OINK OINK

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

Doesn't change the fact that they didn't vote for the War.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

That's a lie. Read this over and over until you grasp it:

Bush asked for authorization to use force for the purpose of leverage to get the inspectors in. He promised it was *not* a vote for war, just the inspectors, if they got in.

He lied. The inspectors got in, and instead of letting them find no WMD, he ordered them out and invaded.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

Doesn't change the fact that they didn't vote for the War.

Then by your reasoning Bush didn't start a war. :disgust:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

Doesn't change the fact that they didn't vote for the War.

Then by your reasoning Bush didn't start a war. :disgust:

Really? I gotta hear how that works.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

Doesn't change the fact that they didn't vote for the War.

Then by your reasoning Bush didn't start a war. :disgust:

Really? I gotta hear how that works.

If Hillary didn't vote for the war because it's not truly a "war" then Bush couldn't have started a war that isn't labeled as such.

In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", the United States Congress granted Bush the authority to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, based on available intelligence and Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, that Iraq wished to develop and possess weapons of mass destruction. The joint resolution allowed the President of the United States to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

You're telling me they weren't voting for a war? Give me a fvcking BREAK, you should be more pissed at them than Bush, they are your own people after-all. Instead you just sit here defending them. Either they allowed Bush to go to war or they were stupid enough to think we weren't going to war with Iraq, either one is bad from your point of view.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

Doesn't change the fact that they didn't vote for the War.

Then by your reasoning Bush didn't start a war. :disgust:

Really? I gotta hear how that works.

If Hillary didn't vote for the war because it's not truly a "war" then Bush couldn't have started a war that isn't labeled as such.

In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", the United States Congress granted Bush the authority to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, based on available intelligence and Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, that Iraq wished to develop and possess weapons of mass destruction. The joint resolution allowed the President of the United States to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

You're telling me they weren't voting for a war? Give me a fvcking BREAK, you should be more pissed at them than Bush, they are your own people after-all. Instead you just sit here defending them. Either they allowed Bush to go to war or they were stupid enough to think we weren't going to war with Iraq, either one is bad from your point of view.

Nice Spin Top. Face it, you and your ilk are the enablers and the reason America is in such dire straights regarding the Middle East.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
After all they are just politicians why should we expect anything else from them? When are people going to realize that the only difference between the two groups is the R or the D.

http://www.examiner.com/a-619204~Congress_loads_up__20_billion_in_pork.html

Peanut storage is an emergency?


Now, will the BDS people understand that you didn't vote for any real change? You simple voted for the other frat to be in charge of homecoming.

Get used to it, because the people are going to keep voting for the Dem party in 2008 too.

Enjoy! and thank your GOP "representatives" for us Ultra Libral Pinky Commie Tree Huggin Hippy Pot Smokin Free Lovin Taxin and Spendin Elitist UnAmerican and Pro Choice
Voters!

YAY!!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: JD50
Edit - After thinking about it for a minute, you're probably right, I, as well as most of the conservatives here have been guilty of defending a Republican action at one time or another with a similar argument, saying that the Democrats have done worse. Well, we were jumped on by these very same people for doing that, now they are doing exactly what they jumped on us about.

:thumbsup: for admitting that.

Both parties have their snouts as deeply in the slops trough as they can get away with.

The most I'm hoping for from Democrats are some checks and balances to replace the Republican collusion with a seemingly unending series of bad ideas from the Bush administration including torture, warrantless domestic spying, and incompetent nominees.

:thumbsup: to both of you...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Your posts bomb worse than London 7/7. It's no coincidence you joined AT that same day either.

For you I will make a special group of threads about Angelina and Brad's new babies. That should keep you tied up for a bit eh?


So I guess politicians wasting our money isn't important to the BDS crowd?

I mean, it's better than being so desperate to find something to bash the left about that you start a thread criticizing pork spending. This further confirms far right elements in the U.S. have neurological disorders. No one can be this dense this often. You do have like 7 threads in P&N, each of which are completely worthless. Almost as bad as Genx87 posts.

There is nothing desperate about criticizing pork spending.....Do you agree with the ridiculous amount of pork spending that goes on?

Explain to me in detail why pork spending in his particular case is bad. Are you kosher or something?

Replying with "that is too much money to spend" doesn't fly if you don't know the actual details of how that money will be spent, when it'll be spent, where it'll be spent, and over how many years it'll be spent. If you don't know those details, your criticism of pork spending is nothing more tha a sad excuse for partisan hackery.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

Doesn't change the fact that they didn't vote for the War.

Then by your reasoning Bush didn't start a war. :disgust:

Really? I gotta hear how that works.

If Hillary didn't vote for the war because it's not truly a "war" then Bush couldn't have started a war that isn't labeled as such.

In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", the United States Congress granted Bush the authority to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, based on available intelligence and Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, that Iraq wished to develop and possess weapons of mass destruction. The joint resolution allowed the President of the United States to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

You're telling me they weren't voting for a war? Give me a fvcking BREAK, you should be more pissed at them than Bush, they are your own people after-all. Instead you just sit here defending them. Either they allowed Bush to go to war or they were stupid enough to think we weren't going to war with Iraq, either one is bad from your point of view.

Nice Spin Top. Face it, you and your ilk are the enablers and the reason America is in such dire straights regarding the Middle East.

I never said the situation in Iraq was anyone's fault but Bush, but I hate it when Democrats can't take responsibility for their votes, and people on here defend them for it.

 

[OrByte]

ntdz - that was spin AND smoke n mirrors.

GG!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

Doesn't change the fact that they didn't vote for the War.

Then by your reasoning Bush didn't start a war. :disgust:

Really? I gotta hear how that works.

If Hillary didn't vote for the war because it's not truly a "war" then Bush couldn't have started a war that isn't labeled as such.

In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", the United States Congress granted Bush the authority to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, based on available intelligence and Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, that Iraq wished to develop and possess weapons of mass destruction. The joint resolution allowed the President of the United States to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

You're telling me they weren't voting for a war? Give me a fvcking BREAK, you should be more pissed at them than Bush, they are your own people after-all. Instead you just sit here defending them. Either they allowed Bush to go to war or they were stupid enough to think we weren't going to war with Iraq, either one is bad from your point of view.

Nice Spin Top. Face it, you and your ilk are the enablers and the reason America is in such dire straights regarding the Middle East.

I never said the situation in Iraq was anyone's fault but Bush, but I hate it when Democrats can't take responsibility for their votes, and people on here defend them for it.

I agree that they were cowardly as was the Press. If they had done their jobs they would have prevented Bush and Cheney from fscking us over so bad.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: OINK OINK
Topic Summary: Democrats porking out again.

Did they start a false war that cost the Country dearly in both finances and soldiers lives?

Umm...yea, they voted for it.

Notice the word bolded.

Bush did not have a valid reason to start the false war, whether anyone voted for it based on lies or not.

I enjoy watching you try to defend the Democrats that voted for this war.

No one voted for the War.

You're right, there is no war, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Everything is ok now.

Semantics are fun.

Edit - Without their voting to give a single person the authority to do what we did, this never would have happened. They might not have said, "send troops to Iraq", but they told someone that was obviously ready to send troops to Iraq at the first chance he got "go ahead, do whatever you want".

Doesn't change the fact that they didn't vote for the War.

Then by your reasoning Bush didn't start a war. :disgust:

Really? I gotta hear how that works.

If Hillary didn't vote for the war because it's not truly a "war" then Bush couldn't have started a war that isn't labeled as such.

In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", the United States Congress granted Bush the authority to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, based on available intelligence and Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, that Iraq wished to develop and possess weapons of mass destruction. The joint resolution allowed the President of the United States to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

You're telling me they weren't voting for a war? Give me a fvcking BREAK, you should be more pissed at them than Bush, they are your own people after-all. Instead you just sit here defending them. Either they allowed Bush to go to war or they were stupid enough to think we weren't going to war with Iraq, either one is bad from your point of view.

They didn't vote for a War, that's a fact. Your's and JDs attempted spin does not change that.

 

[Tab]