Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well the liberals have waved their white flag. I also think it is funny how (other than the fact Obama had a super majority for nearly two years) Obama has bypassed congress several times.
All to the loud cheers of the ignorant hypocrites like rightwinger or the less significant poster....camp. Now all of sudden they claim republicans have stopped him from doing what he supposedly wants with Gitmo. Are they saying he did break the law when he has bypassed congress? Someone decipher that for me please.
They are all over the place. They cannot keep their double talk straight. They of course do an even more amazing thing. They change their spots in the very thread and thank each other for doing it. They deny they saythings in the very thread they say it and thank each other as though they are not constantly contradicting themselves.
Ignorant as hell. Pieces of lying hypocritical shit. All of them.
Do you have any proof showing Obama had a supermajority for two years? I would like to see it
Best I have seen is around six months
Can you point to any of my posts in this thread that were hypocritical?
Oh, so you admit he had a super majority for at least 6 months? I cannot tell where this is going.
I had a feeling one of you would say......naaaa uhhh. He did not have a super majority for two years. It was only for 6 months or so.
Fucking liberals.
They of course move away from the point and get into this technicality that has nothing to do with the point. The point is he had a super majority and he promised to close Gitmo in his first year.
That is the point. It is still open. Oh, and back to the notion that you think Obama could not close it without the approval of congress. Are you saying it is a crime to do that?
Simple yes or no will suffice rightwinger. Is it against the law for him bypass congress?
Either way, he had a super majority, he promised to close Gitmo, and it is still open, and it is 6 years later.
Then deny they are truthers? Real simple questions really. I mean how many times do we see them blame Bush for starting TWO wars?
So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.
You have exposed yourself as a far left Obama drone.
Congratulations.
You might not find yourself at such a disadvantage if you had a thought that didn't originate with FOX News or Rush Limbaugh.
This always cracks me up. So liberals think independently. You have the same position using the same talking points on every issue. It's just through analysis and thought, you all arrived at the same answer for the same reason on every position. It's because of your diversity of thinking you are all the same.
On the other hand, Fox and Rush are programming neocons, socons, institutional Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers. Diverse groups who agree on pretty much nothing are all programmed by the same people. Those devious bastards, programming us all to be different.
LOL, you're a sheep, now baa-ck to what you were saying?
So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.
None whatsoever except to create the false narrative and then bash away at the strawman of their own creation.
Everyone, mostly, felt that America was completely justified in going after the group who attacked us on 9-11. Justified in sending troops into the country that gave that group sanctuary.
That fact completely blows up the OP premise that liberals accuse President Bush of starting 2 unjustified wars.
I'm also pretty damn sure that President Bush would have had our support in pursuing them even into Pakistan.
Oh no, not this again. Kennedy was unable to vote for a four month period, Bird had to be wheeled into the Senate for a vote because he was old and dying and Frankel was not allowed to be a Senator until all the court crap got done to prove he won the election. Hence, the Senate didn't have the Super majority the way you are implying, which is for a filibuster, not the original broad statement of a Super Majority made by the original post that started this nonsense.
The important lesson to learn from this is that Democrats often voted against Obama and refused to give him a rubber stamp or tow the party line no matter what. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats in these modern times.
Then how did Obamacare get through since every Republican voted against it?
Over 30 Dems voted against in the House, the tally was 218 to 212, officially listed as a simple majority. The Senate is also listed as a simple majority with a tally of 60 to 39 with one Republican non vote. In this context of the use of the term Super Majority the votes would have to have indicated a "veto proof" vote. It is unlikely Obama would have vetoed the ACA if it came to his desk with Super Majority votes.
You might not find yourself at such a disadvantage if you had a thought that didn't originate with FOX News or Rush Limbaugh.
This always cracks me up. So liberals think independently. You have the same position using the same talking points on every issue. It's just through analysis and thought, you all arrived at the same answer for the same reason on every position. It's because of your diversity of thinking you are all the same.
On the other hand, Fox and Rush are programming neocons, socons, institutional Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers. Diverse groups who agree on pretty much nothing are all programmed by the same people. Those devious bastards, programming us all to be different.
LOL, you're a sheep, now baa-ck to what you were saying?
Which talking points are those?
So apparently no serious premise for this thread, simply a pointless rhetorical exercise.
None whatsoever except to create the false narrative and then bash away at the strawman of their own creation.
Everyone, mostly, felt that America was completely justified in going after the group who attacked us on 9-11. Justified in sending troops into the country that gave that group sanctuary.
That fact completely blows up the OP premise that liberals accuse President Bush of starting 2 unjustified wars.
I'm also pretty damn sure that President Bush would have had our support in pursuing them even into Pakistan.
Then deny they are truthers? Real simple questions really. I mean how many times do we see them blame Bush for starting TWO wars?
This always cracks me up. So liberals think independently. You have the same position using the same talking points on every issue. It's just through analysis and thought, you all arrived at the same answer for the same reason on every position. It's because of your diversity of thinking you are all the same.
On the other hand, Fox and Rush are programming neocons, socons, institutional Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers. Diverse groups who agree on pretty much nothing are all programmed by the same people. Those devious bastards, programming us all to be different.
LOL, you're a sheep, now baa-ck to what you were saying?
Which talking points are those?
Here's one. Libertarians, socons, neocons, Republicans, we all disagree and yet Fox and Rush are programming us. You're a sheep.
Which talking points are those?
Here's one. Libertarians, socons, neocons, Republicans, we all disagree and yet Fox and Rush are programming us. You're a sheep.
Very diverse group, like five flavors of vanilla.
Here's one. Libertarians, socons, neocons, Republicans, we all disagree and yet Fox and Rush are programming us. You're a sheep.
Very diverse group, like five flavors of vanilla.
LOL,
Neocons: Fiscally liberal, socially liberal, big on use of military
Socons: Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, generally big use of military
Libertarians: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, small use of military
Tea Party: Fiscally conservative, socially mixed, military mixed.
You: Duh, dar, looks the same to me!
What a tool.
Here's one. Libertarians, socons, neocons, Republicans, we all disagree and yet Fox and Rush are programming us. You're a sheep.
Very diverse group, like five flavors of vanilla.
LOL,
Neocons: Fiscally liberal, socially liberal, big on use of military
Socons: Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, generally big use of military
Libertarians: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, small use of military
Tea Party: Fiscally conservative, socially mixed, military mixed.
You: Duh, dar, looks the same to me!
What a tool.
Very diverse group, like five flavors of vanilla.
LOL,
Neocons: Fiscally liberal, socially liberal, big on use of military
Socons: Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, generally big use of military
Libertarians: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, small use of military
Tea Party: Fiscally conservative, socially mixed, military mixed.
You: Duh, dar, looks the same to me!
What a tool.
In the current "Big Tent" of the Republican Party they are all the same flavor of vanilla. Everyone else is a RINO
Very diverse group, like five flavors of vanilla.
LOL,
Neocons: Fiscally liberal, socially liberal, big on use of military
Socons: Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, generally big use of military
Libertarians: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, small use of military
Tea Party: Fiscally conservative, socially mixed, military mixed.
You: Duh, dar, looks the same to me!
What a tool.
Well this certainly has been enlightening, Republicans are apparently more fucked up and divided than I thought. No wonder John Boehner can't lead anything.
LOL,
Neocons: Fiscally liberal, socially liberal, big on use of military
Socons: Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, generally big use of military
Libertarians: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, small use of military
Tea Party: Fiscally conservative, socially mixed, military mixed.
You: Duh, dar, looks the same to me!
What a tool.
Well this certainly has been enlightening, Republicans are apparently more fucked up and divided than I thought. No wonder John Boehner can't lead anything.
Right, everyone in the left having the same view for the same reason with the same talking points makes perfect sense. People disagreeing? Thinking for themselves? That's just whacked.
Well this certainly has been enlightening, Republicans are apparently more fucked up and divided than I thought. No wonder John Boehner can't lead anything.
Right, everyone in the left having the same view for the same reason with the same talking points makes perfect sense. People disagreeing? Thinking for themselves? That's just whacked.
They'd probably be a lot happier if they could just figure out exactly what it is they're supposed to stand for.
