That didn't take long.

[Geaux4it]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Seems like just yesterday he was against it.

So was Clinton.

But, that's politics.

Its called mty chair syndrome......nothing there except what they think is selling at the moment........or what they can create enough hysteria to slip thru without scrutiny

 

[candycorn]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers.

Really? I haven't been pitted against anyone. On the topics of the day, I thought gay marriage was fine and no danger to me my entire adult life. I thought a woman's right to privacy where medical procedures are concerned was self-evident. I thought the confederate battle flag was a sad reminder of the past. The ACA, I didn't see how the government can force you to buy insurance before it and I still don't while recognizing that it is a net positive for society that more people insured is better than fewer people insured.

Obama didn't change my mind about one damn thing. I doubt he's changed many person's minds about anything.

Again, I haven't been pitted against anyone.

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

Obama hasn't been party of any of the lawsuits except where the ACA was brought up by another party like the Owners of Hobby Lobby.

Obama, nor anyone else, can insist that the federal court decide anything or decide one way or the other.

Ironically your reference to "secession" (i.e., respect for state laws) is the antithesis of divisiveness: It allows people free expression of their opinions without disenfranchising those with whom they disagree.

Uh no.

You should be better at lying. You do it often enough.

1. Gay Marriage and Abortion are not divisive issues?

Check your calendar; Both were issues before Obama was President (one was an issue before he was born). Why do you blame THIS president for the issue? I'm sure it's a matter of black and white.

2. By omission, you tacitly admit that Democrats practice divisiveness, but defend Obama because because he isn't a "party" (i.e., plaintiff/defendant) in these lawsuits? Are you unaware of his Executive Orders and prejudicial interference in local law enforcement matters?

Never did any such thing. You're the one stating:

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

I'm frankly unaware of the political leanings of the plaintiffs in the cases that made it to the Supreme Court except for Hobby Lobby who publicizes their leanings. You're stating that they are democrats...I'll take your word for it. However, they don't speak for the "Democrats" (the national Party, nor do they have any relationship to your President.

Stop lying and saying they do.

3. "Liar, liar, pants on fire." LOL, is that the best you can do?

It seems to suffice (not to mention fit).

To summarize, the President hasn't pitted me (or any one else) against anyone else.

Who have you been "pitted against" that you were, I guess, aligned with before Obama became President? What specifically did Obama do to make you hate them?

I'm guessing you're now lacing up your tap shoes to try to dance away from your previous statement.

5....4....3....2....1 Start the tap dance.

Is English your second (or third) language? Otherwise, you must have a reading comprehension disability. Please ask a competent adult to read my post to you and confirm that I never said or implied that the plaintiffs (or defendants) in these cases were Democrats.

Sure you did:

Again, here is what you stated:

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

You said "Democrats" and Obama.

And "decided" which invokes the courts.

Again, you can't say Obama was insisting on anything since he wasn't party to any of the law suits. That is a fact. But you did say Democrats. Now you're saying you didn't say it.

Again, with your frequency of lies, lying, and nearly legendary inability to tell the truth, one would think you'd be better at it.

Nor did I state or imply that Obama was the originator of the gay marriage and abortion controversies. But I think you knew that. So who is the "liar?"

Who is the liar? That would be be you...and you know it.

You're saying he os divisive so you're stating that he is somehow responsible for issues (you brought up abortion and gay marriage) that were around long before he was President

By the way, why don't you answer the question?

Here is what you wrote. I know it's hard to back up your statements when you make so many batshit crazy allegations but here is what you stated:

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers.

The question obviously becomes:

Who have you been "pitted against" that you were, I guess, aligned with before Obama became President? What specifically did Obama do to make you hate them?

Are you going to keep dancing or are you going to man-up and answer the question?

 

[candycorn]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

I guess name-calling is all you have left?
Excellent.

 

[blackhawk]

Who has talked about that? Or are people using the voices in their head as a source again?

 

[PredFan]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Link?

You'd have to link to her head because that's where it originated

Awesome CF, thanks!

 

[candycorn]

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers.

Really? I haven't been pitted against anyone. On the topics of the day, I thought gay marriage was fine and no danger to me my entire adult life. I thought a woman's right to privacy where medical procedures are concerned was self-evident. I thought the confederate battle flag was a sad reminder of the past. The ACA, I didn't see how the government can force you to buy insurance before it and I still don't while recognizing that it is a net positive for society that more people insured is better than fewer people insured.

Obama didn't change my mind about one damn thing. I doubt he's changed many person's minds about anything.

Again, I haven't been pitted against anyone.

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

Obama hasn't been party of any of the lawsuits except where the ACA was brought up by another party like the Owners of Hobby Lobby.

Obama, nor anyone else, can insist that the federal court decide anything or decide one way or the other.

Ironically your reference to "secession" (i.e., respect for state laws) is the antithesis of divisiveness: It allows people free expression of their opinions without disenfranchising those with whom they disagree.

Uh no.

You should be better at lying. You do it often enough.

1. Gay Marriage and Abortion are not divisive issues?

Check your calendar; Both were issues before Obama was President (one was an issue before he was born). Why do you blame THIS president for the issue? I'm sure it's a matter of black and white.

2. By omission, you tacitly admit that Democrats practice divisiveness, but defend Obama because because he isn't a "party" (i.e., plaintiff/defendant) in these lawsuits? Are you unaware of his Executive Orders and prejudicial interference in local law enforcement matters?

Never did any such thing. You're the one stating:

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

I'm frankly unaware of the political leanings of the plaintiffs in the cases that made it to the Supreme Court except for Hobby Lobby who publicizes their leanings. You're stating that they are democrats...I'll take your word for it. However, they don't speak for the "Democrats" (the national Party, nor do they have any relationship to your President.

Stop lying and saying they do.

3. "Liar, liar, pants on fire." LOL, is that the best you can do?

It seems to suffice (not to mention fit).

To summarize, the President hasn't pitted me (or any one else) against anyone else.

Who have you been "pitted against" that you were, I guess, aligned with before Obama became President? What specifically did Obama do to make you hate them?

I'm guessing you're now lacing up your tap shoes to try to dance away from your previous statement.

5....4....3....2....1 Start the tap dance.

Is English your second (or third) language? Otherwise, you must have a reading comprehension disability. Please ask a competent adult to read my post to you and confirm that I never said or implied that the plaintiffs (or defendants) in these cases were Democrats.

Sure you did:

Again, here is what you stated:

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

You said "Democrats" and Obama.

And "decided" which invokes the courts.

Again, you can't say Obama was insisting on anything since he wasn't party to any of the law suits. That is a fact. But you did say Democrats. Now you're saying you didn't say it.

Again, with your frequency of lies, lying, and nearly legendary inability to tell the truth, one would think you'd be better at it.

Nor did I state or imply that Obama was the originator of the gay marriage and abortion controversies. But I think you knew that. So who is the "liar?"

Who is the liar? That would be be you...and you know it.

You're saying he os divisive so you're stating that he is somehow responsible for issues (you brought up abortion and gay marriage) that were around long before he was President

By the way, why don't you answer the question?

Here is what you wrote. I know it's hard to back up your statements when you make so many batshit crazy allegations but here is what you stated:

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers.

The question obviously becomes:

Who have you been "pitted against" that you were, I guess, aligned with before Obama became President? What specifically did Obama do to make you hate them?

Are you going to keep dancing or are you going to man-up and answer the question?

jwoodie

Where you at?