Bush booed at inauguration

[William33 110]

why didnt all of you vote for impeach him them instead reelected to keep safe. whatever

Usually... because impeachments require documented impeachable offenses. In Clinton's case- it was perjury. In Bush's case... oh right... he refused to testify before Congress.

Hence... good riddance on grounds we do not have a President that thinks he's above the laws and procedures of the country he is supposed to serve (not rule).

First off, your self imposed post-limits are invalid. Post at will, as you do.

Second, you have zero basis for the above bolded commentary other than rhetoric in speech. Let some time go by with actual performance, then comment with a reality based response.

Fair enough?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

why didnt all of you vote for impeach him them instead reelected to keep safe. whatever

Usually... because impeachments require documented impeachable offenses. In Clinton's case- it was perjury. In Bush's case... oh right... he refused to testify before Congress.

Hence... good riddance on grounds we do not have a President that thinks he's above the laws and procedures of the country he is supposed to serve (not rule).

First off, your self imposed post-limits are invalid. Post at will, as you do.

Second, you have zero basis for the above bolded commentary other than rhetoric in speech. Let some time go by with actual performance, then comment with a reality based response.

Fair enough?

Right on willie!

[HAL 9000 96]

why didnt all of you vote for impeach him them instead reelected to keep safe. whatever

Usually... because impeachments require documented impeachable offenses. In Clinton's case- it was perjury. In Bush's case... oh right... he refused to testify before Congress.

Hence... good riddance on grounds we do not have a President that thinks he's above the laws and procedures of the country he is supposed to serve (not rule).

First off, your self imposed post-limits are invalid. Post at will, as you do.

Second, you have zero basis for the above bolded commentary other than rhetoric in speech. Let some time go by with actual performance, then comment with a reality based response.

Fair enough?

Bah!

I choose to self-impose. Nothing in the TOS limits my heuristic programming to the contrary.

Do notice my siggie... The rules only apply to me. My apologies if the counter is annoying but it is staying until I deem it necessary to remove it.

As for the second part- completely rhetorical. Should have said 'Obama appears to think he isn't above' as Bush has repeatedly done so in regards to every single procedural request for evidence AND for summons of subordinates that represented him. Perhaps he will don a similar cape of Bushesque tactics of governance... but I somehow doubt it with the program of government he is promising, his choices of government positions so far, and all the work he has cut out for him.

[MrsCat 6]

Absolutely classless. Like thumbing you nose at the small handi-bus as it passes by.

[William33 110]

why didnt all of you vote for impeach him them instead reelected to keep safe. whatever

Usually... because impeachments require documented impeachable offenses. In Clinton's case- it was perjury. In Bush's case... oh right... he refused to testify before Congress.

Hence... good riddance on grounds we do not have a President that thinks he's above the laws and procedures of the country he is supposed to serve (not rule).

First off, your self imposed post-limits are invalid. Post at will, as you do.

Second, you have zero basis for the above bolded commentary other than rhetoric in speech. Let some time go by with actual performance, then comment with a reality based response.

Fair enough?

Bah!

I choose to self-impose. Nothing in the TOS limits my heuristic programming to the contrary.

Do notice my siggie... The rules only apply to me. My apologies if the counter is annoying but it is staying until I deem it necessary to remove it.

As for the second part- completely rhetorical. Should have said 'Obama appears to think he isn't above' as Bush has repeatedly done so in regards to every single procedural request for evidence AND for summons of subordinates that represented him. Perhaps he will don a similar cape of Bushesque tactics of governance... but I somehow doubt it with the program of government he is promising, his choices of government positions so far, and all the work he has cut out for him.

I was not speaking to the TOS, as it does not apply here. I was only poking fun at you dude.

Seriously, we cannot speak knowledgeably about Obama until he actually does something as our President. Until that happens, we can only speculate.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

all the work he has cut out for him.

Kinda like Bush had after 3000 died in that tower?

[MrsCat 6]

Seriously, we cannot speak knowledgeably about Obama until he actually does something as our President. Until that happens, we can only speculate.

I thought he signed some papers today? We can judge on that.

[Heracles 417]

It is what it is. A lot of people despise Bush.

Certain groups despised the guy from day one for the sole fact that he was a Republican and had a Bush surname. I like Obama but even if I did not I wouldn't write him off and hope he fails from day one. Whereas a good portion of those who actually fall, qualify, under the 'liberal' label never gave the guy a chance. If it wasn't the war it would have been something else. If it wasn't his public speaking abilities it would be his height. As I have said before, I was here in May / June 01 and remember chatting with a guy from San Fran who went on and on about how much he absolutely hated Bush. Yes he is one guy but not the only guy who was biased and prejudiced against Bush from day one. Dems / Reps were all Greek to me back then. For some the fact that he is not a Liberal means he is the enemy and must be destroyed at all cost.

Regardless to the ####### being spun about him, Bush is a good man.

[MrsCat 6]

Regardless to the ####### being spun about him, Bush is a good man.

I've said the same thing too. He got in with the wrong crowd (ie: Cheney).

[mox 298]

Seriously, we cannot speak knowledgeably about Obama until he actually does something as our President. Until that happens, we can only speculate.

Seems the opposition has got the speculating part down pretty good.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I thought he signed some papers today? We can judge on that.

So far, so good.

BREAKING: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stops Bush’s last-minute regs. Emanuel signs a memorandum ordering all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration.

[Marilyn. 340]

It is what it is. A lot of people despise Bush.

Certain groups despised the guy from day one for the sole fact that he was a Republican and had a Bush surname. I like Obama but even if I did not I wouldn't write him off and hope he fails from day one. Whereas a good portion of those who actually fall, qualify, under the 'liberal' label never gave the guy a chance. If it wasn't the war it would have been something else. If it wasn't his public speaking abilities it would be his height. As I have said before, I was here in May / June 01 and remember chatting with a guy from San Fran who went on and on about how much he absolutely hated Bush. Yes he is one guy but not the only guy who was biased and prejudiced against Bush from day one. Dems / Reps were all Greek to me back then. For some the fact that he is not a Liberal means he is the enemy and must be destroyed at all cost.

Regardless to the ####### being spun about him, Bush is a good man.

but isn't that what a lot of people are doing with Obama?? they are writing him off before he has done anything...

[HAL 9000 96]

why didnt all of you vote for impeach him them instead reelected to keep safe. whatever

Usually... because impeachments require documented impeachable offenses. In Clinton's case- it was perjury. In Bush's case... oh right... he refused to testify before Congress.

Hence... good riddance on grounds we do not have a President that thinks he's above the laws and procedures of the country he is supposed to serve (not rule).

First off, your self imposed post-limits are invalid. Post at will, as you do.

Second, you have zero basis for the above bolded commentary other than rhetoric in speech. Let some time go by with actual performance, then comment with a reality based response.

Fair enough?

Bah!

I choose to self-impose. Nothing in the TOS limits my heuristic programming to the contrary.

Do notice my siggie... The rules only apply to me. My apologies if the counter is annoying but it is staying until I deem it necessary to remove it.

As for the second part- completely rhetorical. Should have said 'Obama appears to think he isn't above' as Bush has repeatedly done so in regards to every single procedural request for evidence AND for summons of subordinates that represented him. Perhaps he will don a similar cape of Bushesque tactics of governance... but I somehow doubt it with the program of government he is promising, his choices of government positions so far, and all the work he has cut out for him.

I was not speaking to the TOS, as it does not apply here. I was only poking fun at you dude.

Seriously, we cannot speak knowledgeably about Obama until he actually does something as our President. Until that happens, we can only speculate.

* COMPUTERIZED LOL *

HAL 9000 computes.

[MrsCat 6]

I thought he signed some papers today? We can judge on that.

So far, so good.

BREAKING: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stops Bush’s last-minute regs. Emanuel signs a memorandum ordering all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration.

Bush needs a tan. He looks like death in that photo below.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is what it is. A lot of people despise Bush.

Certain groups despised the guy from day one for the sole fact that he was a Republican and had a Bush surname. I like Obama but even if I did not I wouldn't write him off and hope he fails from day one. Whereas a good portion of those who actually fall, qualify, under the 'liberal' label never gave the guy a chance. If it wasn't the war it would have been something else. If it wasn't his public speaking abilities it would be his height. As I have said before, I was here in May / June 01 and remember chatting with a guy from San Fran who went on and on about how much he absolutely hated Bush. Yes he is one guy but not the only guy who was biased and prejudiced against Bush from day one. Dems / Reps were all Greek to me back then. For some the fact that he is not a Liberal means he is the enemy and must be destroyed at all cost.

Regardless to the ####### being spun about him, Bush is a good man.

"Certain groups" hate everything and everyone. It goes with the territory naturally - but pre-existing prejudice isn't the reason for Bush's atrocious approval rating in this and other countries.

Bush might well be a "good man", but that doesn't excuse him from criticism for being a shite president.