Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Obama's FISA flip (candidate for change deceives yet again)

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408

    Obama's FISA flip (candidate for change deceives yet again)

    [QUOTE][B]Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left
    By Paul Kane[/B]

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

    In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

    In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a "vital national security matter" -- and alienating his base.

    [B]"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.[/B]

    This marks something of a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

    Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

    Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    "The immunity outcome is predetermined," Feingold wrote in a memo today.

    Obama came down on the side of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who argued that a provision in the new law reaffirmed that FISA, and that act's courts, gives the final say over government spying. President Bush has argued that a war-time chief executive has powers that trump FISA.

    "It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law," Obama said today.

    Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the most prominent Republican opponent of the compromise bill, issued a statement today calling that exclusivity provision "meaningless because that specific provision is now in [the] 1978 act." Specter said Bush just ignored existing law in starting the warrantless surveillance program.

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html[/url]


    BO's statements from January on the earlier version of the bill....

    [QUOTE]I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

    [B]Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.[/B]

    The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

    No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

    That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

    A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

    It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/28/barack-obama-statement-on-fisa/[/url]


    yepper....them threats grown lots the past four months......:yes:

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    well...well....seems barry's got the libs/progressives/rat wingers panty's pulled up their crouch more than usual....

    [QUOTE][B]Nutroots jilted by Obama FISA stand[/B]
    By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 6/25/08 6:53 PM EST Text Size:

    Barack Obama's support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — has ended his honeymoon with the progressive Nutroots.


    When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.

    But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — the honeymoon has ended.

    Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

    “He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

    The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.

    Obama’s post-partisan persona hasn’t always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesn’t read blogs and has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots — a notion that the candidate’s new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major bloggers.

    Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obama’s side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of progressive causes.

    His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obama’s decision to opt out of the public financing system — and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him — the Netroots commended Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama reason to reject public financing.

    FISA, however, was different. Many of the most popular progressive blogs built their following by mining anger toward President Bush, the Iraq war and what bloggers view as his disregard of the Constitution and the civil liberties guaranteed by it. By granting immunity to telecom companies, civil courts will likely dismiss lawsuits that might unearth details about the administration’s activities, eliminating an opportunity to hold Bush accountable.

    “It angers the blogosphere to its core,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com. “We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don’t do that again. We can get the public engaged.”

    Obama’s decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him.

    “[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

    Still, the disillusionment goes only so far. The liberal blogosphere’s most recognizable name, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”: “Let’s be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don’t have much of a choice.”

    At stake for Obama in the FISA vote is the intensity of support for Obama, Moulitsas said.

    “I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it,” he said. “If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn’t, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.”

    Already, Blue America PAC, a liberal online fundraising group, says it has raised more than $320,000 to fund activities “holding our elected representatives responsible for rubber-stamping the most grievous aspects of the Bush Regime’s agenda.”

    MoveOn.org has called upon its members to pressure Obama to “keep his word” and block the bill. Obama gave no indication that he would support a filibuster, and a press aide did not respond to requests for clarification on this point.

    The Senate overwhelmingly rejected the filibuster attempt Wednesday, voting 80-15 to end debate and move to final passage Thursday. Obama, who was not present for Wednesday's test vote, is expected to vote for an amendment stripping out the immunity provision. But even if the effort fails, as it has in the past, Obama would likely back the underlying bill.

    By taking this position, Obama is threading the needle between Republican charges that he is weak on security and the desires of the Democratic base. To allay critics’ claims that he is giving a pass to the Bush administration, Obama aides pointed to a provision in the bill that requires an inspector general’s review of the surveillance program.

    “It is not all that I would want,” Obama said of the legislation, which was negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties. “But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise but do so with a firm pledge that, as president, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the inspectors general and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”

    Obama’s statement was viewed as a reversal from a pledge last year to oppose any bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies.

    But Obama told reporters Wednesday that the bill has changed from when that pledge was made, saying the latest version satisfied several of his concerns.

    Dan Gerstein, a New York political consultant who supports Obama and former longtime aide to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said Obama now needs to stand by his support of the bill, given Republican efforts to brand Obama as a “reflexive, partisan liberal.” “This is really an important initial test for Obama,” he said.

    “People will be looking at this to see whether he has the strength and independence to stand up to his friends and a significant support base and say, ‘I think this is right, and I am going to hold firm in my position.’”

    The Netroots will be watching Thursday as the Senate considers the bill — and whether Obama simply casts his vote or whether he takes a strong stand in a floor speech.

    “The fear out there is that Obama is going to fail to live up to expectations on key issues, and that reinforces the notion that ‘uh-oh, we picked the wrong candidate,’ when the focus should really be on the fact that the Bush administration broke the law with the help of private companies,” said Warren Street, a blogger at the Blue Girl, Red State blog.

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11349.html[/url]
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 06-27-2008 at 06:17 PM.

  3. #3
    do we honestly want to get into a tit for tat regarding who has flip-flopped more frequently, Obama or the Zombie? It won't go well for you war party members.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2605119]do we honestly want to get into a tit for tat regarding who has flip-flopped more frequently, Obama or the Zombie? It won't go well for you war party members.[/QUOTE]

    considering all the votes hussien has missed or voted "present" and the fact he won't release his state records, no one knows where he stands.....

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Middlesex County, NJ
    Posts
    3,366
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2605124]considering all the votes hussien has missed or voted "present" and the fact he won't release his state records, no [B]one knows where he stands[/B].....[/QUOTE]

    He stands wherever his campain people tell him to....I wouldn't buy a used car from this phony fraud.

  6. #6
    BO is the candidate of change, yea changing his mind every other day!

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2605124]considering all the votes hussien has missed or voted "present" and the fact he won't release his state records, no one knows where he stands.....[/QUOTE]

    O-line. Get on it.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Aten;2605204]O-line. Get on it.[/QUOTE]

    patience grasshopper....patience...

  9. #9
    wow, what a hollow argument this one is....


    you guys are just really stupid huh?


    where is the flip-flop....seriously?


    he voted against an earlier version of the bill that made it seem as though the president could circumvent the courts......

    then a new version of the bill came out which allows for court review.....so he voted for it.


    two different bills...


    so where is the flip-flop



    he never had a problem with the surveillance, he had a problem with the lack of a check on the executive branch..


    jeez...

  10. #10
    But George Bush never flip flops. :rolleyes:

    [quote][b]Nation Building and the War in Iraq[/b]

    During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

    The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

    During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."

    [b]Free Trade[/b]

    During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.

    Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.

    [b]Homeland Security Department [/b]

    President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.

    Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.

    [b]Same-Sex Marriage [/b]

    During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.

    Four year later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.

    Citing recent decisions by “activist judges” in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.

    [b]Gas Prices [/b]

    Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

    As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or “jawbone,” Mideast oil producers to increase output.

    A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds. [/quote]

    The article these were taken from was published in 2004.

    Thank G-d our current President is a man of conviction who never changes his mind to do the politically expeditient. :rolleyes:

  11. #11
    I missed your post about McCain being against offshore drilling in May and then for it in June.

    I missed your post about McCain saying he wouldn't back his own immigration bill, and then telling a Hispanic audience later that he would.

    I missed your post about McCain voting against the Bush tax cuts, calling them foolish and reckless, and then later making extending them the centerpiece of his economic plan.

    Clearly, someone as distraught about pols changing positions as you are would have been all over that, no?

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2605383]I missed your post about McCain being against offshore drilling in May and then for it in June.

    I missed your post about McCain saying he wouldn't back his own immigration bill, and then telling a Hispanic audience later that he would.

    I missed your post about McCain voting against the Bush tax cuts, calling them foolish and reckless, and then later making extending them the centerpiece of his economic plan.

    Clearly, someone as distraught about pols changing positions as you are would have been all over that, no?[/QUOTE]

    Apparently you didn't hear: When Democrats alter their positions, its flip flopping. When Republicans do it, its considered carefully considering all facts to come to a position :rolleyes:

    I'm sure this "flip-flopping" is what truly has CBNY and DeanCheatsFan deciding not to vote for Obama. This must be the straw that broke the camel's back :rolleyes: .

  13. #13
    remember when Bush decided he didn't care if all the black people in New Orleans drowned - and then a week later he did care? that was a good flip flop.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2605379]But George Bush never flip flops. :rolleyes:



    The article these were taken from was published in 2004.

    Thank G-d our current President is a man of conviction who never changes his mind to do the politically expeditient. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Kleck, here is the dirty secret; [B]some[/B] of the republican voters, including the drooler who started this thread, do not want to bring up the current disgrace in office. If they are being honest with themselves then they would have to admit they have no one to blame for the current state of the republican party then [B]themselves[/B].

    Everyone is entitled to make a mistake. In 2000, on the heels of the Clinton scandal, I could see how some people voted for Bush. But there was no excuse for anyone to vote for this trash in 2004. Not after we saw what the better part of four years looked like on his resume. But there they were, acting like lemmings filled with fear by the propaganda machine, believing that a vote against Bush would be a vote for the terrorists. As a result we all suffered.

    Bottom line: [B]when you vote a second time, for the one of the worst presidents in American History, you reap what you sow[/B]. Now the lemmings (like the one who started this thread) are once again, following the talking points by the hate filled radio heads and pretending that its no big deal that they helped put one of the worst leaders in history in office [B]twice[/B].

    For the people who voted twice for this disgrace in office, they should have to forfeit their vote for the following presidential election. Everyone is entitled to make one mistake, but to make the same mistake twice shows the height of foolishness.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2605767]Kleck, here is the dirty secret; [B]some[/B] of the republican voters, including the drooler who started this thread, do not want to bring up the current disgrace in office. If they are being honest with themselves then they would have to admit they have no one to blame for the current state of the republican party then [B]themselves[/B].

    Everyone is entitled to make a mistake. In 2000, on the heels of the Clinton scandal, I could see how some people voted for Bush. But there was no excuse for anyone to vote for this trash in 2004. Not after we saw what the better part of four years looked like on his resume. But there they were, acting like lemmings filled with fear by the propaganda machine, believing that a vote against Bush would be a vote for the terrorists. As a result we all suffered.

    Bottom line: [B]when you vote a second time, for the one of the worst presidents in American History, you reap what you sow[/B]. Now the lemmings (like the one who started this thread) are once again, following the talking points by the hate filled radio heads and pretending that its no big deal that they helped put one of the worst leaders in history in office [B]twice[/B].

    For the people who voted twice for this disgrace in office, they should have to forfeit their vote for the following presidential election. Everyone is entitled to make one mistake, but to make the same mistake twice shows the height of foolishness.[/QUOTE]

    IJF, you do realize that I am a Republican, don't you?

    I am simply fed up with a so-called Republican President who has not acted like a Republican by presiding over the largest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal, has engaged in nation building and has attempted to legislate social issues.

    Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower are rolling in their graves at the notion that this guy calls himself a Republican.

    The sad truth is that the best people don't run for office anymore and as a result we get petty BS getting thrown in all directions and never actually discuss issues and policy and people vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with.

    There are people who could be running that would make my decision easy. Unfortunately, we usually get crap.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2605878]IJF, you do realize that I am a Republican, don't you?

    I am simply fed up with a so-called Republican President who has not acted like a Republican by presiding over the largest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal, has engaged in nation building and has attempted to legislate social issues.

    Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower are rolling in their graves at the notion that this guy calls himself a Republican.

    The sad truth is that the best people don't run for office anymore and as a result we get petty BS getting thrown in all directions and never actually discuss issues and policy and people vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with.

    There are people who could be running that would make my decision easy. Unfortunately, we usually get crap.[/QUOTE]

    I know you are a republican. But you are a republican who has a mind of your own. You do not make excuses for a president, and his administration, that has ripped apart your party. Just as I do not make excuses for a well meaning, but horrible president, Jimmy Carter. I especially do not make excuses for the morally bankrupt president, Lyndon Johnson.

    In my opinion, George Bush is a stain on our history. An ugly, obvious mark on us. I respect you for having a mind of your own and not parroting the company lines like some of the lemmings at this forum. Whether we are talking about incompetence (carter), corruption (Johnson) or both (Bush), we have a system that is now broken.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,027
    Obama has already won.

    It's done. Over. Finished.

    Republicans shall now assume their role of the party of whiners and people who engage in the inncessant tirade of b*tching. Waah. Waah. Waah.


    Who farts dust and thinks geriatric barbie dolls are trophy wives?

  18. #18
    So if a person tells you that they won't vote for a bill you are proposing unless changes are made thereafter supports the bill once the changes are made, they are a flip-flopper? Are you out of your f*cking mind?

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Dumb and Dumber strike again...:rolleyes:

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [B][I]I could not have scripted the responses from the lunatic leftists in this thread any better....[/I][/B]

    For six years all we've heard are these morons whine like little b!tches about how our "civil liberties" are being eroded, Bush was spying on Americans, the Patriot Act was a coup d'etat, blah-blah-blah-blah.....

    yet when their messiah switches direction after promising the fringe lunatic on the left he would vote against this just four months ago, the does an about face for no reason at all, the response is as expected...

    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2605119]do we honestly want to get into a tit for tat regarding who has flip-flopped more frequently, Obama or the Zombie? It won't go well for you war party members.[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE=piney;2605276]wow, what a hollow argument this one is....


    you guys are just really stupid huh?


    where is the flip-flop....seriously?


    he voted against an earlier version of the bill that made it seem as though the president could circumvent the courts......

    then a new version of the bill came out which allows for court review.....so he voted for it.


    two different bills...


    so where is the flip-flop



    he never had a problem with the surveillance, he had a problem with the lack of a check on the executive branch..


    jeez...[/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2605383]I missed your post about McCain being against offshore drilling in May and then for it in June.

    I missed your post about McCain saying he wouldn't back his own immigration bill, and then telling a Hispanic audience later that he would.

    I missed your post about McCain voting against the Bush tax cuts, calling them foolish and reckless, and then later making extending them the centerpiece of his economic plan.

    Clearly, someone as distraught about pols changing positions as you are would have been all over that, no?[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=newjakecity;2605632]Apparently you didn't hear: When Democrats alter their positions, its flip flopping. When Republicans do it, its considered carefully considering all facts to come to a position :rolleyes:

    I'm sure this "flip-flopping" is what truly has CBNY and DeanCheatsFan deciding not to vote for Obama. This must be the straw that broke the camel's back :rolleyes: .[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=bitonti;2605762]remember when Bush decided he didn't care if all the black people in New Orleans drowned - and then a week later he did care? that was a good flip flop.[/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2605767]Kleck, here is the dirty secret; [B]some[/B] of the republican voters, including the drooler who started this thread, do not want to bring up the current disgrace in office. If they are being honest with themselves then they would have to admit they have no one to blame for the current state of the republican party then [B]themselves[/B].

    Everyone is entitled to make a mistake. In 2000, on the heels of the Clinton scandal, I could see how some people voted for Bush. But there was no excuse for anyone to vote for this trash in 2004. Not after we saw what the better part of four years looked like on his resume. But there they were, acting like lemmings filled with fear by the propaganda machine, believing that a vote against Bush would be a vote for the terrorists. As a result we all suffered.

    Bottom line: [B]when you vote a second time, for the one of the worst presidents in American History, you reap what you sow[/B]. Now the lemmings (like the one who started this thread) are once again, following the talking points by the hate filled radio heads and pretending that its no big deal that they helped put one of the worst leaders in history in office [B]twice[/B].

    For the people who voted twice for this disgrace in office, they should have to forfeit their vote for the following presidential election. Everyone is entitled to make one mistake, but to make the same mistake twice shows the height of foolishness.[/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE=maury420;2606311]So if a person tells you that they won't vote for a bill you are proposing unless changes are made thereafter supports the bill once the changes are made, they are a flip-flopper? Are you out of your f*cking mind?[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2606320]Dumb and Dumber strike again...:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


    the fag from DailyKos and the rest of the looney left bloggers deserve credit as they were at least man enough to call hussien out on this- unlike the mindless rat wing parots above....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 06-28-2008 at 10:30 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us