As you begin to get older, like I am - or you get past your 21st birthday - tearing off the days of your daily calendar get a little less fun, even if it’s a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit calendar. But my “Countdown to when Bush leaves Office” calendar offers me some small pleasure when ripping off the days.
The good new is there are only 201 days left until the national nightmare is over and Barrack Obama is sworn in as president. With just 201 days to endure, it got me to thinking about the Bush legacy. For that we have the worst attack on U.S. soil that occurred on his watch, Bush lied us into what will become the longest war/occupation in U.S. history, the person for planning the attack has not been brought to justice after almost seven years, the war in Afghanistan is falling apart, the economy is in sad shape, home values are plummeting, incomes are declining, home foreclosures are at an all-time historic high, the dollar is declining against all foreign currency, energy costs are skyrocketing and our national debt is skyrocketing. He has trashed the Constitution and our image and standing around the world has been badly tainted and we actually torture people.
But what Bush’s legacy, at better yet, the record, he will leave office with is what my daily calendar revealed today: Bush is the most vacationing president ever.
The record for most consecutive vacation days away from the White House was formally held by another president from the Grand Oil Party who had almost as much scandal as the Bush White House, Richard Nixon with 30 straight days. That record belonged to Bush just six months after taking office.
But Bush holds the all-time record for most total vacation days that may never be broken, and his record will most likely stand as long as Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak. The previous record was 335 days set by another Republican president, who was also the oldest U.S. president, Ronald Reagan. However it took eight years for Reagan to rack up that number, but Bush shattered the record in just four-and-a-half-years. According to the Washington Post, as of January 15, 2007, Bush has racked up a whopping total of 770 vacation days. He will continue to pad that record for another 201 days. When you compare that to the normal American worker, if they have any benefits left any more, who only gets 14 days a year, it’s obscene.
The good news is Bush will go on a permanent vacation in just 201 days.
27 comments:
I actually enjoyed what the writer of this blog said here on this topic. I believe that it states clearly the difference between the liberal mindset and reality.
The writer claims that the attacks on September 11, 2001 are a part of President Bush’s legacy. I agree completely. Bush came into office with an agenda. An agenda that was tenuous at best to the whole of the American people. He did not get the majority vote of those Americans that did vote. However, under the Constitution, he won the Presidential race because he received more electoral votes. Thank God and our founders for that or we’d be ruled by New York and California and we wouldn’t be able to call ourselves a Republic.
Seven months, two weeks and six days after taking the oath of office this nation was attacked by 19 men of Arab descent under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. This changed the Bush agenda from the economic policies, social security reform and other items on the Bush agenda. The writer of this blog seems to be implying that Bush was to blame for this attack.
I find it odd if that is what he’s trying to do because after all, we were attacked 8 times during the Clinton years and he did nothing. I only say 8 times even though I believe that Flight 800 was also a terrorist attack, but it’s not listed that way, so I leave that out.
What did Bush do? After being attacked, he took the fight to the terrorists less than 30 days following the attack on America where nearly 3,000 civilians were murdered. Since that time, we have not been attacked even once. They’ve tried, but so far, we’ve stopped them each time. That is a legacy to be proud.
Following the attack, what we heard from the former President Clinton and people in his group, was that they wished it had happened on Clinton’s watch because he’d be the hero and not Bush. It’s just another example of the egotist Bill Clinton at the expense of American citizens. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard any President or former President ever wish that Americans had died at the hands of an enemy for the benefit of the President. But then, that’s typical of Bill Clinton.
Bush did not lie us into war. This is a lie that the liberals put out. The writer of this blog shows himself to be nothing more than a liberal emotionalist with no facts to back up his assertions. The fact is that Bill Clinton decimated the intelligence community and replaced it with technological intelligence and remember, Bush had only been in office for 7 months, 2 weeks and 6 days before we were attacked. That’s not much time to get intelligence put in place around the world and by “in place” I mean humans on the ground.
Bush was given intelligence from the Clinton intelligence community. In addition, he had intelligence from Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, all saying the same thing. In addition, Hussien had been talking and acting like he wanted, and would have shortly, WMD’s. In addition, he’d used WMD’s in the past in the war with Iran and against his own people. Given all of this information, the worst that can be said is that Bush (and the Congress who also say this intelligence) received bad intelligence about WMD’s. To say that Bush lied is way beyond a stretch of the imagination. I would think that even a liberal would have enough sense to look at the facts before going to the extreme and yelling ‘Bush lied, people died’.
Regarding Afghanistan, I’m really sick and tired of these liberals, the writer of this blog included, trashing this country’s military. We have 18, 19, 20, 21 and older boys and girls volunteering to serve and when they are called to the most dangerous of situations, liberal morons such as Harry Reid call the war lost. Or liberals such as Dick Durbin call our military worse than nazi’s. Now the liberal writer of this blog trashes the military by saying Afghanistan is falling apart. It’s one thing to be a coward, it’s completely another to tell people who have children serving their country honorably that they are worthless.
The economy is not in sad shape. Again, the liberal writer of this blog sounds off the comments of the liberal drive by media and not the facts. The economy has gone through a rough patch. In the fourth quarter of 2007 it grew at 0.6%. Not a good figure, but at least it grew.
The first quarter grew at 1%. This is before the stimulus checks were sent out. So the economy improved in the first quarter and it’s beginning to appear that our economy is going to grow between 2%-3% this quarter. We’ll know later this month when the figures come out.
Unemployment is at 5.5%. 5% is considered full employment. The unemployment rate during the Bush years is lower than the average unemployment rate of the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Yet, the writer says the economy is in bad shape? I can only laugh at the stupidity of that comment. Michigan is in a one state recession and has been for four years, but we have a Democrat governor who is a job killer and another tax and spend liberal. Taxes were increased last year, a new record, and spending was increased and that will keep us in bad shape through this year and probably most of next year. The unemployment rate in Michigan is 8.5%.
Home values are plummeting, but this is more due to relaxed lending practices on mortgage companies by congress which orders them to consider and act on providing loans to those that wouldn’t otherwise qualify. This also led to mortgages to be given for up to 125% of the value of a home. For those liberals that don’t understand what that means, it means that homes were mortgaged for more than they were worth. That bubble had no choice but to burst eventually.
The dollar declining is not a good thing, yet it does mean that our exports are worth more in other countries than they were in past. So there is an upside to that downside.
Energy is one of my favorites. When President Bush took office, local gas prices were $1.22 per gallon. They floated between $1.22 and $1.44 between then and September 2005. Then we had the devastating hurricanes. Three going through Florida and one of those went through Florida twice. Then we had Hurricane Katrina. Katrina was a Cat 5 in the Gulf of Mexico. It hit land and was a Cat 3 with Mississippi taking the brunt of the storm. It moved north and east and took out an oil pipeline feeding the eastern end of the country. While in the Gulf, the oil companies shut down the oil rigs during the storm. After the storm, they had to repair many of the rigs, which furthered the shut down in some cases, and had others operating as low as 50% capacity. This caused gas prices (locally) to shoot up to $1.90 with spikes as high as $2.05.
Wilma was another storm that came through. Also a Cat 5 in the Gulf and again the disruption of the oil rigs before going to Texas.
Since that time, there has been another reason that the price of gas has increased that I won’t bother with here. I’m sure the writer of this blog, in between his usual insults, whining, denying and excuse making will not bother to look at, but I should give him the opportunity.
The writer also throws in another comment saying that the Constitution was trashed. He doesn’t say how and I have researched it and can’t find it. I suspect it’s another one of those liberal mantras but he doesn’t say how and since the liberal mindset is not something that I strive to have, I won’t put words in his mouth.
As for the national debt. That has increased with each President. I don’t know how, other than his lack of intelligence, he can get after one President for increasing the national debt while not getting after the others. In any event, the national debt has to do with spending and since it’s Congress that controls the purse strings, I don’t see how this can be laid at the President’s feet anyway.
Finally, the writer of this blog shows how illogical he is. He complains about all that President Bush has done or he perceives President Bush has done but then he complains that the President has more vacation time than any President in history. It would make more sense for him to wish the President on vacation and for me to complain that the President takes too many vacations.
However, I won’t complain about that. Liberals seem to think that when the President goes on vacation, he packs the wife, kids and pets into the family station wagon, hooks up a camper and leaves for a period of time. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the President goes on vacation, he still receives daily briefings, always available to his advisors, his VP and Congress. He holds meetings on vacation and even entertains foreign dignitaries.
The writer of this blog seems to be out of touch with reality. Perhaps someone should tell him that it’s summer. To get outside and enjoy some sunlight. He won’t even need a jacket.
The really amazing thing to me is that he wrote this on July 3. One day before the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. If he’s so ashamed of this country, perhaps he ought to move to another country for six months and see what silliness that he speaks they are willing to accept. I am ashamed of the liberals in this country. I’m proud to be an American even when we have a liberal President. You didn’t see the complaints about war from the Conservatives when Clinton bombed Iraq causing the delay of the vote on impeachment.
If the writer of this blog really wants questions answered, he should try asking Clinton why Whitewater? Why Travelgate? Why Arlingtongate? Why did he drag out the Paula Jones affair for eight years only to admit he was wrong and pay her off at the end of his term? Why did he lie under oath causing the indefinite suspension of his law license? Why did he put the country through the Monica Lewinsky mess for so long and allow it to reach the point of his being impeached only to admit later that he lied when he pointed his finger at the people of this country and said he didn’t have sex with that woman?
More importantly, why did he turn down the offer of taking bin Laden into custody THREE times? Why did he not give the order to pull the trigger twice when the CIA had bin Laden in their sites and one of those times because he couldn’t be bothered in the middle of a televised golf tournament?
Perhaps the writer of this blog should do a little more reading. I recently finished reading “John Adams” by David McCollough. Read it. You might learn what the people of that time went through to secure freedom for this country and its’ citizens.
It’s sad and embarrassing that this writer chose the day before our celebration of the Independence of this country, to trash this nation and to trash those that volunteered to stand up for America and the United States and others wishing freedom. It’s sad and embarrassing on any day of the year, but even more sad and embarrassing that he’d do it now.
President Bush will leave as an unpopular President barring another attack. But it’s very clear to me that history will revere him. We were attacked 8 times during the Clinton years, and he did nothing to secure the safety of this country and her citizens. Bush was President when we were just 7 months, 2 weeks and 6 days into his Presidency. In less than 30 days he took the fight to them AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE.
Brett
Conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
I have to agree with Brett, both in his column and his brilliant Analysis of Kevin's liberal mindset and reality. . He cannot be as happy to see Bush go as we were to see Slick Willy.
This is the reason our fuel costs are so high.
Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices
10) ANWR If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day--5% of the nation's consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that "one million barrels per day," would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately," according to a recent George Will column.
9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: "Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so."
A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn't that have been a good thing?
8) Insistence on alternative fuels One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that "calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards." By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.
7) Nuclear power Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world's largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.
The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977.
Need I say more?
6) Coal "The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world," writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world's known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and--at current prices--a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants.
5) Refinery capacity "High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010," according to Peak Oil News. And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years, the Dems' environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.
4) Reduced competition With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers -- Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco -- happened on Clinton's watch. The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton's two terms.
3) The Global Warming Myth At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari "described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions ... to address both issues simultaneously". As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005 --the year that trading was initiated--and this year --when the trading expanded dramatically -- saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number...
2) Speculation "Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices ... it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation," writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically "were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States... The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office.
1) Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:
-Promote new oil and gas drilling
-Build new nuclear plants
-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels
A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:
"President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.
Mr. Bush's plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals... for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies."
[The Bush plan] "mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline."
The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, "this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California" if his plan was not adopted in 2001.
The Times account continued:
"Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers...Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives..."
Just as President Bush's predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:
"World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful," he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said "exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality."
But, as a later Times article notes, "the president's ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan."
In other words, Democrats refused the President's plea to "break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates."
Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.
And was Obama even born on USA soil. There seems to be an issue with his birth certificate. Was he born in his fathers native Kenya?
Wow. No wonder you never post to that thing you call a blog; you’re too busy writing false tomes here.
So, you don’t think your hero took excessive vacations?
So you consider politicians heroes eh? That really explains a lot.
Politicians are not heroes. They are dishonest at best.
Sports figures are not heroes. They are men playing boys games and do it well enough to get paid outrageously high salaries.
Heroes are those that wear the uniform of the United States of America. Just by putting on the uniform, they put their lives at risk for all Americans. Even the liberals that think so little of them and are unappreciative of the sacrifices the soldiers and their families make to allow liberals to make stupid statements on an ongoing basis as well as to give those liberals the right to call the military losers, baby killers and to spit on them when they return from their particular campaigns.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Another Democrat chief arrested in satanic torture
Victims allegedly shackled to beds, raped, locked in cages without food
Diana Palmer, 1st vice chair of the Durham Co. Democratic Party turns herself in. (courtesy WRAL-TV)
The North Carolina case of an alleged satanic torture involving a Democratic Party official and her husband has now expanded to include a third suspect, an even higher-ranking Democrat.
Diana Palmer, the first vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party, joins her political colleague Joy Johnson, the third vice-chairwoman of the party, and Johnson's spouse, Joseph Craig, in facing charges.
Palmer, 44, surrendered to police in Durham, N.C., this afternoon and was charged with being an accessory after the fact of assault with a deadly weapon. She's being held at the Durham County Jail under $95,000 bail.
Additional charges were also filed today against Johnson and Craig.
Craig, 25, is now charged with second-degree rape, second-degree forcible sexual offense, three counts of second-degree kidnapping and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for incidents in January and May. Johnson, 30, is charged with four counts of aiding and abetting, as she's accused of watching and encouraging her husband commit the alleged abuse of another couple who reportedly shared an interest in Satan worship.
Joseph Craig
Joy Johnson
According to broadcast and published reports, that couple was reportedly caged to learn more about satanic practices, but did not consent to physical abuse.
Craig allegedly shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his home. Police say he beat the man with a cane and a cord, and raped the woman.
Prosecutors today asked for higher bail for Craig and Johnson, but Judge Nancy Gordon refused, leaving Craig's bond at $500,000 and Johnson's at $270,000.
Also today, Durham County's Democratic Party disabled its website, but a cached version of its "Who We Are" page lists both Palmer and Johnson as top officials.
Someone claiming to be a friend of Palmer wrote on a messageboard of the Raleigh News & Observer:
I don't appreciate the implied connection in this story. Like many people who know this couple, [Palmer] is in a state of shock, deeply distressed and devastated that she was so misled by them. The connection between politics, a satanic cult and the surreal nature of these crimes may be entertaining to some, but I assure you it is causing many people a great deal of real pain, particularly people like Diana with strong religious convictions. In short, many people who trusted and believed in their integrity are feeling victimized by this couple right now.
Along with their interest in the Democratic Party, Johnson and Palmer were part of a New Age website called "Indigo Dawn," a name which, according to the site, was given to Johnson during a meditation vision.
"She decided to explore the New Age community more, and after taking a course in Reiki healing, experiencing past-life regression along with direct guidance from her spirit guides, she confirmed that her destiny was to help bring about the New Age on Earth," Johnson's online biography states. "Joy shared her vision with her husband, Joe; as a result the Indigo Dawn was founded to raise the vibration of energy on Earth."
Among the services she offers online are "intuitive guidance, past-life regression, spirit guide communication and healing and cleansing."
"I was absolutely shocked and flabbergasted," State Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, told the Raleigh paper. "You never would have suspected allegations that she would have had any participation in these rituals."
Yes, I do consider politicians heroes that I respect and trust until they let me down. If I didn’t why bother voting for them?
Your little rant about liberals hating the military is just a putrid bullshit lie. I wore “the uniform of the United States of America” for 20 years, and I’m proud to be a liberal. I know liberals have ensured millions of people who have worked all of their lives will be able to live out the remainder of their lives in dignity. What have conservatives given us?
Prove the lie. Soldiers have been spit on upon their return from Iraq. This is a liberal tactic used during the Vietnam war.
Harry Reid has said the war was lost in an effort to have the surge scrubbed. Then the surge worked.
Dick Durbin compared them to Nazi's.
Some heroes you have there. It does say alot about you though.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Wow. There you go floating more lies. Here’s my proof: I’m a liberal, and I am also retired military. I don’t believe any liberals spit on returning troops from Iraq. The only disrespect of troops has been from the likes of conservatives like you, who protest at funerals of troops killed in Iraq. Here’s a link. http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Harry Reid is correct. When do we know the occupation is over? How do you define victory? When Bush says its over? He declared victory onboard an aircraft victory some four years ago. Reid said he thought the war could not be won through military force. He may be correct. The “surge worked?” I don’t think so.
You left out a lot about Dick Durbin’s quote, but I have come to expect that from someone as dishonest as you. He compared abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge. He also apologized in the most public of forums. But one thing cannot be denied. Our country’s treatment of prisoners id wrong, disgusting and a war crime.
I could care less what someone like you thinks of me or my heroes.
You don't "believe" troops have been spit on by liberals? That's hilarious and sad at the same time. It's well documented that the troops were spit on when returning from Vietnam by protestors shouting "baby killers" and more. All liberal.
As for this war, it's happened several times. But if you're afraid of the truth, I can't blame you.
As for your military service, you're a faceless screen name online. You can be anything you want to be whether it's true or not. Nobody would know either way.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
By the way, Bush didn't declare victory aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln four years ago. He welcomed back the USS Abraham Lincoln and congratulated them on a job well done. The Uss Abraham Lincoln had just returned from their mission in Iraq.
One more thing, because like all liberals, you'll next say that he posted the sign that said "mission accomplished". The fact is that the crew on the USS Abraham Lincoln hung that sign up because THEIR mission was accomplished.
Bush didn't say "mission accomplished". The military personnel aboard the Lincoln did regarding their mission.
I know that I repeated myself but that's necessary when talking with liberals. They don't get it until they've had the facts thrown at them several times and then they forget five minutes later.
Brett
By the way, you’re wrong again. Bush used the USS Abraham Lincoln as a backdrop, like he does every veteran. He declared major combat operations in Iraq over, not to congratulate them on a job well done and welcome them home. During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on." That sounds like declaring victory to me, and it is again falsely linking Iraq to 9/11, which he did numerous times. Also, the incident occurred five years ago in 2003. As for the banner, it’s unclear what it meant. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up.”
I know that I repeated myself but that's necessary when talking with conservatives. They don't get it until they've had the facts thrown at them several times and then they forget five minutes later.
You sure put the con in conservative.
If it’s so "documented" then document it and provide a link. You never said Vietnam veterans; you said troops returning from Iraq. Also, show me the proof that troops returning from Vietnam were spit on. That's just one more rightwing lie that has been repeated so many times people start to believe it. According to groups like Vietnam Veterans Against the War who were there, “Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration.” http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=350
As for the attack on my military service, I have come to expect that from people like you. Here’s a link. http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10643. By the way, when and where did you serve?
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2029
Interesting that this site cites the one that you gave. I doubt you'll read it. It's too well done for it to hold your interest.
As for my service, anyone can be anything online. Since I don't believe you to be retired or even former military, I can't expect you to believe me.
Your words betray you. At each opportunity, you're trashing the military. That speaks volumes.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
It is amazing how much twisting of facts and partial recall of events the few remaining Bush supporters must do to remain loyal. Many thinking conservatives abandoned Bush a while ago.
Rick
That’s funny. You gigged me the other, day. I think it was you; it’s hard to tell rightwing tools apart, for using a blog as a reference. That’s exactly what you just did. “Too well done” to hold my interest? What’s so well done about it? Because he holds your point of view? He talkes a lot about protestors spitting on people other than returning veterans. If it is so documented, how about a photograph? Just one. The fact is, even though this in dispute and you have not proved your accusation, I’ll concede the point that returning Vietnams vets may have been spat on. But you said Iraq vets, and that is just one more lie from you.
I offered proof of my military service, and that's still not good enough. The bottom line is who gives a shit what some kid like you believes. The question remains, where did you serve? Show me one instance of where I trashed the military.
Good point, Rick. Don’t forget outright lies.
I "gigged" you the other day? I dont' know what "gigged" is. I gave you one example of liberals spitting on returning vets. You said it never happened. So one was sufficient for me.
With your record at twisting the truth and not backing up your assertions I find it a waste of time to do your work for you.
Should you be intereted in the truth, you can look up easily enough, Iraq vets being spat on. I believe the last was in Seattle, but I could be wrong about the city.
Stating that you served in the military is not proof that you served in the military. I also don't ask personal questions of you or anyone else online. It's too easy to lie about it and I'd have to care a little to bother being concerned.
I'm really beginning to believe that you're cooped up in a family members house playing on the computer all day and night.
Your facts are not facts, but rather they are emotional outbursts and you show the range of your vocabulary with each personal comment you make to those that disagree with even part of what you say. Your insults always seem to reach the fourletter range, and there are no intelligent comments from you on a differing opinion.
My hope for you is that the nightlight doesn't burn out. I hate to see small children in a panic.
Brett
I can’t help it if you’re either an idiot or don’t get out much and don’t know what gigged means. It means you gave me a hard time for using a blog as a reference and you turn around and do the same thing.
You did not give me any examples or proof of liberals spitting on returning veterans because it did not happen. You said Iraqi veterans, which for sure never happened. Then you change your mind as say it was Vietnam vets, and that may or may not have occurred. You gave me a blog post from some guy who claims that because anti-war protestors spit on a car of a government official that’s proof they spit on troops. That did not happen either, in my opinion because, as usual, you have provided any evidence to prove your claim.
Even if it were true that a returning Iraqi vet was spit on, why are you assuming it’s a liberal? I got news for you that you probably already know but refuse to acknowledge, it’s much more than liberals who are against this useless and unnecessary occupation.
You keep making these baseless claims that I use "half truths" and lies, but you can never prove it. You never will because I do not lie. The best you can do is offer a different interpretation of events or a difference of opinion. There’s no doubt our opinions differ.
Again, Iraq vets have not been spat on. Why should I look it up? You are the one making the baseless claim not me. To be sure, I did research it, and the best I can find is a vague claim on the rightwing cesspool known as "free republic.” I am still waiting for proof.
Like I told the other loser who denigrated my service, screw you. I gave you proof, but some how that's not good enough. It amazes me how you guys give lip service to supporting the troops, but then you denigrate the service of those you disagree with your narrow view of the world and you provide no real support, other than words.
I’m a little tired of the “cooped up in a family member’s house,” or “living in your moms’ basement” insults. You know they are not true. I gave you my name, and with a little research with your computer you will find how wrong you are. But even if that was true, what does it matter? I’m still making points you can’t shake or disprove. That’s just your frustration at not being able to back up your ridiculous claims, and it doesn’t matter to me if you are the CEO of a fortune 500 company or some rightwing tool who lives in his mom’s basement.
“Emotional outbursts and four-letter words?” Are you serious? Are you saying you don’t insult me? If they are just emotional outbursts then why can’t you disprove them? I have used a four-letter word once, and since I was a sailor, I can be forgiven if I “swear like a sailor” once in a while.
I haven't given you any sites in probably two posts since I caught you in a lie once again. I know, you don't admit to being caught in a lie, but all you have to do is go back and look at our back and forth over the posts you've made and you'll see no less than 5 times that you've been caught in a lie. You never admit it, even when it's copied and pasted, but facts are facts even if you refuse to look at them.
Iraq vets have been spat on as were Vietnam vets. It's common knowledge and easy to discover. Google it sometime. You'll find several references.
You gave me no proof and I haven't asked for any proof. I don't know your name and haven't asked your name. Anyone can be anything they like online. So I don't ask personal questions of you. I don't trust your answers and I have no interest in who you are. I only know what I believe based on your words.
I don't know that it's not true about living in a family members basement or your mom's house (I like that one). As I said, I don't know your name and don't care. I only go by your words. Which sound remarkably like "Gimme, gimme, gimme" the Liberal Logo.
It's your blog, you're welcome to show your lack of vocabulary all you like. If four letter words make you feel like a real man, by all means go for it. I have no doubt that you need all the help you can get in being a man, even if in mind only.
Brett
Sorry, you are the only one lying. You have never caught me in a lie, and you never will because I don’t lie. I do not believe returning Iraqi vets have been spat on, and you have, again, provided no proof they were. I also doubt Vietnam vets were spat on when they came home, despite the urban legend that has prevailed for more than 30 years. You keep telling me how documented it is, but you can not produce a single instance of when it occurred. This is just one more example of the rightwing strategy if you tell a lie often enough it comes to be accepted as fact. There’s a reason conservative begins with con, and you are a perfect example.
I most certainly gave you my name, and that’s just one more lie from you. And you also did ask for it. You accused me of lying about my military service, which to me is a major, major insult, and I provided the evidence to prove you wrong.
My alleged lack of vocabulary has certainly served me well in my debate with you, but after trying to read that thing you call a blog it demonstrates what a lightweight you really are. Perhaps, you are better with the spoken word because you’re writing ability is certainly lacking.
I am certainly more of a man and a patriot than you will ever be. Unlike you, my patriotism is more than just words. At your age of 52 you may have been eligible for the draft and Vietnam was just ending, so there’s no reason you could not have done a stint in the military. I was in boot camp in 1975 when Saigon fell. I’ll ask again: when and where did you serve, and if not, why not?
I did your work from your perspective. This gives you an out regarding spitting on soldiers because after she was caught and tried, she tried to blame it on being a Republican, and being jilted by a boyfriend. I'm sure you'll believe it hook, line and sinker.
It was hard to find a spitter that would make you happy. It's much easier to find other spitters. Bet you don't look those up though.
Once again, you've been caught.
http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/03/syracuse_woman_explains_why_sh.html
Brett
This is your proof that liberal anti-war protestors spit on returning Iraq troops? I don’t think so, and I stand by my statement that returning Iraq troops have not been spit on by liberal protestors.
“Authorities said Maggi had walked up to Jason Jones, 21, near the United Airlines ticket counter, asked him if he was a Fort Drum soldier and then spat in his face when he said that he was.” Why didn’t she ask if he had fought in Iraq?
No its not
I know
Everytime someone proves you wrong you stick you head in the sand and say "No it's not"
You are such a loser
Please stop makeing us other liberals look so bad
When someone proves me wrong, I admit it or correct it. If I’m such a loser, go somewhere else. Why don’t you stop lying when you say you’re a liberal?
Post a Comment