Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... Last
[#] Mon Oct 06 2014 14:00:55 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

Subject: Re: List of Biden's political blunders

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 6 2014 5:30am from rss @cascade in >
Subject: List of Biden's political blunders
The following is a list of Vice President Biden's notable gaffes and
moments of candor.

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/igJQrgXpoCM/


You mean that list is short enough to even think of putting it online?????

[#] Mon Oct 06 2014 14:01:38 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Dan Quayle: the thinking man's Joe Biden.

[#] Wed Oct 08 2014 13:07:00 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


The bombing needs to begin now.

[ http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/10/07/harvard-students-america-greater-threat-world-peace-isis ]

A bunch of communist socialist Harvard students are saying that America is a greater threat to world peace than the Islamic State (aka ISIS).

So ... not only are our tax dollars funding ISIS, but we're also providing federal aid to ultra-communist think tanks like Harvard to tell us that we're the problem.

[#] Wed Oct 08 2014 13:21:03 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It is so cute they think communism doesn't cause any problems. so cute.

[#] Wed Oct 08 2014 18:42:33 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I am going to play devil's advocate, the U.S. out numbers, has more money, has a larger military and is in more
countries than ISIS. The U.S. is a bigger threat because they are bigger and feel they have to police
force the world.

[#] Wed Oct 08 2014 19:58:13 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

With our current Commander-in-Chief, right now the U.S. essentially *is* ISIS.
Funding one group of jihadi wackos ostensibly for the purpose of attacking another, but they're still jihadi wackos and they end up using our money to attack peaceful targets. Not to mention the deliberately porous border and stupid immigration policies, currently being used to import ebola into the country and rapidly distribute it from coast to coast.

Bush didn't do *enough* to tackle Al Qaeda (aka ISIS, ISIL, Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, Hamas; they're all the same damn organization). The WMD's were hidden in Syria and now the jihadi wackos have them.

[#] Wed Oct 08 2014 22:08:11 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The US is ISIS? Are you agreeing with the commie bastards or are you saying they are both equal?

[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 02:21:07 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

An argument can be made that the US is currently a destabilizing force on the world stage. But not for the reason those IvyLeague-niks think.

Obama has shredded our military almost beyond recognition; he does not know how to lead; his foreign policy is virtually nonexistent; his domestic policy is divisive.

A ship without a rudder steaming full speed to "who knows where' is a hazard.

The cure? That's simple. Go to the polls and remove these hapless "liberal" idiots. May not be an "instant cure" but it's a start.

[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 05:42:34 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

yesterday I learned why the russians were so careful about dropping their support for assad - because they knew chechenian terorists where bleeding into syria to get their thing started.

The result of this is what we now see in the news day by day.



[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 08:45:28 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Hm.

When did the US last have a real leader in the presidency?

I want to suggest Clinton. I think, love or hate him, Clinton might have been the last real leader we had. Shrub and Obama both lean very heavily on advisors and do very little leading of their own (tons of vacations is part of the proof of that). And I think in both cases their respective parties love them.

Clinton wasn't well liked by either side, which sorta suggests to me that he was closer to being a leader than otherwise. I suspect he did what he felt was right for the moment, rather than what the party wanted.

Not that I necessarily liked Clinton (I'm not sure I would like anyone, honestly), but at least he was a leader.

[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 10:20:52 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Not that I necessarily liked Clinton (I'm not sure I would like
anyone, honestly), but at least he was a leader.



I would ask Monica Lewinsky and the rest of the never-ending Bimbo Parade about that.

And I'd be very reluctant to sing the praises of a president that bungled at least two opportunities to seize and/or kill Osama Bin Laden, which would have spared us the agonies of 9-11 and its aftermath.

The "economic boom" that democraps like to credit to Bill Clinton was, if you recall, the direct result of Republicans winning the House in 1994 (for the first time in roughly 40 years) and the Contract For America forcing Slick Willy to balance the budget and sign the Welfare Reform legislation.

Please remember that it was Slick Willie's idea to repeal Glass Steagal, which ended up being one of the main contributors to the Great "Recession" (Depression II) of 2009. The other main contributor - obviously - was Barack Obama and his idiotic "stimulus" programs.

[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 11:10:49 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


As I said, I don't like him, but at least he was a leader.

Maybe a terrible one, but none-the-less, a leader.

[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 13:36:26 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'll agree with that. I didn't agree with all of his policies but he was at least "presidential." The piece of garbage currently occupying the White House has such outward contempt for the American people.

Agreed with Vince that the 1990's boom had more to do with Newt Gingrich than it did with Bill Clinton. The thing we have to credit Clinton for, however, is that he was able to react to public opinion and pivot accordingly, and the results were good. You can bet that even if the GOP takes both houses next month -- and if they are capable of generating some sound economic policy (not guaranteed with shitheads like Boehner around) -- Obama will *not* work with them. He'll veto (or ignore) everything that arrives on his desk. He'll continue to legislate with his pen and phone, knowing how difficult it is for Congress to get a two-thirds majority to override his decisions. He'll continue his very focused effort to destroy the nation, because he is not only a communist socialist terrorist, but also a sociopath.

[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 13:48:43 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


You can normally tell that a politician is a sociopath if they get involved in federal politics. At all. Because as far as I can tell, they're all sociopaths.

[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 14:17:12 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Obama will *not* work with them. He'll veto
(or ignore) everything that arrives on his desk. He'll continue to
legislate with his pen and phone, knowing how difficult it is for
Congress to get a two-thirds majority to override his decisions. He'll

continue his very focused effort to destroy the nation, because he is

not only a communist socialist terrorist, but also a sociopath.



Obama is even worse than you describe, IG
If you, or I, or any other "civilian" did *half* the things I could cite we would be indicted for TREASON.

Obama should not be impeached. He should be indicted and tried by a JURY (only 12 folks to convince in a criminal trial, and not 67 out of 100 in that travesty the Senate would call a "trial" were he to be impeached).

AND... the prosecution would have some "say" in who sits on that jury (it's called Voir Dire). As would the defense. And if I were the prosecutor, the one thing that would NOT be on the table would be a plea bargain.

[#] Thu Oct 09 2014 19:01:35 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Obama cannot be impeached or prosecuted, because racism. So there.

[#] Fri Oct 10 2014 00:26:55 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Any federal prosecutor can bring an "information" to the federal court having jurisdiction where that prosecutor works.

Obama could be charged under an "information" in a state not so "vigilant" about race being an issue, but rather prosecution of an alleged crime being **the** issue.

I don't think that the good folks of, say, Wyoming, would mind in the least.

[#] Fri Oct 10 2014 11:52:13 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's not the point.  Prosecution of Barack Osama is public relations napalm because of "racism" (with the emphasis on the quotes).  Al Hitler Sharpton and Jesse Hitler Jackson will be all over it.  MS-Hitler-NBC will take over every channel on the dial to shout at the world about how Barack Osama is being prosecuted because of his race.  It's not doable.



[#] Fri Oct 10 2014 20:12:45 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Okay I offer a solution. Let Obama go, he must resign but he can go. Instead were persecute every member of
congress and their staff.

I think it is a good deal.

[#] Fri Oct 10 2014 22:03:21 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I still think my dad had it right.
He was a strict believer in term limits for all elected officials.

Here is how he put it:
"Every politician should be limited to two terms.
One in office followed by one in prison."

Go to page: First ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... Last