PDA

View Full Version : 8.5 BILLION $ To ACORN !!!



Franco
07-25-2009, 10:52 AM
As if tax payers don't have enough to pay for, Obama wants to continue funding this illegal criminal organization. But then again, ACORN is his team!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104842

Martin
07-25-2009, 02:27 PM
Uncle Sam's Plantation gets bigger and bigger everyday!

YardleyLabs
07-26-2009, 04:04 PM
Ah yes, another example of The Big Lie from the right wing echo chamber. The $8.5 billion ACORN fright fantasy started with an article in the American Spectator that basically assumed that any funds allocated in the stimulus package for community development block grants would (potentially) go to ACORN. Of course, this ignores the fact that ACORN has no significant track record of ever seeking or receiving Federal grants, but when hysteria is your goal, never let facts stand in the way.

As it was, the specific programs identified as possible "ACORN" funds in the original bill were finally adopted in much smaller numbers. In fact, none of those funds have gone to ACORN. That has done nothing to curb the lie machine from continuing to drag out the same numbers over and over again.

The notion of The Big Lie began with the Nazis -- first Hitler and then Goebbels. In Mein Kampf, Hitler described it as a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". Needless to say, Hitler was accusing Jews of this tactic just as Goebbels later accused England. The $8.5 billion lie is simply one more example of the propaganda that now seems to dominate right wing commentary (right along with claims that Obama is not a citizen).

HuntsmanTollers
07-26-2009, 05:07 PM
Since it wasn't 8.5 Billion I guess I shouldn't believe the reports about registration abuse, partisan politics, and the other unethical and illegal acts that ACORN has been involved in. They don't need to make up more stuff about ACORN what they HAVE done is enough.

Hew
07-26-2009, 05:26 PM
ACORN, and apparently Yardley, would have you believe that ACORN does not receive Federal money or isn't eligible to receive Federal money. Don't believe it. ACORN is a web of interrelated corporations. Their sister corporation, ACORN Housing Corporation, has indeed been on the receiving end of millions of dollars of Federal grants since '94. ACORN's Alfred E. Newman "What, us take Federal money? No way!" parsing of the facts is as disingenous as if the NRA came out and said they didn't lobby politicians for gun rights (because technically it is the NRA-ILA who does all the lobbying). I'm disappointed in you Yardley for blindly pimping ACORN's party line, but then again, I'm sure you can think of numerous meanings of the word "is", too. ;)

YardleyLabs
07-26-2009, 06:58 PM
ACORN, and apparently Yardley, would have you believe that ACORN does not receive Federal money or isn't eligible to receive Federal money. Don't believe it. ACORN is a web of interrelated corporations. Their sister corporation, ACORN Housing Corporation, has indeed been on the receiving end of millions of dollars of Federal grants since '94. ACORN's Alfred E. Newman "What, us take Federal money? No way!" parsing of the facts is as disingenous as if the NRA came out and said they didn't lobby politicians for gun rights (because technically it is the NRA-ILA who does all the lobbying). I'm disappointed in you Yardley for blindly pimping ACORN's party line, but then again, I'm sure you can think of numerous meanings of the word "is", too. ;)
A report, prepared by the Washington Examiner, which also continues to tout the $8.5 billion conspiracy, claims that ACORN has received, directly or indirectly, $53 million in Federal funds during the last 25 years. Almost all of this money was provided through grants by the bush administration and most of it was for mortgage foreclosure counseling.

ACORN is an umbrella organization that provides a mix of direct services through a variety of related subsidiaries (one of which does voter registration), and a central organization that openly lobbies on behalf of the poor. It has been targeted for hate campaigns by the right because of its effectiveness in getting poor people to not only register to vote but to come to the polls and exercise teir democratic rights. While there are thousands of demonstrated cases where election officials effectively excluded legitimate voters from voting by challenging their votes on a variety of pretexts and through unannounced voter purges, I am not aware of anyone that cast an illegal vote because of fraudulent data submitted by ACORN.

The fact is that voter registration drives never verify voter registration information and are required by the laws of most states to submit all forms completed whether they believe those forms to be valid or not (Around me there was a case recently that was buried where a GOP run registration drive failed to submit applications from voters that said they were Democrats. Those people thought they were registered but arrived at the polls to find they were not. Party officials said it was an accident.). Election officials have exclusive authority to investigate the registration information. They may challenge it and require a challenged individual to prove his/her identity at the polls and file a provisional ballot pending court determination of eligibility. Many states have adopted verification strategies that are known to produce a high proportion of invalid challenges. In Florida, for example, the election commissioner ordered the use of a standard for challenging a voter as a felon that was very loose and based on simple similarity of names. Thousand of voters were turned away as a result. In Ohio, new registrations were subjected to a consistency check across state files and any discrepancies in name spelling or address information resulted in exclusion. Had this same standard been applied to all registrations, total chaos would have ensued. As it is, Federal courts overruled most of these actions because the pattern of exclusions was capricious.

Personally, I see no reason for pre-registration for voting. The primary purposes of registration laws has historically been to exclude otherwise valid voters. It should be sufficient to show up at the polls with evidence of identity and residence and vote at that time.

Hew
07-27-2009, 12:20 AM
A report, prepared by the Washington Examiner, which also continues to tout the $8.5 billion conspiracy, claims that ACORN has received, directly or indirectly, $53 million in Federal funds during the last 25 years. Almost all of this money was provided through grants by the bush administration and most of it was for mortgage foreclosure counseling.
I suppose you could also say that in the last 200 years $53 million in Federal funds has also been sent to ACORN and that would be technically accurate (just as "during the last 25 years")and sound somewhat more benign, but an accurate reporting, and what the Washington Examiner article that you mentioned said, is "since 1994..." And the only money that was earmarked for foreclosure counseling (as if that makes the fact that shysters like ACORN are getting tax money more palatable) was the last 17 million. See where the money went yourself: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r9Nm9MnufdfjwOCnzsefnJQ&gid=0 You'll note on that list that there are 8 or 9 different ACORN organizations, all with slightly different names, but all connected to the umbrella ACORN organization. I guess your previous claim that they don't ask for, or receive Federal money was "poorly calibrated." ;)

YardleyLabs
07-27-2009, 07:23 AM
I suppose you could also say that in the last 200 years $53 million in Federal funds has also been sent to ACORN and that would be technically accurate (just as "during the last 25 years")and sound somewhat more benign, but an accurate reporting, and what the Washington Examiner article that you mentioned said, is "since 1994..." And the only money that was earmarked for foreclosure counseling (as if that makes the fact that shysters like ACORN are getting tax money more palatable) was the last 17 million. See where the money went yourself: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r9Nm9MnufdfjwOCnzsefnJQ&gid=0 You'll note on that list that there are 8 or 9 different ACORN organizations, all with slightly different names, but all connected to the umbrella ACORN organization. I guess your previous claim that they don't ask for, or receive Federal money was "poorly calibrated." ;)
I actually said no significant record of seeking or receiving Federal funds. I was fully aware of the $53 million, and that is not a significant part of their operation over the last 25 years. It is also a far cry from $8.5 billion. Using $53 million over 25 years to bolster claims of a threat of $8.5 billion going to ACORN is a perfect example of The Big Lie in action.

road kill
07-27-2009, 07:28 AM
I actually said no significant record of seeking or receiving Federal funds. I was fully aware of the $53 million, and that is not a significant part of their operation over the last 25 years. It is also a far cry from $8.5 billion. Using $53 million over 25 years to bolster claims of a threat of $8.5 billion going to ACORN is a perfect example of The Big Lie in action.
One needs look no further than the White House to see "The Big Lie" in action!!

Hope & Change regards!!
(I just hope I have some change left when he is done)

YardleyLabs
07-27-2009, 07:32 AM
One needs look no further than the White House to see "The Big Lie" in action!!

Hope & Change regards!!
(I just hope I have some change left when he is done)
Actually, I can't think of when we've seen more straightforward honesty from a President. Did you have any particular examples of "lies" in mind (as distinct from differences of opinion)?

road kill
07-27-2009, 07:37 AM
Actually, I can't think of when we've seen more straightforward honesty from a President. Did you have any particular examples of "lies" in mind (as distinct from differences of opinion)?
UHHHH.......Less taxes on the people who work, reducing the deficit, closing GITMO, getting out of Iraq, any of those work, or do you need a crowbar?
(to help eliminate the deep ensconcement!!)

YardleyLabs
07-27-2009, 07:54 AM
UHHHH.......Less taxes on the people who work, reducing the deficit, closing GITMO, getting out of Iraq, any of those work, or do you need a crowbar?
Actually, during the campaign he said no tax increases for people earning less than $250k per year. The only exception to date has been the increase in cigarette taxes. This was more than offset by tax cuts proposed, passed, signed into law and implemented within three months of inauguration. With respect to the deficit, Obama promised to reduce the deficit he inherited (over $1 trillion for 2008) in half by the end of four years. The same budget anticipated deficit increases this year. I do not know if he will meet his goal (I am actually quite skeptical), but so far he has been acting in accordance with the plan he proposed. On closing Gitmo, he issued a proclamation calling for closure by next January. Congress (both Dems and Reps) opposes this action because of their fear of a negative public reaction to transferring prisoners to the US. I hope he succeeds since I believe that what we have done at Gitmo is a stain on our honor as a country. However, we live in a democracy where the President cannot always get his way. If he were not trying, it would be a lie (not sure how big). If he is defeated in his efforts, there is no lie involved. On Iraq, he announced the objective during the campaign of withdrawing from Iraq on a careful, measured basis over a period of 16 months. That plan has been put forward, it has been agreed to by the Iraqis, and is being implemented. Hopefully we will remain flexible as needed to reduce the negative impacts of withdrawal, b ut I fail to see the lie.

road kill
07-27-2009, 08:03 AM
Actually, during the campaign he said no tax increases for people earning less than $250k per year. The only exception to date has been the increase in cigarette taxes. This was more than offset by tax cuts proposed, passed, signed into law and implemented within three months of inauguration. With respect to the deficit, Obama promised to reduce the deficit he inherited (over $1 trillion for 2008) in half by the end of four years. The same budget anticipated deficit increases this year. I do not know if he will meet his goal (I am actually quite skeptical), but so far he has been acting in accordance with the plan he proposed. On closing Gitmo, he issued a proclamation calling for closure by next January. Congress (both Dems and Reps) opposes this action because of their fear of a negative public reaction to transferring prisoners to the US. I hope he succeeds since I believe that what we have done at Gitmo is a stain on our honor as a country. However, we live in a democracy where the President cannot always get his way. If he were not trying, it would be a lie (not sure how big). If he is defeated in his efforts, there is no lie involved. On Iraq, he announced the objective during the campaign of withdrawing from Iraq on a careful, measured basis over a period of 16 months. That plan has been put forward, it has been agreed to by the Iraqis, and is being implemented. Hopefully we will remain flexible as needed to reduce the negative impacts of withdrawal, b ut I fail to see the lie.
Yardley, tax cuts proposed do NOT offset taxes paid.
I smoke decent cigars (Nordings & Rocky Patel's) $1.00 a stick.
Please stop, you killing me with laughter.

"However, we live in a democracy where the President cannot always get his way."
This is an excuse, he said what he said, he has not done it.

So, the crowbar is needed?

BTW--The 3 keys to marketing & communications success;

#1--Clarity
#2--Relevance
#3--Brevity

cotts135
07-27-2009, 11:53 AM
President Obama's big lie as I see it is that during his campaign he promised a more transparent government. Well when it comes to National Security issues his transparency record is as bad as Bush and maybe even worse. He also professed to believing in the rule of law and that even high government officials are not above it. As of now he has not shown any inclination to support that statement.

YardleyLabs
07-27-2009, 11:56 AM
Yardley, tax cuts proposed do NOT offset taxes paid.
I smoke decent cigars (Nordings & Rocky Patel's) $1.00 a stick.
Please stop, you killing me with laughter.

"However, we live in a democracy where the President cannot always get his way."
This is an excuse, he said what he said, he has not done it.

So, the crowbar is needed?

BTW--The 3 keys to marketing & communications success;

#1--Clarity
#2--Relevance
#3--Brevity
I notice that honesty and factual accuracy are not on your list.

YardleyLabs
07-27-2009, 11:59 AM
President Obama's big lie as I see it is that during his campaign he promised a more transparent government. Well when it comes to National Security issues his transparency record is as bad as Bush and maybe even worse. He also professed to believing in the rule of law and that even high government officials are not above it. As of now he has not shown any inclination to support that statement.
I agree with your first point. If, in your second point you are referencing his non-support for punitive investigations of the Bush administration, I agree with his lack of action. The real test is what he does with transgressors in his own administration and the record there is not yet written.

badbullgator
07-27-2009, 12:22 PM
President Obama's big lie as I see it is that during his campaign he promised a more transparent government. Well when it comes to National Security issues his transparency record is as bad as Bush and maybe even worse. He also professed to believing in the rule of law and that even high government officials are not above it. As of now he has not shown any inclination to support that statement.


I for one am not a fan of transparency when it comes to matters of national security or defense. Some things we just donít need to know, be it obongo or bush, orÖ..

road kill
07-27-2009, 12:37 PM
I notice that honesty and factual accuracy are not on your list.
One thing about Godless progressives, when you pin them they get personal.
You think because you bloviate and pontificate it makes your opinion more factual?
It doesn't professor Irwin Corey!

crowbar regards!

cotts135
07-27-2009, 04:23 PM
I for one am not a fan of transparency when it comes to matters of national security or defense. Some things we just don’t need to know, be it obongo or bush, or…..

I agree that not everything should be made public when it comes to national security but has been the case since Nixon was President, and probably even before him, the claim that info can not be disclosed because of National Security, has been abused. If it has been abused such that criminal activity has been covered up then something needs to be done.

cotts135
07-27-2009, 04:27 PM
One thing about Godless progressives, when you pin them they get personal.
You think because you bloviate and pontificate it makes your opinion more factual?
It doesn't professor Irwin Corey!

crowbar regards!

If your problem is with facts and truth then your the one who is taking it personal. I would also like to know what "Godless progressives" statement is all about. What kind of stereotype would you like to pin on them?

road kill
07-27-2009, 04:34 PM
If your problem is with facts and truth then your the one who is taking it personal. I would also like to know what "Godless progressives" statement is all about. What kind of stereotype would you like to pin on them?

It's not a stereo type, it is only derogatory if you see it that way.
Mr. Yardley has admitted as such.
If you don't beleive in God and you are a progessive politically then you would be a Godless progressive.

If that is a bad thing, I am sorry.
I don't think I invented it, but maybe I did.

Having said that, Snopes is NOT the final word on everything.
And opinions are just that, opinions, no matter how many paragraphs one writes to support ones opinion.
Every one here has an opinion based on their lifes experiences, mine led me to be called a right wing extremist.
Mr. Yardleys led him to be a Godless progressive (based on his own expressed opinions and positions).
But I never questioned Mr. Yardley's integrity.
To insinuate that my integrity is flawed, I take exception.
You may not like my opinions, nor I yours, but we both have the right to express them as we came to our positions in earnest.

stan b

Henry V
07-27-2009, 04:39 PM
Yardley, tax cuts proposed do NOT offset taxes paid.
I smoke decent cigars (Nordings & Rocky Patel's) $1.00 a stick.

An interesting side note on this, you may want to keep in mind that the tax on cigarettes is not really a tax but really a fee. You know, exactly like the $0.75 per pack "health impact fee" that Gov. T. "no new taxes" Pawlenty put in effect in Minnesota. In fact, a lot of fees have increased here but of course, not taxes. Well, except everyone's local taxes going up 20%+.

RK, just curious if you would care to directly refute any other facts presented by Jeff, or go beyond the cigar tax. If so, please do.

Oh, and do you see the irony in the statement
One thing about Godless progressives, when you pin them they get personal.
Jeff's factual statement about items left off your list is "personal". Very interesting.

road kill
07-27-2009, 04:43 PM
An interesting side note on this, you may want to keep in mind that the tax on cigarettes is not really a tax but really a fee. You know, exactly like the $0.75 per pack "health impact fee" that Gov. T. "no new taxes" Pawlenty put in effect in Minnesota. In fact, a lot of fees have increased here but of course, not taxes. Well, except everyone's local taxes going up 20%+.

RK, just curious if you would care to directly refute any other facts presented by Jeff, or go beyond the cigar tax. If so, please do.

Oh, and do you see the irony in the statement
Jeff's factual statement about items left off your list is "personal". Very interesting.
Is GITMO closed?

Hoosier
07-27-2009, 04:49 PM
An interesting side note on this, you may want to keep in mind that the tax on cigarettes is not really a tax but really a fee. You know, exactly like the $0.75 per pack "health impact fee" that Gov. T. "no new taxes" Pawlenty put in effect in Minnesota. In fact, a lot of fees have increased here but of course, not taxes. Well, except everyone's local taxes going up 20%+.

RK, just curious if you would care to directly refute any other facts presented by Jeff, or go beyond the cigar tax. If so, please do.

Oh, and do you see the irony in the statement
Jeff's factual statement about items left off your list is "personal". Very interesting.

Taking a page from the leftwings playbook I don't mind those fees, I don't have to pay many of them. The people who pay them are the ones using the service. As for property taxes mine really hasn't went up much. My property value has dropped, and is assessed lower now. Gov. is alright by be, of course I'm not looking for a government handout.

road kill
07-27-2009, 04:58 PM
An interesting side note on this, you may want to keep in mind that the tax on cigarettes is not really a tax but really a fee. You know, exactly like the $0.75 per pack "health impact fee" that Gov. T. "no new taxes" Pawlenty put in effect in Minnesota. In fact, a lot of fees have increased here but of course, not taxes. Well, except everyone's local taxes going up 20%+.

RK, just curious if you would care to directly refute any other facts presented by Jeff, or go beyond the cigar tax. If so, please do.

Oh, and do you see the irony in the statement
Jeff's factual statement about items left off your list is "personal". Very interesting.

Enlighten me, what's the difference?

Is that like "proposed tax cuts" offsetting "taxes paid??"

ROFLMAO!!

YardleyLabs
07-27-2009, 04:59 PM
Is GITMO closed?

FWIW, I do not have problems being called a Godless Progressive just as I assume you have no problems being called a right wing extremist. Both are simple statements that leave off a lot of nuance but are in the correct ball park for both of us. However, as far as I know I am the only Progressive active in POTUS who would be comfortable being called Godless so I would urge you not to make a lot of assumptions about the link between politics and religion. By the way, I probably attend church more often than most.

Last time I looked, Obama said he would close Gitmo next year (January). I suspect that he will not succeed given the depth of Congressional opposition. That would put it on a list of failed or delayed promises, but not on a list of lies. There's a huge difference unless you, from your perspective, consider every President since the founding of our country to be a pathological liar.

road kill
07-27-2009, 05:04 PM
FWIW, I do not have problems being called a Godless Progressive just as I assume you have no problems being called a right wing extremist. Both are simple statements that leave off a lot of nuance but are in the correct ball park for both of us. However, as far as I know I am the only Progressive active in POTUS who would be comfortable being called Godless so I would urge you not to make a lot of assumptions about the link between politics and religion. By the way, I probably attend church more often than most.

Last time I looked, Obama said he would close Gitmo next year (January). I suspect that he will not succeed given the depth of Congressional opposition. That would put it on a list of failed or delayed promises, but not on a list of lies. There's a huge difference unless you, from your perspective, consider every President since the founding of our country to be a pathological liar.
I will refrain from using the term going forward.

My apologies to anyone offended.
But I am confused.
If you claim to be something, and get identified as such, why would you be offended.

I am a "right wing extremist," I think that is the term.
It does not offend me.

I am not talking about all the other liars, I am talking about the one who promised "CHANGE & HOPE!!"

stan b

YardleyLabs
07-27-2009, 05:23 PM
I will refrain from using the term going forward.

My apologies to anyone offended.
But I am confused.
If you claim to be something, and get identified as such, why would you be offended.

I am a "right wing extremist," I think that is the term.
It does not offend me.

I am not talking about all the other liars, I am talking about the one who promised "CHANGE & HOPE!!"

stan b
I take no offense at the expression, as I said before. I do sometimes wonder how name calling of any kind advances an argument. From your last sentence it seems you are agreeing that all the other presidents were also liars but that it only matters if you promised change and hope. I'd say Obama has certainly brought change, and for those who support him, he has offered the first glimmers of hope seen in years of disgust with the things being done in the name of our country.

Hew
07-27-2009, 05:34 PM
Last time I looked, Obama said he would close Gitmo next year (January). I suspect that he will not succeed given the depth of Congressional opposition. That would put it on a list of failed or delayed promises, but not on a list of lies. There's a huge difference unless you, from your perspective, consider every President since the founding of our country to be a pathological liar.
Is there any law that would prevent the President from closing Gitmo immediately with the stroke of a pen? I know it gives the progressives some comfort to pass the buck to Congress and not place the blame where it lies, but the answer to the question is that there's not a thing stopping Obama from closing Gitmo other than his lack of intestinal fortitude to keep his campaign promise and a working ink pen. When he campaigned on shutting down Gitmo he either a) was a boldfaced liar or b) a naive chump who was thrust into the spotlight way before he was ready. Neither alternative is attractive.

YardleyLabs
07-27-2009, 06:19 PM
Is there any law that would prevent the President from closing Gitmo immediately with the stroke of a pen? I know it gives the progressives some comfort to pass the buck to Congress and not place the blame where it lies, but the answer to the question is that there's not a thing stopping Obama from closing Gitmo other than his lack of intestinal fortitude to keep his campaign promise and a working ink pen. When he campaigned on shutting down Gitmo he either a) was a boldfaced liar or b) a naive chump who was thrust into the spotlight way before he was ready. Neither alternative is attractive.
Senate Democrats refuse to pass funding for closure. He can prevent anyone new from being placed there but cannot spend money to transport remaining detainees back to the US. Limits have been tested a little but i suspect that is not the primary issue on his plate right now.

dback
07-27-2009, 07:02 PM
Senate Democrats refuse to pass funding for closure. He can prevent anyone new from being placed there but CANNOT SPEND MONEY TO TRANSPORT REMAINING DETAINEES BACK TO THE US.

Oooorrrr.....how bout the fact that citizens of the US screamed bloody murder that they didn't want them in their own backyard.

Guess my vote would be... b) naive chump

Julie R.
07-27-2009, 10:38 PM
I wonder if that $8.5 billion to ACORN includes all that loot they're going to get for doing the census next year? If you think things are bad now, wait'll Obongo and his ACORN pals get through with the census and redistrict us!! I guess they might even have to make districts that cross state lines so everyone can share in wonderful utopias like Memphis, Murderapolis, Detoilet, etc. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Hew
07-28-2009, 06:57 AM
Senate Democrats refuse to pass funding for closure. He can prevent anyone new from being placed there but cannot spend money to transport remaining detainees back to the US. Limits have been tested a little but i suspect that is not the primary issue on his plate right now.
Obama spent $200 million bribing the island of Palau to take 17 Gitmo prisoners without Congress' approval. He shipped 4 Gitmo prisoners to Bermuda (the cost of the bribe has yet to be determined) without a single vote from Congress. He took over General Motors without a single vote from Congress. He has set up middleman organizations to skirt Congressional oversight so he can funnel bailout money as he sees fit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303910.html . He has taken the congress-bypassing Czar system to unheard of new heights. Maybe you didn't see his memo to Republicans...he won the election and can do what he wants. Apparently, closing Gitmo is something he doesn't want to do.

road kill
07-28-2009, 07:25 AM
What did he say?
I need some lefty to explain and rationalize this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXZoM__vU0&feature=fvw

To the untrained ear it sounds as though he is promising to shut down GITMO.

Could someone spin this for me please?

more to follow!!

Steve Amrein
07-28-2009, 08:42 AM
Is GITMO closed?

I thought it was its not in the news anymore :rolleyes:

JDogger
07-28-2009, 08:44 AM
My question is not about the speed of the dismantling of Guantanamo. It is proceeding, if slowly.
My question is why the Bush administration detained 17 Chinese muslims that it declined to classify as enemy combatants?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/world/10palau.html

badbullgator
07-28-2009, 09:00 AM
My question is not about the speed of the dismantling of Guantanamo. It is proceeding, if slowly.
My question is why the Bush administration detained 17 Chinese muslims that it declined to classify as enemy combatants?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/world/10palau.html


Really, you want to talk about something Bush did? Wow shocking! Who cares what the fool in the WH now is doing we need to bash bush some more:rolleyes:

road kill
07-28-2009, 09:08 AM
My question is not about the speed of the dismantling of Guantanamo. It is proceeding, if slowly.
My question is why the Bush administration detained 17 Chinese muslims that it declined to classify as enemy combatants?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/world/10palau.html
This is not about Bush, it is about "The Obama's" promises he isn't keeping!!

Hope & Change regards!!

Bob Gutermuth
07-28-2009, 09:35 AM
All the Bush bashing is merely to conceal the incompetence of the current occupant of the White House. Its a diversion pure and simple, but it won't work with most Americans.

kjrice
07-28-2009, 10:06 AM
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r186/kjrice/liagra.jpg

YardleyLabs
07-28-2009, 10:23 AM
All the Bush bashing is merely to conceal the incompetence of the current occupant of the White House. Its a diversion pure and simple, but it won't work with most Americans.
And is it safe to assume that fabricated outrage and big lies are simply the conservative cover up for years of failed policies?

road kill
07-28-2009, 10:29 AM
And is it safe to assume that fabricated outrage and big lies are simply the conservative cover up for years of failed policies?

Yeah, that's the way we discussed it at the "Right Wing Extremist" meetings.:rolleyes:

JDogger
07-28-2009, 10:41 AM
Really, you want to talk about something Bush did? Wow shocking! Who cares what the fool in the WH now is doing we need to bash bush some more:rolleyes:

Yes BBG, because the reality is that the current fool is trying to clean up some of the mess left by the previous fool. So yes, Bush bashing will continue. It's his legacy, he earned it. Who am I to deny him.

road kill
07-28-2009, 12:23 PM
Yes BBG, because the reality is that the current fool is trying to clean up some of the mess left by the previous fool. So yes, Bush bashing will continue. It's his legacy, he earned it. Who am I to deny him.

A rational, intelligent, pragmatic, adult?

JDogger
07-28-2009, 02:26 PM
You and me, Stan. Two sides of the same coin, eh?

road kill
07-28-2009, 02:29 PM
You and me, Stan. Two sides of the same coin, eh?

It's possible, I have no youtubes or Snopes links to either support or deny that statement!!;-)

stan b

Franco
07-28-2009, 04:16 PM
Yes BBG, because the reality is that the current fool is trying to clean up some of the mess left by the previous fool. So yes, Bush bashing will continue. It's his legacy, he earned it. Who am I to deny him.

The current fool is making a bad situation much worse. The current fool could make it so bad for the American future that we may never recover! I have a gut feeling that the American people will not stand for four years of Obama now that they are starting to discover what a lousey President he is.