Poor retarded markie. Yes retarded markie both Bush and Clinton wereaccusedof telling lies.
But your retardedclaim was that (1) someone here had defended the Bush administration, and (2) that they did it by saying the Clinton's were the same. I still haven't seen you find a Bush supporter who defended Bush against a charge of being a liar by saying that the Clinton'slied too Can you asswipe airhead demwits go find an intelligent person to defend your positions. Because you shit sucking "liberal;s" are a weak strain of the infection On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Bruce, > > One example... the lies Bush told (and there is NO doubt that he did so, > ((senate intelligence report 2006)) ) to put the US into Iraq was > consistently compared to Clintons testimony about consensual sex. > > Quit acting the idiot. Bushites trying to say Clinton left the US in debt > and not one "red" cent was Bushs' fault. > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:25 PM, bruce majors <[email protected]>wrote: > >> sorry hollyfool >> I don't know who the we is who you think defended Bush >> >> and I don't know many Bush supporters who spent a lot of time trying to >> justify him by referring to Clinton >> >> maybe you can do your homework and find some examples >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> bruce, >>> >>> Why not/ You lads defended Bush for years by saying "But Bill >>> Clinton.............". >>> >>> On Jul 6, 1:23 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > why do obamanoids think that saying Bush did something is a defense of >>> > Odumba >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, dick thompson <[email protected] >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > How is this like what Bush did. Bush did not implement a treaty >>> without >>> > > the approval of the Senate first. That is what Obama is trying to >>> do. >>> > > Suppose he implements it and the Senate votes it down. Then what >>> happens. >>> > >>> > > Frederick The Moderate wrote: >>> > >>> > > It seems the Dems are now doing exactly what Bush did - except it's >>> > > the GOP who's compaining this time. Now if Obama starts telling us >>> how >>> > > "We absolutely must do this right away or they will blow us all up >>> > > with WMDs!", he will have completed his journey to the Dark Side of >>> > > the Force. >>> > >>> > > I don't like the smell of it but will wait to see if they actually >>> try >>> > > it, before getting to rattled... >>> > >>> > > On Jul 6, 9:14 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Sounds right to me. I don't see where the president can just make >>> the >>> > > treaty without the consent of the US Senate. If I remember right it >>> > > takes both of them to approve the treaties. It is not really a done >>> > > deal if the president signs it unless the senate also approves it. >>> > > Guess they forgot that one. Of course they also tried to forget that >>> > > when it came to Kyoto for a while as the Dems tried to force the US >>> to >>> > > implement a treaty that the Senate never ratified. Looks like >>> another >>> > > one coming along. >>> > >>> > > *The Constitution Imposes Severe Limits On A President's >>> Treaty-Making >>> > > Powers: * Here's the relevant section< >>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am...> >>> <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am.. >>> .>: >>> > >>> > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the >>> > > Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators >>> > > present concur; >>> > >>> > > The Obama administration is finding that limitation inconvenient< >>> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat...> >>> <http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat.. >>> .>, >>> > > and so they are thinking of "temporarily bypassing"< >>> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot...> >>> <http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot.. >>> .> >>> > > the Senate. Not on any important matter, just a little agreement >>> with >>> > > the Russians on limiting nuclear arms. >>> > >>> > > I looked carefully through the Constitution, and could not find any >>> > > provision that allows a president to bypass, temporarily or >>> otherwise, >>> > > that limit on his treaty-making powers. >>> > >>> > > Senator Byrd --- among others --- isn't going to like this one little >>> bit. >>> > > - 8:08 AM, 6 July 2009 [link]< >>> http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578<http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>> >>> <http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578<http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>>- >>> Hide quoted text - >>> > >>> > - Show quoted text - >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark M. Kahle, , >> www.filacoffee.com >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
