Faux "News" Bill O'Reilly Supreme Pinhead Busted Again!
- Thread starter MMMariah
- Start date
Or maybe she likes listening to rap and hip hop.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
The National Debt was $5.8 trillion when George W. Bush took office. By the end of his second term in 2008 the National Debt had more than doubled to $11.7 trillion. Remind us all again exactly how the Bush years were so "pretty good". Bush lied us into Iraq and bogged our military down in two unfunded wars, added billions in Social Security debt when he passed Part D, and then the stock market tanked. Overall the eight years of the George Walker Bush presidency were among the eight worst years of the last 100.
There have been 13 hearings on Benghazi and numerous reports published. What is it that you still do not know?
Also explain to me what the coverup is?
Have you ever heard of the term " to the best of my knowledge"? It has legal bearing and it applies to a myriad of issues including the Iraq war because you see as much as you want to claim that GWB willingly sent people into that war to die he based it upon intelligence that was faulty. Congress considered the findings as well and their was no arm twisting by the Bush administration just laying out of the information as it was presented. Authorization that pantsuit herself voted for.. All you can do for the time I have seen you post on this board is claim that Bush intentionally lied to go to war in Iraq but you can't offer one scintilla of proof that was the case. The only reason that Dems opposed part D was because Bush was embracing an issue that Dems thought they owned but wanted it to be far more comprehensive and socialized . you commenting on MPD as a burden when you would have wholeheartedly embraced the Democrat plan is the height of petty political partisanship and hypocrisy. The Afghan war was absolutely necessary and the Iraq war was not but Obama has managed to damn near double the debt that Bush left. Hindsight is 20/20 and I am sure that there will be plenty to discover after this clown leaves office, so much in fact that even if the next president is Hillary she will have to throw him under the bus to cover her ass and not be blamed for his fuckups. That will be one of the beautiful things to watch if she does win. Yeah things were pretty damn good prior to 2008. The unemployment rate was low, taxes were lower and we actually had confidence that we had a leader in the White House . The economic crisis was not Bush's fault and can be laid at the feet of democrat policies from many years prior.
Not with Republican chairmen. You are getting ready to find out what a coverup is.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Oh, but that doesn't apply to Benghazi, right? How many investigations into the faulty intelligence leading up to the Iraq war have there been? Don't preach about the benevolence of Bush while trying to paint Hillary as some sort of deliberate Benghazi conspirator. And please, don't start with the, "all you do" shit again, we've covered this ground and every time you start making blanket assertions about whoever you happen to be in disagreement with at any given time it always makes you look inept and desperate, and you in fact can't seem to help resorting to that tactic.
And you would know petty political partisanship when you see it because unfortunately that's what you've been reduced to thanks to the ever growing disconnect between the GOP and the American electorate. As for Social Security, I would scrap the whole system, Obamacare included, and make it "far more comprehensive and socialized", because that would be the right way to solve the myriad of issues currently plaguing the system, eliminate the caps, and make it illegal to use SS funds for anything that isn't SS/Medicaid/Obamacare related, make a true Universal Single Payer system for life, vision and dental included, because it's the right fucking thing to do.
Nothing but circular lawyer-talk. No, things weren't "pretty damn good prior to 2008", unless you think the Great Recession was awesome. You're not wealthy enough to have benefited from the fucking the rest of America had to endure.
It sounds like you info that I'm not aware of. Again can you explain the coverup to me?
It is all you do xfire. It seems the name Bill O'Reilly is the trigger. The funny thing is that I really don't like Bill O'Reilly and don't consider him to be a conservative. It also goes to prove how far to the left the democratic party has moved when moderates like OReily are demonized. The difference in Benghazi is that Susan Rice has been exposed as lying from the get go and has sunk so low as to characterize Bowe Bergdahl as serving with honor and distinction. Nothing the woman says is truthful. As for the coverup, there are a few thousand emails we have yet to see that just might shed some light on it. The worst part of it is, all they had to do was come clean about it when it happened and nothing would have come of it except exposing what a totally inept Sec. Of State she was. Every decision she made during her tenure was a clusterfuck. From Benghazi to the Arab Spring
She isn't qualified to be dog catcher much less SoS or president.
She isn't qualified to be dog catcher much less SoS or president.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I'm going to assume the "it" that "all I can do" is-
Which, of course, is horse shit.
I would love to see you try to lawyer your way into trying to connect Bill O'Reilly and me "always" claiming Bush intentionally lied to go to war. Go ahead, dive through my posting history and pull out some examples of how Bill O'Reilly "always" triggers me to claim Bush intentionally lied to go to war in Iraq. I'll check back in a few hours, giving you plenty of time to produce the evidence, if it's there, which it's not. So once again, you've made yourself look foolish in your desperate petty partisan political attacks. I don't need any convincing not to vote for Hillary Clinton, but these moronic attempts to paint her even worse than what she is have truly become tedious.
Here is a small example of you tying Fox News and GWB into your rant de jour
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?804503-President-Obama-Profiles-in-Leadership/page2
Fox News does include O'Reilly doesn't it?
I appreciate the work order of combing through your posts for more examples you don't mind if I do it at my leisure do you?
I feel confident I can find more explicit examples of your O'Reilly derangement syndrome.
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?804503-President-Obama-Profiles-in-Leadership/page2
Fox News does include O'Reilly doesn't it?
I appreciate the work order of combing through your posts for more examples you don't mind if I do it at my leisure do you?
I feel confident I can find more explicit examples of your O'Reilly derangement syndrome.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Wow, what a miserable fucking failure, if that's the best you can do you should probably just retract your nonsense assertion and hope not too many people read this thread. For those that can't be bothered to click the link you provided as proof, here's a recap; on page two of the thread BC linked to I have two posts, neither of which mention Bill O'Reilly or the War in Iraq. In fact, here's my posts-
&
Keep trying, BC, and take all the time you like, you had to go all the way back to October of last year just to come up empty handed. My Profile stats say I post 3.70 times a day, you had to go back seven months to find a post that square-pegged into a round hole to bolster your claim (in other words it didn't support your statement), which destroys the "all you do", "you always" bullshit tactic that you are so fond of resorting to. You put the "work order" on yourself by making a baseless claim. You can just as easily retract it, admit you're wrong and that you like to play these sort of bullshit tactics to further your petty partisan political attacks.
In fact I will bump the thread. There are enough examples of you bashing O'Reilly that it sticks in my memory and generally it stems from discussion of GWB or Fox News. I certainly am not imagining your comments from the past. I will keep adding to this as I come across them but I am certainly not going to spend lots of time looking for them . One other thing if I may, you are the one that seems to start these exchanges between us and not me. If I express an opinion about a topic and it has nothing to do with you or you haven't been involved in the conversation you will always find a way to interject your opinion just to be a whiny pain in the ass. You are always advising others on their behavior here perhaps you should reflect more on yourself and not others
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Pointing out that the National Debt doubled during the Bush presidency isn't an interjection of opinion, it's a matter of public record that flatly refutes your rosy recollection of the Bush years. That you find me "whiny" when presenting facts merely illustrates your disdain for reality. That you find me a "pain in the ass" is amusing because you obviously aren't equipped to deal with the truth. Any bashing that I've done of O'Reilly has merely been done in context of a greater discussion, just as my "interjection of opinion" in this thread and others has been in context of greater discussion, I'm sure in your mind it seems like I've done more "bashing" than I actually have, but of course in your mind you believe that there's something to the Benghazi circus your desperate party keeps drumming on. I have no reason to reflect on my behavior after the fact, I put a lot of thought into what I post a priori so there's really no need. You, on the other hand, post hastily out of emotion, desperation, and fabrication so there's plenty of room for a posteriori reflection.
We don't see you bringing up the fact that the debt has nearly doubled again under Obama with 2 years left to go. So basically he will be responsible for equalling the debt that all presidents before him accumulated. As for your pre-posting forethought, you wouldn't know your a priori from a hole in the ground. So you are an example of the process? Hahaha You are not even using the two terms in the proper context. It is quite evident that you do a lot of posting a priori. At least in your mind anyway. lol I bet you are a real hoot at family gatherings.
Seems to me there are reasonable grounds to doubt that. If it was presented to Congress as it was presented to the United Nations then even the fellow who, in the latter case, was chosen as the front man openly admits (and greatly regrets) the amount of arm twisting (to put it mildly) he engaged in.
In an interview with Charlie Rose, Colin Powell contended that prior to his UN presentation, he had merely four days to review the data concerning WMD in Iraq.
A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in, such as claims based on the yellowcake forgery. The administration came under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence, particularly what was single-sourced to the informant known as Curveball. Powell later recounted how Vice President Dick Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Powell's longtime aide-de-camp and Chief of Staff from 1989–2003, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."
In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."
And still does that prove that Bush intentionally lied? I want someone to put forth hard evidence that the president of the United States willingly conspired to send men and women into battle to settle a personal vendetta. Colin Powell is not the most credible of sources any longer. His memory seems to be failing him. Was it ill advised and a mistake? Yes. Sinister plot? No.
That's always been a tough question for me. I tend to think he more fell victim to a very common human frailty - tunnel vision. Or in other words, he had an agenda in mind and cherry picked (or favored if you will) "intelligence" that was cognitively consistent with his mindset while supporting that agenda. Maybe it's a fine line, but that would seem to fall a little short of outright lying (except perhaps to oneself).
But then again, if one is aware the case they're promoting includes falsehood(s), and certifies as certainties that which they know to be uncertain, are they not intentionally lying?
I never thought Iraq was particularly about a personal vendetta. Maybe that was a little icing on the cake? I always felt it had mostly to do with PNAC's foreign policy "vision".
And perhaps some profiteering on the side?
Could be. But what I'm referencing from him goes back 10 years or more.
Sinister? I wouldn't go that far.
A plot? In reading what Powell had to say, it has all the elements of one.
Similar threads
