It sure is, and you'll excuse me if I'm enjoying this moment a whole heck of a lot. Liberals everywhere (if they've got an ounce of conscience) must be rethinking their heated criticism of Bush, at least a little bit.
Actually, I did not support Bush in everything he did. I was very critical of him over his policy on illegal immigration. But that's beside the point. You can't get "ironic" about a post that is itself ironic. The only way your irony makes sense is if I'm NOT being ironic.
As you should b rethinking your lack of criticism over Bush, at least a little bit. And no, disagreeing with him about a minor subject (border control, etc) doesn't count.
If you think border control is a "minor subject," you are foolishly mistaken. Illegal immigration is a huge problem in this country, affecting all of us. Bush had a weak and spineless position on it, in my opinion, and I said so more than once. That certainly counts as criticism of him on a very substantive policy issue. As for our liberation of Iraq, I was all for it, and I'm still all for it. It was actually the springboard for what is happening right now in the Middle East, with millions of people demanding the end to dictatorships.
Of the issues one could find fault in, it's a minor one. by "liberating" do you mean "invading a nation" that we had no reason to invade?
Maybe to you, but not to the millions of people who care about the foreign invasion that is taking place at our southern border every single day. No, I meant "liberating."
It's quite clear they're lying about whether sending troops to attack Libya is constitutional. There are three situations where he can order an attack on another country: 1) In the case we've been attacked or an attack is so imminent he can't consult congress. 2) In the case congress authorizes use of military. 3) A declaration of war. Here are links to relevant parts of the War Powers Resolution, under which the president may use troops without initial consent of congress: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001542----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html This is not a partisan issue. [video=youtube;49SjiIfiQio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49SjiIfiQio[/video] [video=youtube;lByjEDViQe8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lByjEDViQe8[/video] [video=youtube;WuEaN5o-C8c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuEaN5o-C8c[/video]
Tell us how it affects your day-to-day life, Shooter. I want specific things that you can't do because of it.
I love this thread: "IMPEACH OBAMA FOR USING MILITARY FORCE IN LIBYA!!!" In an alternate universe, where Obama refused to get involved: "OBAMA STOOD ON THE SIDELINES AND DID NOTHING WHILE GENOCIDE OCCURRED IN LIBYA!! HE'S AN INEFFECTIVE WIMP!" Cue: Glenn Beck.
Somebody fell into the deep end. Free Throw Guy, some Batum graphic, and sentence fragments where you label people racists. Everything OK?
Sounds a little like the days of Bush, doesn't it? He took on an evil dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and yet he got crucified because he didn't "stand on the sidelines."
Seriously. Where did he mention race? You injected race, meaning you view the border issue through a racial prism. It says more about your own apparent racism, IMO, than it says anything about Shooter.
