Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

How will you vote in Nov. 2016


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
14 pages and it's clear, the Callous Conservative set is in a coma, and unwilling or unable to wake up.

You mean they won't adopt your point of view.

Please say it like it really is.

I did. November 2016 will come soon enough - we'll see what prevails, ideas or money.

Which will it be if Hillary gets elected?

The status quo. I'm voting for change, and Bush and Clinton are not in that picture.

I'd like to see a Congress, a White House and a new balance in the Supreme Court of men and women of good will, who will read the Preamble as a vision and mission statement and take these words to heart:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

A vision for America and a mission for the Government to implement; anathem to callus conservatives and those who hold true to, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".

The "I've got min......" meme is not what exists out there. Sorry.

I am not a fan of the GOP or the far right.

But, how you can talk about people of good will and use that line in the same communication.

It isn't true.

Conservatives are simply against using big government (or so they say) to meet the goals of society. I am not going to argue that it is right or wrong...this is more about your somewhat two-faced approach.
 
My thread was not intended to attract trolls and partisans. If the Mods would please move this thread into the clean zone, so rational people can post, and the trolls cannot side track a current event of significance, the thread may become thought provoking, and not a place for whiners and ostriches.

You picked the forum you want the thread in. You make a blanket call that conservatives are "callous" You chastise conservative ideals and then claim others are trolling?

All this is, is a troll thread. You just want to blast opposing views and dislike any other ideas. That's why I think you liberals are hate filled intolerant nutters.
You are either a comedian or an idiot.
 
14 pages and it's clear, the Callous Conservative set is in a coma, and unwilling or unable to wake up.

You mean they won't adopt your point of view.

Please say it like it really is.

I did. November 2016 will come soon enough - we'll see what prevails, ideas or money.

Which will it be if Hillary gets elected?

The status quo. I'm voting for change, and Bush and Clinton are not in that picture.

I'd like to see a Congress, a White House and a new balance in the Supreme Court of men and women of good will, who will read the Preamble as a vision and mission statement and take these words to heart:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

A vision for America and a mission for the Government to implement; anathem to callus conservatives and those who hold true to, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".

The "I've got min......" meme is not what exists out there. Sorry.

I am not a fan of the GOP or the far right.

But, how you can talk about people of good will and use that line in the same communication.

It isn't true.

Conservatives are simply against using big government (or so they say) to meet the goals of society. I am not going to argue that it is right or wrong...this is more about your somewhat two-faced approach.

Maybe you need to read more posts from the self defined conservative element on this board and then attempt to refute my argument; defaulting to an ad hominem ("your somewhat two-faced approach) doesn't win you any points.

It won't goad me into posting a full scale explanation (or justification) of the social and political policies I advocate, and those social and political ethos I consider consistent with the Founder's vision.
 
On the other hand, if we have one party constantly promoting that we are not all created equal, and their mission is to make everybody equal, then obviously they don't believe we are created equal.

You sir, have won this thread.

Equal before the law. If you don't understand that, you're dumber than even I believed you were.
 
Equal before the law. If you don't understand that, you're dumber than even I believed you were.

I understand just fine. But you have a very twisted idea of what's equal and what isn't. You're the type who likes to selectively apply the law.

And since Ray swiftly ended your thread, you can go mull the finer points of equality by yourself.

Later.
 
You mean they won't adopt your point of view.

Please say it like it really is.

I did. November 2016 will come soon enough - we'll see what prevails, ideas or money.

Which will it be if Hillary gets elected?

The status quo. I'm voting for change, and Bush and Clinton are not in that picture.

I'd like to see a Congress, a White House and a new balance in the Supreme Court of men and women of good will, who will read the Preamble as a vision and mission statement and take these words to heart:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

A vision for America and a mission for the Government to implement; anathem to callus conservatives and those who hold true to, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".

The "I've got min......" meme is not what exists out there. Sorry.

I am not a fan of the GOP or the far right.

But, how you can talk about people of good will and use that line in the same communication.

It isn't true.

Conservatives are simply against using big government (or so they say) to meet the goals of society. I am not going to argue that it is right or wrong...this is more about your somewhat two-faced approach.

Maybe you need to read more posts from the self defined conservative element on this board and then attempt to refute my argument; defaulting to an ad hominem ("your somewhat two-faced approach) doesn't win you any points.

It won't goad me into posting a full scale explanation (or justification) of the social and political policies I advocate, and those social and political ethos I consider consistent with the Founder's vision.

I've read enough to know that you can't talk of good will and yet blather about "blank you...I've got mine".

I've read enough to know and also know enough conservatives to know that isn't the case. That someone does not agree with you or your derived consistencies is one thing. Blasting all hope for reasonable dialogue is another.

Good job.
 
I did. November 2016 will come soon enough - we'll see what prevails, ideas or money.

Which will it be if Hillary gets elected?

The status quo. I'm voting for change, and Bush and Clinton are not in that picture.

I'd like to see a Congress, a White House and a new balance in the Supreme Court of men and women of good will, who will read the Preamble as a vision and mission statement and take these words to heart:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

A vision for America and a mission for the Government to implement; anathem to callus conservatives and those who hold true to, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".

The "I've got min......" meme is not what exists out there. Sorry.

I am not a fan of the GOP or the far right.

But, how you can talk about people of good will and use that line in the same communication.

It isn't true.

Conservatives are simply against using big government (or so they say) to meet the goals of society. I am not going to argue that it is right or wrong...this is more about your somewhat two-faced approach.

Maybe you need to read more posts from the self defined conservative element on this board and then attempt to refute my argument; defaulting to an ad hominem ("your somewhat two-faced approach) doesn't win you any points.

It won't goad me into posting a full scale explanation (or justification) of the social and political policies I advocate, and those social and political ethos I consider consistent with the Founder's vision.

I've read enough to know that you can't talk of good will and yet blather about "blank you...I've got mine".

I've read enough to know and also know enough conservatives to know that isn't the case. That someone does not agree with you or your derived consistencies is one thing. Blasting all hope for reasonable dialogue is another.

Good job.

Thanks so much for sharing.
 
This nation did not reject extremism by electing Barack Obama.

Correct. The nation returned a Congress of extreme ideologues who allowed leaders easily lead, Boehner and McConnell; both manifestly have the worst character flaw in a leader, one which impacts their every act! That being an internal question each considers before acting: How will this effect me!

I've seen it in supervisors, mangers, directors and chiefs, and it infects an entire organization.
 
Last edited:
This is great! I'm looking forward to watching the UK fall into ruins.

It hasn't already? It's nothing compared to what it used to be.

Neither are we.

Where would you rather live than here or the UK?

I suspect not only a different place, but a different time. Germany or Italy circa 1936 would seem to be an ideal fit.

That's your idea of a non extreme society? No wonder you voted Obama.
 
This nation did not reject extremism by electing Barack Obama.

Correct. The nation returned a Congress of extreme ideologues who allowed leaders easily lead, Boehner and McConnell; both manifestly have the worst character flaw in a leader, one which impacts their every act! That being an internal question each considers before acting: How will this effect me!

I've seen it in supervisors, mangers, directors and chiefs, and it infects an entire organization.
So they are "ideologues," but their most important consideration is how legislation will affect them? Don't you see a contradiction there?

Don't you consider how legislation will affect you?
I think the loserterians would like to live in Somalia or Antarctica.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
This is great! I'm looking forward to watching the UK fall into ruins.

It hasn't already? It's nothing compared to what it used to be.

Neither are we.

Where would you rather live than here or the UK?

I suspect not only a different place, but a different time. Germany or Italy circa 1936 would seem to be an ideal fit.
There's hardly any difference.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

Forum List

Back
Top