Oh, yeah! On just a side note, at least we KNOW Bush is a true American! Even his father could become president! Let's just see if O-Vomit can stand up to that kind of scrutiny! His scum sucking father would be in gitmo if he was alive today!
Add a comment above
Top Opinion
-
The Birdman 2012/06/05 09:20:10No
+20The Military loved him, the secret service loved him, enough voters loved him or he wouldn't have won 2 terms, and even the loony left media loved him for the fun they had at his expense, but he took it like a MAN and kept his cool, and did what he had to for the country we all know he loves! The military hates O-stupid, the secret service hates both O-vomits, the voters of this country will let him know how much we don't love him in November, but on the bright side, the media will keep their mouths firmly wrapped around his pencil-dick for years to cum, regardless of the damage he's done and still doing to the country WE love!
Oh, yeah! On just a side note, at least we KNOW Bush is a true American! Even his father could become president! Let's just see if O-Vomit can stand up to that kind of scrutiny! His scum sucking father would be in gitmo if he was alive today!
You must have me confused with a typical OWSer. I′ve repeatedly posted that OWS got it wrong, and I admire the vast majority (at least 4,999 out of every 5,000 if not more) of the 1%.
Saddam Hussein was a very evil man. But he was by no means the most evil ruler or warlord of that time. Why didn’t Bush do more against Joseph Kony, whose Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) not only tried to overthrow the government of Uganda, but kidnapped numerous children from villages to train the boys to be killing machine soldiers while the girls were made into child sex slaves for himself and his chief officers (look up “Night Commuters”)? What about Kin Jong-Il, who lived higher on the hog while his people starved worse, and who actually was trying to make nukes? We let him die peacefully of old age, still beloved by the people he so badly oppressed!
Kim Jong-Il wouldn’t even let his people have electricity!
So why didn’t Bush do more against them?
Oh, right. No oil to speak of.
As for why we attacked Iraq, I can show you hard proof of this: it was done as part and parcel of a scheme for world domination concocted by the group that was behind Bush, that was published in a 90-page document cover-dated September, 2000 — months before Bush was (s)elected President, and a full year before the September 11, 2001 terror attack that was the alleged reason for our “War On Terror” of which said Iraq invasion was allegedly part.
The name of the group is the Project for a New American Century (note that sky-blue text that turns bright red when you hover over it in a SodaHead post is a clickable link — in this case, to their very own actual website!). The document is there, in a 90-page .PDF entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” Click “Publications / Reports” on the left to find it, but first click “Statement of Principles” near the top right to read the list of signatory members (note the date on that open letter) — recognize any names?
Obama has kept us safe, bush let us be attacked.
Bush has american blood on his hands.
No Fred, the worst President was Abraham Lincoln, he completely changed the dynamics of the Federal Gov. and did it illegally I might add. Obama would be a close second.
The North had as many slaves as the South did at the time of the war. Why else would Gen Grant wait till way after the war to turn his own slaves loose?Only 2% of the North was abolitionist at that time.
Why did Lincoln?
suspend habeas corpus
imprison more than 13,000 political prisoners (Northern that is)
Suppress free elections ( Maryland 1861 and imprison most of the States legislature)
Create a State( West Virginia)
Why did the Northern congress pass "The Johnson - Ccrittenden" resolution in 1861?
Why did the 36th Cong. in the 2nd Sess. 1364 in 1861 pass "The Corwin Amendment" and send it to the States for ratification?
Lincoln could have cared less about slaves, he said so in his first Inaugural Address.
SUCH HYPOCRISY !
The South walked out of Congress and seceded all on their own.
The South attacked the United States FIRST at Ft. Sumpter
The right to own and exploit the labors of human beings without compensation was the central 'economic' issue around secession
If slavery was not an issue until 1862 then please explain the necessity of the Missouri compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act - 1820 and 1856, respectively
Now, to address your revisionist history...
Crittenden-Johnson was a political move meant to ensure the loyalty of some states which had not left the Union but where slavery was permitted (However, it had nothing to do with reality, only politics)
The Corwin Amendment was enacted and sent to the states to try to woo the treasonous South back to the Union without war and bloodshed. If the North had no problem with slavery, as you say, then why was it not ratified?
Yes, I learned history. Genuine history, not the revisionist crap you were taught by racist bubbas.
We did fire the first shot, you are right, but was maneuvered into it by Lincoln. No one died at Fort Sumter. War started when 75,000 troops invaded the south.
April 16, 1861, the Buffalo Daily Courier editorialized that " The affair at fort Sumter has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified" I have many more references.
Exploiting the labors of human beings seems to be the way of the world.
Why else would the colony of Massachusetts in 1641 enact the first positive laws for the benifit of slave masters? And the North own the slave ships?
Why The New York City draft riots?
Why did( Illinois the Land of Lincoln) admend their state constitution concerning blacks.They were willing to free blacks, but don't let them vote
About the western territory, ever hear of the 3/5 clause?
The admendments and clauses were brought to the floors of Congress by Northerners, were they not?
Look,
it is way too simple to say " The war was about slavery" when there were other factors at work. It makes the North feel justified,and righteous, but that can't be all there is to it. Why would the South loose 25% of the male population for t...
We did fire the first shot, you are right, but was maneuvered into it by Lincoln. No one died at Fort Sumter. War started when 75,000 troops invaded the south.
April 16, 1861, the Buffalo Daily Courier editorialized that " The affair at fort Sumter has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified" I have many more references.
Exploiting the labors of human beings seems to be the way of the world.
Why else would the colony of Massachusetts in 1641 enact the first positive laws for the benifit of slave masters? And the North own the slave ships?
Why The New York City draft riots?
Why did( Illinois the Land of Lincoln) admend their state constitution concerning blacks.They were willing to free blacks, but don't let them vote
About the western territory, ever hear of the 3/5 clause?
The admendments and clauses were brought to the floors of Congress by Northerners, were they not?
Look,
it is way too simple to say " The war was about slavery" when there were other factors at work. It makes the North feel justified,and righteous, but that can't be all there is to it. Why would the South loose 25% of the male population for the 5% slave owners? Doesn't make sense.
There is still a righteous attitude in the minds of most Northerers toward the South. I read it in your words. Racist and Bubba.
The war started when the South fired on Ft. Sumter. It does not matter how many lives were lost, it was an attack against the United States of America and was treason.
The war was about treason. What prompted the war was people wanting to retain the right to own others.
Many Generals graduated from West Point and were taught secession was indeed legal under the constitution.
Really?
Presidents, top rated Generals,and people that ran the country graduated from West Point.
Even today a West point graduate is held in high esteem.
It's not just a military thing.
Bush was the first President since Hoover to actually lose jobs while in office.
I'm curious, what do you think about the timber business? Since you live in Oregon.
Before Reagan took office it was against the law to export raw timber instead of finished lumber. He changed that and killed the timber industry in the NW.
The west coast shutting down did take some pressure off the southern timber business, less competition.
I've been in the timber business since 1978 and without a doubt the worst economic times were when Jimmy Carter was President and now with Obama.
Please note the chart below, then back up, regroup and try again. It was Reagan allowing the sale of raw timber which destroyed the wood products industry.