Thursday, May 5, 2016

So Those Sumbitch Bushes Have Endorsed Hillary

Why does this not surprise me? The Bushes aren't even Texan. They're wealthy Connecticut Yankees pretending to be Texans. They went to elite East Coast colleges, for God's sake.

Those on the East Coast refer to everything in-between the East and West Coasts as Flyover Land, and it is inhabited by inbred troglodyte cannon fodder. So they died for Shrub's wars? Too bad. Their lives don't mean anything anyway.

Both parties are leftists. The Republicans are kinda the right wing, and the Democrats are definitely the left wing. And that is why I want both parties utterly destroyed - before they destroy us. Which the are trying their damnedest to do.

18 comments:

sth_txs said...

I've always regarded the Bush family as northeastern carpetbaggers. They had to go to some hick area of Texas after WWII to ingratiate themselves so GB senior could get a house seat since the Kennedy's and other liberals had things wrapped up in the northeast. Nothing Texan about the Bush family at all.

Joe Miller said...

George W. bush called Bill clinton his "Brother from another Mother" and George's Father called Bill his "son".

A family that commits crime together, stays together.

Anonymous said...

The Bushes will not be alone. Assuming that the GOPe does not pull some rule change that denies Trump the nomination [not likely, but has to be considered possible because they really hate Trump and those who support him, to the point of being willing to destroy the party]; they will still work for Hillary. Here in Colorado, we have a Democrat governor and a Democrat US Senator because when they ran the TEA Party candidates won the nomination fair and square. So the Republicans supported the Democrats. The seat held by Cory Gardner [who now votes side by side with Democrat Michael Bennet] was won by Mark "Uterus" Udall when the Republican party cheated on the vote count at the State Convention to stop a conservative Congressman and put in the son of a donor. [Pete Coors of the brewing family, whose only issue was dropping the drinking age to 18, and who got busted for DUI two weeks before the election.

Trump is going to have to go over the heads of both parties, or both wings of the Uni-Party, and the media. It can be done, but it will not be easy.

Subotai Bahadur

Glen Filthie said...

Wow.

That gives me pause for thought!

Contrary to Bob and his fanboys, Bush is a great man. He was absolutely right to open police actions against Iraq and Afghanistan - and the failure to hold the peace in those lands falls at the feet of Obama - and by extension, peaceniks like Unca Bob and you boys here. Let's have a little honesty around here: during those costly foreign wars the Bush Administration ran tax SURPLUSES. Upon stepping down, all his successor had to do in Iraq and Afghanistan was keep the ball rolling. Instead Obama and the peaceniks walked away, declared defeat and tried to hang the blame on Bush. Like Obama and his progs today's alt-right crowd is blaming Bush for things he didn't do, and assigning the blame for their own stupidity to him. Thanks to stupid people and boys just like you lot - not only will America be going back to Iran - Iraq is probably going to need a trip to the woodshed soon too! The responsibility for that will be on YOU, not the poor sap that has to sign the papers sending the boys out AGAIN. America never learns - as long as leftists and pacifists and peaceniks have a say in military affairs - they will never win.

If good men like Dubya have reservations about Trump you can bet there are damn good reasons for it. I'm a fan of Trump and I hope Dubya doesn't know something we don't.

sth_txs said...

Glenn, you truly are a sorry puke of a human being to have supported the Iraq war. It has been a disaster. We had no business in Afghanistan either; since you like to put down other about not picking up a history book, you might note Alexander and the Greeks, the British, and the Russians and others could not subdue Afghanistan.

So how did we benefit from a $1 trillion plus war? I guess the veterans killing themselves are also worth it?

RJ said...

Glen:

Dubya has done so much coke and alcohol that he doesn't know shit. Just a little research and you would know that the Bush family has been engaged in criminal activity since before Prescott Bush was elected to the Senate. HW was present in Dallas the day JFK got shot, which is significant because he was with the CIA at that time. And HW had Bill Clinton build a massive airport in tiny Mena, Arkansas so that the CIA could fly drugs into America and land there.

Jeebus, you are one ignorant sumbitch...

Mike said...



Why exactly was he right to attack the Afghans? Were they threatening the US with their mighty woolen exports? Or perhaps it was a pre-emptive strike to prevent them from attacking the USA when they became a great empire... in the year 15,000 AD.

And, for the umpteenth time, Iraq didn't have WMDs. Pakistan does. By your logic, whatever kind that may be, the USA should be attacking Pakistan and Israel because they both possess nukes.

The twin towers were attacked by the Bin Ladens who are based in Saudi Arabia (ignoring the fact that they were blown up, possibly by MOSSAD). Why didn't the USA invade them?

Just give it up Glen. Be a man: admit you're wrong.

sth_txs said...

I'll be waiting for an invasion of Saudi Arabia:

http://www.therightperspective.org/2016/03/01/saudi-arabia-we-have-nukes/

Glen Filthie said...

Sigh.

*Ahem*

Are all the political special ed kids here? Capital! Now then-

At the beginning of Gulf War 2 Iran was in violation of at LEAST 21 conditions set forth in the terms and conditions of their surrender in Gulf War 1. This is a matter of historical record; and not a matter of hysterical raving as is this crap about the Bushes all being career criminals from the kids in the tin foil hats. Some idiot was babbling about Saudi Arabia: had he done his homework he would have found that Saudi Arabia is on a razor's edge between western civility and Islamic savagery. Militant jihadis and wahabists do not represent that nation as they do in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. In fact the Saudis are amenable to Americans in the middle east and the closest thing we have to an ally in the theatre.

Further, Iraq DID have WMD's and we know it because we sold them to them. They even used them on the Kurds. The chemical rockets to deliver them were found and catalogued. Again, the stupid kids will claim that the warheads were never found, but miss the fact that a missile without a warhead doesn't make sense. I suspect they ended up in Iran along with the bulk of their other sophisticated weaponry - on one of the hundreds of convoys that drove past the UN inspectors without stopping (that in itself was grounds for invasion too, should anyone care to note). Should you boys ever go to the effort to inform yourselves I suspect you'll come to the same opinions as your scholarly teacher.

And - good grief! What is this prattle about 'subduing' Afghanistan? Can any of you think critically? You don't "subdue" and enemy like a moslem jihadi anymore than you 'subdue' a rattle snake. Nor do you try and win it's heart or mind because like all animals - the jihadi has neither. You kill it. If necessary you kill it's nest too. When the usual suspects piss and moan you dismiss them and tell the mudflaps concerned that more terrorism = more death - for themselves. This is how the war on terror needs to be waged in my scholarly opinion: send in the drones and the flyboys. Bomb those wretched cretins FORWARD into the stone age - and when they are finally more intent on surviving than fighting - THEN maybe put boots on the ground and start rebuilding. Or leave nothing but corpses and rubble behind. That's what the war on terror needs to be to have a hope of succeeding.

Finally, the wars, even with the meddling of leftist and pacifist incompetents like yourselves - was a great success! America lost...what? 4500? The Iranians lost anywhere upward of 300,000. They committed the vast majority of the collateral damage and atrocities too. America's performance in that police action was ethical and restrained and effective. It wasn't until Obama abandoned the effort that the trouble started. Again, this is a matter of historical record.

Really, boys - there's simply no excuse for your lack of perspective here. All this material is easily verified and confirmed - but you would rather spend your time on conspiracy websites or cute cat pictures I guess.

Run along an play now - it's Friday and I have better things to do than educate children that refuse to learn.

Anonymous said...

Certain people who think that the wars that America has been involved in are these heroic, principled struggles against evil and tyranny are very naive and clueless.

http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/elites-jews-number-needed-for-control.html

Every single war that America has been in, with the exception of the revolutionary war with the British at its founding, was completely unnecessary for America. Every. Single. One.

America has never faced an enemy since its founding that posed a credible threat to its existence. None.

Read "War is a Racket" by marine general Smedley Butler.

The recent wars in the middle east have been for supporting Israel.


Glen Filthie said...

We can argue about Nam...but the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were noble and righteous - and only a moral and intellectual cripple would argue otherwise.

Bob Wallace said...

The Bushes don't give a goddamn about the U.S. They're traitors and cowards.

Mike said...

Glen,

1. Who cares about treaty violations? Firstly, they're only a rough guide to diplomacy. The US fired thousands of rounds of depleted uranium during the Gulf Wars, but no-one complained about that, despite it causing a mass of birth defects amongst Iraqi babies. Secondly, Israel has been in violation of UN conventions for generations. No one complains about them. Thirdly, I can't be bothered to think of any more points because you're an idiot.
2. WMDs aren't nukes. The whole spiel about 'Iraq has WMDs' implied nukes. cf. UN investigator Hans Blix's report, who found ZERO evidence of them. If Chemical Weapons counted as WMDs then other countries would also have been invaded, but they weren't. Everyone knows Iraq had Scuds during the 1990s so it's no surprise they had missiles laying around.
3. The Taliban weren't Jihadis and aren't a threat. As I said formerly. Here is a page which compares the military power of Afghanistan and USA (it can also be used to compare any other country.) It shows how insignificant Afghanistan is in comparison to the USA.

Annual Defense Budget (USD):
Afghanistan: $11,500,000,000
USA: $581,000,000,000

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison.asp

Only a dunderhead, or troll, would think otherwise. And the way that you spew out dogshit like there's no tomorrow Glen, I'm beginning to think that you're less of a moron and more of a troll.
4. The Monroe Doctine specifically states that the USA was not to interfere in the affairs of other countries. Many Americans would prefer it to be that way, and have done for donkeys years. Most were against the USA joining WW2, until Pearl Harbour.
5. Who said anything about me being a pacifist? Switzerland has the right approach to defence. Give every man a gun and make him responsible for the defence of the country. There's nothing pacifistic in believing that everyone should own a gun and being part of a militia. No one fucks around with the Swiss. The Holy Roman Empire tried to for hundreds of years, and got no where.








Bob Wallace said...

Iraq had a GNP that was one percent of the U.S.'s and the mean IQ is 87. Nukes? Not a chance.

Anonymous said...


Nukes do not exist anyway:

http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/A-bomb-myth-flash-blast-heat-radiation-cloud-1-of-4.html

Anonymous said...

Beats me how you can get from "inherited wealth and power" to "leftist", unless left beans the opposite of what it used to mean.

Mike Wallens said...

I see the smug troll can't help himself from lying about Iraq.

These facts you need to know. There were no WMDs found that indicated manufacture after 1991. The Filthie troll is right in that we know about the WMDs in the first place because we did indeed sell them to Saddam in the 1980s but there is zero, zip,nada evidence of a resumed WMD program after GW 1. But even assuming there was, what rational person (NEOCON nuts don't count) could see Saddam supplying Al Quaeda with the WMDs. How was Saddam going to deliver them to the USA? With that balsa wood drone powered by a lawm mower engine the Colin Powell fibbed about to the UN?

No link to 9/11 with Saddam either.

I am still pissed about the mindless GOP supporting that POS war. Wasting 2 trillion of my tax dollars, killing 4500 Americans, and basically destroying the GOP brand and giving us Obama.

Needless to say, knowing what we know now, there is no way we would have have gone to war in the first place but that is no consolation to me.

Of course, most gung ho war supporters never served so they become the world's bravest keyboard heroes. They paid no price.

EFTROM said...

Before this election cycle began, conservatives bemoaned the Republican Party and wanted it to be destroyed and replaced. Election season begins, in marches Trump. He proceeds to demolish candidate after candidate in the primaries, leaving Cruz as his only viable competition. The above-mentioned conservatives, the very ones who previously wanted the GOP destroyed and replaced, began warning that if Trump were elected over Cruz, the GOP would be dead forever, and that we must prevent that from happening. Total idiots. All huff. When the opportunity for a change arose, they shrank away from it.