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.
it doesnt take away what i said.....but i will amend it like this......the FAR right and left defines unity as 100% in agreement with them....everyone else can get along with each other and come to some kind of livable agreement....not those two though....The right compromises far too often. That's exactly WHY the TEA Party was formed.so does the right....and if you cant see that weasel it just might be because you are part of the right....They both promised to be uniters. Bush failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them. obama failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them.no its what they say to get elected and then when they are they all of a sudden seem to forget what they promised or have excuses as to the why it did not happen....I can't answer that beyond what I've posted many times: watch their feet, not their lips (it is not what they say, it is what they do).
Considering the last two who held the oval office, one promised to be a compassionate conservative and a unite a the nation, and the other to end the war in Iraq and bring change, which one tried to walk the walk?
It's WHY no establishment types are in the running for president.
many on the farther left are the same way....The right compromises far too often. That's exactly WHY the TEA Party was formed.so does the right....and if you cant see that weasel it just might be because you are part of the right....They both promised to be uniters. Bush failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them. obama failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them.no its what they say to get elected and then when they are they all of a sudden seem to forget what they promised or have excuses as to the why it did not happen....
Considering the last two who held the oval office, one promised to be a compassionate conservative and a unite a the nation, and the other to end the war in Iraq and bring change, which one tried to walk the walk?
It's WHY no establishment types are in the running for president.
The right doesn't compromise....THEY LOSE
At least if they compromised they would receive something in return. It is their insistence on total victory or nothing that ends in them receiving nothing
If I recall...you folks on the left declared the GOP "dead" back in 2008 when Barry won the Oval Office and the Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate. So how did that work out again?
It was on a downward spiral that finally reached the point it is at now.
So the "downward spiral" included the 2010 mid-terms? That was the largest gain of seats in Congress in modern political history! Some downward spiral!
many on the farther left are the same way....The right compromises far too often. That's exactly WHY the TEA Party was formed.so does the right....and if you cant see that weasel it just might be because you are part of the right....They both promised to be uniters. Bush failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them. obama failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them.Considering the last two who held the oval office, one promised to be a compassionate conservative and a unite a the nation, and the other to end the war in Iraq and bring change, which one tried to walk the walk?
It's WHY no establishment types are in the running for president.
The right doesn't compromise....THEY LOSE
At least if they compromised they would receive something in return. It is their insistence on total victory or nothing that ends in them receiving nothing
actually there are.....we have a few here in this forum who can give a rats ass about what anyone wants thats different than what they want.....and they sound no different than those righties who are the same way.....many on the farther left are the same way....The right compromises far too often. That's exactly WHY the TEA Party was formed.so does the right....and if you cant see that weasel it just might be because you are part of the right....They both promised to be uniters. Bush failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them. obama failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them.
It's WHY no establishment types are in the running for president.
The right doesn't compromise....THEY LOSE
At least if they compromised they would receive something in return. It is their insistence on total victory or nothing that ends in them receiving nothing
Actually, they aren't
There is nothing on the left that compares to the Tea Party. There is no Grover Norquest on the left
Son it is lefties and ignorant hillbilly ( they just are to stupid to know they are lefties) who breed hate. Black lives matters right?This whole train wreck has been building, granted, but Trump really brought it to a new level.
So who controls the GOP after this? The "establishment" or the populists/nationalists?
Or neither? Could this actually continue a while after the election?
.
Don't blame Trump for taking advantage of the hate and fear that the right has been cultivating for years. Without all that previous ground work, he wouldn't even be an issue.
The right compromises far too often. That's exactly WHY the TEA Party was formed.so does the right....and if you cant see that weasel it just might be because you are part of the right....They both promised to be uniters. Bush failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them. obama failed because the left defines unity as 100% agreement with them.no its what they say to get elected and then when they are they all of a sudden seem to forget what they promised or have excuses as to the why it did not happen....
Considering the last two who held the oval office, one promised to be a compassionate conservative and a unite a the nation, and the other to end the war in Iraq and bring change, which one tried to walk the walk?
It's WHY no establishment types are in the running for president.
The right doesn't compromise....THEY LOSE
At least if they compromised they would receive something in return. It is their insistence on total victory or nothing that ends in them receiving nothing
I believe that those at the UN and many many country's leaders were all given compelling information about Saddam's WMDs.it all depends on how you look at it wry.....i feel both bush and obama are piss poor leaders.....i feel that by their 3rd year both were only talking to those who were supporting them,everyone else,too bad....both were and are horrible at bringing people together,that situation has been getting worse since the day bush went into Iraq....and shortly before that bush was looking like he could have been one of our best presidents....he sure blew that all to hell.....piss poor leader....no its what they say to get elected and then when they are they all of a sudden seem to forget what they promised or have excuses as to the why it did not happen....what politician does not tell people what they want to hear?....Trump tells the people what they want to hear, demagogues lead by appealing to the emotions and prejudices of the people, at least those persons who are biddable and ruled by their emotions.
I can't answer that beyond what I've posted many times: watch their feet, not their lips (it is not what they say, it is what they do).
Considering the last two who held the oval office, one promised to be a compassionate conservative and a unite a the nation, and the other to end the war in Iraq and bring change, which one tried to walk the walk?
A fleeting, illusory supermajority | MSNBC[Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. The GOP didn't have the ability to bring government to a standstill until after the mid-term elections in 2010. The massive swings in seats in both the House and the Senate came as the result of what Barry, Harry and Nancy had done in the two years they controlled Washington.
Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 60 working days ...Ted Kennedy sick...Joe Lieberman not a democrat an Independent
Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:
A fleeting, illusory supermajority | MSNBC[Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. The GOP didn't have the ability to bring government to a standstill until after the mid-term elections in 2010. The massive swings in seats in both the House and the Senate came as the result of what Barry, Harry and Nancy had done in the two years they controlled Washington.
Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 60 working days ...Ted Kennedy sick...Joe Lieberman not a democrat an Independent
Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:
Ah yes...the "60 working days" excuse! What a load of horse manure! How much time do you need to pass legislation, Tyrone? Did you know that the Congress only meets for an average of about 140 days a year? Trot out another progressive talking point...because that one was a joke when it was first put out there and it's STILL a joke. It wasn't that Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't have enough TIME to pass what they wanted...it's that they DID have enough time and the electorate didn't like what it was that they were seeing! When middle class people asked for help reducing their healthcare costs they weren't asking for the Affordable Care Act that doesn't do that at all. When the middle class asked for stimulus money to be spent so they either wouldn't lose their jobs or would find new ones they weren't asking for the Obama Stimulus that mostly protected Public Sector jobs. You want to know why the Democrats got "shellacked" in 2010? Because they won so big in 2008 and did things the way THEY wanted!
If I recall...you folks on the left declared the GOP "dead" back in 2008 when Barry won the Oval Office and the Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate. So how did that work out again?
It was on a downward spiral that finally reached the point it is at now.
So the "downward spiral" included the 2010 mid-terms? That was the largest gain of seats in Congress in modern political history! Some downward spiral!
Again? You sound like Al Bundy remembering his touchdown back at Polk High. It wasn't that big of a deal, but if it is the high point of your life, be all means enjoy your nostalgia.
If I recall...you folks on the left declared the GOP "dead" back in 2008 when Barry won the Oval Office and the Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate. So how did that work out again?
It was on a downward spiral that finally reached the point it is at now.
So the "downward spiral" included the 2010 mid-terms? That was the largest gain of seats in Congress in modern political history! Some downward spiral!
Again? You sound like Al Bundy remembering his touchdown back at Polk High. It wasn't that big of a deal, but if it is the high point of your life, be all means enjoy your nostalgia.
It wasn't that big of a deal? The largest swing of seats from one political party to another in modern political history coming only two years after the Democrats seized control of the White House, the Senate and the House? Hard to see that as anything other than a serious bitch slap given by the electorate to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Bulldog.
A fleeting, illusory supermajority | MSNBC[Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. The GOP didn't have the ability to bring government to a standstill until after the mid-term elections in 2010. The massive swings in seats in both the House and the Senate came as the result of what Barry, Harry and Nancy had done in the two years they controlled Washington.
Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 60 working days ...Ted Kennedy sick...Joe Lieberman not a democrat an Independent
Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:
Ah yes...the "60 working days" excuse! What a load of horse manure! How much time do you need to pass legislation, Tyrone? Did you know that the Congress only meets for an average of about 140 days a year? Trot out another progressive talking point...because that one was a joke when it was first put out there and it's STILL a joke. It wasn't that Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't have enough TIME to pass what they wanted...it's that they DID have enough time and the electorate didn't like what it was that they were seeing! When middle class people asked for help reducing their healthcare costs they weren't asking for the Affordable Care Act that doesn't do that at all. When the middle class asked for stimulus money to be spent so they either wouldn't lose their jobs or would find new ones they weren't asking for the Obama Stimulus that mostly protected Public Sector jobs. You want to know why the Democrats got "shellacked" in 2010? Because they won so big in 2008 and did things the way THEY wanted!
Sure Al. We remember your one touchdown at Polk High. I know it was the high point of your life but it didn't really amount to anything.
I believe that those at the UN and many many country's leaders were all given compelling information about Saddam's WMDs.it all depends on how you look at it wry.....i feel both bush and obama are piss poor leaders.....i feel that by their 3rd year both were only talking to those who were supporting them,everyone else,too bad....both were and are horrible at bringing people together,that situation has been getting worse since the day bush went into Iraq....and shortly before that bush was looking like he could have been one of our best presidents....he sure blew that all to hell.....piss poor leader....no its what they say to get elected and then when they are they all of a sudden seem to forget what they promised or have excuses as to the why it did not happen....what politician does not tell people what they want to hear?....
I can't answer that beyond what I've posted many times: watch their feet, not their lips (it is not what they say, it is what they do).
Considering the last two who held the oval office, one promised to be a compassionate conservative and a unite a the nation, and the other to end the war in Iraq and bring change, which one tried to walk the walk?
Bushes most high ranking Generals and The Joint Chiefs of staff believed Saddam had WMDs. Which of course he did. You don't drop barrels of maple syrup on your own people to kill them. You drop sarin gas on them.
Yes poison gas is officially a WMD. Many ill informed still believe only nuclear bombs are WMD.The idiot Chrissy Matthews keeps repeating that lie.
Oh BTW. For all you trump haters who claim Trump would take the US to war if some dictator gave him the finger.
Hillary voted to go into two wars. Trump, while not having any say in the matter stated his public opposition to going into Iraq or into Afghanistan.
So who's the fucking war monger?
If I recall...you folks on the left declared the GOP "dead" back in 2008 when Barry won the Oval Office and the Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate. So how did that work out again?
It was on a downward spiral that finally reached the point it is at now.
So the "downward spiral" included the 2010 mid-terms? That was the largest gain of seats in Congress in modern political history! Some downward spiral!
Again? You sound like Al Bundy remembering his touchdown back at Polk High. It wasn't that big of a deal, but if it is the high point of your life, be all means enjoy your nostalgia.
It wasn't that big of a deal? The largest swing of seats from one political party to another in modern political history coming only two years after the Democrats seized control of the White House, the Senate and the House? Hard to see that as anything other than a serious bitch slap given by the electorate to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Bulldog.
And yet, they have done NOTHING since they have been there.
I believe that those at the UN and many many country's leaders were all given compelling information about Saddam's WMDs.it all depends on how you look at it wry.....i feel both bush and obama are piss poor leaders.....i feel that by their 3rd year both were only talking to those who were supporting them,everyone else,too bad....both were and are horrible at bringing people together,that situation has been getting worse since the day bush went into Iraq....and shortly before that bush was looking like he could have been one of our best presidents....he sure blew that all to hell.....piss poor leader....no its what they say to get elected and then when they are they all of a sudden seem to forget what they promised or have excuses as to the why it did not happen....I can't answer that beyond what I've posted many times: watch their feet, not their lips (it is not what they say, it is what they do).
Considering the last two who held the oval office, one promised to be a compassionate conservative and a unite a the nation, and the other to end the war in Iraq and bring change, which one tried to walk the walk?
Bushes most high ranking Generals and The Joint Chiefs of staff believed Saddam had WMDs. Which of course he did. You don't drop barrels of maple syrup on your own people to kill them. You drop sarin gas on them.
Yes poison gas is officially a WMD. Many ill informed still believe only nuclear bombs are WMD.The idiot Chrissy Matthews keeps repeating that lie.
Oh BTW. For all you trump haters who claim Trump would take the US to war if some dictator gave him the finger.
Hillary voted to go into two wars. Trump, while not having any say in the matter stated his public opposition to going into Iraq or into Afghanistan.
So who's the fucking war monger?
Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, told Bush that he did not think Saddam still had WMDs. He said that if he had more time to finish his inspections, he could prove it
Bush invaded before Blix could remove his reason for invading
A fleeting, illusory supermajority | MSNBC[Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. The GOP didn't have the ability to bring government to a standstill until after the mid-term elections in 2010. The massive swings in seats in both the House and the Senate came as the result of what Barry, Harry and Nancy had done in the two years they controlled Washington.
Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 60 working days ...Ted Kennedy sick...Joe Lieberman not a democrat an Independent
Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:
Ah yes...the "60 working days" excuse! What a load of horse manure! How much time do you need to pass legislation, Tyrone? Did you know that the Congress only meets for an average of about 140 days a year? Trot out another progressive talking point...because that one was a joke when it was first put out there and it's STILL a joke. It wasn't that Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't have enough TIME to pass what they wanted...it's that they DID have enough time and the electorate didn't like what it was that they were seeing! When middle class people asked for help reducing their healthcare costs they weren't asking for the Affordable Care Act that doesn't do that at all. When the middle class asked for stimulus money to be spent so they either wouldn't lose their jobs or would find new ones they weren't asking for the Obama Stimulus that mostly protected Public Sector jobs. You want to know why the Democrats got "shellacked" in 2010? Because they won so big in 2008 and did things the way THEY wanted!
Sure Al. We remember your one touchdown at Polk High. I know it was the high point of your life but it didn't really amount to anything.
Not me, Bulldog...I played hockey. And the high point of my life involved a "Miss Hawaiian Tropic Cape Cod" not politics!
A fleeting, illusory supermajority | MSNBC[Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. The GOP didn't have the ability to bring government to a standstill until after the mid-term elections in 2010. The massive swings in seats in both the House and the Senate came as the result of what Barry, Harry and Nancy had done in the two years they controlled Washington.
Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 60 working days ...Ted Kennedy sick...Joe Lieberman not a democrat an Independent
Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:
Ah yes...the "60 working days" excuse! What a load of horse manure! How much time do you need to pass legislation, Tyrone? Did you know that the Congress only meets for an average of about 140 days a year? Trot out another progressive talking point...because that one was a joke when it was first put out there and it's STILL a joke. It wasn't that Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't have enough TIME to pass what they wanted...it's that they DID have enough time and the electorate didn't like what it was that they were seeing! When middle class people asked for help reducing their healthcare costs they weren't asking for the Affordable Care Act that doesn't do that at all. When the middle class asked for stimulus money to be spent so they either wouldn't lose their jobs or would find new ones they weren't asking for the Obama Stimulus that mostly protected Public Sector jobs. You want to know why the Democrats got "shellacked" in 2010? Because they won so big in 2008 and did things the way THEY wanted!
Sure Al. We remember your one touchdown at Polk High. I know it was the high point of your life but it didn't really amount to anything.
Not me, Bulldog...I played hockey. And the high point of my life involved a "Miss Hawaiian Tropic Cape Cod" not politics!
Yet you continually yammer about that one little midterm as if it amounted to something. Will you see it as such a fete when most or all of those seats change again in the next election?
It was on a downward spiral that finally reached the point it is at now.
So the "downward spiral" included the 2010 mid-terms? That was the largest gain of seats in Congress in modern political history! Some downward spiral!
Again? You sound like Al Bundy remembering his touchdown back at Polk High. It wasn't that big of a deal, but if it is the high point of your life, be all means enjoy your nostalgia.
It wasn't that big of a deal? The largest swing of seats from one political party to another in modern political history coming only two years after the Democrats seized control of the White House, the Senate and the House? Hard to see that as anything other than a serious bitch slap given by the electorate to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Bulldog.
And yet, they have done NOTHING since they have been there.
How about this, Bulldog...you Progressives give us conservatives "60 working days" to pass whatever legislation we'd like and then we'll see who got what DONE! Deal?
