published Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

For Dad

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

119
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

Ah, Mr Bennett notices Republicans living virtuously, father loving son and son showing gratitude? Every once in awhile our Democrat does stick his nose out of the partisan covers?

December 6, 2011 at 5:59 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

This is absolutely a hoot! Wonder if the well is as deep for Junior as it was for Dad? At 24, how much life experience can Junior bring to the table?

December 6, 2011 at 7:20 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Andrew, are you referring to the virtue of riding into office on the promise of installing term limits, and then staying there for 150 years?

December 6, 2011 at 7:21 a.m.
fairmon said...

Candidate Wamp may want to consider the following principles:

o You cannot help the poor by destroying the wealthy

o You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong

o You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift

o You cannot bring the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down

o You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

o You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

o You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

December 6, 2011 at 7:47 a.m.
fairmon said...

At 24, how much life experience can Junior bring to the table?

Similar to that of Obama for the office of POTUS.

December 6, 2011 at 7:51 a.m.
fairmon said...

A question for candidate Wamp and other members of congress. China has identified 1,275 trillion barrels of oil reserves and will reduce imports dramatically as they access them, The U.S. has 862 trillion and Argentina a similar amount, Russia has enough identified reserves to also be self sufficient.

Q..Is it not logical that the U.S. achieve energy independence as soon as possible? Is it not logical to assume with little to no market for their oil the flow of wealth to the middle east will be significantly reduced? Is it not evident they use our money to arm themselves and to attack us. Is it not obvious they keep oil prices inflated to extract our wealth and weaken our economy? Would you support energy independence? Why aren't current members of congress supporting energy independence? Why do we not insist Iraq with the second largest current supply pay us in oil the cost of our achieving their freedom?

December 6, 2011 at 8:12 a.m.

It is going to be fun to watch the liberals squirm and holler, over this.

December 6, 2011 at 9:25 a.m.
acerigger said...

harp3339 ,you make a lot of sense with your questions,except for the last one. If you think Iraq should pay us for illegally invading and destroying their country,you must be living in some alternate universe.

December 6, 2011 at 10:18 a.m.

Hey ACE it was called a "WAR". You know what that is don't you? It is the things that have been fought for hundreds of years to give people like you the freedom to express their opinions no matter what they may be. But let me guess you are another person that always want their rights and always complains when their rights may get violated but never served the country for those rights. It does not happen for free people have died for you and others like you so that we have these rights.

December 6, 2011 at 10:31 a.m.
chet123 said...

Hey harp....since you are an expert....you forgot to say...You cannot take 100millions from corporation and claim you are a historian STRATEGIC ADVISER(a EUPHEMISTIC TERM FOR TRAITOR)....BECAUSE YOU ARE A SELL-OUT...you are there as a servant of the people...Not a peddler for your own selfish needs

December 6, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
timbo said...

Anyone who reads my posts knows I am not a liberal. Weston Wamp has no business running for anything. For conservatives to criticize Obama for lack of experience (He couldn't get a job as a Wal-mart greeter) and then support someone who has less experience than Obama is bizarre.

Weston Wamp and Obama are insults to mature, experienced, business types that not only have had a real job, but actually create real jobs. Wamp is a 24 year old who has lived a charmed life with daddy taking care of everything. At his age he should shut up and listen instead of bloviating to the rest of us. He is absolutely unqualified for the job. This just shows that a large segment of the republican party is either stupid or wants to buy a politician. What other reasons could their be? For this whelp to raise $250,000 dollars brings to mind two quotes from P. T. Barnum. (I'm paraphrasing) "There's a sucker born every minute.." and "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Unbelievable.

December 6, 2011 at 11:36 a.m.
chet123 said...

HEY LOVETHE USA.....ACE IS RIGHT....WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???...We fight WARS or should fight wars for freedom...but that havnt always been the case....the people who profits the most dont engage in fighting....they get DEFERRALs....and find excuses not to fight....then after the killing is over and the smoke is cleared they become PRO-WAR....OR CHICKEN HAWKS.....

December 6, 2011 at 11:50 a.m.
chet123 said...

We fight Wars for Commerce TOO!!!

December 6, 2011 at 11:53 a.m.
chet123 said...

tIMBO...CANT YOU REPUBLICANS COMMENT FOR ONE MINUTE WITHOUT TALKING OBAMA....YOU MUST GO HOME AT NITE THINKING ABOUT OBAMA....HOW DO YOU MAKE LOVE TO YOUR WIFE AT NITE.....GET YOUR MIND OFF OBAMA JUST FOR A MINUTE........OBAMA HAVE RAN YOUR WHOLE PARTY LOONY!!!

TIMBO....I would be careful using the word sucker...when the leading republican candidate WAS paid 100million dollars as a lobbyist ha ha ha

I notice republican been quiet about using the names "FANNY and FREDDIE"...HA HA HA

ITS CLEAR YOU HAVE BEEN THAT SUCKER....!!!

December 6, 2011 at 11:56 a.m.
chet123 said...

ITS AMAZING SOME OF THE IDIOTIC COMMENTS ARE MADE HERE ON A DAILY BASIS....

THEY START OFF TALKING LIKE WINSTON CHURHILL....AND END UP TALKING LIKE PEE WEE HERMAN HA HA HA

December 6, 2011 at 12:05 p.m.
timbo said...

I'm sorry chet123, I didn't make my comments simple enough for you. I made the comparison with Obama because this lack of experience thing is bipartisan.

And before you start talking about idiotic anything, why don't you at least use something that at least reseambles the English language. You need some serious grammar lessons.

Also, I didn't use the word "sucker", P.T. Barnum did. It's a quote by the way. Do you know what that is?

December 6, 2011 at 1:29 p.m.
acerigger said...

lovetheusaorleave said...

Hey ACE it was called a "WAR". You know what that is don't you?

I certainly do! I also know what an illegal invasion of a country which had not attacked,nor had the means or intentions to attack us is called, a criminal act!

Ever wonder why G.W. won't leave the good ol' U.S.A.?

December 6, 2011 at 2:37 p.m.
acerigger said...

Timbo,why would a professor of constitutional law want a job as a walmart greeter?

December 6, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_41_18/ai_95358025/

This is a link from 2002 showing that IRAQ and it's leaders were funding terrorism. That might not mean anything to you two but I am sure most would agree it was a great concern. But hey if you feel so sorry for Iraq I am sure they would love to have you come on over and show your support.

December 6, 2011 at 3:39 p.m.

I am also sure that you and your side kick will come back with the typical argument of a conspiracy theory or cover up. I guess the bombing on 9/11 never happened.

December 6, 2011 at 3:41 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Bennett is one predictable bore. It must really suck to live with such a limited mind.

December 6, 2011 at 3:46 p.m.
hambone said...

@lovetheusaorleave,

Your WAR was based on lies told by the two biggest chicken-hawk draft dodgers this country has ever produced!!

December 6, 2011 at 3:50 p.m.
potcat said...

You got to love it.... Father says to Wes... nothing you can do in your work life is going to have the pay and perks you are going to get being a professional career politician. these kind of opportunities don't come to just any guy, we already have this district, i'm telling you these people love me and they will you too, hell its a peace of cake.Once the glad handling is over, you can go play golf all you want and the perks, Pensions and insurance, plus you can keep going on up the ladder, even Gov Son, or a Lobbyist as a side job that pays pertty good and with your pension and insurance, hell boy this is the best gig in town and exclusive, but i've kicked them doors kicked wide open and you have a good chance, i could have run 10 more times and have won, but those darn term limits, we are going to ring this political biz to the last drop, after all, its going to be one of the jobs that will pay you forever.

We got to get you in there, because it looks like the peasants are catching on and it could mean trouble, for them, he he he, . The National Gaurd and all of Military will protect us.

December 6, 2011 at 4:16 p.m.

Well are you referring to President Bush that was in the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group or President Clinton who avoided the draft by ant means necessary? Then later was pardoned by then President Carter in 1977 for violation of the Military Selective Service Act.

December 6, 2011 at 4:20 p.m.
fairmon said...

chet123...

I agree that Fannie and Freddie have a rotten record. Between Barney Franks, Newt and $100 million in bonuses to managers that should have been fired, possibly even indicted for fraud they will either continue draining tax payers with congressional approval or they will bankrupt like they should be. over $150 billion to them so far and no end in sight. Something in D.C.is rotten and it is not limited to one party or one branch of government. I doubt Wamp jr. would do any more about it than senior or the flash from the 3rd district we have now.

December 6, 2011 at 5:17 p.m.
fairmon said...

acerigger said... harp3339 ,you make a lot of sense with your questions,except for the last one. If you think Iraq should pay us for illegally invading and destroying their country,you must be living in some alternate universe.

We have become an aggressor nation so we should occupy the oil fields and pay Iraq a per barrel royalty since they don't have the knowledge, skill or ability to protect and operate them. Tell them like our goverment tells us....It is for your own good, we know what is best for you. (sarcasm is intended)

December 6, 2011 at 5:22 p.m.
acerigger said...

lovetheusaorleave,thanks for that link.I didn't find the part where Saddam was funding terrorism in or against the United States though. As I said,that money,to the 9-11 terrorists,was coming from Yemen and our good buddies the Saudis.

December 6, 2011 at 5:24 p.m.
timbo said...

Wasn't the subject Weston Wamp?

December 6, 2011 at 5:35 p.m.

Not once did I say he funded the 9/11 attacks like you for some reason keep trying to say. I simply stated and shown proof the he funded terrorist cells. Stop trying to convince your self you are right. It just makes you look more foolish

December 6, 2011 at 6 p.m.
acerigger said...

tu_quoque said."BTW President Bush is presently touring Africa and no one is bothering him at all." I don't think that's completely true,but what-ever. I'm not gonna argue with one of the 25% who think bush did a good job.

December 6, 2011 at 6:03 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrpte: "Why don't you provide the legal evidence and jurisdiction that the invasion was illegal."

Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited.

"BTW President Bush is presently touring Africa and no one is bothering him at all."

Ah, but this past February, Former President Bush's trip to Switzerland was canceled after human rights activists threatened legal action over allegations the former president approved the torture of terrorism suspects.

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights said it was prepared to file a complaint against Bush with the support of 50 non-governmental organizations. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said Bush's presence on Swiss territory was required for a prosecutor to take action.

Bush was scheduled to speak in Geneva on February 12th at a dinner to honor the United Israel Appeal. CCR said the trip was canceled to "avoid our case."

The fact that he is picking and choosing where he travels out of the country does not mean he is not avoiding areas of the World where he might be faced with possible prosecution for war crimes.

December 6, 2011 at 6:12 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "I say you can't and won't be able to provide proof that the U.S. used lies to go to war."

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - State of the Union Address on 1/28/2003

Not true. Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq.

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents." - State of the Union Address on 1/28/2003

Not true. Not a single chemical weapons munition has been found anywhere in Iraq

"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." - State of the Union Address on 1/28/2003

Not true. Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." - State of the Union Address on 1/28/2003

Not true. To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." - State of the Union Address on 1/28/2003

Not true. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." - Bush speech to the nation on 10/7/2002

Not true. Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there. - IAEA report to UN Security Council on 1/27/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - State of the Union Address on 1/28/2003

Not true. The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Dick Cheney on Meet the Press on 3/16/2003

Not true. The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. - IAEA report to UN Security Council on 3/7/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." - Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Not true. UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

December 6, 2011 at 6:31 p.m.
dude_abides said...

too cocky... Do you really want to be known as the biggest Bush defender to have ever posted on this thread? I will admit that Bush had a "certain Westonality", but usually you guys avoid him like the plague.

December 6, 2011 at 8:11 p.m.
doodad69 said...

Clay Bennett should die from AIDS. I hate him and he's not witty at all. I am though.

December 6, 2011 at 8:37 p.m.
fairmon said...

This administration is modeling Europe's big government model which by the way is as close to bankruptcy or closer than we are. We are evolving to the situation the founders fought to escape. So why not have someone in the family assume the vacated position like Prince Charles or others will do.

December 6, 2011 at 8:44 p.m.
alprova said...

John Ross wrote: "The Iraq war was justified and no one on the planet opposed it"

Worldwide, the war and occupation have been officially condemned by 54 countries. Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country.

"...except elements of the Democrat party in the United States and Saddam Hussien."

That is a mighty selective brain you have there. You don't remember the worldwide protests? Sheesh.

"Only when it went bad did people like alpovra start cherry picking bits and pieces of events out of the connective tissues of history to bash the United States for the sake of bashing."

It was bad from the get-go. We do not have an ally in Iraq. We did not instill freedom in Iraq. They are as divided as they always have been and when the last boot is lifted off the ground, that country will go to war with itself.

December 6, 2011 at 9:24 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "False !! President Bush was not required to prove anything to Congress. He placed a resolution before them to vote up or down according to their individual conclusions on information provided and they passed it. Neither he nor the resolution made any claim that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks."

The legal right to determine how to enforce U.N. resolutions, which the United States agreed to abide by, lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42), not with individual nations.

Bush engaged Congress to pass a resolution of war in defiance of International law.

December 6, 2011 at 9:42 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque: "alprova I can see right off we are going to have to set some ground rules."

Who the heck are you?

"A lie is "knowingly" providing a falsehood."

And has been proven over time, Bush and Cheney lied to the American People and to Congress in order to push us into war.

"Claims, of lies, will need more than your word as to their truthfulness."

I'm merely a messenger. I never laid claim to any evidence I supplied.

"As for your laundry list of supposed Bush lies, why do you have to "take" other peoples work and present it as your own."

I never claimed that it was my work. I merely posted it and passed it on.

"From reading some of your past writings I was sure you weren't capable of producing that list that quick without copying other's work. That kind of tactic only proves that your are a Fleabagger and have a feeling of entitlement to the fruits of other peoples labors."

And your information comes from where? You can beat me up me all you want, but you cannot refute the evidence I supplied in response to your silly statement that Bush never lied.

Every one of those statements I posted from GWB and Dick Cheney were provable lies.

Bush led Congress to pass a resolution of war based on lies that he knew not to be true when he uttered them. When he was campaigning for President, he made it clear that he wanted to go after Saddam Hussein, most likely in retaliation for the April 13, 1993 assassination attempt on his father.

December 6, 2011 at 9:56 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Since you must know that I will not simply accept their word for why the trip was canceled I’m sure you have some “real” proof to back up that claim."

Bush never provided a reason for canceling that planned trip. Therefore, I find the explanation provided by the New York Times, in that Bush was avoiding the wrath of CCR and others, to be quite believable and credible.

You are more than free to believe otherwise, but you can't offer a reason for his decision to bow out.

In that same article, another glaring paragraph appeared;

"While Mr. Bush does not face any legal sanctions in Switzerland, this is not the first time officials from his administration have faced the threat of legal action in Europe for involvement in possible human rights abuses in the war on terror. Prosecutors and judges in several European countries, notably Spain and Germany, have in the past proved willing to pursue long-shot international legal cases against foreign leaders based on war crimes evidence, and in recent years some of them have turned their attention toward Bush administration officials."

December 6, 2011 at 10:11 p.m.
acerigger said...

Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.[2] It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[3] google it

December 6, 2011 at 10:19 p.m.
Rorschach said...

Willi Munzenberg would be so proud of you, Clay.

December 6, 2011 at 10:20 p.m.
carlB said...

doodad69 said... Clay Bennett should die from AIDS. I hate him and he's not witty at all. I am though. December 6, 2011 at 8:37 p.m.


Reply: doodad69, Since many people do not read the news, then it might be true. A Picture must be "worth thousand words" of the facts for informing the voters, so they are able to from their own opinions. Clay must destroy all the efforts of the opponents of Obama in putting out the written and spoken untruths of misinformation.

JonRoss said... And did anyone hear or read Barack Hussien Obama's speech today ? If anyone had any doubt that this man is a Marxist dog and hates America with every bone in his body, there should be no doubt now.


Reply: JonRoss, Yes! there is doubt of what you said. Your reaction to President Obama's speech today, as he said, is the same that has occurred before after the "money changers" have destroyed the financial strength of this Republic and has to be put back in the "proper balance" or we will not have a Republic.


tu_quoque said...

Reply: tu_quoque You said "nothing." It is hard trying rewrite the history of the Cheney/Bush eight years. There are too many issues, videos and yes, deliberate lies to cover up.

December 6, 2011 at 10:25 p.m.
dude_abides said...

coquette... thanks for the compliment! I think it's great that we finally have a conservative voice around here that is willing to equate their own credibility with that of President George W. Bush! Your burden of proof would exonerate Hitler and Caligula.

December 6, 2011 at 11:42 p.m.
dude_abides said...

kwokwee... hilarious that you would swap the word mute for the word moot... you did that on purpose, right? LMAO!

December 6, 2011 at 11:48 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "I'm the person calling you out for your inability to prove your points."

You're nothing more than a common internet troll, trying to see what kind of crap you can stir up with your overblown ego.

"It's your responsibility to give proper attribution. You didn't because you wanted other posters to think it was your personal work and as such a very despicable posting method. However as I said before that is the typical Fleabagger M.O."

At no time did I make any claim that the post content was my own creation, although I did edit it and formatted it for posting in this forum. People do it all the time.

You should take your own advice. Quoting a paragraph and attributing only as NYT is not proper either. The link to the article in question would have been proper.

Posting quotes straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, is free territory, and they can be found in a number of places.

My crime is posting the commentary that followed Bush and Cheney's quotes with exact phrasing used on the site you quoted.

Sue me.

Your finger pointing doesn't change the fact that you still cannot refute those lies.

December 6, 2011 at 11:54 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "He never canceled the trip as the group that scheduled it did so. However you already knew that from the article or you are just incapable of comprehending what you read."

You're accusing ME of not being able to comprehend what I read? Google the story. Bush canceled his appearance in Switzerland. The group that asked him to be keynote speaker was "disappointed that he did so." The group canceled the event after GWB canceled his appearance.

Try again.

"Former U.S. President George W. Bush has cancelled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-torture_n_819175.html

"Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland,..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/us-bush-torture-idUSTRE7141CU20110205

"Former President George W. Bush was forced to cancel a trip to Switzerland amid concerns of massive protests and calls from human rights groups to investigate his administration for war crimes."

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-06/news/28534851_1_human-rights-war-crimes-george-w-bush

"Former President George W. Bush was forced to cancel a planned trip to Switzerland this week over concerns of protests linked to the Bush adminstration's treatment of detainees."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195#.Tt7zXbLaKAk

December 7, 2011 at 12:03 a.m.
dude_abides said...

kwokwee... yeah, but that blind pig you are defending couldn't find one gram of WMD! Should we give the same benefit of the doubt to Saddam as you give to W?

December 7, 2011 at 12:10 a.m.
alprova said...

qu_quoque wrote: "The U.S. and it's allies properly acted upon preexisting resolutions pertaining to the 1991 Gulf War."

That was only ONE of the points raised in the resolution. Others included;

"Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.";

"Iraq's capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people.";

"Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.";

"The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.";

"Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.";

"The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order 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."

"If someone is guilty of war crimes over this why have no international or U.S. legal bodies so ruled. They have had plenty of time and many radical groups that have encouraged them to do so. They have no case and it is now a mute point so get over it already."

You're asking the question of the century. Accusing a President of the United States of war crimes would never float, but that doesn't mean that Bush did nothing wrong or that he didn't lie about his motivations in wanting Saddam Hussein taken out. He did and that's all there is to it.

"BTW ... why are political figures of other nations that participated in the war not equally guilty?"

They are and most of the World thinks so.

"So the Congress members that voted for the resolution are equally guilty and should also fear arrest."

You're grasping at straws. Congress and the American People were misled by falsified intelligence reports and they were lied to by GWB. They voted based on what they had in front of them.

Ask most of them today how they would have voted had the truth been known to them and you're going to hear a much different response.

ABC News spoke with several Senators in January of 2007, and enough of them responded that had they knew then what they know now, that they would never have voted to go to war, and that authorization would not have been granted to Bush in 2002.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2771519&page=1#.Tt76crLaKAl

December 7, 2011 at 12:31 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "The absence of attribution most certainly shows your guilt of plagiarism. It's the typical M.O. of B.S. artists and Fleabaggers."

I'm not a dead horse. You've made your case and I've responded to it. I'm not the first nor the last person to cut and paste points in this or any other forum. To put it in terms that you can understand, GET OVER IT.

"The quote marks around the NYT quote along with the note of the producing organization is in fact proper attribution. If you think otherwise then present your case. You'll probably be unable to accomplish that as well."

You are a legend in your own mind.

"You and your libtard posse have yet to provide one example of a "lie" that President told to get us into the war."

On the contrary. I posted eight lies uttered from his own lips and thus far, you haven't provided so much as one credible argument to discount one of them.

December 7, 2011 at 12:41 a.m.
dude_abides said...

kwokwee... You're a joke. Your gingerbread man dancing show is sophomoric and stale. Go beat on your wife.

December 7, 2011 at 12:49 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "I won't call you a liar as you want to do quite often but only because I don't know your real intent. But between you and me it was a close call."

The number of articles out there that state that Bush canceled his appearance outnumber the one by the New York Times that claims otherwise.

He may well be safe in Switzerland, but he's not safe in other countries, and he's going to avoid them for the rest of his life.

Regardless of your opinions, the man knows that there is price on his head and that there are many people who would like to collect the bounty. How he sleeps at night is beyond me.

December 7, 2011 at 12:51 a.m.
carlB said...

tu_quoque said... carlB Since the lies are that plentiful then I'm sure you are up to documenting a couple for us. However it could be that you are just allowing these communiques to escape from your lower communication orifice. December 6, 2011 at 11:06 p.m.


Reply: tu_quoque, There has been nothing lost and there is plenty of information available for people who are looking for the truth and missed out on the start of the actual events in real time. Your tactic has been here long before you are now trying to play "snook" at us. Since you are ten years behind and appear to have been mislead about the invasion of Iraq, you have years of catching up a head of you.

December 7, 2011 at 1:04 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "How cute but at the same time grotesquely reveling of you though processes."

Your introduction into this forum has proven yourself to be rude, a typical argumentative Conservative, unable at all to back up your points.

Your arguments consist of, "I'm right and all of you are wrong."

You're hardly the first to try that in here, and you'll be long gone in due time, just like all the others who have tried that same approach.

December 7, 2011 at 1:07 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Make your case for falsified intelligence and lies on President Bush's part. You can't and you won't."

Oh but I have and you're still choosing to completely ignore it.

"You'll just keep arguing in a circle without providing any documented evidence."

You nor I have access to "documented evidence" regarding the Iraq war. Therefore we are both forced to rely upon the credibility of others who have amassed evidence based on what has been revealed publicly.

Those nine lies told in 2003, that are now known to have been completely false at the time they were uttered, are evidence enough for most people.

You can continue to choose to ignore them, but that does not change a thing in terms of each and every one of them being false.

The ball has been in your court for quite a few posts to disprove them, if you are capable of doing so.

I'm not going to continue to argue with you, if all you have to offer is basically nothing in response. So far, you haven't addressed one point raised.

Now go back and read those nine lies and get busy refuting them, or give up the ghost.

December 7, 2011 at 1:22 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Whether the items you listed are true or false is not the question and you are hardly smart enough to drag me there."

That is EXACTLY the question being asked, and you asked it. Your choice to ignore the answer to it ends the debate.

"The point is that you or any of the other libtards have not been able to document a known "lie" all afternoon and evening even though you claim their abundance."

I don't think that you are going to find widespread support from others on that. But it's your story and you, by golly, are going to stick with it.

"Your problem is that you make claims you can't support and people like me will rub your face in it for your trouble."

I repeat...you are a legend in your own mind.

You just made my ignore list on your first day in this forum. I reserve the right to respond to people worth my time to debate with.

December 7, 2011 at 2:14 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "I guess that signals the start of the "Flagging Olympics" which is the typical and expected libtard tactic at this point."

Sounds as if you are used to that sort of thing, however, that doesn't go on in here. Most of the regulars just simply ignore trolls.

"Go ahead and do it and feel good about yourself."

Sorry. That's not my style. It's been nice attempting to seriously enter into a debate with you.

December 7, 2011 at 2:26 a.m.
fairmon said...

Is the Bush bashing related to Weston Wamp's campaign and fundraising. Bush was a screw up but in my opinion the most dangerous politician in office is Nancy Pelosi. There is something wrong with a process enabling her to become speaker of the house. The democrats have several more intelligent and capable people to fill that position. Her dad was a senator she has a daughter in office in CA., I assume preparing to replace her. Harry Reid's father was a senator. GWB's father was also president. The list is long of congress members with a parent that is or was in politics. Businesses call it succession planning, in politics it is I got mine now get yours.

December 7, 2011 at 2:28 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "A wise choice on your part as your future interaction with me will result in you ultimate shame and defeat the same as today."

Please....

December 7, 2011 at 2:28 a.m.
fairmon said...

Campaign advice for Wamp. Use polls to find out what the majority want to hear then build on that by promising to fight for those very things and how they are your personal beliefs. Tell them how you love your country and want to right the wrongs and clean up the mess in Washington. Promise to keep funding everything and bringing money to the district without raising taxes. Remember voters are forgiving, have short memories and don't keep up with what you really do once in office. You won't beleive how money flows in D.C. and how easy it is to become wealthy once elected. Keep having fund raisers and have enough to outspend any and all opponents. The position is for sale.

December 7, 2011 at 2:45 a.m.
fairmon said...

Weston be advised that a meeting with Trump is not all it is trumped up to be. Trump had the audacity to say Obama was too egotistical followed by brags about his personal success, his very successful TV show, his foreign affairs knowledge, how he may enter the race if he doesn't like the republican candidate choice. I have never watched his TV show and I won't watch him moderate a debate. I predict he will talk as much or more than the candidates. He will probably try to tell them how they should do things as though he knows. His marriage record isn't too great and people forget he has had personal bankruptcies. He is a fat egotistical name dropping Elvis wanna be slob with funny hair that thinks having wealth equates to intelligence.

December 7, 2011 at 6:31 a.m.
ibshame said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Your problem is that you make claims you can't support and people like me will rub your face in it for your trouble."

It is amazing to me that after all of this time someone like you has the unmitigated gall to come on to a forum and try to make the case that George W. Bush did not tell blatant lies to the American Public in leading this country to war. The lies were posted by Alprova and the fact none of what Bush told the public was ever proven to be true is the basis of what a LIE is. Over 4000 soldiers were killed in that useless war and people who supported the lies were wrong to do so. Some can't face the truth of what they supported so like you they use psuedo-intellectual nit picking to try to disprove valid claims of what actually happened during that time. It's the same kind of tactic by people like Glen Beck to say the Holocaust never happened. Maybe you can get away with it for some who are ignorant and don't know any better. Bush lied and soldiers died because of his LIES. And yes, the members of Congress who went along with his lies are just as cupable as he was.
As for Bush and Cheney and the whole pack not being tried as the war criminals that they were you can count that up to a misconception of what true patriotism really is on the part of the Obama Justice Department. Bush, Cheney & Co. deserved to be tried for falsely leading this country into war with Iraq. Not one shred of evidence ever connected Saddam Hussein to what happened on 9/11. Not one. Yet by the same type of psuedo intellectual play on words like you have tried to use in this forum, people were led to believe he was connected to 9/11. It was a LIE then and it's still a LIE today told by George W. Bush and Co. Hopefully, the public will never allow themselves to be misled like that again. As the saying goes (the one Bush mangled so badly as he usually did when he was trying to make a statement not written down in front of him): FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU; FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME.

December 7, 2011 at 8:26 a.m.
ibshame said...

As for Weston Wamp and his candidacy, if the people in this district vote him in as their representative then they've gone from bad with Fleischmann to even worse with Wamp. It is time for the Dems in this district to find a strong, plausible candidate to stop this sideshow from happening. The people of this district deserve better choices!!!

December 7, 2011 at 8:43 a.m.
ibshame said...

"harp3339 said... Weston be advised that a meeting with Trump is not all it is trumped up to be"

As of yesterday, Mitt Romney announced his schedule will not permit him to participate in Trump's Presidential version of The Apprentice. Of course, by the time the 27th gets here he may change his mind but at least he's got the sense for now to see this folly for what it is and not let himself get caught up in the hype.

December 7, 2011 at 8:57 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Whaa, whaaa, whaaa. Listen to the lefties cry about Bush still! Bashing Bush doens't make a Obama come across any better, dopes! Harp, your first post on here is GREAT! Obama is so damn dumb, as are most Democrats, that they're pushing socialism that's BOMBING now in Europe. Obama is dumber than my goldfish. By the way, congratulations to Donald Trump for hosting a debate. Who the crap decided that only Libs and Obama supporters, and Lib networks should host Republican Debates???????? There AIN'T no more journalists in the popular media, just lefties and Obama lovers!

December 7, 2011 at 9:03 a.m.
rolando said...

Silly me.

To think that maybe, just maybe, this worthless piece of [expletive deleted], DNC mouthpiece of a cartoonist might get off his anti-Republican rant long enough to recognize a day that changed America forever.

But then, he didn't recognize September 11, either.

Or even the Fourth, if memory serves.

He is no Mauldin, aspire as he might.

December 7, 2011 at 9:08 a.m.
acerigger said...

tu_quoque ,I stand corrected, the war in Iraq has not been "officially" declared illegal,yet.

December 7, 2011 at 9:16 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Hey, you Dems, check out Post Politics in the Washington Post today online, the Fact Checker. See how Obama's blowhard speech yesterday in Kansas (not Texas, as Obama thought he was in) was full of crap.

Obama is a liar.

December 7, 2011 at 10:23 a.m.
rolando said...

Amazing, tu_quoque...you have all the libtards on the run and totally defensive. And all in one day.

Welcome aboard.

"Live long and prosper." - Spock

December 7, 2011 at 10:31 a.m.
jesse said...

i can't wait to see how tu_quoque deals w/the lunatic rants of chet123 and huckfriend!!!

December 7, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
carlB said...

tu_quoque said... Oh Look !!!

carlB is back and he says ... I know someone is lying but I just can't form an intellectual argument to prove who, what , where, or when. How sad. December 7, 2011 at 1:11 a.m.


Reply: tu_quoque, there is not any argument nor is there a debate. Yes,the "sad part" is that you appear not interested in keeping up with the facts involved. You only continue trying to push the definition of what a "lie" is and there were definitely planned and deliberate lies put out by the Bush administration leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Do you think I am going to "spoon feed" you just to read your bashing. It will not happen.

December 7, 2011 at 10:48 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

You Dems will do anything to distract from the dumbest man to ever occupy the White House. Still blaming Bush for everything. Poor, poor, little BO, so unfair.

December 7, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.
acerigger said...

rolando, no one is "on the run "

December 7, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
potcat said...

alprova, am i on your ignore list?

December 7, 2011 at 12:15 p.m.
alprova said...

ibshame wrote: "Not one shred of evidence ever connected Saddam Hussein to what happened on 9/11."

tu_quoque responded with: "President Bush never made that claim and thus has no responsibility for nimrods like you to have assumed such a connection."

President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-19/politics/sprj.irq.letter_1_bush-letter-terrorists-and-terrorist-organizations-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

December 7, 2011 at 12:22 p.m.
alprova said...

potcat wrote: "alprova, am i on your ignore list?"

Not at all.

December 7, 2011 at 12:25 p.m.
ibshame said...

tu-quoque wrote: I’m sure that you have provided information that at the time you thought was true to only later have it be proven false. By your definition of lying that makes you a known liar and thus someone who can hardly be trusted.

  1. BUSH HAD AN INTELLIGENCE NETWORK TELLING HIM THAT WHAT HE WAS ABOUT TO SAY TO THE ENTIRE NATION WAS NOT TRUE. YOU FIX IT UP ANYWAY YOU WANT BUT HE LIED AND IT WAS DONE PURPOSEFULLY AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LIVES THAT WERE LOST.

I did not come here to state that President Bush never lied but only refute some Libtard blowhards that they have no documented proof that he did so in reference to the war.

2.NO YOU CAME HERE EXACTLY FOR THAT PURPOSE. THE SO-CALLED DOCUMENTED PROOF YOU SEEK IS IN THE FACT NO WMDS WERE EVER FOUND IN IRAQ AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER TO 9/11 BY SADDAM HUSSEIN. YET BUSH AND HIS CRONIES SOUGHT EVERYDAY TO MAKE SUCH A CONNECTION AND TO GENERATE FEAR IN AMERICANS BY PROCLAIMING THEY COULDN'T WAIT FOR SADDAM TO EXPLODE MUSHROOM CLOUDS OVER THEIR HEADS TO TAKE ACTION. FOR THOSE WHO DARED TO QUESTION THEIR EVIDENCE THEY WERE CALLED UNPATRIOTIC OR SUPPORTERS OF OSAMA BIN LADEN OR WORSE TREASONOUS TRAITORS. BUSH AND HIS SUPPORTERS PULLED EVERY DIRTY TRICK IN THE BOOK TO MAKE THEIR CASE FROM THE LIES THEY TOLD, THE FEAR THEY PERPETRATED, TO THE OUTTING OF A CIA AGENT WHOSE HUSBAND CAME BACK AND EXPOSED THE LIES BUSH HAD TOLD ABOUT SADDAM SEEKING ENRICHED URANIUM IN AFRICA.

How appropriate of a Libtard to so casually discard those 4000 plus lives into the dust bin of history as wasted on a useless war. 3.THE PERSON WHO SO CASUALLY DISCARDED THE LIVES OF THOSE SOLDIERS WAS THE PERSON WHO SENT THEM INTO A WAR THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUSH WAS THE PERSON HIDING BEHIND HIS DESK SAYING "BRING IT ON." A PHRASE EASY FOR HIM TO SAY SINCE HE WAS NOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

4.YOU SAY BUSH NEVER MADE A CLAIM THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS CONNECTED TO 9/11. THIS IS A LIE. SURVEY AFTER SURVEY THAT WAS CONDUCTED LEADING UP TO THE INVASION OF IRAQ SHOWED AT ONE TIME MORE THAN 60% OF THE COUNTRY WAS UNDER THE MISGUIDED BELIEF THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS CONNECTED TO 9/11 AND THAT HE HAD WMD'S HE WAS GOING TO USE AGAINST THE U.S. HOW DID THEY ARRIVE AT THAT CONCLUSION IF NOT DRIVEN TO IT BY THE COMMENTS FROM GEORGE W. BUSH AND DICK CHENEY?

AS I STATED BEFORE I CANNOT BELIEVE AFTER ALL THIS TIME SOMEONE WOULD HAVE THE UNMITIGATED GALL TO TRY AND USE THE SAME STALE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE USED AND EXPOSED AS LIES AND THEN PAT YOURSELF ON THE BACK AS IF YOU HAVE REALLY ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE OLD, STALE AND USELESS.

December 7, 2011 at 12:26 p.m.
chet123 said...

HA HA HA HA HA..stay on him IBSHAME..stay on TUQUOQUE!..stay on TUQUOQUE..these right-wing nuts..CALL THEM OUT!....CALL THEM OUT!....They are speaking from right-wing talking point...Their arguments been scripted by think-tanks and right-wing propaganda..A PACK A LIES...BECAUSE THEY CANT STAND ON THE TRUTH!!!

They have diminish the greatness of this country with their greed and selfishness and lies. They will eat their own,Colin Powell learn it the hard way....the right-wing used him

LIES ARE THE LIFE BLOOD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! LIE LIE LIE LIE!

December 7, 2011 at 12:46 p.m.
chet123 said...

ARNOLDZIFFEL.....see you cant talk on the issue....so you want to simply name call....whats wrong???? nothing but air between your ears...Hmmmmmm..Dont forget your party leader called the President a socialist ,communist,kenya born, muslim,arab,terrorist hmmmmm what else?.......when you get thru name calling like a little boy in the sand box we can talk issues.....Name calling may work well at the local FLOYD Barber Shop while you are playing checkers...but on here substance is a must....i will give you 24hrs to go and listen to RUSH LIMBAUGH or FOX NEWS to get your propaganda ...OK???

December 7, 2011 at 1:05 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Amazing, tu_quoque...you have all the libtards on the run and totally defensive. And all in one day."

Well...it's no surprise that you would recognize and compliment this person. He ignores facts that refute offered statements and then goes on to offer the same kind of arguments that you do.

"Welcome aboard."

Didn't you make a statement to the effect that you were no longer going to be posting in here? Indeed you did.

December 3, 2011 @ 8:41pm:

"Bail, timbo, harp, lumpy, and the rest of the conservatives. There are other, more interesting threads on this site.

Let the libtards have the thread. Best way I can think of to get the Soros-mouthpieced cartoonist with "no sense of decency" off this forum. He will do well on the NY Times.

Watch the number of posts plummet like The Obama's approval rating. Let it become a mutual admiration society with no opposing viewpoints allowed. They deserve it."**

December 7, 2011 at 1:12 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, ace, that was defensive statement if I ever heard one. Read many of tu_qouque's posts, have you?

December 7, 2011 at 1:23 p.m.
rolando said...

And didn't you quip that you were going to ignore tu_quoque's posts forevermore, alprova? Indeed you did. LMAO! Yet here you are, still losing points of debate to him [generic "him"]. You are a hoot!

How's that for a tu quoque reply?

December 7, 2011 at 1:28 p.m.
mymy said...

Minor Differences: Part 1

How you are preceived with capslock off/on.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/minor_differences

December 7, 2011 at 1:36 p.m.
acerigger said...

rolando said...

Well, ace, that was defensive statement if I ever heard one

Just a fact,Rolando,I am man enough to admit that I was in error about the legality of the Iraq war,but I'm not running from my original statement that ". If you think Iraq should pay us for illegally invading and destroying their country,you must be living in some alternate universe." (strike the word "illegal")'but the final verdict is not in yet.

December 7, 2011 at 2:08 p.m.
ibshame said...

"mymy said... Minor Differences: Part 1

How you are preceived with capslock off/on"

Just so you know I wrote in CAPS because I wanted to distinguish my comments from those I was responding to. I do not normally post in CAPS unless there is something I want to emphasize.

December 7, 2011 at 2:47 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "And didn't you quip that you were going to ignore tu_quoque's posts forevermore, alprova? Indeed you did. LMAO! Yet here you are, still losing points of debate to him [generic "him"]. You are a hoot!"

A hoot I may be, but I still deal in facts. tu_quoque posted a statement that was refuted with proof. That will be the context of my posts aimed in his direction, and that of yours as well.

Neither one of you are capable of or willing to enter into meaningful debate. Lies, misinformation, and bearing of false witness seem to be the type of posting that you both embrace.

"How's that for a tu quoque reply?"

Huh?

December 7, 2011 at 2:47 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "And didn't you quip that you were going to ignore tu_quoque's posts forevermore, alprova? Indeed you did. LMAO! Yet here you are, still losing points of debate to him [generic "him"]. You are a hoot!"

A hoot I may be, but I still deal in facts and the truth. tu_quoque posted a statement that was refuted with proof. That will be the context of my posts aimed in his direction, and that of yours as well.

Neither one of you are capable of or willing to enter into meaningful debate. Lies, misinformation, and bearing of false witness seem to be the type of posting that you both embrace.

"How's that for a tu quoque reply?"

Huh?

December 7, 2011 at 2:48 p.m.
jesse said...

if the bush admin.didn't LIE then they certainly MISLED the country about iraq!

all this would be moot if bush sr. had went ahead and finished the job in the first gulf war.

December 7, 2011 at 2:52 p.m.
mymy said...

Too bad the left cannot see their own lies especially those coming from the Obama administration and the DCNM (Democratic Cheerleading News Media). What a Hoot still talking about Bush when there is the Biggest Lier and Chief ever in the WH you support.

December 7, 2011 at 3:15 p.m.
potcat said...

Bearing False Witness is serious business, its one of the worse things a person can do to someone.

I have gave this a lot of thought, i am guilty, as a matter of fact, i have done it out of anger and have made amends, not friends.

Any time you make a judgement on a person,know the facts, its what we do on this thread, there's so much BS LIES on "Clay's Toons" thread, i can't participate, Iraq, God let it be over with, Bush, i can't do any more.

December 7, 2011 at 3:16 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Chet, you ape, since when is the Washington Post a conservative source? Read what they say about BO's speech yesterday. Obama is nothing but liar. Even that blubbery fool Michael Moore is calling Obama a liar.

December 7, 2011 at 3:50 p.m.
chet123 said...

ARNOLDZIFFEL...YOU INBRED!....Clean you own house out.....with Gingrich leading the republican primary..he has taken millions and the TEA PARTY CLAIM TO BRING REFORM!!ha ha ha now thats funny!....he's the biggest whore for a dollar than anyone in Washington....and the tea Party going to put him in charge of the treasury dept. ha ha ha...You the only ape in here.....

December 7, 2011 at 4:38 p.m.
chet123 said...

MYMY...YOUR HERO RONALD REAGAN(WHO ONCE WAS A DEMOCRAT..FLIP-FLOPPER REAGAN)WAS THE GRAND-DADDY OF ALL LIAR....TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMY....HE LIED ABOUT IT HELPING THE COUNTRY...IT HELPED THE RICH AND GREEDY!!!...30YRS LATER...INCOME GAP IS WIDENING MORE AND MORE....STARTING WITH THE EARLY 80'S.....I WANDER WHO WAS PRESIDENT IN THE EARLY 80'S Hmmmmmmmm I WANDER WHO Hmmmmmmm..I WANDER WHO....Ohhhhhh IT WAS YOUR HERO--RONALD REAGAN--.....SO YOU THE DUMB BUTT!!HA HA HA

December 7, 2011 at 4:47 p.m.
chet123 said...

MYMY....FOX IS THE ONLY NEWS NETWORK THAT DUMB ITS VEIWER DOWN....ITS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT FOX VEIWER ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID....RUPERT MURDOCH IS LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.....

December 7, 2011 at 4:52 p.m.
Walden said...

Chet - I think you could use another 40.

December 7, 2011 at 6:46 p.m.
DarkSky said...

Hey ArnoldZiffel, didn't you say you were going to quit posting here?

December 7, 2011 at 7:20 p.m.
dude_abides said...

HA! rolando and ziffel come crawling back with their hat in their hands! Let's see, how big a dent did you cause by "leaving forever"? 125 posts! Would it hurt to know we were laughing at you when you took your ball and went home, knowing you'd come creeping back and further eroding your credibility? Christ, you should have at least changed your names like timbo.

December 7, 2011 at 7:22 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "Even that blubbery fool Michael Moore is calling Obama a liar."

Michael Moore did not call Obama a liar. He charges that it is starting to appear that The President's largest contributors come from Wall Street. He feels that the President is being coddled by those responsible for the collapse of the economy.

He, like a lot of people, wonder why the Glass-Stegall act has not been put back in place to prevent another market meltdown. He is also upset that the President is accepting such donations to his campaign chest.

And it's a fair criticism, with one exception.

Most of Wall Street was a victim in all of this as well. They were misled. The companies that need to be looked at include banks, investment houses, and insurance companies that were in on selling tainted mortgages as legitimate investments.

Prosecutions are at an all time low for those who are responsible for mishandling people's money. The SEC is powerless to put people in jail. The Justice Department is simply lagging on going after bad players, both current and those from the past.

A few have been prosecuted, but many more have gotten away with it.

December 7, 2011 at 7:27 p.m.
dude_abides said...

kwokwee... being a Bush it artist, it must just gnaw at you that Obama got bin Laden, instead of Wimp II.

December 7, 2011 at 7:29 p.m.
carlB said...

ArnoldZiffel said... You Dems will do anything to distract from the dumbest man to ever occupy the White House. Still blaming Bush for everything. Poor, poor, little BO, so unfair. December 7, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.


Reply: ArnoldZiffel, Funny you would say this about the distractions and denials being presented by the anti Obama people. Before Obama was the President, the economy had decreased more than 9.0%. The Bush administration report said it was only shrinking 3.0%, but had shrank over 9.0% from the 2007 deep recession putting this Republic on the verge of another great depression. Did the economy stop shrinking after Obama took office, even after the Bush $700 billion dollar TARP money? No, so if President Obama is considered "Dumb" for not agreeing with his opponents of doing nothing,then somebody is "dumb" but not Obama. He realized that he had to prevent this Republic from falling into another depression by spending money for stabilizing the effects of the deep recession.

December 7, 2011 at 7:53 p.m.
carlB said...

Reply to ArnoldZiffel: ArnoldZiffel, when you say "Poor, poor, little BO, so unfair.", you appear to have it backward. Because of the "wantna be" opponents trying to get the voters to blame Obama for not "fixing" all of the unfinished mess ups of the Cheney/Bush W. administration on the first day he was in office. No, it is not President Obama who people should feel sorry for. With the opposition by the people who want to weaken the US Governments ability to full fill it's purposes and want to prevent President Obama's plans to stabilize the 2007 deep recession. It is this Country and the people who are needing help and it is the Republicans in Congress who are preventing putting the people back to work.
President Obama is doing great, while eating his opponents LUNCH and they do not realize it.

December 7, 2011 at 9:09 p.m.
acerigger said...

Back to the 'toon, I sure hope that Weston would do a better job of looking out for the middle class than his daddy! Zach had about a 15% voting record for standing up for the average working people.

December 7, 2011 at 9:32 p.m.

Haven't been on here for a while, but I see it's the same old Obama worshipers continuing to prop him up as if he's something special.

CarlB, Obama is doing great? Really? Everything he touches turns bad, whether it's his golf game or the OWS mob he openly supports.

I saw that Washington Post online piece too. I'll have to agree that Obama is a liar.

December 7, 2011 at 9:48 p.m.

Weston Wamp would make a better President than B. Hussein Obama. Hell, my 11 year old would.

December 7, 2011 at 10:05 p.m.

Hey show_C%ucker vote for more socialists just like all your dumbass eurotrash pals do and watch us become another Greece. Obama is wrecking the middle class. His pals are the ultra-rich and the suckers at the bottom who worship his lying ass. He hates the middle class.

December 7, 2011 at 10:49 p.m.
carlB said...

blondebutnotdumb said...same old Obama worshipers continuing to prop him up as if he's something special. CarlB, Obama is doing great? Really? Everything he touches turns bad, whether it's his golf game or the OWS mob he openly supports. I saw that Washington Post online piece too. I'll have to agree that Obama is a liar.


Reply: blondebutnotdumb, do you really believe the "OWS" movement has been a failure? I do not believe the main information of the article "Bomb Buried In Obamacare" was put out for proving Obama was a liar, but that this "bomb" eat the lunch of people as you who are against the HC Reform, limiting the amount of spending the insurance companies could do and still provide 80-85% of the money collected for patient care instead of their PR and other BS spent on "suckering" the people.

The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah! - Forbes www.forbes.com Rick Ungar, Contributo http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/ That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care. This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time. Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ratio will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid. Today, that bomb goes off.

December 7, 2011 at 11:20 p.m.
fairmon said...

Does a 24 year old candidate for congress have a better understanding of the economy than the POTUS and those now in office?

The IRS says those in top 5% of income pay 83% of all income taxes paid. Who is to decide how much is fair? Increase taxes in a way they pay 90% and we still have a huge annual deficit. Temporary measures yield temporary results if any. Obama is ignorant of how the economy works. It is impossible to know how free market capitalism works since we have not had such in years.

December 7, 2011 at 11:33 p.m.
carlB said...

shoe_chucker said... http://themiddleclass.org/legislator/bob-corker-605

http://themiddleclass.org/legislator/lamar-alexander-406

http://themiddleclass.org/legislator/chuck-fleischmann-826

http://themiddleclass.org/legislator/jim-cooper-72

vote for some more Repubs/Rinos you poor but proud dumbassoutherners.

Reply: shoe_chucker, Thanks for the information.

Here in the South, it seems as if the people have forgotten what the living conditions were before FDR's New Deal and the changes that have occurred to our standard of living since the 1929 great depression? The initiatory of the changes to put people back to work in 1933 certainly was not the private sectors. What if FDR had not lead the US in the direction he did after taking the office, while the Republicans objected?

December 8, 2011 at 12:17 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quowue wrote: "The letter states the action is to be “against international terrorists and terrorist organizations”. It goes on to say that these can include “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001” but not exclusive to them."

"In fact President Bush and Sec. of State Rice both made definitive statement to the press and the nation that Saddam Hussein was in no way connected to 9-11."

This deserves a response.

Apparently, only you can define the word "including" to mean that it excludes the words that follows it. The letter did not use the phrase "these can include." It used the word "including," meaning that it definitively included all that which follows it.

If Bush was not implying that Iraq had ties to 9/11, as you are so desperately trying to claim, then why even mention the event in the letter as a means to justify an invasion of that country?

This is merely hearsay, but according to Richard Clarke, former U.S. counter-terrorism chief for the U.S. National Security Council, on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled some of his advisors into a conference room. The exchange is detailed in Clarke’s book, "Against All Enemies" (pages 30–32, published April 2004).

“Look,” [Bush] told us. “I know you have a lot to do and all … but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.”

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed.

“But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this.”

“I know, I know, but … see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.”

“Absolutely, we will look … again.” I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. “But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq…”

“Look into Iraq, Saddam,” the President said testily and left us.

Source:

http://www.leadingtowar.com/PDFsources_claims_iraqnotinvolved/2004_04_Slate.pdf

Bush harbored long-time private desires to go after Saddam Hussein and everyone but you seems to know it.

As for Condoleeza Rice, she too slipped and alluded to an Iraqi tie to 9/11 on national television.

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York." - Spoken during an interview with CBS News, November 28, 2003.

December 8, 2011 at 6:44 a.m.
rolando said...

If you think Iraq should pay us for illegally invading and destroying their country

I don't think that at all, ace.

Seeking reparations is a dead-end street that will eventually destroy you [see Germany post-WW1]. France got more than she wanted...

December 8, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.
rolando said...

You still haven't defined "lie" yet, alpo, yet you harp at tu_quoque for a definition? LMAO!

What's with your "Huh?" regarding my comment? Look up tu quoque here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html You use tu_quoque fallacies constantly and you don't even know what it means?? Another LMAO.

December 8, 2011 at 9:49 a.m.
carlB said...

alprova said...

Reply: alprova, Thanks for all of the factual information. But as I said, when you "spoon feed" a person who does not want to hear/read a comprehensive true opinion of the facts. Then if presented with the facts, only wants to "bash" and dispute them, while trying to rewrite the facts.

December 8, 2011 at 9:49 a.m.
rolando said...

By the way, alpo, why are you still responding to tu_quoque? You said you were going to quit.

December 8, 2011 at 9:50 a.m.
rolando said...

...true opinion of the facts.

Facts are facts, carlB. Wish all you want, but opinion will never change one.

December 8, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.
chet123 said...

HARP3339 is at it again.......these bozo just cant tell the truth....whats with that...is your argument so weak you have to make-up figures ha ha ha...Your nose must be 3ft long.....

HARP3339 Said the IRS stated 5% Top income pays 89% of fed.income taxes......Just make-up figures as you always do harp......cant win the argument so make-up numbers....what you dont know I fact check everything you say....and i do it because you have zero credibility.....you are just a right-wing nut!Who spew out lies.

The correct percentage is 58%.....but there is a massive income inequality in America....brought on by the 15,000 lobbyist in washington

December 8, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.
carlB said...

rolando said... ...true opinion of the facts. Facts are facts, carlB. Wish all you want, but opinion will never change one. December 8, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.


Reply: Well, I could have stated "giving the complete true facts as the are" without the opinion. You are correct "opinions will never change the real facts." Then why are so many of the Obama opponents trying to put out their manipulated and opinionated versions of the falsified facts?

December 8, 2011 at 11:49 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.