'SNL' Skit Blames Democrats For Financial Crisis

[Willie Bee]

[daggerkobe]

I agree 100%. 9/11 wasn't the most genius scheme ever concocted. In fact, it seemed like various member of Muslim society here in the U.S. knew it was coming. It's hard to believe the CIA didn't have information. In any case, it kinda like Luke Skywalker blowing up the death star. Everything had to go perfect for their plan to be realized. I also wouldn't doubt if some of Bushy's insider buddies at the CIA covered up any information that could have helped so that they could use the 9/11 attacks as a springboard towards an 8 year reign of terror on US citizens. Don't believe his cronies didn't make out like bandits after the dust settled from those towers. Maybe decades from now, we'll know the whole story. In the meantime, there's basically trillions missing from the economy. It didn't just evaporate.

Yeah, it's ridiculous how these neocons believe we needed to declare Marshall Law to stop 9/11 from happening when all we needed was simply to warn the airliners.

The FBI knew about these hijackers enrolling in flight schools. An FBI field agent had begged his superiors to investigate them. We also knew that Al Qaeda was planning to use planes as missiles, as cited in a report 2 years prior to 9/11. Bush had ALL the information he needed to STOP 9/11!!!! Yet he chose to IGNORE it.

How the hell do you go 8 months dodging your anti-terrorism expert???? All he had to do was have a 30 min meeting and he would've learned EVERYTHING he needed to know to try and stop the hijackings. But noooooooooooo, he was too busy watching SpongeBob to be bothered with something so unimportant as the safety of millions of Americans.

[ms61853]

does this ms61853 guy have anything to say that isnt copy and paste

It's called SOURCING a claim. You moonbats might want to try it occasionally.

[slacker00]

Bush urged congress with his information 6 years ago? At that time congress had a Republican majority.

I didn't know about the 1998 Iraq regime change act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act Still, there had to be a better plan. Why couldn't we get the UN support we needed? There just had to be a better way.

[ms61853]

Yeah, it's ridiculous how these neocons believe we needed to declare Marshall Law to stop 9/11 from happening when all we needed was simply to warn the airliners.

The FBI knew about these hijackers enrolling in flight schools. An FBI field agent had begged his superiors to investigate them. We also knew that Al Qaeda was planning to use planes as missiles, as cited in a report 2 years prior to 9/11. Bush had ALL the information he needed to STOP 9/11!!!! Yet he chose to IGNORE it.

How the hell do you go 8 months dodging your anti-terrorism expert???? All he had to do was have a 30 min meeting and he would've learned EVERYTHING he needed to know to try and stop the hijackings. But noooooooooooo, he was too busy watching SpongeBob to be bothered with something so unimportant as the safety of millions of Americans.

You keep wanting to act as if all was hunky dory at the moment Bush took Office, and then IMMEDIATELY there was immediate threat of terror and Bush just ignored it.

When Bush took Office, Sandy "underpants" Burglar commented that the person who took his position would be spending all their time on terrorism SO these threats of terrorism were known for some time. I don't recall any actions taken by them. So why do you blame Bush for being in Office 8 months and supposedly doing nothing, yet you give the previous Adminstration absolution for doing nothing in 8 years?

[slacker00]

It's called SOURCING a claim. You moonbats might want to try it occasionally.

Many of your sources are bogus dude. SNL skit? That's your source? The rest are GOP propaganda.

[ryanXL977]

dogma is a bitch to explain aint it


bush is a great president

now, will you shut the fvck up

[ms61853]

Bush urged congress with his information 6 years ago? At that time congress had a Republican majority.

I think there was still a Democratic Senate at that time, but I can't tell you why Congress didn't take action. I can only tell you that the only ones were vocalizing dissent about reform Democrats?

[slacker00]

I think there was still a Democratic Senate at that time, but I can't tell you why Congress didn't take action. I can only tell you that the only ones were vocalizing dissent about reform Democrats?

House: Republican 51.5%, Democrat 48.5%
Senate: Republican 50%, Democrat 49%, Independant 1%
(It was 50-50 until Wellstone, a democrat, died on 10-25-2002 and was replaced by an independant.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary

Now, that's what a real source looks like.

[daggerkobe]

9/11 could have been prevented with just fortified cockpit doors, you moron. All Bush had to do was have a meeting with his anti-terrorism expert, whom he had been ducking for 8 months. Then warn the airliners. THAT'S ALL! This wasn't a sophisticated terrorist attack like you see in movies where they got terrorists dressed as stewardesses and AK-47s hidden in dinner plates.

Again, the dumbass speaks. I suppose all this intelligence of terrorists actions started the moment Bush took Office and there was no intelligence beforehand. Is that your retarded assumption? Where were the efforts to fortify the cockpit doors beforehand? Did Bush scrap the plans? It wasn't being done because it is not appropriate for Presidents to involve themselves in such business matters when there are no specific threats.

Bush did meet with security experts. And what makes you think the airlines weren't briefed? It's up to them to take action. And they aren't going to spend millions of dollars on cockpit doors and extra security measures when there are no specific threats (and there weren't).

[/i]

No specific threats? Airliners being hijacked is not specific enough for you? Oh, that's right, you wanted date, time, and flight numbers. Fvcking idiot.

What security experts did he meet with? I want names. He sure didn't meet with the guy who was sending him URGENT PRESIDENTIAL MEMOS warning him of IMPENDING ATTACKS AND HIJACKINGS: Richard Clarke, the senior anti-terrorism expert who had served since the Reagan administration.

You never answered this... if a cop sends you a note that he heard chatter on his beat that your home could possibly be targeted by thieves ..... would you do anything or would you simply ignore it because he didn't know the exact date and time?

Cite a source that states Clinton was warned of the same. I guarantee you he wasn't.

What the airliners would've done or not is not the point. What did Bush do???? He could have done is fvcking job and granted Richard Clarke, his anti-terrorism expert, a face to face meeting as had been requested the FIRST DAY of his PRESIDENCY..... and he would've learned EVERYTHING about Al Qaeda's plans and warned the airliners. If the airliners chose to do nothing then guess what, Bush would not be to blame! But you think if the CEOs knew their planes would be hijacked and torpedoed in to buildings they would've done nothing????? Uh, they are in the business to make money and not allowing their planes to crash in to side of buildings is one of their priorities.

CIA told him EXPLICITEDLY that the ONE evidence that stated Saddam had WMD was FAULTY and UNTRUSTWORTHY. The SAME evidence he CITED in his SPEECH to the CONGRESS to invade Iraq.

Not true. There was disagreement to the level at which Saddam could produce nukes between the State Department and the CIA, but the Congress had the same information as the President.,

"U.S. President George W. Bush cited the documents in a sixteen-word sentence in the January 2003 State of the Union Address; when the International Atomic Energy Agency later determined the documents were forged and the U.S. government declassified a 2002 Central Intelligence Agency report casting doubt on the documents' veracity, the administration was criticized by many for its decision to include the sentence.

U.S. intelligence officials received the forged documents on October 7, 2002, the same day President Bush launched a new hard-line public relations campaign targeted to increase public support for the Iraq war. He kicked off the campaign with a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, in which he referenced Hussein's seemingly apparent growing nuclear capabilities."


The only mistake the Congress made was believing the BULLSHIT being fed to them by their president.


The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none.

http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html

Doesn't matter what anyone believed. There was only one fvcking idiot dumb enough to invade Iraq and create a quagmire.... something even his own daddy warned us about.


Tell me what Bush did to curb shady sub-prime lending practices?????? He did NOTHING until shit hit the fan. He did nothing because it was political fodder for him to brag about how many people became new home owners under his watch.

He urged Congress to to take actions 6 years ago.


Proof? Funny how he took action after the shit hit the fan but refused to take action while predatory lenders kept profilierating.

It was Bush's money, because it is HIS war, you moron! He's the one who had the agenda to invade Iraq PRIOR to becoming presdient.


Regime change has been the official US position on Iraq since 1998. Bush did not create that. You are not educating anybody on anything. You are just making a fool of yourself.[/quote]

Cuba, North Korea, Libya, etc..... US wants regime changes there also. What's your point?

Iraq was just one of the many countries we want a regime change in. But not Bush Sr nor Clinton were STUPID enough to actually invade.

[nosniboR11]

All democrats deserve to be KILLED.

[daggerkobe]

You keep wanting to act as if all was hunky dory at the moment Bush took Office, and then IMMEDIATELY there was immediate threat of terror and Bush just ignored it.

When Bush took Office, Sandy "underpants" Burglar commented that the person who took his position would be spending all their time on terrorism SO these threats of terrorism were known for some time. I don't recall any actions taken by them. So why do you blame Bush for being in Office 8 months and supposedly doing nothing, yet you give the previous Adminstration absolution for doing nothing in 8 years?

Of course it is. As the US president, protecting our homeland should be #1 priority. Which is why Bush is a miserable failure. He IGNORED every PRESIDENTIAL MEMOS with came stamped with URGENCY. He REFUSED to meet with his anti-terrorism expert for 8 months! He REFUSED to even read those memos warning of Al Qaeda planning to hijack planes.

What did he do to stop 9/11? NOTHING.

It's one thing to do your fvcking job and fail at it, it's whole nother thing to NOT DO IT AT ALL.

[slacker00]

Cuba, North Korea, Libya, etc..... US wants regime changes there also. What's your point?

Iraq was just one of the many countries we want a regime change in. But not Bush Sr nor Clinton were STUPID enough to actually invade.

Did you read this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

I think we were quite a bit further along with Iraq than those other countries you mentioned.

Even so, I agree that we weren't ready to occupy Iraq indefinitely, especially without support from the rest of the world. I repeat, we needed support from the rest of the world on this decision. It was critical.

[slacker00]

All democrats deserve to be KILLED.

How about us swing voters? May we live another day?

[ms61853]

House: Republican 51.5%, Democrat 48.5%
Senate: Republican 50%, Democrat 49%, Independant 1%
(It was 50-50 until Wellstone, a democrat, died on 10-25-2002 and was replaced by an independant.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary

Now, that's what a real source looks like.

It was GOP at first, but Jim Jeffords switched Parties shortly after the elections. Bernie Sanders was Independent but caucassed with the Democrats, giving them a 51-49 advantage.

So for most of that term, The Senate was democrat. The GOP retook it in the 2002 elections.

[daggerkobe]

All democrats deserve to be KILLED.

And you deserve to be BANNED.

[daggerkobe]

Did you read this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

I think we were quite a bit further along with Iraq than those other countries you mentioned.

Even so, I agree that we weren't ready to occupy Iraq indefinitely, especially without support from the rest of the world. I repeat, we needed support from the rest of the world on this decision. It was critical.

Non-sequitur.

Had Clinton invaded it may mean something.

The regime change policy unofficially started with Bush Sr.

But neither were STUPID enough to invade.

[slacker00]

Non-sequitur.

Had Clinton invaded it may mean something.

The regime change policy unofficially started with Bush Sr.

But neither were STUPID enough to invade.

I'm just saying that Clinton kept the ball rolling from Sr. to Jr. W absolutely stepped off the cliff with his policy of invasion, I'm in agreement with that. But Clinton absolutely had his finger on Sadaam as someone that needed to go away. I think we are all in agreement with these facts.

[ryanXL977]

he didnt invade iraq
he may have wanted him to go away but he wasnt crazy enough to invade
and now we are bankrupt bc of it


can we stop these threads

seriously, mods stop this shit

[daggerkobe]

Not surprised Clinton did it though. Iraq had been a hot topic to him since he passed the Oil for Food program for Iraq in 1995 while the sanctions imposed by Bush Sr was killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, especially children.

But again, he wasn't stupid enough to invade because he knew it would cause a quagmire.

[slacker00]

It was GOP at first, but Jim Jeffords switched Parties shortly after the elections. Bernie Sanders was Independent but caucassed with the Democrats, giving them a 51-49 advantage.

So for most of that term, The Senate was democrat. The GOP retook it in the 2002 elections.

If you want to discount Independants as Democrats, we are going to disagree. I consider myself an Independant and I don't affiliate with either Democrats or Republicans as a party whole. I don't believe all politics can be wrapped into two neat packages so that you have exactly two choices. The only reason why we have exactly two parties, for the most part, is due to game theory and how bargains are made in this system of government. Any individual who wants to wear the badge of honor of being an Independant in Congress deserves respect, because they are giving up the benefits of serving with a majority party or even a minority party. IMHO, they are working twice as hard to accomplish half as much and until you acknowlege this fact, I am going to have to consider you ignorant of politics except as it pertains to blind partisanship.

That goes for any Democrat propogandists as well.

[ms61853]

If you want to discount Independants as Democrats,

They are Democrats when they CAUCUS with the Democrats. Meaning the Democrats controlled all the Committees, because Sanders and Jeffords voted with the Democrats.


Neither Sanders nor Jeffords were "independent."

[slacker00]

I wonder why Bush Sr. couldn't tell his knucklehead son that Iraq would become a quagmire? I'm not entirely convinced that Bush Sr. didn't have some control, at least through his connections from over the many years. If Bush Sr. was so certain occupation of Iraq was wrong, why couldn't he stop it from happening. If anyone could stop it, he was the man for the job!

[slacker00]

They are Democrats when they CAUCUS with the Democrats. Meaning the Democrats controlled all the Committees, because Sanders and Jeffords voted with the Democrats.


Neither Sanders nor Jeffords were "independent."

If they run as an Independant and are elected as an Independant, then they are Independant. It is that much harder when you are outside the machine of party politics to do these things and when they get done, they deserve acknowlegement. Just discounting them because they don't fit how your party happens to vote doesn't toss them into the recycling bin of "everyone else" to which you misapply the label of Democrat.

[daggerkobe]

Well Sr supports his idiot son now and his decision to invade Iraq... even after all these years defending his decision not to invade.

It's one thing to support your son but this is equivalent to a dad of the Columbine shooter supporting what his son did.

[ms61853]

If they run as an Independant and are elected as an Independant, then they are Independant. It is that much harder when you are outside the machine of party politics to do these things and when they get done, they deserve acknowlegement. Just discounting them because they don't fit how your party happens to vote doesn't toss them into the recycling bin of "everyone else" to which you misapply the label of Democrat.

They voted as a block with the Democrats. This was by design. They were not voting independently. That is how the Democrats achieved control of all the Committees. Their leadership roles were given to them by the Democrats. This means they had to vote as block with the Democrats or risk having their roles stripped from them (generally). It doesn't matter that they might officially designate themselves as an Independent.

It's not any secret that the Democrats controlled the Senate when Jeffords switched Parties.

[ShamsWoof10]

I want everyone to lose their f*ckin' as*!!! I want all this bs artifical wealth to disappear and everyone be without a dime to their name... I cheer for this because maybe if you get your as* kicked hard enough you'll stop playing the "Democrat/Republician" game...

For now people deserve exactly what is coming to them...

[WestsidePete]

Hey ms61853,

I've seen a number of skits on SNL that show Bush as a clueless stupid idiot...thanks for letting us know their skits should be treated as fact.

[ryanXL977]

I want everyone to lose their f*ckin' as*!!! I want all this bs artifical wealth to disappear and everyone be without a dime to their name... I cheer for this because maybe if you get your as* kicked hard enough you'll stop playing the "Democrat/Republician" game...

For now people deserve exactly what is coming to them...

there is one decent republican, hagel. there are several decent dems: feingold, saunders, kennedy, boxer

[losturmarbles]

...
He's the one who had the agenda to invade Iraq PRIOR to becoming presdient. He was the one who allowed 9/11 to happen unabated so he can use it as an excuse to invade Iraq.
...

omg dagger is a truther???

how can anyone take anything you say seriously

besides you don't even argue the point, you always evade it and then just go into a bush war monologue.

[losturmarbles]

there is one decent republican, hagel. there are several decent dems: feingold, saunders, kennedy, boxer

hagel & feingold are ok, well except feingold is a big government spender, but who isnt in congress these days.

dont know saunders

kennedy is the exact opposite of decent

and barbara boxer?? really?? the same barbara boxer that 5 years ago led the senate battle to block drilling in alaska?

[ryanXL977]

yes, why dirll in alaska, what will that do? give oil companies more oil to sell back to us and make money on. makes no sense. how does that benefite anyone but them.

[ShamsWoof10]

omg dagger is a truther??? .

No he's a liar!!!

I just recently noticed how "truther" or I guess someone seeking the "truth" is considered a wako... How does that makes sense..? Only in America I guess...

[losturmarbles]

yes, why dirll in alaska, what will that do? give oil companies more oil to sell back to us and make money on. makes no sense. how does that benefite anyone but them.

theyre a business. that is the goal of a business to make money.

its foolish not to drill in anwr, youre letting an oil cartel (opec) control production, which controls the price.

[losturmarbles]

No he's a liar!!!

I just recently noticed how "truther" or I guess someone seeking the "truth" is considered a wako... How does that makes sense..? Only in America I guess...

nothing wrong with seeking the truth, nothing wrong with not believing the government, nothing wrong with not trusting the government, but anyone that believes george bush let planes fly into the twin towers so he could invade iraq is a fvckin dumbass.