blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Those Conservative Judges Are So Good For America

8.31.2006

Those Conservative Judges Are So Good For America

Don't travel with large sums of money. Your government will take it. And keep it. (Link will probably appeal only to law folks, civil libertarians, or good Americans.)

93 comments:

Anonymous said...

Who would ever believe a man was going to buy a truck for his business? He should have said he was going to give it to the Republican National Committee to buy some congressmen.

Anonymous said...

But you can drive a $100,000 car, or carry a credit card with a $100,000 limit...and I don't think you get arrested and seized for that. Or, you can simply have that much in your checking or savings account. What's the difference if you are carrying your money around or have it in a box at a bank.

ANOYASSTAPPER said...

He could have gotten away if he said "the moneys for Bill Clinton's cigar fund " On another note Bill is still messing around on his bitch .
.... He would f#\k a snake if he could crawl under it !

Anonymous said...

Ever heard of bank wire transfers?

ANOYASSTAPPER said...

They take too much time . When you are transfering drugs you got to move fast.

TXsharon said...

Homeland security will visit you if you anticipate the housing bubble and looming recession and pay your credit card off. So, no more paying off those credit cards, it's unAmerican.

Good to know they are working so hard to keep us safe.

Anonymous said...

THAT is scary. Ought to be SOME evidence of a connection with illegal activity before a seizure is allowed. You don't get to jail or imprison someone on mere suspicious activity. And I'm a "conservative", by the way.

edible ethel said...

Everything is doom and gloom with you, isn't it TxSharon? You must lead a pathetic life. Don't worry, be happy!!

TXsharon said...

9:02 That coming from one who is on a constant rant about the terra© You sure don't like a good dose of facts, do you?

I am certainly not thinking doom and gloom here because November is coming. : )

Anonymous said...

and so is a housing bust and a recession and that's not doom and gloom?

TXsharon said...

Since the Republicans have mismanaged our economy, I think it’s a good idea for people to be as prepared as possible for the upcoming recession. Don't you? But, don’t pay those credit cards off all at once or you might get a visit from Homeland inSecurity as they fight the war on terra©

Anonymous said...

Be scared, be very scared. The end of the world is coming. Put head in sand. Doom and gloom.

TXsharon said...

Just a call to be prepared and to work toward improvement. Put your head in the sand or up your ass, it matters not. Things need to improve:

Texas is #1 in Hunger in the U.S, from the Capital Area Food Bank

Texas is 49th in education (thank God there's Mississippi)

Texas is 47th in health care

Texas is 45th in services to the elderly,

Texas is #1 in most uninsured children,

Texas is #1 in toxic emissions

Texas is #1 in teenage pregnancies. (How's that abstinence only working?)

Just for starters...

Anonymous said...

I our state cannot get anything right txsharon? So what have you done lately to improve it? Or is it always those evil republicans?Funny, haven't heard how the other side is going to fix everything.

Anonymous said...

Doom and gloom. The sky is falling. Apocolypse Now. TxSheehan, is there only on verse to your song? If you would pull your head out, you would see things ain't half bad. An almost all time low unemployement, business is booming, gas prices coming down, and you still have the freedom that you've always had. Oooh, thats' horrible that if you pay off your credit card the will come after you. Now when was the last time you paid off your credit card. Good God Girl, Is that why you are so paranoid?Please get a life and blog on DailyKos, Your negativity is as old as your hairstyle and it's not winning you any freinds on here. Ta ta

edible ethel said...

TxSheehan, You know what Dr. Phil would say about your way of thinking don't you? How is that working for you?

TXsharon said...

You anons can continue to TRY to spin those facts but I did not make those up and I did not cause them. They are what they are: evidence of failed leadership.

I'm sure that I do NOT care to waste my time listing how much better different leaders would be to apologists such as you. No matter what the facts, your eyes will never open.

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan, "Do not look back in anger, or forward in fear, but around in awareness." James Thurber

Anonymous said...

interesting....it is almost 2 pm on saturday, and the link takes you to a webpage that has been suspended?

TXsharon said...

11:32 Seems you are preaching what you most need to learn.

1:54 If you are referring to the link I supplied, it works fine for me.
Downturn leads to higher risk of U.S. recession

By ROMA LUCIW

With files from Reuters

Saturday, August 26, 2006, Page B5

Mounting evidence of a slowdown in the U.S. housing market has led some forecasters to increase the chances that the world's largest economy will be limping into a recession next year.

The full text of this article has 628 words.

Anonymous said...

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. First time ever the country maybe, sort of, could be, if everything goes right, if we're lucky, heading into a recession for the first time ever in the history of ever. Bush will be blamed. Tin foil now on sale at all Walmarts. Doom and gloom is getting boring Sheehan.

TXsharon said...

Not stop fear and war mongering is getting exceedingly boring.

Anonymous said...

I hate to say this, but I kind of hope there is another terrorist attack so that you will realize that the threat was real. And God forbid it's your head they hold up to the camera as they chant allah is great. But if one doesn't happen, then Bush was doing his job in protecting us but you will see it as never being a threat. Go back to your tin foil tent and have a nice day. Is being pessimistic really that much fun?

Anonymous said...

Just noticed where friends of Hillary are saying she may pull out of the Presidential race. This a day after moveon.org refuses to endorse her. Very interesting. The kooks have officially taken over the democratic party. I'm lovin it.

TXsharon said...

10:14 Man, you are consistently inconsistent! I have to LOL!

If The Bu$h Crime Family were doing their job of protecting us they would stop creating more terrorists by killing innocent people in the wrong war in the wrong country. Instead of wasting billions they would use the money for better homeland security measures.

The majority of Americans agree that the wrong war in the wrong country is making us less safe and is increasing the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. The insurgents we are fighting are Iraqis NOT foreign terrorists.

Among Insurgents in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found


The Myth of Iraq’s Foreign Fighters

US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy

I know that you won’t read or believe any of those sources because none of them are Rush Limpbaugh.

“The current sweep of Baghdad is revealing the same pattern: prisoners and killed insurgents are Iraqis, not foreign fighters.
So let's follow administration logic (an oxymoron, I know)...
Here is the verbal sleight-of-hand Karl Rove piped into George Bush's ear this week in Salt Lake City. Follow the bouncing connections:
General John Abizaid, our top commander in the Middle East region, recently put it this way: "If we leave, they will follow us." And he is right. The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq. So the United States of America will not leave until victory is achieved.
"They will follow us?" Iraqis will follow our departing troops back to our shores? Really? How many Iraqis were involved in the 9-11 attacks?
Zero. Yes, that's right. And how many Iraqis have been involved in terror attacks, worldwide?
Anyone care to hazard a guess? As best I can determine... Zero.
The next sentence, though, is the real meat-and-potatoes of The New Big Fib©:
The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq.
Classic conflation.
Yes, there are actually terrorists in the world who would like to harm us and are likely plotting to harm us as I write this. But that is not who we are fighting in Iraq, no matter how many times George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice conflate the two.
Most of the terrorists who struck us on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia. Now, would Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their neocon friends advise that we invade the home country of the majority of our attackers?
Silly question. Those are their friends!
Instead, they send our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters to fight... to fight... to fight what, exactly?
Republicans (and the leaders of our military) should be angry with the administration and the neocons for NOT going after the terrorists -- the very terrorists who struck us on 9-11 -- when they had the chance.
Instead, our troops were sent on a distraction, an obsession, really. Iraq has been a neocon obsession since George H.W. Bush opted not to chase Saddam and his forces all the way back to Baghdad in 1991.
So here we are today, listening to the New Big Fib© that leaving Iraq means losing to the terrorists.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
But the truth has never gotten in the way of the actions of this crew. Honesty would have required George Bush to state in his January 2001 inaugural address that his administration planned to invade Iraq sometime in the next four years.
That would have been honest.
Because continuing to tie the disaster in Iraq to terrorism is a lie.
Meanwhile, our soldiers continue to die for the perverse dreams of a few twisted souls.
May Richard Perle rot in hell. ”

And now Sistani says this:
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader

Fine mess…

Anonymous said...

Sheehan, be sure and watch "The Path to 9/11" on ABC Sept 10 and 11 and you will see how Clinton was asleep at the wheel and how he ordered the CIA not to capture Bin Laden when they had him surrounded in Tora Bora. I don't think you are going to like the taste of crow.

TXsharon said...

As I told you here I am not a Clinton fan. I am not a political apologist or groupie.

You failed to answer the question I asked on that thread.

I wonder if the program will address the PDB that I mentioned in my last response on the above mentioned thread. You know, the one that warned Bu$h that terrorists were determined to attack in the U.S. using hijacked planes. The warning he ignored.

Anonymous said...

If Clinton would have done his job, there would not have been a 9/11 attack, therefore your PDB would not be an issue. As I said before, the blonde in a bottle is causing major drain bamage with you. Seek help immediately.

Anonymous said...

Txsharon, where do you get your statistics? Texas may not be tops in education, but it's not at the bottom of the barrel.

TXsharon said...

You are confused. It was Bu$h and NOT Clinton who was in the White House on 911. It was Bu$h and NOT Clinton who ignored the warnings.

If, as you falsely claim, Clinton ignored warnings about Bin Laden then do you think it is acceptable for all future leaders to also ignore Bin Laden warnings? That is what your statement implies. In addition, you still didn't give an answer as to what should have happened to Clinton if, as you claim, he was negligent.

So, why is Bu$h intent on continuing the wrong war in the wrong country?

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan, You poor pathetic simple soul. Listen up and listen good. IF CLINTON HAD ORDERED THE CAPTURE OF BIN LADEN OR TAKEN HIM WHEN SUDAN OFFERED HIM TO US ON 3 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, 9/11 WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. WHAT PART OF THIS STATEMENT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE WHEN THE FIRST ATTACK HAPPENED ON THE WTC IN 93 AND OTHER US INTERESTS WERE ATTACKED ALSO, USS COLE AND THE KHOBAR TOWERS. I AM TIRED OF HAVING TO SIMPLIFY THINGS FOR YOUR SIMPLETON MIND. PLEASE SIGN UP FOR BLONDE IN A BOTTLE ANONYMOUS MEETINGS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

TXsharon said...

TX education figures from 200:
pdf file http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist26/pdf/e111402.PDF#search=%22Texas%20ranks%2049th%20in%20education%20%22

49th in education spending
49th nationally in verbal SAT scores
46th in math SAT scores

Google
Texas, Where We Stand: Education

TXsharon said...

If all you say is true and if Clinton was negligent in not capturing Bin Laden, what should his punishment be?

If all you say is true and if Clinton was negligent in not capturing Bin Laden, does that make it okay for Bu$h to ignore warnings and also be negligent in capturing Bin Laden?

Those simple questions do not even require the use of google.

My hair is naturally blonde so your sophomoric attempts to insult me are meaningless. That you hate me so is a source of tremendous pleasure.

Anonymous said...

For his punishment, we should put him in a cage and take him around to all the state fairs and let people throw feces at him and you lick it off. Goodbye you simple airhead. Doom and gloom don't live here anymore.

TXsharon said...

2:45 With your history of porn problems, I am sure you would love such a show.

Let me see if I understand you. If a president ignores warnings about terror attacks
against America and if a president lets Bin Laden escape capture, then that president should be caged, taken to all state fairs where people can throw feces at him and someone (not I because I am just a simple girl and such exotic forms of sexual deviation are beyond me) shall lick the feces off of said president.

Is that correct?

Gala said...

anonymous said:
"I hate to say this, but I kind of hope there is another terrorist attack so that you will realize that the threat was real."

Do you hear yourself? Is being right in a stupid argument of words so important to you that you'd wish death to more innocent human beings? Ratchet down the vitriol, buddy. Those who reduce their arguments to wishing destruction and feces-laden smears lose their case for believability, by definition.

Second, if you have a child and they are doing something horribly destructive around the house and they say they shouldn't be stopped because their sister did it first.... can we not agree that's an assinine rationale for the behavior? Clinton's handling of his administration is something Bush campaigned against. Why then is it logical to say "Well, Clinton did it so Bush can too"...?

Bush also said he wasn't into nation-building. He also said he would be the education president. On both of those fronts he has flip-flopped or failed.


Be reasonable in your argument, or you lose because no one is listening.

Gala

Faith Chatham said...

If you get what you say you hope for, I pray that it lands on you and you alone!

mzchief said...

To gala...
Spot on!

Anonymous said...

Just pointing out absurdity with absurdity. Sorry for your ignorance if you don't get the point. You all need to go sit on the group W bench.

Gala said...

It's not ignorance. It's speaking the truth and being reasonable in the face of a blow-hard who would rather lower an argument than win on merits.

Because the merits of this argument are definitely not on your side.

Gala

Anonymous said...

Gayla, I am not your buddy, don't want to be your buddy, and never will be your buddy. If you want a buddy, go to summer camp and get yourself a buddy. What are you? The blog police? I hate to play Dr. Phil, but how's that working out for you? Now go get on the Group W bench.

Anonymous said...

All you simpletons be sure and watch "Path to 9/11" while you wear your tinfoil hats and drink Howard Dean Kool Aid.

Gala said...

Anon, to use your comment:
"Sorry for your ignorance if you don't get the point."

You're now ignored.

--------------------

Everyone else:
From this point on, I suggest the rest of us speak to the merits of the argument and reject the impulse to answer those who resort to name-calling. They add nothing to the debate and only waste our good American energy.

Now, shall we resume the conversation like reasonable adults?

Anonymous said...

Gay La, Hold it down over there on the Group W bench

TXsharon said...

Hi Gala, this is how Jimbo always plays. He can't win by debating because he can't grasp reasonable, logical thought. When he gets backed into a corner and he can't support his weak arguments, he resorts to slinging what he considers insults.

I'm sure Dr. Phil would have a good time with Jimbo. I feel kind of sorry for him.

Gala said...

TXSharon, I'm confused about this "conversation" you've been having. I've read back over the previous thread. It's a matter of public record that Bush received a Daily Presidential Bulletin informing him the summer before that Bin Laden was planning to strike the U.S.. Didn't it stipulate that the attack would be by air, also?

There's no reasonable argument to be made that the man wasn't warned. It would seem that the Republic party wants to whitewash that fact and somehow make it Clinton's fault for not having done something definitive. But never was the evidence so specific before.

Anonymous said...

While you two have your lick fest, be sure to watch "Path to 9/11"

TXsharon said...

The heading on the PDB for April 6, 2001 was titled: Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S. Theirs is a link in one of my earlier posts.

It warns that he “prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks…” and that he wanted to hijack a U.S. airplane.

There is also the Clarke memo that “Urgently” requested a meeting regarding Bin Ladin and his plans to attack in the U.S. That one was ignored along with several others.

Bu$h was too arrogant to discuss Bin Ladin with Clinton during the transition and his arrogance is clear in his cavalier remark to the CIA briefer who flew to Crawford to deliver the PDB. “Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now.” From the Wapo.

And then he lost Bin Laden:

“Three months later, with bin Laden holed up in the Afghan mountain redoubt of Tora Bora, the CIA official managing the Afghanistan campaign, Henry A. Crumpton (now the State Department's counterterrorism chief), brought a detailed map to Bush and Cheney. White House accounts have long insisted that Bush had every reason to believe that Pakistan's army and pro-U.S. Afghan militias had bin Laden cornered and that there was no reason to commit large numbers of U.S. troops to get him. But Crumpton's message in the Oval Office, as told through Suskind, was blunt: The surrogate forces were "definitely not" up to the job, and "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful.’"

TXsharon said...

Did Rush Limpbaugh write that movie, Jimbo?

Anonymous said...

If Clinton had authorized the capture of Bin Laden when the CIA had him surrounded or taken him when Sudan offered him up 3 different times, we would not be having this discussion. Sheehan, why won't you face facts instead of blaming Bush for all of your troubles? Negative, negative, negative. Same old verse, same old song.

Gala said...

You know, it's heartbreaking to think this all could have been avoided. We have good friends with family members who served in Iraq who came back undeniably changed. And to have the president finally admit Iraq had nothing to do with 911 is just so sad. All that waste of life for nothing. We should have concentrated on the war in Afghanistan. No wonder the man couldn't face Cindi Sheehan last year, nor this one.

TXsharon said...

If we had stayed in Afghanistan, this whole terrorists mess would likely be over.

Iraq was Bu$h's wet dream from day one. If you read The Price of Loyalty Paul O'Neil tells about the very first cabinet meeting Bu$h held. He told them that he wanted a war with Sadam and it was up to them to figure out why and how. Paul O’Neil has been a Republican all his life. He’s one of the good ones that makes a two party system of government work the way it was meant to work. Where have they all gone?

Gala said...

Your comment about Paul O'Neil reminded me of the Downing Street Memo.

July 23, 2002:
"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Any anecdotal thoughts on why he truly wanted to attack Iraq? Revenge? One-upmanship over his father? Oil? All of the above? Because it most certainly has been proven that it wasn't over terrorism. At least, not until we caused the terrorists to come into Iraq with our attack.

I wonder how we're ever going to dig ourselves out of this abyss this man has gotten us into.

Anonymous said...

Stuck on stupid. Ya'll enjoy your koolaid

mzchief said...

Hmmmmmmm!
Is it just me or does the timing and the tenor of the comments submitted by txsharon and gala make it seem as though the comments were submitted by the SAME person?

Anonymous said...

Tx and Gay Sheehan. One in the same. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb

TXsharon said...

mzchief: I am not a liar and I do not feel the need to post here anonymously. gala and TXsharon are not the same person.

Since you claim to have checked IP addresses in the past you should be able to verify this.

TXsharon said...

To gala: Who knows why The Bu$h Crime Family decided to go to war in Iraq when they should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job. My best guess:

1. The Corrupt Military Industrial Complex War Profiteers! They have made fortunes off this war!

2. Bu$h’s wet dream of being a war president and Commander in Chief.

Did you know that 9 BILLION dollars in Iraq reconstruction money is missing! MISSING!

You might think that there would be some kind of audit or investigation or something but you would be wrong. Bu$h whipped up one of his 750+ signing statements and nixed the audit. The Republican Congress rolled over and let him get away with it. There is NO oversight!

And guess who will foot the bill.

Have you ever read War is a Racket by Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, America’s most decorated soldier? It was written over 70 years ago but it’s still relevant. Here’s a quote: “Why don’t those damned oil companies fly their own flags on their personal property—maybe a flag with a gas pump on it.”

This is from the front: “I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Stret and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism.”

I know a number of veterans who feel the same way. I think there are around 54 veterans running for Congressional seats on the Democratic ticket this year.

Gala said...

Interesting you mention the veterans running for congressional seats. I've seen them referred to as The Fighting Dems on DK. Funny how they are all gravitating toward the Democratic ticket and not the Republic ticket. It surely can't be merely coincidental. These guys have seen hell first-hand and were sufficiently motivated to do something about it.

As for the earlier comment about my being the same person as TXSharon. How do you prove a negative? I'm in Denton County, between Denton and Frisco. Found this website by recommendation of another friend who lurks. She knows I love a good debate, though why she thought this was a debating site I'll never know because it seems only one side is saying anything useful:D

Gala

Gala said...

... and no, I haven't read War is a Racket. I'll have to look for that one.

Have you read Our Endangered Values, by Jimmy Carter? I just bought it but haven't read it yet. It's been on my want list for several months.

I also want to read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins. I saw it referred to when all that crap about Abramhoff's influence peddling was breaking in the news.

Seems these scandals are deeper than we've been lead to believe.

Anonymous said...

And the lickfest continues..........

Anonymous said...

A book by Jimmy Carter? Does he say in it that there is never a dictator that he met that he didn't like?

TXsharon said...

Yes, I read Our Endangered Values and I highly recommend it.

The best book I’ve read lately that is jam-packed full of facts is Hostile Takeover by David Sirota. It makes a wonderful reference book for just about any issue that we are facing today.

I also recommend The Price of Loyalty because it's a Republican sounding the alarm about the Bu$h Crime Family.

I read this week that, so far, 53 Congressional Republicans have been linked to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Anonymous said...

As of 1978, 11 of the 12 congressman that have been convicted and sent to prison have been democrats

Anonymous said...

It will soon be 12 of 13 when William Jefferson gets his. I guess they are still thawing out the money they found in his freezer

Gala said...

I thought some of the naysayers might find this of interest.

Clinton's efforts at addressing terrorism stymied by Republic Party-led Congress:

President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 2006
www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

excerpts:
"(W)hile the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures."

"[Orrin] Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue.' "

Now granted, my memory of 9 year old events may be a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure I recall Clinton doing lots of things to try to stop terrorism, with various levels of sucess, while the Trent Lott led Congress kept tripping him up.

I invite others to provide documentary evidence that Clinton didn't try to stop terrorism. If we're going to discuss this, let's do it with facts and not snide and sexually-explicit commentary from the peanut gallery.

Gala said...

I'm no good at links. That last part of that address for the above article is:

clinton.terrorism/

Gala said...

Congress reached compromise on anti-terrorism bill
April 16, 1996

www.cnn.com/US/9604/15/anti.
terrorism/index.html

(1)"The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted."

Now *this* is ironic. Not only did Clinton actually ask for additional wiretapping authority from Congress (as opposed to just doing it outside of the law ala GWBush) but the Congressional Republicans denied that authority. Wow. A president who actually followed the Constitution. How quaint.

(2) U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.
Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

That's right. Tap the specific suspected terrorist. Leave the rest of us with our privacy intact.

Funny how all these articles are so easily found. Sort of puts a damper on the GOP talking points about how Clinton did nothing and we were all in such danger until Cowboy Bush came riding in to save the day. What a bastardization of the truth.

mzchief said...

My Stars!
Are there REALLY people bothering to READ the comments posted by txsharon/gala?

Very few things are as boring as a converstion with a bobble head.

Anonymous said...

How dare he tap terrorists phones? They have rights also just like we do. Sound familiar Gay La?

Anonymous said...

If you want, I can link to where Eve at an apple and that's where all our troubles began.

anonymouse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymouse said...

as much as digging shit out of my own ass to throw at everyone else sounds like the most appealing thing in the world right now...I think I'll refrain from following the sheep today...or should I say monkeys....wink

TXsharon said...

12:49 Legally wire tapping terrorists phones after getting the easily obtained authorization from the court = Good.

Illegally wiretapping Quaker, peace activists, animal rights groups and other ordinary Americans = ILLEGAL

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan, Can you link to where it says in the Constitution where animals have rights?

Anonymous said...

No. 2 Al Qaida leader arrested in Iraq. I thought Al Qaida was not in Iraq. Bush lied again.

Gala said...

12:46 person sorry your moniker escapes me.

Obviously you are reading what I'm saying. I can tell TXSharon is because she has been writing back to me on this blog.

But even if you weren't reading what I'm saying, are you suggesting that people who have evidence which contradicts your preconceived notion aren't worth your respect and time?

I asked you and others here to provide evidence to back the contention that Clinton did nothing to stop terrorism. I have provided evidence to support my claims that he did. If you don't take the time to read contradictory and irrefutable evidence then there's no way America will ever find a way to reunite.

Gala said...

5:01 nutjob

Point to where someone said al queda isn't in Iraq *NOW* that Bush took us there. I must have missed that comment on this thread.

Of course they've moved into Iraq. After all, that's where their enemy, the U.S., lead them.

What a foolish comment. Surely you can do better than that.

... and btw... remind me again how many #2's we've caught now. I'm still waiting to catch #1. Oh wait, Bush said:

"So I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him." ~~ Presidental Press Conference. March 13, 2002

Anonymous said...

Hey Gay La moonbat. Would you rather fight them over there or over here? Oh wait, if we fight them here, they take out thousands of us while they blow themselves up. Yea, that makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Bush doesn't spend that much time on him because he has CIA and other military personnel to do that. If all he did was think about Bin Laden I can hear you now saying that Bush is not doing his job on domestic issues. Get some sanity and quit sniffing TxSheehans blonde in a bottle.

TXsharon said...

We have to kill or capture that #2 guy every time there is an upcoming election or some bad news from which they want to divert our attention.

Anonymous said...

You're right again TxSheehan. If Bush had any smarts he would capture him about a week before the election not 60 days out.

TXsharon said...

Fight them over there is a lie! Remember that Bu$h just admitted that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911.

Look at my post from 10:52 and click on the following links:

Among Insurgents in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found

The Myth of Iraq’s Foreign Fighters

US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy


Even the Army says that the fighting them over there BS is a lie.

No Iraqis were involved in 911. ZERO, NONE

No Iraqis have been involved in terror attacks worldwide. ZERO, NONE

Yes, there are actually terrorists in the world who would like to harm us. But that is not who we are fighting in Iraq, no matter how many times Bu$h, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice conflate the two.

Most of the terrorists who struck us on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia.

I am sick and tired of hearing that same old lie!

Anonymous said...

Does Clairol send you those links everytime you buy another bottle of Blonde? The fumes are messing with your head. Take the tinfoil hat off and maybe the fumes will dissipate.

Anonymous said...

Fight them over there is a lie? We sure are killing or capturing alot of them over there, that ain't no lie.

Gala said...

Fight who in Iraq? The Iraqis who had nothing to do with 911?

We should never have gone into Iraq. But now that we're there, we need to redeploy and use our dwindling resources more wisely.

We currently don't spend a dime to scan freight coming into our ports. We have extremely porous national borders. We spend millions to scan all Americans' phone calls and emails without a single successful identification of an Al Queda member in the entire 5 years they've been using this unconstitutional program.

I believe we can fight terrorism in a much wiser way than this.

Bush's way of fighting terrorism is ineffective and illegal, and trespasses on legal citizens' Contitutional rights.... for no purpose other than to give the GOP information about us to use as they see fit. That should scare even numbskulls like you who don't question how your money's being spent and whether the programs are making you safer.

Anonymous said...

Gay La, Try to follow along with the discussions. I know it's hard for a simpleton but it can be done. We are killing or capturing Al Qaida in Iraq. Do you not agree that that is a good thing? And just what is the liberals plan for fighting terrorism. I have never ever heard one except treat it like a crime problem. You want a civil discussion, then let's have one if you can answer those questions.

Gala said...

Anon ~~
You call for a civil discussion but you insist on making sexual cracks at me. You talk about lick fests and make a homosexual play on my name by calling me "Gay La". You call me names suggesting I am a simpleton or a moonbat. Want to talk seriously? I'll be happy to. Drop the nastiness and I'll come talk.

Anonymous said...

Sure thing, Nutjob!!

Gala said...

Your window of opportunity to matter is now closed.

As your fool of a president famously said:
"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Never again you nasty excuse for a man.

Anonymous said...

As your lying president said "I did not have sex with that woman". Isn't lying to a grand jury a felony? Enjoy "Path to 9/11". I'm glad I don't have to debate a fence post anymore. CYA

TXsharon said...

Clinton lied but nobody died.

Path to 911 has been discredited.

Have a cupcake, Jimbo porno.

anonymouse said...

your a poet and you didn't even know it!