Bush wavers on whether Obama is a socialist: ‘People are waiting to see what all this means.’
Bush wavers on whether Obama is a socialist: ‘People are waiting to see what all this means.’
President Bush — in contrast to Dick Cheney — has insisted that President Obama “deserves my silence.” Yesterday, in his largest domestic speech since leaving office, however, Bush would not rule out whether Obama is a socialist, saying that “people are waiting to see what all this means.” In the same breath, Bush defended his own massive intervention in the financial system:
He strongly defended his Troubled Asset Relief Program as crucial to preventing capital markets from freezing up, which he said would have led to another Great Depression. He noted that he remains “a free market guy.”
Bush was asked what he thinks about conservative pundits who claim the Obama administration’s fiscal policies are opening the door to socialism. “I’ve heard talk about that,” he said. “I think the verdict is out. I think people are waiting to see what all this means.”
“I didn’t like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best,” Bush said.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Having Bush comment on world affairs is a bit like having the Marquis de Sade comment on sexual purity….
May 29th, 2009 at 9:52 amSatyam, that’s “waver,” not “waiver.”
May 29th, 2009 at 9:53 amDoes Bush still have his writers and “thinkers” around any more? If he doesn’t you can be sure he won’t offer “his” opinion.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:54 amwatchdog Says:
___________
Arf!! Arf arf!! Arf arf arf!!! Grrrrrrr….
May 29th, 2009 at 9:57 amActually, having Bush comment on world affairs is a bit like… having Bush comment on world affairs! Bush is his own analogy.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:58 amworst president evah.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:00 am“I think people are waiting to see what all this means.”
____________________________________________________________
Translation: “I’m not sure what ’socialist’ means.”
May 29th, 2009 at 10:01 amsnoozepup says:
Humping chimpy’s leg again.
If only Obama really was a socialist, but we do know for a fact that chimpy is a fascist.
Good morning, campers.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:01 amTGIF
ConservativeForProgress Says:
There’s quite a difference between a $400 billion deficit (too big) and a $2 trillion deficit (way too big).
Once you actually put on the books the ever-increasing costs of two wars, the total tends to increase.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:02 amOnce you stop the practice of making the government seem smaller by farming-out government business, the total tends to increase.
Once you start caring for “the least of my people,” the total tends to increase.
watchdog Says:
Bush …is Obama, there is no difference.
WHAT???? Can it be….. ? …… OH NOOOOOO!!!! there is no “Obama” — that’s why there was no birth certificate that conservatives could find…. it’s Bush in blackface!!!! Returned to fulfill his evil socialist plan and to spread the wealth and make everyone socialist stormtrooper clone people. RUUUUUUNNNN!!!!!! RUUUUUUNNNN AND HIDE!!!!!!
Arf, arf.
If you pee on the carpet again I’m getting out the shears…..
May 29th, 2009 at 10:02 amCFP, keep reaching, maybe someday you will get there.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:03 amI’m sure Bush understands he definition of Socialism as well as he once understood the definition of sovereign… LOL
Besides, if Socialism is so bad, then why did Norway manage to increase their GDP during the global recession?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:03 amOf course Bush is in no position to criticize anyway, nor does he have the wits to do so BUT that’s true of the likes of Cheney too.
Keeping his trap shut will do more for Bush’s legacy than anything else he could have done (and has done).
The judgment of history may well be; “even though he was a complete a$$hole in office, shutting-the-fcuk-up once he was out of office was his signal achievement”.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:03 amSocialism is the degree to which government manages the economy.
Having 0% Socialism would be free-for-all economic anarchy, with zero infrastructure and pure “caveat emptor” rules where cheating and fraud were perfectly legal. Since there would be no way to settle disputes or contracts short of violence, this would lead directly to anarchy in other areas.
Having 100% Socialism would require economic transactions between individuals to be illegal; all exchanges would have to be made directly with a totalitarian state. Therefore currency would be unnecessary, as the state would merely ration all goods and services.
Either of those propositions would be insane, and unworkable to the point of impossibility. It is worth noting that only wingnuts believe that one of them should actually be implemented.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:03 amConservativeForProgress Says:
There’s quite a big difference between a deficit and a surplus.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:03 am* * *
in case you missed it, in the ad above:
NBC & Meet the Press: Don’t Air Rick Scott’s Phony “Documentary”
http://action.seiu.org/page/s/StopScott
*
May 29th, 2009 at 10:03 amConservativeForProgress Says: There’s quite a difference between a $400 billion deficit (too big) and a $2 trillion deficit (way too big).
Then why didn’t you speak out sooner? Oh, say, like 2004 when Bush was up for re-election? Hmmm?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:05 amConservativeForProgress Says:
There’s quite a difference between a $400 billion deficit (too big) and a $2 trillion deficit (way too big).
Not so much, as both of those numbers have that “pulled hot and steaming from C4P’s ass” smell about them.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:06 amI would rather pay more attention to what Bush will say when he’s in the ring with Clinton. Clinton didn’t talk smack about Bush when he was president (and I doubt he will tomorrow), but at least the door is open a little wider to criticize Bush’s policies (and vice versa) now that both are watching Obama’s presidency as ex-Presidents.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:06 amwatchdog Says
May 29th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Bush is a socialist and so is Obama, there is no difference.
_____________________________________________________________
Hmmm…interesting postulate. Care to pad that with enough logic to turn it into a theorem? Otherwise, we’ll just assume it’s a random fart in the wind.
Oh, and if you do decide to defend this with an intellectual argument, could you do us the favor of doing it in your own words and not a bunch of cut-and-paste junk?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:08 amAre you saying that the deficit one accumulates is the best measure of one’s commitment to either capitalism or socialism?
You sure you want to go that way? Because that would make Reagan a raging socialist and Clinton a staunch capitalist.
Maybe you want to rethink your premise. I know, I know, thinking takes a lot of effort for you, but let’s face it, C4P, if you don’t do it, who on your team will? a$$wipe? We both know that’s not gonna happen.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:11 amwatchdog Says:
If free market capitalism is so good — why are we in a recession? And why did the banks and certain mega-businesses need huge welfare checks?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:11 amConservativeForProgress Says:
There’s quite a difference between a $400 billion deficit (too big) and a $2 trillion deficit (way too big).
Figure doesn’t include TARP. Nice try, idiot. And thank you for crashing the economy, necessitating the spending jolt.
No matter how you spin it, Bush turned a surplus into a significant deficit and trillions in obligations, which you need to be paying for since they resulted out of your brain trust.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:12 amwatchdog Says:
And how were the TARP and recent bailouts NOT socialism?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:13 amQuestion: Does the Bush $400 billion deficit include the original TARP? All of the emergency supplemental money for the troops and the cost of both the wars?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:17 amDid you guys see watchpup dodge that one-two punch from unbelievable?
Just “woofed” as both questions sailed on by. Now THAT is how you avoid any accountability for saying stupid things, my friends.
Uh oh… looks like watchpup is trying to bite a bumblebee… this should be fun.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:17 amwatchdog Says:
Bush is a socialist and so is Obama, there is no difference.
He’s your big government republican president. No matter what the Boners and McConnells say, they like big government too, just so long that it’s a lightning bolt on the country’s and world affairs and is designed to knock off a few terrorists while creating many more.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:17 amwatchdog Says:
If communism is so bad why is China so Wealthy ? Dumb Ass!!
Wait, China’s wealthy?
If you look at the overall number, maybe, due to their high population, but their GDP? Not so good.
$7,600, compared to Japan’s $33,100 and the U.S.’s $48,000. That’s 10th in Asia. They barely rank in the Top 100 richest nations of the world.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:19 amWho really cares what Bush has to say? I think we all deserve his silence, not just Obama.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:20 amConservativeForProgress Says: “There’s quite a difference between a $400 billion deficit (too big) and a $2 trillion deficit (way too big).”
And that difference would be Bush throwing-away the Clinton $250 billion surplus, reducing corporate taxes and income taxes on the wealthiest thereby reducing the government’s income that could have been used to REDUCE national and federal debt, INCREASING the defense budget by nearly 20% whilst real wages of actual tax-payers declined, wast8hg $23 billion in Iraq “reconstruction”, BORROWING ON CREDIT well over $700 billion in “emergency funding”, squandering a few billion on “faith based initiatives” and doing nothing to halt the very high risk financial practices ENCOURAGED by Republicans that led to the inevitable collapse of the financial system.
Tell us cfp. If you were suddenly $200,000 in debt, had no money to repair your car which you need to get to work and there were no second jobs you could take-on, what would YOU do? Borrow some money to tide yourself over, or just end it all?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:21 amMegaloptera McWars Says:
No matter how you spin it, Bush turned a surplus into a significant deficit and trillions in obligations, which you need to be paying for since they resulted out of your brain trust.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:21 am““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
But, but, but Bush had 9/11, scary terrorists to deal with and Katrina. All Obama has had to deal with are two wars, the collapse of our economy, a housing crisis, rising unemployment, health care, etc, etc, you know all the things that Bush ignored for 8 years.
Purple State, how dare you give facts to watchpuppy? Now he is going to have to go outside and piddle.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:22 amsnoozepup says:
If communism is so bad why is China so wealthy?
So, to become a wealthy nation, we should go Communist.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:23 amBreak out Mao’s Little Red Book.
Why does Wal-Mart get their cheap kicks off communist China, watchdog? Why are the cigar-chomping capitalists that make up your far-right party installing Chinese-made drywall that’s sending people to the hospital for respiratory problems?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:23 amMegaloptera McWars Says:
ConservativeForProgress Says:
There’s quite a difference between a $400 billion deficit (too big) and a $2 trillion deficit (way too big).
Figure doesn’t include TARP. Nice try, idiot.
Probably doesn’t include Iraq either. But I’m not sure where he gets that; since both numbers are false, they could have been derived by any calculation.
.
watchdog Says:
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
The only problem with that definition is that many countries are described at “Socialist” in which that definition does not fit. That’s the definition of “Communism.” If you want to say Communism, then just say so.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Obama – Government will now own 72.5% of ‘New GM’
The government’s ownership of 72.5% of GM is hardly “vesting ownership and control in the community as a whole”.
It’s merely one company, dipshit.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:24 amFace it trolls, the Bush administration along with the republican majority have destroyed this country. You can point fingers and pass the blame on to others BUT IT WAS A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT ALONG WITH A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY WHO PROCEEDED OVER THE MESS WE NOW FIND OURSELVES IN TODAY. END OF STORY!
May 29th, 2009 at 10:25 amWould it do any good to point out to the pup that capitalism is an economic system?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:25 amangels81 Says:
Purple State, how dare you give facts to watchpuppy? Now he is going to have to go outside and piddle.
Hey, if Nate Silver can do it with numbers and make John Ziegler even more of a bumbling idiot, then I figure I could do my part.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:25 amBush’s massacre of language hasn’t changed much. Please don’t allow him to define “socialist”!!
May 29th, 2009 at 10:25 amWhy Uncle Fester, they think ignorance pays because they can send everyone else the bill.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:25 amwatchdog Says: If communism is so bad why is China so Wealthy ? Dumb Ass!!
You don’t know what Communism actually is and I’m the dumb ass. LOL. Funny.
Go read the Copmmunist Manifesto to learn that a country must first be Capitalistic before it ever becomes Communistic. China has never been Capitalistic, therefore it’s not really Communistic (kinda like calling yourself a human being).
May 29th, 2009 at 10:26 amOh, we see now. you’re using the Hysterical Dictionary to define your terms. Got it.
Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP peaked in the mid eighties, under Reagan at 22.9%
It dipped to below 19% under Clinton and then steadily climbed again during the Bush years, above 20%.
Of course, since the Bush economy has crashed, shrinking GDP and necessitating a surge in government spending to ward off a wider-scale disaster, Obama’s budget will probably approach or even exceed Reagan’s in share of GDP. For the trolls like washedup to pretend that this is standard policy for President Obama, rather than a response to a serious crisis, is clear evidence of washedup’s inability to analyze the world around him with either honesty or accuracy.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:27 amWow a dumb a$$ troll is defending communism now!?! Isn’t communism one of the words of fear the right like to throw out there along with socialism and terrorism whenever they want to fire up their base to oppose any type of social program or when they want to take away more of our freedoms or start another war?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:30 amThis I have to say is beautiful in its clarity.
Cagey uses the exact same form of argument as washedup, in a sarcastic attempt to display to washedup the intellectual shallowness of his logic.
And washedup pronounces it “a completely ignorant argument” because it is too simplistic.
washedup obviously suffers from an irony deficiency.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:31 amwhich he said would have led to another Great Depression.
And the idiots who paid to watch this SOB speak just lapped it up. He can’t form a complete sentence but he’s going to play a financial genius on teevee.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:31 amHe strongly defended his Troubled Asset Relief Program
What’s to defend? We don’t even know where the hell the money went. The fruits could be anything — an increase in yachts, Sandals commercials, an increase in salaries to the legal dept. to better route people out of their homes.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:31 amUnka Fester:
May 29th, 2009 at 10:32 amThe base of today’s Rethuglic party is KKKlan, Amerikan Taliban and John Birchers. That’s how they get so riled at words like liberal, socialist, and communist.
watchdog Says:
What a completely ignorant argument. No system of government is perfect, but capitalism is the best we have. Look at history.
By what measure are you claiming that capitalism is “the best”? By how wealthy everyone is? Or by healthy and educated everyone is? If the former, well, duh, you’re measuring it by the one way that distinguishes it from other forms of government and societies. It would be like saying Socialism is the most Socialist of governments. It’s a meaningless way to measure. If you judge the best by the latter, I think you’ll find that capitalism deliberately destroys some people’s lives in order to enrich others.
The “best” system is a mixture of both.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:32 amralph the wonder locust Says:
For the trolls like washedup to pretend that this is standard policy for President Obama, rather than a response to a serious crisis, is clear evidence of washedup’s inability to analyze the world around him with either honesty or accuracy.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:35 am“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Excellent comment Ralph!! Now if the MSM would say the same thing. When Bush spent like a drunken sailor, republicans attributed it to 9/11 and the perpetual war on terrorism and keeping us safe…well now President Obama faces a clusterphuck of monumental problems left behind by the mismanagement of the republicans and must spend money to keep this country from falling into the abyss but the republicans fail to see this. I guess they are the only ones who can spend money and drive up the deficit.
Answer Cagey’s question, watchpup — Why did the honchos need massive welfare checks from the government? Aren’t they rugged individualists? Didn’t they have their own lobbyists to fend off big brother during the “growth years” only to beg for his help when all went south?
You can’t even say the largest companies needing assistance were merely getting a tax refund; 2/3 of them pay nothing in federal income tax.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:36 amI think all that Shub’s comment means is that he doesn’t understand WTF this ’socialist’ meme is supposed to mean and he doesn’t want to screw up the talking points by going off script when he clearly hasn’t been given a copy.
I can’t blame him too much for this; the whole ‘Obama is a socialist’ meme is so pathetically tortured, thin and stupid that I can’t fault him for not understanding it. An honorable person would disavow the whole ridiculous concept, but I’m way past expecting any sort of honorable behaviour from Bush or any Republican these days.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:36 amwatchdog Says: No system of government is perfect, but capitalism is the best we have. Look at history.
Yes, let’s look at the history of free-market capitalism.
Slavery. Child labor. 16 hour workdays. Debtors prisons. War profiteering. The illegal drug trade (pure supply and demand economics). Walmart destroying small businesses. Tainted food.
Trade with avowed political enemies (Halliburton and Iran).
The hiring of illegal immigrants. No workplace safety regulations (The Triangle Shirtwaist Company). The Union Carbide Bhopal disaster.
To name a few.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:37 amWayne Ant Schneider Says: The “best” system is a mixture of both.
Agreed. Unfortunately, Cons can’t see shades of grey – only absolutes of all or nothing in either black or white…
May 29th, 2009 at 10:37 amwatchdog Says:
What a completely ignorant argument.
Absolutely no more ignorant than YOUR argument, which I parallelled. However, I added two qualifying questions rhetorically as support.
However, as actual debateable agruments go, both my post there (which was actually mocking you) and YOUR posts are equally ignorant and unconvincing arguments — actually, neither qualify as arguments, as both are unsupported statements, which have no value whatsoever in any debate forum.
No system of government is perfect,
Agreed. You admit to truth. How does it feel?
but capitalism is the best we have. Look at history.
Aaaannnnnd… you go right back to having no argument. You make a statement that you expect should stand as truth on its own, but your statement is unsupported and it is NOT fact, nor is it an argument. It is ignorant.
“look at history”? Really? what time period of what region? You can find time periods where just about any system of government showed a measure of ’success” (and what is the rating for “success”? — the determination of a socialist country (goal tending to be the welfare of all the people) will be different than a monarchy (which will judge by the welfare of the nobility, and perhaps the stability of their lordings), which will be different than capitalism (which will judge the “bottom line” of business as success), etc.. So — what would be the measure that we view history by to determine “success”? And when and where are we to look? The Roman empire did pretty damn good, by a success standard of ruling the known world, up until a point. So should we ignore their fall (and wasn’t there democracy involved in that?….. ).
Your “look at history” canard is a load of bulls#it, and you either know that to be true, or you are so stupid that you actually believe the LIE that “its just evident in history that capitalism is the best thing there ever was for governming”.
And what about “democracy”? You place capitalism first (in fact, you didn’t mention democracy at all). Very telling. Very telling indeed….
May 29th, 2009 at 10:38 amDamngit, Ralph @50 — I was getting to that. :)
Thanks, though.
I type slow, and I am not always around here — in fact, must go soon.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:41 amMarkets, like people, can only be truly free when there is a system of laws that protects use of that freedom by one to harm another. To demand an unregulated free market is equivalent to demanding unrestrained personal freedom for everyone. That’s anarchy.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:41 amwatchpup bailed, it might return later once it’s easier for it to ignore the intelligent discourse.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:42 amWatchdog, for your information capitalism has been dead for a long time now and has been replaced by it’s evil twin corporatism. Our country has always been a form of capitalism and socialism. Nothing wrong with that until the game becomes rigged for the wealthy, the corporations and the politicians who are bought and paid for.
Capitalism unchecked and deregulated brings on greed and corruption. The republican party is the champion of deregulation. Now with the rise of globalization and corporatism American companies no longer are loyal to their own countries anymore. The bottom line is maximum profits at the expense of America and the American worker as American jobs are outsourced and wages here are frozen or decline.
Now you hear the righties cry about Universal health care. Other countries have it which is why their companies can out compete with US companies who have to pay for employee health care. What the right fails to understand is that the world has changed but they refuse to want to change with it.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:44 amNumbers!
Markets!
Correctly defining words that end in “ism”!
Stop it, stop it, I say. You’re all confusing the troll brain!
Must repeat: Taxes bad; taxes bad; taxes bad; taxes bad.
phew, there. Now the troll day can continue, blissfully ignorant of facts, history, or truth.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:47 amWhat the right fails to understand is that the world has changed but they refuse to want to change with it.
IMHO, this is because they haven’t figured out a way to keep getting obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. The problem with Capitalism is that is a zero-sum game: If one person gets very wealthy, other people get less wealthy. The rich elite in this country will resist anything that keeps them from continuing to remain obscenely wealthy. They feel that they are entitled to it, though why is a mystery to me.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:54 amUnka Fester:
Conservatives are DEDICATED TO MAINTAINING the STATUS QUO.
They would rather cut their legs off than to entertain the possiblility of progress/change.
To expect a conservative to embrace progress is like expecting a planet from orbiting its sun.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:56 amlike expecting a planet to stop orbiting its sun.
yeeesh.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:57 amExcellent comment at #35 by 5th Estate. Facts and reality to a republican are like sunlight to a vampire…must stay away from them or die…
May 29th, 2009 at 10:58 amHoodathunktick Says:
Would it do any good to point out to the pup that capitalism is an economic system?
Everything is “faith-based” to them.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:58 amPatty, it would be a safe bet to assume that those taxes-are-bad Republicans do not realize that taxes are necessary in a capitalistic economy. We the people (the government) buy something (a good or a service) and we have to pay for it (through taxes).
May 29th, 2009 at 11:01 amPatty Says:
Numbers!
Markets!
Correctly defining words that end in “ism”!
Stop it, stop it, I say. You’re all confusing the troll brain!
It feels a bit refreshing to be able to think clearly, but…I know that will end whenever “that troll” comes, back.
Yes, that comma is there for a reason.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:02 amwatchdog Says:
What a completely ignorant argument. No system of government is perfect, but capitalism is the best we have. Look at history.
______________
Can’t stay and read all the comments this morning, but has anyone pointed out yet that capitalism is an ECONOMIC system and not a political one?
Could watchdog really be THAT obtuse?
May 29th, 2009 at 11:04 amElBruce Says:
Hoodathunktick Says:
Would it do any good to point out to the pup that capitalism is an economic system?
Everything is “faith-based” to them.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:06 am““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Yet ironically they seem to have little faith in believing this is all part of Gods plan. The ONLY time something is ‘faith-based’ to them is when an issue arises that they oppose…which is always…Instead of picking out certain passages in the bible to twist and quote to fit their own agenda perhaps they should actually read, study and learn the true teachings of Christ.
I really do wish that someone would have asked Bush to define what a “socialist” is. I would have loved to hear his answer.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:10 amralph the wonder locust Says:
washedup obviously suffers from an irony deficiency.
____________
I dunno, ralphie… perhaps tha cur prefers to live in an idiocracy…
Meanwhile, what Bhutan’s concept of the Gross National Happiness
May 29th, 2009 at 11:11 amJust wondering how crazy trollz like CFP will be at the end of eight long years of being proven wrong about everything they say.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:12 amwashedup left such a big, squishy pile on the carpet that we weren’t able to clean it all up at once.
But yes, he really is THAT obtuse.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:12 amNo. 76 s/b Bhutna’s concept of Gross national Happiness…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
While conventional development models stress economic growth as the ultimate objective, the concept of GNH claims to be based on the premise that true development of human society takes place when material and spiritual development occur side by side to complement and reinforce each other. The four pillars of GNH are the promotion of sustainable development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:14 amralph the wonder locust Says:
washedup left such a big, squishy pile on the carpet that we weren’t able to clean it all up at once.
_______________
Too much grain in his diet, ralphie…
Dogs are scavengers… they’ll eat up any sh*te they come across…
As the Romans used to say… Veni, vidi, eati…
May 29th, 2009 at 11:16 amLater all!!!!
Gotta run…
Working a film shoot the next few weeks…
Puff… puff… puff… talk about puttin’ in hours… sheesh…
Don’t do or say anything I wouldn’t…
***heh… just htought I’d give you a leeeetle wiggle room there…***
May 29th, 2009 at 11:22 amNote to Failed Former President Bush:
STFU, chimp.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:43 amwatchdog Says:
If communism is so bad why is China so Wealthy ? Dumb Ass!!
Because they’ve got all our jobs, Dumbass!!
May 29th, 2009 at 11:54 amWhy is the WAR CRIMINAL Bush not in Jail?
Fcuk the Republic Fascist Party
May 29th, 2009 at 11:54 amUncle Fester Lurks Says:
ElBruce Says:
Everything is “faith-based” to them.
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Yet ironically they seem to have little faith in believing this is all part of Gods plan. The ONLY time something is ‘faith-based’ to them is when an issue arises that they oppose…which is always…Instead of picking out certain passages in the bible to twist and quote to fit their own agenda perhaps they should actually read, study and learn the true teachings of Christ.
I wasn’t suggesting that they treat it from a Christian perspective. I mean, Jesus was practically a Commie. And these guys are total Pharisees. They’re about as anti-Christian as I can imagine, so there’s no sense exhorting them to actually crack a bible and read all that liberal claptrap inside.
It’s just that everything they look at – law, politics, economics, history, medicine – all of it, is always a matter of dogma to them. Not necessarily Christian dogma, just that they treat all matters of fact as if they were matters of faith.
Free marketeerism is a prime example. Not one wingnut has ever explained where roads would come from in their capitalist fantasy world. Apparently there would be a magical road fairy too. But the list of goods and services for which there is no competitive incentive to create only starts there, and goes on for quite a long way.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:03 pmThe watchdog has been put down. Nice one, y’all. ;)
May 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pmTranslation: GW needs time to look up the word “socialist” to find out what IT means. He originally thought it meant someone who is comfortable socializing with people.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:01 pmDIVORCE AGREEMENT
Lets all think about this.
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.
We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volkswagon you can find.
We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pmThe free market failed…as usual…sad part is, it made a lot of regular, everyday people fail as well.
The free market: not all it’s cracked up to be.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pmDeal…you get about 20 to 28%, because that’s about how big your group is and we get the rest…Now, get out!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pmFirmMarci Says:
Would you mind telling us where you got that nonsense? I mean, it’s pretty short on factual information and long on hatred. Do you really want to associate yourself with such comments?
And would this mean we won’t be hearing from either you or John J. Wall ever again? That would be enough to make me smile.
Have a nice life. Good luck in the world of anarchy.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pmIf you had actually performed this step, you’d have never written (or, should I say, c/ped) that stupid rant.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pmI wonder what James Buchanan thought of Abraham Lincoln?
May 29th, 2009 at 5:43 pmRE: UpdateNote to Bush: the correct use of the phrase is “the jury is out,” not “the verdict is out.”
Remember, it doesn’t pay to misunderestimate Bush.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:19 pmFirmMarci Says:
DIVORCE AGREEMENT
Lets all think about this.
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.
Stopped there. Here’s the only offer you’re going to get: America – love it or leave it. It’s pretty obvious you hate everything America has ever stood for, so GTFO. Also, you try to take any states with you and we’ll be happy to do the Civil War thing all over your asses again.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:47 pmBarack Obama actually hates George W. Bush because Bush hates black people:
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/12/andrew-yu-jen-wang-responds-to-stokely.html
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
May 30th, 2009 at 1:36 amB.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Wang111 Says:
Barack Obama actually hates George W. Bush because Bush hates black people:
Your citation is your own blog? Insufficient.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:31 amHe most likely gave this “answer” because he really isn’t sure what the definition of socialism actually is.
May 30th, 2009 at 10:18 amI’ve always seen Bush’s actions as evil but him, as a person, as mostly just mentally ill with a tinge of evil.
Cheney, et al on the other hand…
May 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pmI’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: George
May 31st, 2009 at 6:05 pmBush is the WORST president in the history of
the United States! And dumb in to many ways to
count. And dishonest. May God forgive those who
voted for him. And may we never forgive those
who twice cheated the American people out of an
honest election! This I believe!
yes, ‘People are waiting to see what all this means.’ …
?ark? dinle
June 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pmklip izle
liseli k?zlar
porno
Thank You
June 5th, 2009 at 9:25 amseslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat