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

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

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

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

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?