Feel better about yourself now? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No, I feel worse for you. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What kind of person wakes up on a Saturday morning and feels the need to call other people stupid?

Do something fun today instead.

according to the poll, that statistic is from all Louisianians polled, not just republicans.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ase_LA_821.pdf

Nope, you missed the part where that particular question was directed to republicans.


Would you describe yourself as very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat
conservative, or very conservative?


Very liberal........................................... ...........3%


Somewhat liberal.................................5%


Moderate.......................................... ..11%


Somewhat conservative..................................38%


Very Conservative................................... 44%

What kind of person wakes up on a Saturday morning asking what kind of person wakes up on a Saturday morning calling other people stupid?

i didn't miss that at all. that doesn't differentiate the answer to the other question. if it did, it would also show who liberals blame, but it doesn't, and that's because the question was asked of all those polled.

So you're saying overall in Louisiana 82% of the population is conservative?

no, i'm saying it's not accurate to discern from that poll that only republicans polled that way. if that could have been [accurately] done, then ppp would have done so as they are left-leaning.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it was a general poll of all Louisianans when 82% of respondents call themselves conservative unless you're also claiming 82% of all Louisianans are conservative.

:1orglaugh

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/u...cruz_birth.jpg

i'm not trying to have anything both ways. i'm stating it's not accurate to conclude from that poll that only the republicans that were polled answered that way.

you'll need to take up your beef with the author of the article you cited. either way, your mind was made up about republicans a long time ago, not mine. i'm free to vote for the candidate that best reflects my interests, regardless of party.

He ALWAYS has '' it '' both ways ....:love2suck

there is no reason for drive-by snarks. besides, your post doesn't even make sense for several reasons, the primary being i post my opinion on matters, I choose sides.

besides, i'm not the one trying to label entire groups of people as stupid because they're republican, i'm the one opining that that's not a rational conclusion [based on the poll pointed at].

Let's have another investigation. There are still American taxpayer dollars to be spent!

It wouldn't make any difference if so many hadn't died. And yes it did happen a long time ago, and Bush was never grilled over it, then or afterwards.

Americans killed in benghazi attack? 4
Americans killed in Iraq war? 4425
Americans killed in Afghan war? 2,326

British killed in Iraq war? 179
British killed in Afghan war? 456

Total Coalition Killed in both 8,206.

And as you point out, Bush was never grilled on why he went into Iraq, took the pressure off Afghanistan and cost the American people $1.6 trillion.

Still the cost of this witch hunt, $20 million, is chicken feed, compared to the cost of Bush's ability to make good decisions.

you are arguing that bush should have been investigated and Hillary should not have, based on body count, amongst other things.

We most definitely should NEVER have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.

Should have done what Obama finally did and send in a team to take out Bin Laden.

Having said that...you couldn't "Grill" Pres. Bush over Iraq.
Congress voted and approved everything he did.
And one of the people who voted for it was Sen. Hillary Clinton.

George Bush was definitely in charge and leading the way...but Congress approved each and every thing he did.

So for Congress to "grill" Bush...they would have to "grill" themselves too.

My understanding is that Bush and his administration cherry picked the information they put out there in regards to Iraq. With this limited information they voted to attack, but may not have if they had all the information. At the very least there should have been an investigation into how the information was gathered and released. By the time we got around to doing that nobody in congress seemed too interested.

And this: What The Hell Is The Matter With Iowa? | Crooks and Liars

42% of GOP Caucus goers in Iowa like Ben Carson because he has NO foreign policy experience :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

http://crooksandliars.com/files/imag...r_veaasbmo.png

Congress approved everything yes, but it's been shown that the Bush admin willfully misled the Public as well as Congress. that is where the criminal acts took place.

I love how people agree that Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery. As if forcing people to take personal responsibility for themselves and get health insurance is the same the same thing as buying another human being and forcing them to work for you and if they get out of line you can beat them to a pulp if you want. . . The two are so similar you almost can't tell them apart.

and that's exactly what Hillary Clinton was revealed as doing in the hearings. she willfully misled the public and Congress and withheld information from Congress.

No, it hasn't been shown at all that ever happened.

Bush was working off of the same exact intel that his predecessor Pres. Bill Clinton was using.

Check out this video montage of Pres. Clinton and his cabinet as well as Democrat Congressmen and Senators discussing how Iraq had WMD's.
Many of these video clips are from the late 1990's before Bush was President.

And the ones when Bush was President were based on bad intel that both Bush and Bill Clinton were getting.

I like to discuss things...but we need to have some truth and less bias in the discussion. Leave your Republican hatred out of it.
We both agree it was a disaster and we should have never went in.
Invading other countries is NOT what the United States is supposed to be doing.

So body count isn't important to Republicans.

So should he be questioned over how the evidence was discovered and presented. Then why Congress decided to go against what a lot of other countries disagreed with?

There are now emails emerging the Bush and Blair had decided long before the invasion, to invade. IMO the "evidence" is the crime.

We in Europe are forced to get Health Care. It's forced on us via our taxes and not an option. Also half the price.

Americans aren't forced, it's an option for those who can afford to be robbed by big business.

Did you watch the video I posted?

It's a montage of President Bill Clinton and members of his cabinet in 1998 declaring that Iraq had to be stopped because of "Weapons Of Mass Destruction"

That was being presented to Congress and the public by Bill Clinton BEFORE Bush was President.

See what I'm saying? The U.S. govt. already had Iraq in the crosshairs long before Bush was there.
The "evidence" (there was none by the way...it was all based on intelligence reports from the CIA and the intelligence from other countries as well) was viewed by President Clinton, his cabinet and Democrat & Republican Congress and Senate.

Watch that short video Paul. It's self-explanatory.

With the mandate that comes with Obamacare you have to have health insurance or you get a fine each year you don't have it. That is their way of forcing you to get it.

no, you're opinion [of comparing the two by body count] isn't important to Republicans, or Americans.

read an article today in which Tony Blair admits they planned the Iraq invasion based on false information. if Blair knew it, Bush knew it too.

we have all been lied to, the only one that called Rumsfeld out on that in person was the german minister for foreign affairs, theres a video on Youtube

No you didn't read any such thing. What you did was hear the headline of a news story from an interview with Blair.

He NEVER says that.

THIS is the story you didn't read:
Tony Blair says he's sorry for Iraq War 'mistakes' - CNN.com

Blair talks about the bad intel and doesn't apologize for ousting Hussein.
Also...Blair was Pres. Bill Clinton's close, close ally. Both were liberal leaders and they were famously close.
Often Blair and Clinton were compared to Reagan and Thatcher in terms of being of a like mind.

Just watched it. It displays how ignorant some Americans are. These leaders are clearly building up the fear factor with no real evidence.

And yet. America knows NK has nuclear capabilities and signed a deal with Iran so they can build nuclear reactors from which they can produce enriched plutonium. Both are rogue nations, both have a history of attacking others. NK is on a permanent war footing. Or similar.

We know Saddam was a despot, but he was sensible enough to know that he had best not step out of line. Islam terrorists don't care of retaliation. They know it strengthens their message.

The entire situation makes what happened in Benghazi a side show, add the blatant misleading of the American people and therefore the world. Something more powerful than a Congressional Hearing is imperative.

How many of the people in that video, or the people supplying the intelligence, are still in the job?

A law forcing people to pay taxes for the services their country provides is about as sensible as it gets. Fining people who don't pay taxes is norm, sending some to prison happens.

A law forcing people to pay a private company for services they will get over charged for or denied on a technicality, is as insane as it gets. But not unusual if the companies taking the money own the Government. The problem is, the people who don't realise they're being ripped off.

They were planning this long before any of us knew. As Robbies video shows there was a movement to invade long before Bush came out with the plan. This shows how we were all misled.

Emails reveal Tony Blair's deal with George Bush over Iraq war was forged before invasion started* | Daily Mail Online

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush%E...2003_Iraq_memo

They were going in with or without evidence or UN backing.

Robbie it has been outright proven that the Bush admin misled congress. If you can't use google to educate yourself on that very well documented event in our nations history, there is little reason for me to argue it to you.

As I said what the Hilary email showed, is not only did the Bush admin use misleading information to make the case for war, but that Bush and Blair agreed to invade Iraq a full year ahead of any of the BS Bush used to sell the war.

What this means is exactly what people like myself have been saying all along. bush and co wanted to invade Iraq and they cherry picked Intel to make a false case to do it. Turns out that's Exactlly what happened..

Bush, Chenny and the rest of their admin should all be in jail right now..

Bill Clinton on the other hand did not use cherry picked intel to take us into war with Iraq.. Seriously I dunno why you would even try to compare the two as being even remotely the same,

196 countries
There are 196 countries in the world today. Taiwan is not considered an official country by many, which would bring the count down to 195 countries. Although Taiwan operates as an independent country, many countries (including the U.S.) do not officially recognize it as one.

No crockett, you are only parroting OPINIONS given from the Democrat side...which of course completely are ignoring the video I just posted of Pres. Clinton, his Secretary of State, and others saying in 1998 that Hussein was making WMD's and had to be stopped.

How can you sit there and type that when you can simply watch them SAYING it before Bush was ever President.

As for using "google to educate yourself"...be my guest Einstein. Show me where it has ever been "Proven" by anyone.

It has not. It is simply an attempt by the scumbag politicians to re-write history so they can keep getting elected to Congress and the Senate even though they were part of the whole fiasco themselves and voted for it.

I suppose there just isn't any way to ever keep you from interjecting your political bias no matter what. Even when you can plainly watch and hear Pres. Clinton saying it.
Bush used the same intel.
He was only in office for a year when the illegal and stupid and un-American thing he did (invade another country that had not attacked us).

All the people in place at the CIA and other spy agencies providing the intel were the same ones who were giving Pres. Clinton the same exact information.

But go ahead crockett, "educate" me. Show me ONE link that isn't an OPINION piece and shows what you are trying to claim to be FACT.

You can't. But I'll check back and see if you can. lol

By the way...in hindsight, I think Bush and everyone involved should be hauled before an international court and thrown in prison for that.
BUT, it won't happen because Hillary would go to jail, Reid would go to jail, Pelosi would go to jail, etc.
They ALL agreed and voted on it.

It was the entire Federal govt.
But of course, you won't see that. You love the big govt. and they can do no wrong.

Fact is: the intel used to justify the Iraq war was botched (Curveball) and everyone - including Bush and Blair - knew it. They wanted their war, they did it anyways, they lied about the reasons.

Opposed to Afghanistan some countries (the "old" Europe) didnt want to play along this time and got ridiculed for that back then.

We can now discuss forth and back who said what when - but what I wrote above was the direct justification for attacking Iraq - well knowing that Hussein was not part of Al Queida and without any proof for any WMDs.

News article from 2008 on the weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq::::

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html