First, I'm glad you're here and are a member. However, this forum isn't a place for you to vomit unsupported liberal propaganda. You need to start backing up your claims with sources. I haven't read every post, but on mine alone, you have yet to provide backup to a single claim. I am kindly asking you, from here on, to do the best you can in supporting your statements. The claims you have attempted to source are not relevant. For example, claiming Bush wants to be a war president, then reference him turning down the Taliban's terms regarding Bin Laden is not "proof" he is a war president. It is just unfounded liberal spew.
Nothing is more difficult for a lib than having to provide proof and build a case on facts, and as conservatives, we know this. So, we are willing to help you through this learning period.
We have a high quality forum, and love to expose liberals, so please help us maintain our quality by slowing down and supporting your posts.
Quote from: taxed on February 04, 2012, 07:05:36 AM
First, I'm glad you're here and are a member. However, this forum isn't a place for you to vomit unsupported liberal propaganda. You need to start backing up your claims with sources. I haven't read every post, but on mine alone, you have yet to provide backup to a single claim. I am kindly asking you, from here on, to do the best you can in supporting your statements. The claims you have attempted to source are not relevant. For example, claiming Bush wants to be a war president, then reference him turning down the Taliban's terms regarding Bin Laden is not "proof" he is a war president. It is just unfounded liberal spew.
Nothing is more difficult for a lib than having to provide proof and build a case on facts, and as conservatives, we know this. So, we are willing to help you through this learning period.
We have a high quality forum, and love to expose liberals, so please help us maintain our quality by slowing down and supporting your posts.
I would have to say the same back to you! Conservative, fact less propaganda seems to be the stable here.
Quote"The war president"
But after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish, declared himself a "war president." And he kept the nation focused on martial matters by morphing the pursuit of Al Qaeda into a war against Saddam Hussein.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24krugman.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24krugman.html)
and i DID give proof of Bush's "lack of leadership" when he refused the Taliban offer to give up Osama!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5)
NOW if only the rest of you are so forthcoming with PROOF of your propaganda!
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 10:36:16 AM
I would have to say the same back to you! Conservative, fact less propaganda seems to be the stable here.
and i DID give proof of Bush's "lack of leadership" when he refused the Taliban offer to give up Osama!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5)
NOW if only the rest of you are so forthcoming with PROOF of your propaganda!
All you need do is ask and people will happily back up their assertions.
Have I not given you facts to back up everything I post?
Which is why I only ask that you keep on one subject at a time, it requires far too much typing to show you where you are wrong. ;D
Quote from: Solar on February 04, 2012, 10:41:32 AM
to show you where you are wrong.
:)) :))
I have been compiling facts for some time now. You are not my only conservatives.
If I don't know the correct answer I look it up first.
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 10:36:16 AM
and i DID give proof of Bush's "lack of leadership" when he refused the Taliban offer to give up Osama!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5)
That's not entirely accurate. Read the Guardian's article again. The Taliban were offering up Osama on condition that the U.S. presented evidence of bin Laden's "guilt" and that the U.S. stop the bombing campaign.
Even then they were prepared to hand him over only to a third party country not "under pressure from the United States".
Bush required the unconditional surrender of bin Laden. In actuality, the Taliban refused Bush's request.
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 11:38:06 AM
:)) :))
I have been compiling facts for some time now. You are not my only conservatives.
If I don't know the correct answer I look it up first.
Mine comes from years of experience and memory.
God I fear the day my memory begins to slip.
That's the day Taxed will be sole owner of this place and that day is coming sooner than later I fear...
Well I tried to discuss with him but he refuses to read what is provided for him and just spews talking points from 2005.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 04, 2012, 02:47:25 PM
Well I tried to discuss with him but he refuses to read what is provided for him and just spews talking points from 2005.
Why does Boo think that reading the "description" is not enough to get the idea of the bill.
Some of us are higher functioning than others. Remember the knuckle dragger article?
Notice how I spotted one of your linked bills as a GOOD jobs bill right away!
The problem with the others is, that they are just "deregulation" bills. It's in the description!
I GET IT! how deregulation is "supposed" to create jobs. just like cutting taxes.
Boo also claimed he had 25 bills, but can't produce them.
THAT would be him making unsubstantiated claims.
I can tell you right now that one is
a bill to ease clean air and water regulations for drilling on the continental shelf.
Then there is one to lower taxes again
then there are a couple that are deregulating the mining industry, but not sure if they have made it from the house yet.
See folks? this is why you can't debate with Liberals as adults...
Quote from: PeterR on February 04, 2012, 11:49:17 AM
That's not entirely accurate. Read the Guardian's article again. The Taliban were offering up Osama on condition that the U.S. presented evidence of bin Laden's "guilt" and that the U.S. stop the bombing campaign.
Even then they were prepared to hand him over only to a third party country not "under pressure from the United States".
Bush required the unconditional surrender of bin Laden. In actuality, the Taliban refused Bush's request.
In other words lets delay until we can get OBL safely into Waziristan and prepare our defenses before they start dropping the 1500 lb'ers.
Billy
Quote from: CHEVY VOLT GOVT on February 04, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
In other words lets delay until we can get OBL safely into Waziristan and prepare our defenses before they start dropping the 1500 lb'ers.
Billy
First off,
IF we were in the middle of bombing Afghanistan, lets hope that WE HAD the proof necessary, otherwise we are WARMONGERS
and shouldn't have been bombing them in the first place.
SO we have the proof.
What's so wrong about Osama going to a neutral 3rd country?
WE HAVE THE PROOF, right?
So why would that matter.
Instead, the choice is to risk tens of thousands of troops lives and spend god knows how much cash!
That's not leadership. That's grandstanding. Bush did it cause HE COULD!
That and being the "war president".
(Do I have to post that link again?)
AND as far as Osama getting away, The Taliban couldn't have given him up if they didn't have him, in which case they are going to get pounded by US forces!
I think after the mini Iraq war with Bush one, that part of the world got a better idea how good the US war machine IS.
Avoiding a pounding by our forces WAS probably high on their agenda!
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 04:04:07 PM
Why does Boo think that reading the "description" is not enough to get the idea of the bill.
Some of us are higher functioning than others. Remember the knuckle dragger article?
Notice how I spotted one of your linked bills as a GOOD jobs bill right away!
The problem with the others is, that they are just "deregulation" bills. It's in the description!
I GET IT! how deregulation is "supposed" to create jobs. just like cutting taxes.
Boo also claimed he had 25 bills, but can't produce them.
THAT would be him making unsubstantiated claims.
I can tell you right now that one is
a bill to ease clean air and water regulations for drilling on the continental shelf.
Then there is one to lower taxes again
then there are a couple that are deregulating the mining industry, but not sure if they have made it from the house yet.
So if we use your logic, Congressmen don't have to read the bills. They just read the "description.". And in doing that they never see all the amendments that have to be voted on.
Well done stupid.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 04, 2012, 09:09:27 PM
So if we use your logic, Congressmen don't have to read the bills. They just read the "description.". And in doing that they never see all the amendments that have to be voted on.
Well done stupid.
Ahhh, the Pelosi protocol...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 04, 2012, 09:09:27 PM
So if we use your logic, Congressmen don't have to read the bills. They just read the "description.". And in doing that they never see all the amendments that have to be voted on.
Well done stupid.
Well they are congressmen and it's their job (supposedly)
So are you trying to imply that there is an amendment to the just proposed bill about deregulation, that does WHAT?
This must be a very obscure job proposal. Be specific or give it up Boo.
Still waiting for you to prove there are 25 jobs bills
Why again did they not talk about these job creating bill after the pres speech in Sept about jobs, where he pretty much called them out on the carpet and said "where's the jobs bills" (crickets could be heard in the chamber)
The GOP get up and respond after every speech. They do each Saturday after the pres gives his little talk.
WHY no rebuttal THAT day. GOT NO JOB BILL'S???
This rebuttal issue is really thread worthy. I got to know.
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 09:22:48 PM
Well they are congressmen and it's their job (supposedly)
So are you trying to imply that there is an amendment to the just proposed bill about deregulation, that does WHAT?
This must be a very obscure job proposal. Be specific or give it up Boo.
Still waiting for you to prove there are 25 jobs bills
Why again did they not talk about these job creating bill after the pres speech in Sept about jobs, where he pretty much called them out on the carpet and said "where's the jobs bills" (crickets could be heard in the chamber)
The GOP get up and respond after every speech. They do each Saturday after the pres gives his little talk.
WHY no rebuttal THAT day. GOT NO JOB BILL'S???
This rebuttal issue is really thread worthy. I got to know.
You don't understand the effect over regulation has on job creation?
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 09:22:48 PM
Well they are congressmen and it's their job (supposedly)
So are you trying to imply that there is an amendment to the just proposed bill about deregulation, that does WHAT?
This must be a very obscure job proposal. Be specific or give it up Boo.
Still waiting for you to prove there are 25 jobs bills
Why again did they not talk about these job creating bill after the pres speech in Sept about jobs, where he pretty much called them out on the carpet and said "where's the jobs bills" (crickets could be heard in the chamber)
The GOP get up and respond after every speech. They do each Saturday after the pres gives his little talk.
WHY no rebuttal THAT day. GOT NO JOB BILL'S???
This rebuttal issue is really thread worthy. I got to know.
There it is folks. A child that refuses to debate what I post yet demands even more....
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 04, 2012, 09:09:27 PM
So if we use your logic, Congressmen don't have to read the bills. They just read the "description.". And in doing that they never see all the amendments that have to be voted on.
Well done stupid.
YES like they did with obamacare
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 09:22:48 PM
Well they are congressmen and it's their job (supposedly)
So are you trying to imply that there is an amendment to the just proposed bill about deregulation, that does WHAT?
This must be a very obscure job proposal. Be specific or give it up Boo.
Still waiting for you to prove there are 25 jobs bills
Why again did they not talk about these job creating bill after the pres speech in Sept about jobs, where he pretty much called them out on the carpet and said "where's the jobs bills" (crickets could be heard in the chamber)
The GOP get up and respond after every speech. They do each Saturday after the pres gives his little talk.
WHY no rebuttal THAT day. GOT NO JOB BILL'S???
This rebuttal issue is really thread worthy. I got to know.
Regurgitating standard Daily Kos tripe. PolitiFact debunked DK's claim of no Republican jobs bills back in October:
But the post's most important flaw is the contention that Republicans have offered "zero" bills on job creation.
This number stems from a methodology that also excludes Obama's American Jobs Act from the category of "job creation" bills. If you look at alternative job-related subject headings, the number of bills offered by lawmakers from both parties actually exceeds most of the social-issues listed in the blog post. We rate this claim
Pants on fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/25/facebook-posts/blog-post-says-gop-has-sponsored-zero-job-creation/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/25/facebook-posts/blog-post-says-gop-has-sponsored-zero-job-creation/)
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 10:36:16 AM
I would have to say the same back to you! Conservative, fact less propaganda seems to be the stable here.
Now, I realize that you think most of us are full of horseshit, but I believe the word you were looking for here is
staple. :D
Quote from: bluelieu on February 05, 2012, 12:19:07 AM
Regurgitating standard Daily Kos tripe. PolitiFact debunked DK's claim of no Republican jobs bills back in October:
But the post's most important flaw is the contention that Republicans have offered "zero" bills on job creation. This number stems from a methodology that also excludes Obama's American Jobs Act from the category of "job creation" bills. If you look at alternative job-related subject headings, the number of bills offered by lawmakers from both parties actually exceeds most of the social-issues listed in the blog post. We rate this claim Pants on fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/25/facebook-posts/blog-post-says-gop-has-sponsored-zero-job-creation/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/25/facebook-posts/blog-post-says-gop-has-sponsored-zero-job-creation/)
Did you read the entire page you linked to?
They are rating the BLOG POST as "pant's on fire"
AND in the end they don't SAY they DID or did NOT put real "job" bills up to congress.
The essence of the Politico blurb is that there are dozens of bills about a broad spectrum of things, and anyone of of them might contain the "birth" of new jobs.
THAT being said.
NO ONE can answer the question as to why after being called out on the carpet by the President, the GOP did not respond with the 25 job bills that Boo likes to say exist??
The next day some member of congress (R) pretended (I think, it may have been real) to put up HIS jobs bill which called for an end to all taxes.
The GOP HAD NOTHING to offer the public and felt it best to just keep quite!
They rebut the Presidents saturday morning talk to the public, why not his speech on jobs??
Cause they DON"T have squat to offer!
Unless one of you can show me some.
Your up Boo!
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 05, 2012, 10:17:55 AM
Did you read the entire page you linked to?
They are rating the BLOG POST as "pant's on fire"
AND in the end they don't SAY they DID or did NOT put real "job" bills up to congress.
The essence of the Politico blurb is that there are dozens of bills about a broad spectrum of things, and anyone of of them might contain the "birth" of new jobs.
THAT being said.
NO ONE can answer the question as to why after being called out on the carpet by the President, the GOP did not respond with the 25 job bills that Boo likes to say exist??
The next day some member of congress (R) pretended (I think, it may have been real) to put up HIS jobs bill which called for an end to all taxes.
The GOP HAD NOTHING to offer the public and felt it best to just keep quite!
They rebut the Presidents saturday morning talk to the public, why not his speech on jobs??
Cause they DON"T have squat to offer!
Unless one of you can show me some.
Your up Boo!
Right back atcha... Read the conclusion , The "pants on fire" was directed at the
claim of zero bills on job creation, not the blog itself. Furthermore, if we do accept the "jobs creation" premise, then the American Jobs Act falls off the scope too. Without getting into numbers, Politfact concedes that
both parties have put forth "alternative" job-related headings, when it says "the number of (such) bills from
both parties exceeds the total of social-issue bills mentioned in the blog (a claim which came from the Daily Kos).
Quote
But the post's most important flaw is the contention that Republicans have offered "zero" bills on job creation. This number stems from a methodology that also excludes Obama's American Jobs Act from the category of "job creation" bills. If you look at alternative job-related subject headings, the number of bills offered by lawmakers from both parties actually exceeds most of the social-issues listed in the blog post. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 04, 2012, 08:42:37 PM
First off,
IF we were in the middle of bombing Afghanistan, lets hope that WE HAD the proof necessary, otherwise we are WARMONGERS
and shouldn't have been bombing them in the first place.
SO we have the proof.
What's so wrong about Osama going to a neutral 3rd country?
WE HAVE THE PROOF, right?
So why would that matter.
Instead, the choice is to risk tens of thousands of troops lives and spend god knows how much cash!
That's not leadership. That's grandstanding. Bush did it cause HE COULD!
That and being the "war president".
(Do I have to post that link again?)
AND as far as Osama getting away, The Taliban couldn't have given him up if they didn't have him, in which case they are going to get pounded by US forces!
I think after the mini Iraq war with Bush one, that part of the world got a better idea how good the US war machine IS.
Avoiding a pounding by our forces WAS probably high on their agenda!
You do know that Osama and al Qaeda took credit for the WTC attack, correct?
Do you happen to have some reason we should have ignored their confession of guilt?