Text 13532, 204 rader
Skriven 2008-03-25 11:00:15 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 13493 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: Stupid Liberals...again             Was; Bush Vetoes Waterboarding
==========================================================================
24 Mar 08 17:42, Jeff Bowman wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> JB> So if Bush had mowed somebody down in his car while drunk, or
 RW>> raped
 RW>> JB> somebody, or beat somebody to death, in his past, that would be
 RW>> okay
 RW>> JB> too?

 RW>> Apparently it's not ok with the liberals if the person is a
 RW>> conservative, but it's just fine if the person is a liberal...young
 RW>> Senator Ted Kennedy, Chappaquidic, 45 years later is still a United
 RW>> States Senator, etc..

 JB> You're changing the subject.  I never defended Ted Kennedy nor do I
 JB> give a shit about him.

Fair is fair. If you can bring up things about someone, so can I. Or the
discussion is over.

 JB> I was asking if it's okay for Bush to have
 JB> committed those sorts of crimes in his past, since it's obviously
 JB> okay for him to have done other things that we should apparently
 JB> forget about.


 RW>> JB> Just like how we're not at the mercy of terrorists now?

 RW>> Have you noticed how many of them are still flying airplanes into
 RW>> buildings here today?

 JB> Tried going through an airport lately?

I don't fly and I don't feel sorry for anyone who does.

 JB>   You'd be lucky to get a baby
 JB> bottle through, let alone a bomb.  Innocent citizens lose their
 JB> freedoms and pay the price for Bush's mistakes.

I don't see where they've lost any freedoms. BTW, they're subject to more
security because some fanatical people want to continue to fly those
airplanes into buildings.  Bush didn't have a hand in that.

 RW>> JB>   We lost a bunch of our rights,

 RW>> We? I still have all of mine. In fact, the USSC just confirmed that
 RW>> the most important Constitutional right has been upheld in spite of
 RW>> what you liberals want. During the Clinton administration, it was
 RW>> denied many times.

 RW>> JB> the very thing Bush said we're fighting to protect in the first
 RW>> JB> place,

 RW>> I havn't noticed any of my rights to be infringed upon...perhaps you
 RW>> can enlighten me so I can get them back.

 JB> Go read the Bill of Rights.  Particularly, read amendments I, IV, V,
 JB> an VI. Now, go read some of Bush's "anti-terror" legislation.  Like
 JB> say, oh, the Patriot Act.

None of those Constitutional rights have been infringed...btw, the
Patriot Act couldn't have been made law unless there was a Congress to
vote on it. The 'last' act to make it law would be Bush's after the
Congress submitted it for him to sign.

 JB> Suddenly your Bill of Rights is riddled with lots of "except in the
 JB> case of" holes.

I didn't see any.

 RW>> We lost a lot more lives during FDRs war...not to mention that the
 RW>> situation was similar; terrorists bombing ships rather than flying
 RW>> into buildings. And communists abounded in our government at the
 RW>> same time, to the denial of FDR.

 JB> And yet Bush never learns from any past mistakes.

Different times, different problems. Assuming that he was still President,
you're saying that FDR would have been able to warn us about 9/11 when he
didn't do it in 1941? He had more intellgence than Bush did and he didn't
act on it.

 RW>> JB>   And yet Osama is still out there.

 RW>> Who's afraid of a cave rat? Liberals!

 JB> Liberals eh?  Seems like Bush is the one restricting freedoms and
 JB> enforcing police-state like actions to prevent such cave rats from
 JB> coming over here.

You'd be pleading for the police to be there if those cave rats were at
your door step...

 RW>> JB> "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

 RW>> Many times over.

 JB> Is that why they cropped the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner out of the
 JB> aircraft carrier photograph on the White House website?

That must be what you see on those 'youtube' liberal sites.

Here's a Question and Answer session on the White House lawn from 2003;

Nora

 Q Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the
USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that
time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time
there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are
recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you
acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?

THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq
is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still
more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military
operation. I was there to thank the troops.

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of
the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I
know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my
staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way. But my statement was a
clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq
was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be
right, it is dangerous in Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq because there are
people who can't stand the thought of a free and peaceful Iraq. It is
dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we're soft, that
the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders -- and suiciders
who are willing to drive up to a Red Cross center, a center of
international help and aid and comfort, and just kill.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031028-2.html

The Prez goes on to explain a lot of other things in answering this
question. You might wish to read this, rather than the liberal propaganda
you're so used to reading at youtube.

 RW>> Hearsay is not admissable because it doesn't relate to the truth.

 JB> Perfect summary of Fox News.

And Jeff Bowman.

 RW>> JB> Since most of his fans think he's the next best thing since
 RW>> sliced
 RW>> JB> bread, they would never take the time to officially confirm or
 RW>> deny
 RW>> JB> whether the transcript was modified in the one example I gave.

 RW>> Because they don't care if you're a liar?

 JB> lol now I'm officially a liar.  At least you finally came out and
 JB> said what you thought instead of still implying it with the baseless
 JB> "out of context" reasons.

Your sources are still out of context, which is on a par with any
liberal's intentions.

 RW>> JB> Then I'm pleased that you'd take so much time to respond to my
 RW>> JB> liberal crap!

 RW>> That time is fast running out...

 JB> We'll see.


 RW>> JB> How many technology bills do you see Republicans trying to pass
 RW>> JB> compared to Democrats?

 RW>> More than I see from Democrats.

 JB> Prove it, or you're sadly mistaken.

Do your own research, I'm not in the prove it business.

 RW>> With the intelligence of a President. Not one like Clinton, but one
 RW>> like Ronald Reagan.

 JB> The fellow who broke the law and lied about it?

Ahhh, more liberal stupidity.

 JB> The one who didn't
 JB> get in trouble for it?  The one who is heralded by Republicans as one
 JB> of the best presidents ever, regardless of his actions (and resulting
 JB> lies) being far worse than Clinton's?

National polls do not reflect your words...which are just more liberal
lies.

 JB> Sounds like a great president to me. And a great representation of
 JB> his party.

He was and was...unfortunately, some people just have no respect for
anything but communistic liberal ideals.

End of thread.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)