show me any non-democrat that has taken responsibility

note: from my point of view both parties suck

but the religious weirdos in the Republican party would make it impossible for me to ever vote for them - no matter how much i agree or disagree on the rest of what they say/do

(and i am afraid that goes for many Americans too)

Republicans are banking on the fact that the US is mostly a christian nation, that's the truth. The amount of churches in this country is stupid.

As for a non democrat taking responsibility
Bush took responsibility for the Iraq war
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...cnn_topstories

Chris Christy did for the Bridge gate thing, he said it falls on him for what his staff did and fired the person responsible.
http://nypost.com/2014/01/09/staffer...er-bridgegate/

Yet
Obamacare website Sebelius still has a job
IRS scandal, she took the fifth and quit
Fast and Furious, Eric Holder still has a job

"ATF has accepted responsibility for the mistakes made in the Fast and Furious investigation and at the attorney general's direction we have taken appropriate and decisive action to ensure that these errors will not be repeated," ATF said in a statement. "And we acknowledge that, regrettably, firearms related to the Fast and Furious investigation will likely continue to be recovered at future crime scenes."


Shall I go on?

Yep...the religious extremists are the ones that have always kept me from being a Republican.

I agree with Republican talking points about fiscal responsibility and small govt. (though they have NEVER followed through on it)...but the religious nonsense that they have in their platform to please that block of voters is WAY out of line for me.

For me it was war with Iraq, should have never happened, they still hadn't got Bin Ladin, they should have got him before doing anything else.

Religion, yeah that's something that shouldn't be in politics, but still getting tired of atheists always suing to get their ways

I have no complaints at all about fiscal conservatives. The problem is even if there are any left, they have no power in the Republican Party. The Republican Party pretty much ended any chance that I could support it when they violated my right to vote and stealing the election. I don't like the Religious stuff but I can deal with it assuming it's not too crazy, however violating my constitutional right to have my vote counted in order to cheat their way to an election win is the end of the line.

I can deal with lies or broken promises but when a party has to steal an election to get in office, then that party has no future as long as I'm voting. I don't live in North Korea where there is only one name on the ballot.

There aren't any left that I have seen. They only make promises to get elected, and then it's off to the bank with pork barrel spending and selling influence.

In my opinion, ANY politician who talks about "faith" and "religion" should be kicked out of office just the same way we would if one started "believing" in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

These are SUPPOSED to be our best and brightest people. :disgust

Well there is never any getting away from the Religious problem in this country.. Far too many people are into that for any non religious person to get elected. Even if they aren't religious they have to lie and claim they are if they want to get elected.

man, where to even begin...

i think i rather do something pleasant instead

There's nothing he posted that isn't true. Begin there.

Bush took responsibility by blaming it on false intelligence while saying it needed to be done anyhow. That's not taking responsibility, that's pushing the blame on someone else and then saying "It didn't really matter any how".

250 jobs effect!

saying that here in 2003 got you labelled right away as a terrorists lovers, USA hater, and so on ....:2 cents:

He took responsibility, saying it needed to be done anyways doesn't change that, it's still his responsibility, or are you saying it's not?

He didn't however say anything like "it didn't matter any how", he said Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out, do you disagree with that?

He owned it as a mistake, Obama never owns anything, just blames others.

Biggest lie of 2013, " If you like your insurance, you can keep it"

First he tried to rewrite what he said till later he was forced to apologize

I understood why we went into Afghanistan, but we should have just went after Osama

Remembering what the USSR put into taming that country and failing, I just didn't see the point.

The when we went into Iraq, I hoped they knew something we didn't know. Apparently they didn't, but Sadam got his number stamped.

The Obama ran for president and said he was going back to Afghanistan and the liberals that hated Bush for the wars were behind him, fucking idiots!

Bush and Obama doing the same things, but when Obama does it, it's some how better?

There's just not much to be said to the guy who is arguing that less people working is good for the economy - furthermore, we all now have to pay for your wife. Wonderful.

I love this new insane spin on a shitty economy and slow job growth "we're not in a recession, we're freeing jobs up for those that 'need' them".

Wow...... Just....... Wow.

I TOTALLY disagree with that.

It's not our business to decide who gets "taken out" and who isn't. That isn't what America is supposed to be about.

Not only did we have no business invading another sovereign nation...we also fucked everything up by doing it.

Using my gift of 20/20 hindsight, I can see that Hussein was exactly what was needed in Iraq.

Just like Mussolini did in Italy...Hussein "kept the trains on schedule" if you know what I mean.

There wasn't any terrorism. Baghdad was a bustling city.

Now? Post-Hussein? Citizens are killed by the hundreds. The place is unsafe for it's citizens (and for anybody).

Without Hussein there as a "strongman" to keep the muslim radicals in check, Iraq is doomed.

I wish it weren't that way. I really believed it when CNN was talking about how the people there were yearning for freedom and welcoming our troops as liberators, etc., etc.

I should have known that was total bullshit.

Hell, half of our country HATED Bush when he was President. Half the country HATES Obama now.

But if some foreign country had come in and invaded us to "liberate" us from either man??? The vast majority of us would be pulling together to drive the invaders out.

Anyway, we had no business invading Iraq OR Afghanistan.

The only thing that the govt. of Afghanistan did was refuse to turn over Bin Laden IF they ever had him to begin with (which they didn't confirm or deny).
So for that we just invaded the entire country. :(

And then it turned out that Bin Laden was in our "ally" Pakistan the whole fucking time. And yes, Pakistan denied it all along. But Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a real army so we weren't going to invade them.

I'm really getting sick of the Federal Govt.
Nothing but lies, schemes, spying, and more lies. :disgust

i disagree and i am happy that back then the german government disagreed as well

https://youtube.com/watch?v=oupzUw4-oSI

start at roughly 40:00 mins


back then before the invasion:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_k_QbpFl7RM

Same as Christie taking responsibility and blaming it on someone else and firing him.. Meanwhile no responsibility taken for all the miss use of Sandy funds, guess we get to see who he throws under the bus for that.

Yea anyone that didn't agree with Iraq was a freedom hater and a commie. I remember being called that when I said the case for war was bullshit, before we even went to war.

Less people working, is not the same as less people needing jobs. However it does mean there will be more jobs open for people that don't have one.. Humm that kinda means people are still working doesn't it?

or "the old europe"

very interesting article btw from todays point of view:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...sprj.irq.wrap/


but it gets even better - this gentleman almost became president:

:upsidedow

Let me clarify something
I was against going into Iraq ( I have said that already )
But being there for whatever reason, he should have been taken down since we were already there.

"whatever reason" is not enough to invade other countries :2 cents:

He didn't take responsibility at all. "It's my fault, but it was a decision based on bad intelligence, and it was the right thing to do anyhow" isn't taking responsibility at all.

LOL.

http://www.goodfellasmagazine.com/wp...s-lol-face.jpg

But you might have a point there.... Maybe we should have left well enough alone. Seems we did more damage than good.

Do you need a copy of hook on phonics, that's not what he said

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

He said he is responsible for all of it! He didn't blame anyone, he said he was responsible for the bad intelligence too!

Quit cherry picking and changing his words

Like I said, I was against going in there. I'm tired of nation building

I know what you're saying...but it's wrong.

We should NEVER have went in there. (or Afghanistan)

Attacking and invading other countries when they didn't do anything to us is not only wrong...but it's against international law.
Yeah, we used loopholes to get around it...but it shouldn't have been done.

As I said before...just imagine if some other country did the same thing to us. :(

I grew up thinking that the United States was the country that stood against that type of thing.

The only way we should go to war with another country is if a sovereign nation attacks us with their military.
All this talk of "pre-emptive" b.s. is just an excuse.

At the time it happened, I'm sorry to say I was all for it. Swept up in a nationalistic furor and just plain out sick and damn tired of motherfucking muslim extremists thinking they could get away with shit and have no consequences for their actions.

But now...I see quite clearly that we were 100% in the wrong.

they had the correct intelligence, given to them by their partners. they just decided to ignore and deliberately lie about it to start the invasion anyways

You accept a loss of jobs as fact and defend it with the argument that they will be quickly taken by those that "need them" which is speculation.

Funny stuff, you guys. I never knew that people rushing to stop working because they've been incentivized to do so and losing jobs in a bad economy was such a great thing. By the way.... Turning the worker and contributor into what you both describe is then just a taker, contributing nothing that actual tax payers then have to pay for. Wonderful. Marx, Engles, Mao and Lenin would be so proud of how far you've came.

Not going to get into that, this thread has strayed so far from the OP because of liberal tactics like the president uses to change the subject. Bringing up immigration reform when we still don't know what happened that caused a IRS chief to take the fifth and quit her job.

Point being, he took responsibility for what happened.

I started losing faith a little when I lost a friend in Vietnam. He got sent off and never came back. When I learned from my history teacher what Vietnam was all about, it just didn't make sense. He was an awesome history teacher.

Wait !!! IRS??? You mean "mr transparency" isn't being open and honest as he promised?

Crockett doesn't get it, never will

Yep, that's it in a nutshell

Actually it was explained the first page, it's been explained what was meant by CBO themselves but somehow you and Glen Beck know more than everyone else.

You mean this?

Is that really in the CBO Report?

Because Vendzilla was taking it from the actual report.

What BFT3K is typing there sounds like a Pro-ObamaCare advocate spinning the report. And yep...it's just some writer from ThinkProgress.Com A biased pro-Democrat website. lol

crockett, can you find in the actual report where it says that this is a "good thing"?

You don't think it's good do you? A drop in the labor force and tax base is never a good thing for the overall economy and is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of what we were told needed to happen for ObamaCare to make sense mathematically isn't it?

Remember? There were going to be so many people PAYING for it in a "big pool" that it was not only going to NOT cost the govt. "ONE THIN DIME" (as the Pres. said over and over in speeches) but it would also LOWER the cost of healthcare (as the Pres. said over and over in speeches).

As I understand it, the majority of people who have bothered to sign up for "ObamaCare" have signed up for the expanded Medicare. The FREE part.

Very few have signed on to actually pay for anything. :(

And now the CBO Report explicitly says that 2.5 million (at least) will drop out of even trying to have a job. Which means that is 2.5 million MORE people who aren't contributing.

How can that make sense? Or as the Pres. loved to say when attacking his opponents in speeches over and over: "The math just doesn't add up"

I posted a report and everyone told me I was lying

Shows just how much people actually read anything, kinda funny really!

Yep, you should have posted a website's OPINION on the report instead. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Funny thing is...these guys will now take that post that BFT3K put up of an OPINION by thinkprogress.com spinning and then somewhere in this thread they will tell you that the CBO Report "has already been DEBUNKED"

That seems to be the new favorite word of Obamapologists who are constantly spinning and rewriting history. lol
"Debunked"

When will we all stop playing politics and see that Obama and all the Dems and Repubs are fucking bureaucrats who could give two shits about the American people?

6 pages of opinions on opinions that never existed !!!!

I have more fun making fun of some of these guys. Next weekend I will be gone, no posting!