. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. He made the claims, the onus is on him to prove them. You don’t get to say, “Bush is the Anti-Christ; prove I’m wrong!”

                3. This kind of statement doesn’t require refutation! It requires even a modicum of proof before it’s considered anything but that which is scrapped of the bottom of ones shoe after walking through a dog park.
                  Since the left won’t let us call the bad guys (islamic terrorists for instance) bad anymore, we instead turn on the guys protecting us.
                  Blow it out your bagpipe Buford.

                4. After researching 9/11, I discovered that emsurfer was the mastermind, who hatched the plot in the 1990s while studying the Dark Side of the Force on Neptune from a clone of Emperor Palpatine that had drifted through the galaxies over millenia and eventually ended up there. Osama bin Laden was recruited into the CIA by emsurfer shortly thereafter while they were both on a Carribean cruise. I dare anyone to convincingly refute these truths with sold proof!

                5. He’s home at last. I’m sure there’s plenty of company in your attic if you need to stash him there.

          3. It’s fun to watch monkeys in the zoo-you know they’re out there in the wild but to actually get to see those pretty bubble butts and them flinging poo-wow

        2. Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army killed 5000 Kurds in a 1988 chemical weapons attack on Halabja.. that was enough for me. We should have removed him back then.

          1. Really?! 9 people so far have liked this moronic comment?!!! America can’t be the saviour of all peoples. Should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to remove every petty tyrant who commits war crimes?

            Let’s try to put things in perspective – there are WMDs and then there are WMDs. Chemical weapons have been around since WWI. They’re cheap and technologically straightforward, and no one worries unduly about an unstable regime having them. Nuclear weapons are another matter, and everyone should worry about unstable regimes having them.

            Most of us can concede that if Iraq was on the cusp of nuclear capability, or if the intelligence had truly suggested the same, the decision to invade made a good deal of sense (but even then, the poor planning that failed to stabilize the country afterwards and allowed it to descend into (costly) anarchy would have been the subject of fair criticism). Sadly, neither was true – the intelligence was cooked by those who were determined to invade Iraq regardless. And nothing has contributed more to America’s relative decline, and its decreased ability to confront real security challenges like China’s belligerence in the Pacific, than Iraq.

            1. In other words, any WMDs we actually found don’t count, and any that we might have found wouldn’t have counted for you; you’d just redefine the criteria so that you could continue to make your obviously false claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Gotcha.

              1. Yes, you’re precisely right that “they don’t count”, in that they weren’t worth the extraordinary resources that were spent on finding them, and the extraordinary underfunding of our real security challenges that resulted. Neither America, nor any other nation for that matter, has unlimited resources. We do not have the tens of trillions dollars a year to spend that would be required to deal with every remote threat. Accordingly, the use of the resources we do have has to be proportional to the threats faced. If we have $1 trillion to spend a year on confronting our security challenges, and we spend hundreds of billions on a trivial or modest threat, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, it necessarily means that we are spending too LITTLE on real threats – and the steady deterioration of our security posture in the Asia-Pacific region during the Bush years stands as testament to that.

                1. And, for what it’s worth, I’ll point out that I firmly believe that Afghanistan, and more so the Af-Pak theatre, is a huge security challenge for the US, where there are vital US interests at stake. Another interest that suffered through the diversion of resources to Iraq. Obama had a good start in correcting that neglect, but scrambling to get out next year is a disaster waiting to happen also. Sadly, the appetite for winning that conflict seems to be shrinking in both parties.

                2. “Jimbo”,You and Miss Schoenheit must have read from the same playbook… DISagreeing is a wonderful and powerful expression of the human spirit.Being an unmitigated ASS takes neither intelligence, class or ‘spirit’, and the management of this site, where these good people (of BOTH sides ~ and every shade of thought on the matters at hand) gather to view, discuss, and even argue… respectfully ~ WILL NOT TOLERATE ACTIONS SUCH AS YOURS….take it elsewhere, permanently.CM Sackett

                3. You know, I don’t believe your claim here, either. Like so many on the left, you probably support the Afghani campaign for political purposes so long as you think you can use it to bash anyone not in your camp.

                4. You just prove my point. There are no WMDs that, when discovered, you would accept as proof that such existed in Iraq. Spin all you want; normal folks know that you’re lying.

        3. I amgrateful to President Bush. He gave so much of himself and did not need nor want worship from the public. He never sought movie starism nor to even be greatly liked, but did the hard things when a press demonized him. The truth is Bush’s acknowledged and demonstrative walk of faith in Christ Jesus put fear in the liberal media’s agenda. I watched the PBS documentary “Faith In The White House and my admiration for this man with great character truly touched my heart.

          It shows how they tried to set him up with lust and buying him off, yet he with true grace but them going. Can you imagine how this upset the apple carts? I can and they sought to destroy his reputation. My husband once told me when I was being slandered that “if they can not come up to your level, they will try to bring you down to theirs.” Well they may have tried but they did not suceed because at the end of the day FP Bush had his dignity and that in my book says a lot.

          I am so glad to see so many of you were paying attention to the news and not the sensationalism topics for ratings and know we found WMD’s in Iraq. This has been one of my pet peeves the one sided media coverage and exemption from truth. God bless you alland F P Bush too.

          1. All this shows is that being a good person, a true Christian even, isn’t enough to make a great leader. “Liberal media’s agenda”? Do you people really view the world this way? Do you really think there’s some cabal of cigar-smoking atheists somewhere plotting some vast and overarching “agenda”? Must be nice to be so simplistic.

            1. Do you really believe that your side is completely honest and rational, with no agenda? Talk about simplistic. They must put something in your water to make you so blind to reality.

              1. I don’t think it’s fair to say that I have a side. I would probably be considered a “conservative” on foreign policy and social issues, and a “liberal” on most economic issues and the proper role of government. In effect, like the vast majority of people that are capable of thought, I subscribe to some positions that are “conservative” and others that are “liberal”.

                1. Oh yes, the standard leftist claim to be unbiased and to not have a particular “side.” Pardon us if we see through the facade.

      4. Dim light??? Are you freaking kidding me, have you seen what is in the WH right now????? Talk about DIM..

      5. Bush is the ‘dim light’? Really? You know, I never saw Bush use a teleprompter to talk to 6th graders. Funny that.
        And for all his abuses of the English language, he does not use a fraction of the um’s and awh’s as the current resident of the White House.

        1. George Bush never used a teleprompter?? They were all over the place. You mean maybe he couldn’t even read from one.

          1. Couldn’t be bothered to read the previous post, eh? Bush never used a teleprompter “to talk to 6th graders.” The real telling point is that Bush could speak a coherent, well-constructed sentence without one, where Obama seems incapable of doing so. You really are showing yourself to be a little clown, child.

            1. Yeah. That Harvard Review and Moot Court must have really been easy.
              It’s such a case of the ladies here doeth protest too much with the verbal dexterity of Barack. But, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, when your navels here don’t speak back to you, you have become good spokespeople of your navels.

              1. Oh, you’ve actually SEEN something Obama did for the Harvard Review or seen his moot court performance? Of course you haven’t; no one has. You’re just assuming that he’s brilliant in the unexamined (perhaps nonexistent) examples of his rhetoric that you posit. None of the ones that we can actually SEE support that, but to deny his brilliance would be to repudiate a core tenet of your secular religion. Your faith in the intelligence and superiority of you and your lefty friends is very deep and strong–even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary it never falters.

                1. No one needs to see the videos redneck. Here’s a bit of insight into HLS for you and your pals that never made it off the potato farm. Both law review and moots are extremely competitive – to have been selected for them amongst the competition speaks for itself.

                2. In other words, you haven’t seen them and your faith is enough for you. No evidence is necessary. (I’m ignoring the standard leftist ad hominem attacks you make.) We all understand that requesting actual verification of your claims makes you uncomfortable and angry; thanks for demonstrating that.

      6. Oohh! You said neo-cons. You must be a really intelligent lefty. Grow up and get your head out of the sand.

        1. Succinct. Not terribly robust. Hard to tell what he’s really saying. A little used on the insult though. Maybe he thinks neo-cons is misspelled. Hmmm.

        2. Succinct. Not terribly robust. Hard to tell what he’s really saying. A little used on the insult though. Maybe he thinks neo-cons is misspelled. Hmmm.

      7. Oohh! You said neo-cons. You must be a really intelligent lefty. Grow up and get your head out of the sand.

      8. WE actually have a good judge of character! WE tend to look for people who act like ADULTS instead of spoiled “children” LIKE YOU! You people on the LEFT are the most hateful people…you spew venom every chance you get. I’d hate to have to be YOU looking in the mirror daily because I don’t think I’d like what I see! You’all better wake up and pay attention!!!

        1. You guys are really so much fun. I just keep getting amazed at how astonishingly good you are at doing NAAANANANANAAAAA NAAA!. And I know you’re very protective of Forest Gump… I mean George Bush. So, I’m sorry I upset you.
          Now here’s your glass of milk and a cookie.

        2. You guys are really so much fun. I just keep getting amazed at how astonishingly good you are at doing NAAANANANANAAAAA NAAA!. And I know you’re very protective of Forest Gump… I mean George Bush. So, I’m sorry I upset you.
          Now here’s your glass of milk and a cookie.

              1. So now it’s “I know you are, but what am I?” eh? Sorry Trudy, but everyone can see who the adults are in this discussion. But I’ll give you a broad hint: you’re not one of them.

          1. Hows all that hopey/changey thing going down?

            You thought November 2nd was sweet…just wait til 2012!

          2. Hows all that hopey/changey thing going down?

            You thought November 2nd was sweet…just wait til 2012!

          3. This sounds about right cookies and milk offered reminds me of a one sided voting tool and ice cream to bribe.

      9. WE actually have a good judge of character! WE tend to look for people who act like ADULTS instead of spoiled “children” LIKE YOU! You people on the LEFT are the most hateful people…you spew venom every chance you get. I’d hate to have to be YOU looking in the mirror daily because I don’t think I’d like what I see! You’all better wake up and pay attention!!!

      10. Hey dumb A$$ you may want to go check out all those classified documents published by Wiki Leaks not only did they find WMD’s and continued to find them for years after the initial invasion. Typical trash talk from a typical liberal would not expect any thing else.

        1. LOL. Can you please provide me a document reference? HAHAHA! That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard on this site. Don’t know whether to admire the how big your balls are or how small that other soft tissue is!

          1. Yes, when confronted with the truth you stick your fingers in your ears, scrunch your eyes shut, and chant, “prove it, prove it, prove it!” Well, here’s the reference(s) you asked for:

            hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

            http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2010/10/24/imagine-wikileaks-docs-show-there-were-wmds-iraq

            http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx

            Now of course, you’ll claim that these don’t count because you don’t want them to be true. You’re so predictable.

            1. No. Of course that none of this is news to the originators of the WMD nonsense, to their chagrin. And second of all, it’s like anything dropped into your echo chamber, a trivial non-issue turns into a proof of the existence of god or the same, “we were right all along!”. And, lastly, that if this had any degree of substance, you would think the folks who most have egg on their faces would be avidly wiping it off. Even Cheney has the integrity not to try and turn what was already known (by brute force application of common sense) and insignificant into some sort of rewrite of history.
              And the HotAir site (appropriately named) gives a veneer of honesty when it says that what was found was inert or “suspicious” leftovers from the original programs. Duh.
              I mean, you guys really are nut cases. I can’t believe so many people have mastered reading and writing (although it seems few know their ‘rithmatic here) and are so gullible. You’re like mild versions of the Unabomber. Most of you, that is. There are a few folks here who can recognize the semblance of a fact and can engage in at least a shadow of syllogistic reasoning.
              But you’re fun! And some of you even have a spark or two in your epithetic inventions. Carry on! P.S.: I would be fascinated to talk to the Unabomber, too, so don’t be offended.

              1. So everything you say here is in essence, “I don’t care what you show me, I still refuse to believe you!” And I’m sure you’d enjoy talking to the Unabomber; you share so many of his beliefs.

              2. Veneer? Whut’s thet? That’s the kinda wood I used to built mah ice fishin’ shack. Unabomber? Is that one Mexican bomber?

                You sure are impressed with your moral highhandedness aren’t you? I guess if someone is looking to do nothing more than come on here and insult everyone with fancy words you’ve succeeded. I’m not even sure what it is you’re arguing about. Saddam Hussein, flaunted the restrictions imposed by the UN after the first Gulf War. No one in the world is really sad to see him gone except super smart liberals such as yourself.

                I’m sure the Unabomber, even being in jail, would be underwhelmed to talk to you. Carry on! Yawn.

      11. I know what you mean…that Yale degree is definitely an embarrassment for the country. People like you are so gullible. The true dunces in this country are the ones who buy into the political propaganda that is spewed by the media on a daily basis. The talking heads proclaim George Bush is a dunce, ergo it must be so. It high time for people in this country to return to civility and be respectful of their elected leaders and one another. Just because you do not agree with his policies does not make him, or any other republican a dunce.

      12. It seems to me that President Bush is very well spoken. It also seems to me that in some cases hindsight isn’t 20-20. You conveniently leave out a great number of details about events leading up to the war. Do some research beyond the sound bites of Chris Matthews and Bill Mahar. He wasn’t a perfect President by any stretch but if he was so horrible what does that make the guy that has carried on almost all of his policies. And before you say it, the troop withdrawal in Iraq was planned before Obama took office, so even though he takes credit for it that was Bush too.

      13. Obama doesn’t know how to spell “privilege”; doesn’t know how to pronounce “corpsman”; thinks there’s a language called “Austrian”; can’t speak anywhere without a Teleprompter — and Democrats think he’s a genius!

        Obama is a slacker when it comes to actual work; he always shows up late; he drags himself into the Oval Office at 9:30 and leaves early to party.

        G. W. Bush was always in the office before 7 a.m., and was always rigorously punctual.

        Dems idolize someone who blames all his own failures on someone else and has no clue how limited his talents actually are.

      14. Let me make it simple for you-kiss off moron-you and your pREgressive ilk are doing swirlies now-enjoy the ride to turdsville

    2. LOL!
      Never mind that optional war thingy. WMD, Saddam bad guy hates my father, New Islamic democracy, whatever.
      Yeah. Of course, you may be right. He was a pretty dim light, so maybe he did think he was doing the best for the country as Rove and all those Neo-cons were telling him all the time. Republican voters definitely go for the amiable dunces or people who hide their smarts.

    3. Bush is a great guy. He may have taken away posse comotatus, a right to a trial, 3k lives on 911, grown gvnmt by a third, set up a police state, bailed out wall st, left our borders open, started illegal wars that are killing this country, murdered hundreds of thousands of inocent Iraqis and Afganis, kept the Oregon forests shut down from Clinton’s exec orders, and on and on and on. But he is a good guy who had our best interest in mind. Wake up, or you will die a fool in a police state as a citizen of the North American Union speaking Spanish with your neighbors in the food lines. I am a conservative who supported Bush, but know better now.

      1. Sorry, but the stuff you’re spewing here gives the lie to your being “a conservative who supported Bush.” Your lunatic ravings are standard leftist moonbattery.

        1. I was proud of him for the first few years. I thought he was a Christian man, with real convictions. He may not have killed 3k Americans, but his admin certainly left the door open on purpose. Killing off foreign country populations is admitted in the news and wiki leaks. If you deny the police state and the facts about military policing citizens and the loss of a right to trial, then I don’t know what to tell you.If you think that he didn’t have the power to open the forests by negating Clinton’s exec orders, then…………………. If you don’t believe that he bailed out banks, then, ……………….. If you think the wars are constitutionally legal, then…………. If you think that he was a strong border protector, then……………. I don’t know what to say to you. I have much much more than that on Clinton and Obama. Do you like the loss of your freedom for securty’s sake? Security that is a false premise? Do you like the fed reserve system dismantling our financial system for world gvnmt control? Do you want to be a third world country and a failed state? Why do you see these things as good? Are you a communist?

          1. You are of course lying, yet again. Do you really think we can’t see through you lefties’ facades of lies? You are a fool.

            1. Lying about what? You can’t dispute the facts of my post, so you attack me personally? You are so stuck in your right left paradigm, that you can’t see reality. Are you so emotionally tied to Bush that you can’t see him for who he is? People on the other side of your emotional state can be seen in Obama rallies sobbing for Obama.

              1. Surely I can dispute the purported “facts” of your post. But the truth is, it isn’t worth my time to bother playing with you anymore.

Comments are closed.